Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Sourcing

Are there any sources for the contributions of Shōhei Kohara and Floro Dery that we can use? Sarujo (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What articles should look like (revised edition)

Here's my idea on organizing a character article.

Start with short introduction, have just one infobox for the character, since we're considering them all to be different versions of the same, unlike TFWiki. (I remember someone over there raised a concern that if you go by that site's system, Animated Grimlock has as much relation to G1 Grimlock as Robots in Disguise Grimlock, which is clearly not the case. ) An infobox shouldn't list every single altmode, just explain them generally like usurally some sort of semi-truck for Optimus Prime.
==Development of character==

How the character came about, what Diaclone/Microman/whatnot toy (if any) was the basis for the character, how their personalities were decided. Toy patents can work as pictures here.

==Fiction==

Section deals with prominent appearances in TF fiction

G1/Primax continuities may get their own section. This is optional. We can just mention in the article any necessary continuity notes like "Beast Wars is set in a Generation One continuity, during the time the Autobots and Decepticons were inactive inside the Ark" and whatnot

===Marvel Comics===
+==Sunbow animated series===
===Japanese Genereation 1 continuity===
===Unicron Trilogy anime====
===IDW Publishing===
===Transformers Animated====
===(And so on)===

No need to make much distinction between "continuity families". Articles I've seen separate the different incarnations by first-level header and even separate toys by "continuity family". I believe all continuities should be covered under fiction. The current separation makes it seem like they're all different characters (see the sections on Grimlock),even if they're not. Also, fiction sections should note personality differences. Voice actors can be noted in appropriate sections like "Sunbow animated series" and so on. Fair use pictures should go in the appropriate section.

===Other continuities===

This section (still under fiction) covers continuities in which the character has a very minor role, maybe even note Transformers-related cameos. Can be renamed "Other Transformers media" or something if appropriate. Continuities in which the character wasn't relevant don't need their own sections. This section is also for less well-known continuities like Alternity or the ones by "Fun Publications". Shattered Glass pictures are appropriate here.

==Video game appearances==

Mention relevant video games the character was in. Video games may go under "Other Transformers media" if appropriate.

==Toys==

Section summarises the various toys and merchandise made for the character. No need to list them individually or separate them by "continuity family". Just summarize the action figures and collectibles in one or two paragraphs under one section. ~~Maybe put some photos that are released under public domain or some copyleft license(s)~~ Actually, photos of copyrighted artwork may still have to go under fair use even if you take them yourself. A photo of multiple toys would be good. "Unofficial" stuff like fan-made toys and knockoffs don't need to be mentioned.

==Other uses within Transformers==

Unrelated characters with the same name (like Beast Wars mutant Soundwave of Robots in Disguise Grimlock) can be mentioned in a section like this so we don't end up with articles which about separate and unrelated characters. Mentions should be brief. A disambiguation list may be used if a section like this is unnecessary.

==Reception==

How the character fared in polls, what relevant critics say, maybe mention relevant internet memes (if they're popular enough outside TF fandom, see below), etc.

If a character was included in the TF hall of fame, that must be mentioned here.

==In other media==

Cameo appearances outside Transformers

==References==

Sources of information.

==External links==

Relevant websites, the TF Hall of fame videos (for those that have them), TFWiki, patents for the original toys.

Stuff to not include:

Unimportant personality quirks, like the Autobots watching a soap opera.
Listing every single toy ever made for a character instead of just having 2-6 sentences describing all the action figures and collectibles.
Having a separate section for a continuity in which the character didn't do anything important. Like this :

===Dreamwave comics===

Exemplar-kun cameoed in issue 2 of The War Within. He was standing between Inferno and Bluestreak.

Pseudocanon
Fan speculation, fanon and fanfic, especially fanfic
Excessively detailed synopses. Although I'm not sure how detailed is excessively.
Articles for minor characters.
Articles for fan club characters.
Internet memes, unless they're widely used outside the TF fandom.
Mentioning unofficial toys, like fan-products or knockoffs unless they were subject to a significant issue like a big time lawsuit by Hasbro, which is unlikely.
Synopses for the more obscure fiction, like Blackthorne's 3D comic.
Miscellaneous notes

Anybody got better ideas?

-NotARealWord (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way Carnivac (which may get deleted) also treats two versions of one guy as different characters. NotARealWord (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, any beter ideas, please share here. If we can agree on what's best, I can implement whatever it is. NotARealWord (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest AFD

I have nominated Ginrai for deletion. Sarujo (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Black Kite has nominated these articles for deletion.

Don't want anyone crying submarine here. Sarujo (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that people still nominate recurring characters instead of focusing on deleting the obscure ones? NotARealWord (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Most Transformers articles are so badly sourced people can't tell the difference. Thats what happens when fancruft is left to run wild. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone can't be bothered to do any research, they should remove themselves from voting. Otherwise they are just "DELETE" rubber stamps. Mathewignash (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone can be bothered to make the effort to write an article and add trivia its not too much to ask to demonstrate notability for with third person sources. Inclusionists have had years of writing miscellaneous information and now people are voting poorly written minor characters should be deleted its now woe is me. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Look you, this is not a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Get it straight. Sarujo (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of debating if gets ignored anyway?

Now when I started the original debated Toys section keep or ditch. I was hoping to get some uniformity or universal agreement to try to improve the Transformers articles. Whats the point having these kind of debates as the moment someone take any kind of action it gets ignored by militant inclusionists like User talk:Mathewignash because they don't like it. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not reverted the Toys section in the Optimus Prime article, which was summarized down to a fraction of it's original size. I do not think radical BLANKING of every toy section is reasonable. If you can't be bothered to write a replacement, don't bother at all. Mathewignash (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is very little if any info worth keeping and most in the previous debate agreed it was decided it WP:INDISCRIMINATE info and it was WP:TRIVIA, so we should just keep mediocre stuff just for the sake of it. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh by the way User talk:Mathewignash a product list is a violation of WP:IINFO Dwanyewest (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a very liberal take on WP:IINFO for your own purposes.Mathewignash (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

- Most of the links to individual toy articles are to long discredited fansites. Most of the other editors seem to agreed that the toy info is excessive. I dunno why you are so intransigent about keeping medicore crap. No wonder so many Transformers articles have had ADF because people like you, wish to keep bloated poor fancruft nonsense. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems that he is in agreement of removing some content. But now it seems too much like sarcasm. Sarujo (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the stuff toys removals for the following was legit and had little worth preserving. Optimus Prime (other incarnations), Starscream (Transformers), Fallen (Transformers). Dwanyewest (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you beginning to see why he is blocked from tfwiki.net? --Khajidha (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Based on my points above) I still think toys, collectibles and merchandise should have a section or subsection since doing so will not result in giving undue attention to the toy aspect or the presence of fancruft if we're careful to explain them generally instead of listing them. But links to fansites that copy the text wholesale from the pacakaging like tfu.info should be avoided. Anybody disagree? NotARealWord (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I agree with, and what was done to the Optimus Prime page. What was not agreed to was blanked BLANKING of the section, which is the only thing I've reverted. Mathewignash (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense you have Mathewignash with many of articles you reinserted the original cruft and the fansites and the lists. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What would you have your MAJESTY Mathewignash instead of removing the toy list? Dwanyewest (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of all pictures?

Can anyone give me a good reason why ALL pictures were removed from the Starscream (other incarnations) page by Sarujo? I'm unaware of a need to remove EVERY picture, but maybe you can excplain it to me. I reverted it for now. Mathewignash (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

For one thing that is a list. Per lists, there are not to be a gross abundance of images to copyright. There there are to be no images on that page, unless a single image can be located that represent subject of the list. Sarujo (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My stance on the toylists

Look, I realize that some honorable mention of a few figures is worth adding. But again this is about the character's marketability. A lot of franchises haves started as simple toys, so there's really nothing special that saying that any subsistence toy is stand out more so than the one that got the ball rolling. I've been bulk removing as a favor, I'm helping the articles by removing stuff that falls under fancruft, listcruft, a great big catalog. But maybe this can also constitute apart of the reception as the case of Son Goku. The point is, one a stub section may weigh down the article, and two singling out the toys is not necessary. It a small portion of their marketing. The characters have proven that they have extended well beyond their toy counterparts.

NARW, the problem with your proposed section, with the exception of above, is that it lacks sources. What's the point of creating anything if you haven't the proven reliable sources to hold it up?

Now Ignash, I find that your simple reverts is nothing but disruption, and your constant so-called agreements as nothing more than using other editors to ensure that these articles remain as they are. Look, if you truly were all for NARW's proposal you would have followed their lead and made said changes yourself rather than stonewalling and dictating to other editors what you think they should do. No, all you're doing is going for whatever can hold mess up the longest. Now you're resorting to exploiting editors' faults in order to save as dead articles,and you've gone and reverted edits made to clean up Starscream (other incarnations) insisting that the toylists belong there - which they don't per my above statements. What are your compelling arguments? How will listing every toy to ever Tom, Dick, and Harry-bot add value to an article that has minus value to begin with? All guidelines dictate against them, so why beat a dead horse? You keep saying to go to discussion, but what good does it do? You don't want to improve the articles as you feel everything has to be in the spotlight, which goes against the guidelines. The admins have put the threat of a block on both of us because of your wet blanket agenda. So why continue to keep unproductive roadblocks up? This is not your work project, this is not your encyclopedia. So stop acting like it is. Sarujo (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have CONSISTANTLY said we agreed on the new format for the toys section on the Optimus Prime page. If you want to change a page to be like that, I have no problem. I went and did it for the Starscream page as an example. Please do the same if you want to fix a page, rather than blanket deletion. As for sources, in a section on a toy existing, a primary or secondary source is completely acceptable. we are not establishing article notability. Mathewignash (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's your downfall. The articles need to establish their notability. They were on a bunch of associated shows and sold some related toy isn't notability. Again that's what the articles need. It's what they need to survive. And who is we? I never agreed on that idea. Are you insinuating that NARW is everybody? Come'on, you jumping on one person's spit-balling is not a consensus by any stretch of the imagination. Others, such as myself, have not come to terms with anything yet. Again why revert when the result with still be the same, the toylist will be gone whether you like it or not. Sarujo (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no toy "list" it's a section with sentences. Mathewignash (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarujo, you're confusing "notability" with a bunch of other stuff. Please read that quote I put up earlier. NotARealWord (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

He also is reverting a page for having an "over abundance" of images when it only has one image. Mathewignash (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)How am I confusing notability with other stuff? In order for something to be deemed notable, it must have had a cultural impact with the real world. Are you suggesting that's not notability? But saying that these extra toys have add to the subject's impact would be saying that the non-transforming toys and trinkets are the same. I think I said earlier that those example may do well in the reception.

Ignash, resorting to lying? I'm shocked. Well, not that shocked. Every section has a gross over abundance of images on those other incarnation articles. Unless you just recently made speedy changes moments ago. But making false accusation of bad faith of another editor is bad faith on your part. Sarujo (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess you were right about something. But that what happens when you're subject constant reverts. FYI, I did check the page before editing. I saw the same images. You are so quick to point out exploit other people's flubs. Yet you fail to recount the whole story. Why am I not surprised? Sarujo (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What a lovely person you are, accusing me of lying, then saying you made a "flub". I've gone out of my way to reedit the page to comprimise and get nothing but accusations from you. Mathewignash (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarujo, this thread is about aricle content, not article creation or deletion. Something doesn't need to be notable to be mentioned or explained in an article. But it does need notability to have an article. An aricle about a notable person can mention their biographies even if the biographies themselves are not notable. A character from a TV show can be explained in a character list even if they're not notable themselves. Really, i don't think any single toy is notable, but the toy aspect of TF is worth mentioning. regarding Transformers, the only two companies constantly involved are Hasbro and Takara(Tomy), two companies most known for toys. Leaving out the TF toys would be giving bias towards their fiction.Anyway, I wouldn't mind if the toy sections are removed entirely even if we haven't agreed on what to replace them with. We know that the way they are now (lists that don't explain anything) is no good, so we should at least get rid of the bad stuff, regardless wether or not we're sure wha's good. Tl;dr: Toy lists are to be removed even if we don't know what to replace them with. NotARealWord (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarujo's radical cuts, unwilling to follow the rules

Is there any good reason we should allow Sarujo to continue to dictate policy for edits? He has picked another page to "cut" (Rodimus (other incarnations)), but while we agree that some of his edits are correct, he continues to remove the entire toy section, instead of summarizing it in a short paragraph, and he removed ALL the pictures, when at least one picture is allowed. Please either do it right or leave the articles alone. Mathewignash (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not like the articles are any good the way they are. Please look at that Tl;dr I put up in the section above. Plus, we really shouldn't be having those "other incarnation" pages. NotARealWord (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the point of editing them INCORRECTLY. Leave the one allowable image and summarize the toys in a brief line. That's the format. Use it! Mathewignash (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you just won't stop, will you? First you try bringing the admins in to try and block me on a black kettle claim, now you're trying to rally editors to blackball me. You'll do whatever it takes to protect these articles.

A consensus was indeed met on the toy sections. Although NARW did say about keeping the section, yet they have expressed that if they were removed they would not protest against the action, as lists did not need to be here. So in short the list have to go. What we haven't reached a consensus to is what to do in regards to the notable information. So the real consensus is that the best COA is to remove altogether and them work out something for that info later. The guidelines will back me up on it. It seems that you are the only editor here that thinks otherwise. I've said it before, a revert is not what you need to be doing. You are sending wrong message. Yet the message is obviously your intended message since you have stated, "we aren't making notable articles". No, you're making a fansite, while me and other productive editors who care about the subject's integrity on Wikipedia, are making notable articles. Unfortunately, they are not going to meet up to your criteria of what an article should be.

Now, as I pointed out, a gross over abundance of non-free images in lists are a copyright violation. Yes, one or two, at most, non-free is the most needed. In this case images in those infobox aren't necessary. Yes to answer your statement, a free stock image of the F-22 that's in commons is acceptable. So it can slide. What would really be beneficial for those pages if one image that would represent all of those incarnations would be the best thing. Also it can not be derivative hodgepodge or fanart. This, this, this, and other related stuff has my back. Sarujo (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

One image nay not be necessary, but it's also not wrong to have then. Pick one image and summarize a toy section and this will be over. Mathewignash (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignash, is there any rule or policy that says you can't remove bad content unless you have good content to put in? NotARealWord (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Ignash, but I tell you no there isn't. He's just inventing a justification to stonewall productive edits he doesn't like. Sarujo (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarujo, up there you wrote "notable information". A subject is notable. Information on it is not. Notability determines existence of articles not content and sections of articles. "Notability" is used in deletion and merging arguments, not ones about what sections an article should have. NotARealWord (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Transformers on the Finnish Wikipedia

Seeing as my native language is Finnish, I had a quick look at the Finnish Wikipedia's category for Transformers characters: fi:Luokka:Transformers-universumin henkilöt. There are over 100 articles in that category and its subcategories, many which are at stub stage at best, and are about characters that were deemed non-notable here at the English Wikipedia. Yet the Finnish Wikipedia, whose size is less than a thirteenth of the English Wikipedia, doesn't seem to have much of a problem with so many articles about individual Transformers characters. JIP | Talk 14:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's often been found that foreign-language wikipedias have lower standards than en.wikipedia - I certainly have had that experience as part of the Military History project. It could also be that people are transferring our articles over to the Finnish Wiki, or that there isn't a project dealing with Transformers there. Or simply that people haven't got around to taking them to AfD as of this time. Skinny87 (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are any sources that prove the Transformers notable in Finland, I'd love it if they would share with us. Morover are there any translators that I could use to read those articles? Some are characters who were deleted here in the English Wikipedia (like Silverbolt!) Mathewignash (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipdedia policy covers that in WP:SOURCESEARCH. A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable. Plus in WP:INN. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that existance on one wikipedia would prove need for an article on another. Just asking if they had any sources we didn't, they could be shared. Mathewignash (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

By far the most of the articles are only sourced to TFWiki or directly to the episodes themselves. fi:Luettelo Transformers-päähenkilöistä (List of main Transformers characters) is sourced to the official Transformers website and to Ntfa.net, a Nordic Transformers fansite. JIP | Talk 09:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging "other incarnations" pages

All those "other incarnations" pages should be merged into the main articles. Just because there's a lot of info on the characters, doesn't mean it should all be mentioned. The articles are too long due to unnecessary content. ~~It's not like we have a separate page for the Samuel L. Jackson-based version(s) of Nick Fury~~. Also, turning the articles into the "alternate versions of Blablatron" type of articles can't work since there isn't any "main" Transformers continuity to be "alternate" from. NotARealWord (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be okay with it, but I di think all versions of a character deserve a mention, if only one sentence in the article each. Mathewignash (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what the article on Nick Fury has, but I think it should be a bit longer for the different incarnations in "mainstream" TF media and only a (very) brief mention for their less well-known incarnations (if any at all), considering there's not really any "main" TF universe like a TF equivalen of Earh-616, the articles should treat some incarnations as more than something "on the side". Also, since this is a general-purpose encyclopedia, we should focus more on the well-known stuff like the TV shows instead of the more obscure stuff like the fan club stories. TV Tropes has pages on that stuff since "notability" doesn't really mean much there. NotARealWord (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC:What should Transformers character articles be like?

What should Transformers character articles be like? Unlike lots of other fiction, Transformers has many canon continuities without any "main" continuity. There's also the issue of how to summarize the toys of a character. NotARealWord (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to summarize the one on some of the pages. I've tried to devote ONE SENTENCE where possible to each line the character was in, and in that sentence, at least mention the major toy, the year, and anything important about it. For instance "Exampletron had a toy released in the Transformers: Example line in 2012 exclusively in Walgreen store, which could combine with his partner Blankimus Maximus." Mathewignash (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If we go with that, the toy sections would look like a catalog of discontinued products. Most people wouldn't care that "Darth Primal was a Toys R Us exclusive" since products would only be available for a few months at most. Mentioning every single toy specifically, even if the reissues are left out, would be impractical.I thought you agreed on my suggestion, summarize everything in general, and mention almost nothing specifically. Also, comparing your suggestions in these two sections, it seems like you wish for the "Toys" portion of an article to be much biggere than the fiction section. I don't think people would want that.NotARealWord (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to ideas on this. I know it can't stay the way it was. Can you take a look at the short ones I wrote for Rodimus (other incarnations) and Starscream (other incarnations)? Are they too long and detailed? For instance movie Starscream had about 30 toys listed before, and now I have it down to 4 sentences, which mention the pre-movie promotional toy, the 2007 movie line, the 2009 movie line, and the new 2010 line leader toy - none of the minutia is listed any more. Mathewignash (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That Starscream toys section now seems better. May not be the best way to do stuff, but much improvement over the dreadful toy list. But really, articles should treat all the Starscreams (except BWII Starscream) as the same character. TFWiki's definition of "separate character" is somewhat confusing and shouldn't really be applied. NotARealWord (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well we do roll characters together based on the continutity groups as defined by Hasbro. Therefore the G1 character has G1, G2, Classics, Machine Wars, Titanium, etc Starscream. The Armada Trilogy one has Armada, Energon and Cybertron Starscream. Then we have movie, Animated and the Beast Wars guy. They really are different characters based on the original. I admit, it's hard. If they are seperate completely, then they would need seperate pages and notability, but they do share a name, a origin, etc. I admit, I'm open to ideas on how to cover it better. Mathewignash (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should even have character articles. Few if any of the individual Transformers have had any impact on the real world outside of their own fiction. I'd limit TF coverage on Wikipedia to "Transformers (toyline)", "Transformers Television shows", "Transformers Movies" and "Transformers comic books". Specific details should be covered in a specialty reference work, not in a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Since individual Kamen Riders can be notable, I'm pretty sure we should have individual character articles, but the different versions in various continuity groups are the same person. Look at the TF Hall of Fame stuff. It's not written with any specific set of continuities in mind. So, Movie Starscream, Armada Starscream, etc. are the same guy. Also, the "families" of continuity thing is what's used by TFWiki to decide what stuff goes in which article. Evev though it's used within TF canon, it's not very good for Wikipedia, considering that it is sometimes hard to decide what goes where. They consider IDW comics a G1 continuity, even though it is terribly different. See here for my idea on organizing sections of an article. Also, people should post what they think is a better idea. NotARealWord (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that individual Kamen Riders ARE notable. In fact, MOST popular fiction character articles on Wikipedia should probably be removed. The general public is aware of Star Wars, Star Trek, Dr. Who, Transformers, etc. but is really only aware of a few of the most prominent characters from those universes. And even fewer of them have made real impacts on culture. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty each have sayings and behaviors that are known and emulated by even non-fans. "Random red-shirt security guy number 2 from episode 43" is a nobody. Prove to me that a TF character has had that kind of effect and he deserves an article, otherwise - delete it. --Khajidha (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Stuff does not need cultural impact to be notable. Sources in mainstream third-party media like magazines and newspapers and maybe opinions from critics should be enough to prove notabiliy. Kamen Riders are covered in issues of magazines like Televi-Kun. NotARealWord (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

From the description that does not meet my idea of third-party media. That seems like a fanzine or other such publication made by either the fandom or the company that produces the original fiction. OUTSIDE of the producers of the fiction and the dedicated fanbase of the fiction, what notice is made of the characters? --Khajidha (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. It one of the guidelines for a subject to even be entitle to an article. That's what the problem with these character articles right now, too many editors think that they appeared on a TV show and had a few toys, that need an article. The Masked Riders themselves aren't notable for the lack of real world impact. I don't see how a a weekly manga magazine is showing their notability when they, by default, feature stories about the Masked Riders. If they are throwing out reviews, then it's conflict of interest. Critical analysis is a type of impact, just point out. The original Optimus show notability due to things like the statue in China, his death causing children to be scar'd and to lock themselves in their closets, a guy legally changing his name to Optimus Prime. A few other maybe as notable, but their just not showing it here. Take the Dragon Ball protagonist Son Goku, he is clearly showing his notability in that article. How are characters like Jazz, Cliffjumper, Bumblebee showing their notability? Sarujo (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If we take your example about Optimus Prime above as the standard, then the category Category:Transformers characters will consist of... Optimus Prime. While I accept that nowhere near the, what, seven hundred or so individual Transformers characters there are deserve their own articles, I certainly think that many who regularly appeared in the show and comics, like Jazz, Cliffjumper and Bumblebee, do. And even those who do not deserve their own article deserve at least a mention in a list article. JIP | Talk 18:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they deserve coverage in a reference work dedicated to Transformers. There are thousands of Shakespearean characters, but only the ones who are referenced outside of his plays should have articles here. There are many mythological characters that the general public is unaware of and are only covered in specialty references. Why should Transformers be different? If you want to preserve enormous amounts of information about fictional characters there are sites like Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha or tfwiki. --Khajidha (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess "every character deserves to be mentioned in a list article" seems a bit exaggerated. We don't mention every minor character who ever appeared in a Star Trek episode, and Star Trek is much better known than Transformers. Likewise we shouldn't need to mention every obscure minor Transformers character who happened to be in one episode for five seconds. However, I think the way we already mention almost every G1 character who got their own toy in List of Autobots and List of Decepticons is fine. Many of them don't deserve more than that. JIP | Talk 19:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd delete the list articles as well. Please note, I love TFs. It is one of my favorite fictional universes, but in depth coverage of it is not what wikipedia is for. Step back from your own preferences and think about how/if it impacts the outside world. If the answer is "not at all" it doesn't belong here. Many of the largest fandom communities (Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel, DC, TFs) have already started dedicated online resources for their universes of interest. THAT is where people interested in detailed information on these subjects should be directed. Just as a librarian would not send someone to the Encyclopaedia Britannica for detailed articles on minor characters in literary works, so we should not put forward Wikipedia as the proper source for detailed articles on minor characters in popular television. --Khajidha (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Khajidha, TF can't overall be "one of your favourite fictinal universes", there's a crapload of universes. (relatedly, it took quite a while to get this started).Secondly, Wikipedia is soooo not Encyclopedia Britannica. Going by this and the requirements on WP:Notability, it should have more articles than any other encyclopedia, as long as they are written like encyclopedia content. If something needs to have "major cultural impact" we'd have to delete some articles on microorganisms. Also, regarding the riders, is Shogakukan (Televi-Kun's publisher) affiliated with Ishinomori Productions? If yes, then someone should start AfDing tokusatsu characters. Anyway, we should get back on the topic of structuring articles.NotARealWord (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I used the "one of" formation to avoid confusing outsiders, remember I edit at tfwiki, too. As for the microorganisms, real world things get more coverage than fictional things. --Khajidha (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more coverage, not more well-known. Please remember that notability is not the same thing as fame or importance. Also, maybe see Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable. NotARealWord (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Transformers articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Transformers articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Transformers

Its been long established that transformers fansites, forums and some books [1] are unreliable sources of information. What are we to do with character articles with fansites should they be removed I feel they should be if its been shown to be unreliable any opinions. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can probably remove tfu.info references cos much of the stuff there is obvious copyright violation. But, maybe fansites can be used for stuff like what Hasbro said or official interviews. Official TF books (besides IDW's barely researched recap comic) should work as references, but not to establish notability. The articles are about parts of a specific intellectual property, so fiction-wise, official reference books should generally be canon. NotARealWord (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you can use the sites for interviews, and for Hasbro Q&As. I was wondering about podcasts. I know they are fan made, but what about a case where a podcast interviews a writer or voice actor about something. Then the source of a fact may be the writer or voice actor, it just comes by way of a podcast. Mathewignash (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should remove any sources which are major copyright violations, as in the sites that copy the on-package bios wholesale. Unless, such information is completely necessary. I'm pretty sure it's not, cos characters who had enough coverage to deserve articles probably received good profiles in official books and the TF club magazine. Sources like these don't establish notability, but they may provide good information like a character's personality or abilities. NotARealWord (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers (2010 toy line)NotARealWord (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not nominate every other toy list while you're at it? - Areaseven (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Areaseven,

Sarcasm can be rather unhelpful
If you believe something should be deleted, you can nominate it for deletion yourself.
If you believe something shouldn't, state why on the appropriate page. If your argument(s) is/are convincing enough, the closing admin might decide to keep.

-NotARealWord (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Minerva (Transformers) has been prodded. --Malkinann (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think these deletion discussions are helping, as Ginrai was closed as no consensus. Sarujo (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Its because fanboys keep saying keep and its blantly obvious many of these articles have "sources" attributed to fansites or weak notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Also nominated: fan-mode, Clocker. NotARealWord (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

More nominations at the project's deletion sorting. NotARealWord (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet more characters nominated, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugnutz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Twist. NotARealWord (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Character notability

There been too many editors going on tangents on what characters are notable and what notability is. So now I think we should get get this out of the way once and for all. As you can't make something on a cluttered counter.

I feel way too many editors don't really know what notability is, or they wouldn't make notability claims when their favorite characters are suggested to be removed or deleted. What make the character notable is mainly real world impact. What has the character done that has caused them to extend past the confines of the franchise? All I've heard in these deletion discussion is that characters like Cliffjumper, Jazz, and Bumblebee are notable is that the were on a bunch of episodes of said show, they had some toys produced, and their voice actor was somebody well known. But those things do not constitute notability. As, again, it is the real world impact that will be the deciding factor. Now I know that this will be a hot discussion. So I say, let the hostilities begin. Sarujo (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As long there is reliable third person sources which cover the subject in detail its notable. When I say notable not a FANSITE and a website or book which covers the subject independently. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are too many mediocre articles tolerated as acceptable Angolmois energy, Cyber Planet Key, Zodiac Energy, Fan-mode and Micro Change. But if you try and remove it inclusionist will cry notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An inclusionist will cry "notable". Not them. Go ahead and put whatever you believe unworthy up for deletion. But I'd rather focus on the more obvious deletion candidates first. With the major characters, there is a chance of sources that the editors haven't found. NotARealWord (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Virtually no Transformers character has any impact on the world outside of TF fandom. MAYBE Optimus Prime, but that's about it. --Khajidha (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, real-world impact and notability are not the same thing. NotARealWord (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And virtually no third party sources discuss individual characters (such discussion would, itself, be impact). Individual Transformers are discussed almost exclusively by the fandom. --Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, cancel my above comment. Just noticed Wikipedia:Notability means impact.But really, the fact that the TF articles are so badly sourced makes me feel as if TransFans (or whatever they're called nowadays) don't really try to find Transformers information on non-TF websites. Or more accurately, the ones that do don't edit here (here as in this project) anymore or never did. NotARealWord (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But alot of articles have been badly sourced now some characters will have reliable third person sources because of their comic book appearances and video games. I managed to find some for Dinobots its a case of looking for it. But getting rid all bad articles as of today will take months. Let along agreeing of an appropriate standard to make the main articles good. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's part of what I meant, there should be 3rd-party info outside of fansites,that just hasn't been found for some reasons, like editors only looking at websites that cannot establish notability. NotARealWord (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NARW, I'm glad to see that you're now seeing what I've been saying all along. Maybe now you can see what characters are entitled to articles and who isn't. I mean where are the more well knowns showing notability?

This was and still is the problem that plagues the Dragon Ball articles. Way too many characters had articles, but the fans/illusionists cried notability when attempts for cleanups were proposed. It was a bold consensus and deletion that finally got the most work done. Characters, Tien and Yamcha, were called notable simply because they were known to editors and sourcing was very poor, at best, that was entirely from fansites the three big Dragon Ball fansites. In the end, what happened was a survey featuring list of all character as subsections, both notable and un-notable, was made on the List of Dragon Ball characters talk page. From that list, editors gave their thoughts to reach the final consensus on each individual character, keep or redirect. Things like, they're on TV/film/comics/video games, they're important to the plot, or they have some toys was not acceptable arguments. After some comments the clutter was cleaned up and we now have only eight Dragon Ball character articles up.

It seems that these no consensuses are based on people saying that these character are notable because of TV appearances and toys. Those comments should be stricken from the record on sight. I'll say what I said on the Bumblebee deletion discussion, I'm seeing here is a bunch of fan people who are bent on protecting a bunch train wrecks cause the subjects had some role in a franchise every afternoon after school. Although he may have some nobility, none has been provided here. Many of the source used here automatically fail as reliable. Which a lot of these articles are plagued with. Until proper notability can be established, all information on Bumblebee incarnations should be moved to more relevant character lists. Ignash asked where. Again, I say, the character lists. Sarujo (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you're trying to follow the rules, but I don't wanna nominate the less obvious deletion candidates just yet. There's the whole Potential thing to think of. Of course, the editors have went quite a long time without providing notability, so, that could be a reason to put those articles through AfD, at least it might convince someone that there aren't any notability-establishing sources. So, I can't stop anyone from nominating the articles for deletion, regardless of whether or not I want the articles deleted. NotARealWord (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't planing to put the less obvious on center stage myself, as it would be a shock to the system. Also, since two AFD attempts that Ignash reported turned out to be socks, the fancrufters and inclusionists have been looking over their shoulders and using socks as their defense. If I put characters like Jazz and Cliffjumper on the chopping block, they'll swear I was trying to malicious. With Ignash being head of it all. He's shown time again, that he's not above game. So it's best, for me especially, to start small. But I already did a bold merger on God Fire Convoy. Fortunately "nobody" objected. I guess the whole personal problems he's having is playing into his co-operation here. Sarujo (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Bumblebee is one of the best known Transformers characters that there are, although obviously not the best known (that would be Optimus Prime). Bumblebee had a major role in G1 (both the TV show and the comic) and on the Animated TV show, and he was one of the major characters in both live-action films. These live-action films are starting to get better known among today's population than the original toyline. So if what you're saying is all that Bumblebee deserves is a mention in a list article, then according to my opinion the only Transformer character who deserves his own article is Optimus Prime. Apologies if I'm jumping to conclusions or putting words in your mouth, but that's the impression I got here. JIP | Talk 15:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No your not jumping to conclusions. And no what you just call out, he's been on TV, comics, and films, and had a big role in the stories there, he has a some toys are things that only shows that his status is within the confines of the franchise and not constitute notability. What make any fictional character notable is their critical and cultural impact in our world's society. Where he been analyzed in the journalistic media. The only way toys and story effect notability in a character is if we show the sales records for the toys/books, and the ratings for episodes on TV shows where they were the main or secondary protagonist.

Lets not be too quick here, a few characters may be notable as well. Their just not showing it. Megatron and Starscream have potential, but again they need the work. As my mock up of the Megatron article shows that there is potential there. But I'd still suggest a merger for now. We can build on something and reinstate when we have what we need. Way too many editors believe that these deletions, mergers, redirects are death sentences, but their not. Nobody's say that they can never be reinstated, a official lock would. Sarujo (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I briefly skimmed through your Megatron article mock up and it does indeed look good, and should show at least some real-world notability. That the articles getting deleted/redirected is not a final death sentence should also placate the fanboys here (myself included). BTW, it's spelled "they're" and not "their". (It feels funny for a non-native English speaker to point out grammar mistakes.) JIP | Talk 17:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles nominated for deletion

New articles for deletion. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User "Not a Real Word" suggested that I bring up this meritorious idea here (pasted from my original post): "Speaking of what Black Kite just said about how he cant nominate them all at once -- how about if someone came up with a bot or automated script to delete or nominate all the transformers articles for deletion instead -- that way we can separate the wheat from the chaff easily, through the powers of the internets." What do you think? Can anyone write one of these, it would be hepful. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as it looks like every article about an individual Transformers character is eventually going to be nominated for deletion anyway, it's only a matter of time. So that would be one advantage of nominating all Transformers characters for deletion. A disadvantage would be the sheer number of deletion discussions, which would make it difficult to go through enough of them to find what articles should be kept, and would also make some editors angry. However, going by what User:Khajidha said above: Virtually no Transformers character has any impact on the world outside of TF fandom. MAYBE Optimus Prime, but that's about it, an alternative would be a single deletion nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every Transformers character (centralised discussion). This is just discussion of options, I personally don't think so many character articles should be deleted. I agree with some of the deletions, but I am not especially intent in getting the articles deleted. JIP | Talk 07:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think such a big central discussion would work. People should not be making broad judgments about a subject's worthiness. The lack of notability-establishing sources may be just due to them not being found yet. I would rather nominate most of the more obvious deletion candidates first, as in the ones that have a near zero chance of being notable. NotARealWord (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I say HELL NO to this proposal. There are over six hundred Transformers articles on Wikipedia thus far, and nominating all of them would just result in a lot of unnecessary nominations. Also, it's just begging for people who hate Transformers (and they exist, I assure you) to come and influence the discussions, thus resulting in potential bad deletions.

And no centralized discussions. That approach has already been attempted, and many editors opposed it. That, and with the scope you're proposing it would get incredibly cluttered incredibly fast.--Divebomb (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Transformers Energon

I've proposed that Transformers: Energon's character list be split into its own article. Input would be appreciated. --Malkinann (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll eventually get around to it like everything else, so there's no need to propose anything. Sarujo (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Transformers AFD Einsatzgruppen

If there are literally thousands of Transformers articles to AFD and practical considerations dictate against automated nominations of these articles, I propose we get more organized in the final solution of the Transformers question. While the recent successful AFD nominations of these articles are applauded, the work of extirpating these articles needs to proceed much more quickly and efficiently. Therefore, we should form three Einsatzgruppen, consisting of ten men under a gruppenfuehrer that would co-ordinate the systematic nominations of the remaining transformers articles that are in existence on Wikipedia. I will personally command Einsatzgruppe A, and I encourage two other dedicated purists to head up Einsatzgruppe B and Einsatzgruppe C. Each Einsatzgruppe will concentrate on a particular segment of the transformers, with Einsatzgruppe A in charge of dealing with the Autobots, Einsatzgruppe B tasked with eliminating the Decepticons, and Einsatzgruppe C charged with mopping up the remaining stragglers.

We already have various lists of transformers articles we can use to identify the articles for "special treatment." (such as List of Autobots, etc.) Each special task force should nominate all articles beginning with a certain letter each day, (like tomorrow Einsatzgruppe A will begin the process of neutralisation of all Autobots articles beginning with the leter "A," and so on), until the final solution of the transformers question is completed. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like it might be too organized for a VOLUNTEER project like Wikipedia. I don't see anything wrong with how we're doing now. NotARealWord (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course I'd be looking for volunteers to participate in this project. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That might be too large-scale a project to make sure it's done correctly. There's the chance that people who just hate TF will try to taint the outcomes. NotARealWord (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In the end, you're still going to have three sets of people who will just be hung on what to do. Maybe if we rally some creditable non-fan editors with two or three fans might help a little bit. But not much, so no. Right now our only COA, is for small AFDs and redirects. Sarujo (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

More nominations

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minerva (Transformers)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primus (Transformers)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kicker (Transformers) Dwanyewest (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it the correct title?

Is Beast Wars: Transformers the correct title the seems to be a dispute about it see [2] Dwanyewest (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the official logo yes. Your source for DVD Talk confirms it. As far as I've know the series has been called, in the US at least, Beast Wars or Beast Wars: Transformers. With Canada being called Beasties, and Japan being called Beast Wars: Chō Seimeitai Transformer (ビーストウォーズ超生命体トランスフォーマー). Sarujo (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Leo Prime/Lio Convoy

I have submitted Leo Prime up at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Divebomb (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Headrobots

I noticed that Wikipedia does not have an article about Headrobots. In fact, a search for "Headrobots" gave only one result: Cobra Commander getting an exclusive Headrobots toy coloured dark blue. I have come to understand that the phenomenon of creating extra heads for Headmaster Transformers has existed in Japan for almost twenty years now, but the Wikipedia article about Headmasters seems to completely ignore it. I have no experience about the Japanese heads, but I happen to own two different versions of the Headrobots "snake" toy: the regular one, and the NTFA exclusive one (coloured grey), and I have mail-ordered the Cobra Commander version (coloured dark blue). Should I try to write a Wikipedia article about this? JIP | Talk 20:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the "Headrobots" are a fan-made product line. They're not official TFs. I don't think that stuff could actually deserve an article. So, no. don't write a "Headrobots" article. Such an article would not even be welcome at TFWiki. NotARealWord (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

More correctly they are a toy line made by another company (whether the employees of this company are Transformers fans is irrelivant), that just happen to be homages to unproduced Transformer toy concepts. They could warrent their own article if third party sources and reviews could be found to establish their own notability. Mathewignash (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction, the fact that the toys are by fan companies is very relevant. As it qualifies as a bootleg. And bootlegs are never notable on Wikipedia. NARW said it themself, the TFwiki won't recognize it in their articles. So what make you think that it worth adding here Ignash? Sarujo (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please define "bootleg" and "fan company"? Because a toy company is a company, and their toys do not infringe on any copyrights. I'm pretty sure what TFwiki does has NO relivance on Wikipedia articles. As for being worthy of an article, I said that depends on finding notability and third party sources. Mathewignash (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a subject's worthiness for an article depends on stuff like finding notability. Of course, since they are fan-creation, they don't seem to be notable. Feel free to prove me wrong. NotARealWord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

I have not as yet found any major newspaper articles on the subject, and at this time I don't think they are very important. I'm just making the point that dismissing them because of the idea that they were made by a company founded by fans of another company is absurd, that basing things on whether TFwiki keeps them is even more absurd, and calling something a "bootleg" when it's not copying anything that's copywritten is pure lunacy. Even if they were bootlegs, they could deserve an article if they were NOTABLE bootlegs. Headrobots is a MINOR toy company's line of toys that, at this time, are probably not notable enough for an article. I'm not certain if their toys deserve perhaps some footnote at a larger page, like Headmasters (Transformers). That's up for another debate if someone wants to have it. Since they have been released as convention exclusives, the best we could probably hope for is some article reviewing the convention and mentinging the Headrobots. I wasn't planning on adding anything until we al least get some source to cite. BTW - Headrobots Snake is a LOVELY toy, I have done reviews of it online. This is a great MINOR company, and I hope they make enough great toys that one day they ARE notable. Mathewignash (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bootleg is anything that is produced without the copyright holder authorization. Plus since is fanwork it fall under derivative work, Wikipedia does not recognize. Also you claim that non of the Headrobots are copying anything excising. Yet, why does one of the toys Bludgeon? I'm sorry "Blood & Gyro". The Cobra Commander figure is based on copyrighted material. I suggest reading this.

I wasn't implying that TFwiki did, and resent your implication that I would. I'm implying that their rules and guidelines are much like Wikipedia's, but they are somewhat more lenient on what they cover. Yet, there is still stuff they won't even consider adding. In other words, anything that isn't present in a Wiki or Wikia is clearly the stuff of fansites, and fansite content is not what we are about. My statement is about rules and guidelines, not the goings on of some other place. Get it straight. Sarujo (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am currently unware of any legal claim Hasbro has made against headrobots. If you are please share. Otherwise you are inventing it. Either way there is no rule on wikipedia that illegal things cannot be mentioned in an article - IF THEY ARE NOTABLE!Additionally, they are a company, with products. As legitimate legally as any other. I stand by my statement that the rules of TFwiki have NO RELIVANCE here. You should not use them a proof for how things are done here. They are a fan wiki with their own rules, and one of their rules if to only list things licensed by Hasbro or Takara. Wikipedia is NOT limited to only articles about Hasbro and Takara products. If it was they nearly every article on Wikipedia would have to be deleted. Mathewignash (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

First off, I was never implying that Hasbro had made any claim against them. All I stated was that the toys were never authorized by Hasbro or Takara Tomy. This no implication of a legal claim. Don't put words in my mouth. I know What's relevant and what's not, and know good and well how that site is run and who runs it. I wasn't implying that we take what they do into consideration. So unless you know what I'm really implying or illstraighting, don't condescend to me like you do.

The only time something like Headrobots has any notability is if they were center of a controversy, IE some kind of real world impact. Like if one of the powers that be sued them for infringement. That then, is a mere footnote. That's the only way Headrobots will ever be notable. Gee, I wonder why you're not so adamant over Fansproject, iGear, Rabid Squirrel Productions, or any other fan based toy producers? Sarujo (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall saying they were notable. Nore I have been adamant in anything besides shooting holes in you lackluster arguements. The question in this section was should Headrobots be included, and I said they are not notable. You on the other hand made some rediculous argument about supposed bootlegging, fan-owned companies not being valid, and the rules of fanwikis applying here. None of your answers meant a hill-of-beans to answer the question properly. You latest post has probably said the ONLY relivant thing you have added, which is there WAS a lawsuit against them by Hasbro, it would probably make them more notable.Mathewignash (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What part of don't put words in my mouth don't you understand? I never implied that any their rules applied, I said they have some of the same rules that Wikipedia uses. And the statements of bootlegging and fan-owned companies, which you call "rediculous", are well relevant to this discussion. Oh wait, it's because it's going against your precious toyline. I would highly suggest you read all my statements rather than cherrypick them to try and discredit me. Sarujo (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"the TFwiki won't recognize it in their articles. So what make you think that it worth adding here" is directly saying the rules of some fan wiki should influence the policies of Wikipedia. They do not. Lots of things are not on TFwiki and are here. You also have yet to somehow produce evidece that companies you define a "fan owned" are not valid, nor any proof that these products are "bootleg". Please explain your statement "bootlegs are never notable on Wikipedia". Mathewignash (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That does not imply that. How do you know that I'm implying that the wiki is our influence, let alone that that what that means? Since you know so much regarding my level of reasoning. I can tell you that it doesn't. It means simply that they do things similar to us. If anybody want know if something's worth adding, they should at the corresponding Wiki or Wikia for clairvoyance. If the lower link on the foodchain won't even take it then the high won't as the higher only takes the purest stuff. Again, this is in no way implying that the lesser is in control of the higher. I can see that you are determined to discredit me by any means, even creating interpretations. So I'll say it like this, if either side won't take it, then it's not worth talking about. Got it.

I could say the same for you, as you haven't submitted anything that says that any fan-based company is valid. Sarujo (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

To Mathewignash - said "fan owned company" toys are produced to work with Hasbro/TakaraTomy produced toys and are directly inspired by said toys, they derive their entire existence and design from Hasbro/TakaraTomy intellectual property. Because of that, they are infringing on the intellectual property (the concept of Headmasters and the design of the toys thereof) of Hasbro/TakaraTomy and are illegal (ie: bootleg or knockoff) products. They have no more standing than a counterfeit $37 bill. --Khajidha (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Khajidha, that's what I was trying to say. As much as I'd love to buy that Arcee that iGear is selling, I still don't think the toy worth mentioning on Wikipedia as it is derivative bootleg. Derivative/bootleg is the stuff that even a Wiki or Wikia will not touch, and they include practically "everything".

I seem to recall about a year or two ago I came across a something here that specifically stated that such things were not under any Wikipedia scope. Yet for the life of me I can't remember where to find it. It could really help in this discussion. Sarujo (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That really seems like you own definition. I can't find any legal definition or wikipedia rules saying a company owned by people who you consider "fans" is somehow unworthy of coverage in itself for that reason alone. Nor is there any legal proof that Headrobots products infringe on ANY copyright or IP from anyone. It would be required by you to prove they are infinging on IP by citing a sourse saying so. The burdon of proof for notability for those items IS THE SAME as the burdon of proof for any other item on Wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I can say the same thing to you. You have failed to produce information stating the opposite. It not my term, I'm not the only ones who refer them as such. As follows:

"We are a small international group of long-time robot fans that wanted to create some new ‘bots. We combine unique talents in Design, Graphics, Illustration, and Manufacturing to create homages to the robots of the past.

There are a lot of headless toy bodies floating around nowadays. The value of the heads is incredible and the bodies are worthless. For Japanese exclusive heads the value is even more drastic. Certainly, we can make those bodies whole again in a much more affordable way.

It is our goal at Headrobots to keep creating new After-Market add-ons that work in conjunction with existing robots to add onto the enjoyment of your existing toys.. Our products are made with high quality Injection Molded ABS and Steel Molds and come with excellent packaging and art. We are using modern technologies to create the most highly detailed 80s style robots in existence and beyond!"

Well gee, their a company who happens be comprised of fans. What are the odds. And they are not a fan company why? As they are obscure right now, any real mention of them in any form is a blatent advertisement. Sarujo (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You still fail to prove that "fan company" is even a real term recognized by Wikipedia, or that they have a policy against them. They are a "company". You also fail to prove that they infringed on any Hasbro IP, AND you failed to prove that a company infringing on IP of another should be shut out of Wikipedia. Can you answer ANY of these? Mathewignash (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make if they recognize a term or not. The point is those toys are derivative works from a no name company. I never said anything regarding infringement. You're the that keeps bringing up that word. All I stated that they were a company that was producing toy without the holders connect. Whether or that this instance is in violation is beyond me. As there are times when these fan companies try to submit their products to the holder for hopes to mainstream in the franchise. Such is the case with Rabid Squirrel Productions Arcee toy "ARC". They submitted and showed application paperwork that showed that Hasbro recognized it and was in the running for it to be a possible official Arcee toy. Here we no such connections to the holders for these toys. Sarujo (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

My attitude to the whole thing unless mainstream coverage of the subject has appeared then in either a book or newspaper then its not notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mine as well but the idea that we will not cover the subject because of legal issues or bootlegs is nonsense - if it's covered in reliable sources, we will cover it, if not, then we are not interested, however we don't care about the legal stuff at all. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

But the legal stuff might influence how we present the information. From the Transformers (toyline) article: "The Transformers (トランスフォーマー, Toransufomā) is a line of toys produced by the American toy company Hasbro. The Transformers toyline was originally created and produced by Japanese company Takara Tomy (Formerly Takara) and branded as Diaclone and Microman." Following the definition there it would be inappropriate to mix these fan made toys with the Hasbro/TakaraTomy made toys, because they are BY DEFINITION not part of the toyline. I have seen such things mixed in with Hasbro/TakaraTomy toys on Wikipedia pages before, thereby misleading the reader that these are the same sort of thing as the toys they might find at their local WalMart. --Khajidha (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course the fact that they are not official will shape the prose, I'm simply rejecting the idea that we care either way that they are rip-offs, because we don't, we care about WP:V and WP:RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If any Headrobots were based on official TF designs, they're bootlegs. they're copying from someone else's design without their permission. I think Hasbro is unlikely to sue since those things are meant to be used with their products. Those things are like, indirectly granting more publicity and promotion to Hasbro's products. So, since a lawsuit is unlikely, they're likely not gonna be notable any time soon. There, please get this over with. NotARealWord (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea Headrobots could be considered bootlegs, because they do not directly copy any Hasbro toys. Still, the mere fact that they could be considered bootlegs is, by itself, nothing that would prevent Wikipedia from covering them. There's nothing preventing Wikipedia from mentioning the existence of illegal things. The real question here is, as I see it, notability. Are Headrobots notable enough to have their own article? At the moment I think they might not be. They might be mentioned in some paragraph in the Headmaster article, at best, but I am not sure they deserve even that much. Still, they do already have a passing mention in a footnote in the Cobra Commander article. (That's all there is at the moment.) That TfWiki wouldn't accept an article about them is, in my opinion, irrelevant. TfWiki and Wikipedia are different wikis and their rules don't affect each other. JIP | Talk 19:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Why is everybody insisting that that's what I was implying. I never implied that that TFwiki had any power here. Get it straight, that's not what I was implying. Sarujo (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say TfWiki had any power over Wikipedia. I was trying to say we shouldn't even care if TfWiki would refuse an article about Headrobots just because they're a fan company. Wikipedia is not Transformers-specific, nor is it in-universe, so there is nothing in itself preventing an article about a product by a fan company. The product's non-notability does prevent it, though. JIP | Talk 10:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah,they're likely non-notable. I don't think they should be mentioned on TF articles since they're not TFs. NotARealWord (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I just remembered, work projects aren't really suppose to cover such things that are fan produced. Such as toys and dōjinshi. Sarujo (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone gonna merge it?

Is anyone gonna merge Starscream (other incarnations) Dwanyewest (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I say put all the stuff in corresponding character lists. Sarujo (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Put it in the main Starscream article. --Divebomb (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All that information would just clutter the article. It serves better in the character lists. Sarujo (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Upon further inspection, I see that the pages have already been merged, therefore making this a pointless argument. 2. We're including relevant information. If the article is so cluttered, split i-no, wait, that was already done and the article got AfDed. 3. Character lists are just that: lists. The only way that information could be included in them is if we stripped away so much of it that the point would become moot. --Divebomb (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If we are clearing articles

I am sceptical about the notability of these articles thoughts?

Requiem Blaster,Hive (Transformers),Micro Change,Miranda II,Cyber Planet Key,Mayhem Attack Squad Dwanyewest (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Micro Change, but most of these should probably be AfDed. --Divebomb (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Micro Change a line from the Microman series, so it would be better for now as a section in that article. Sarujo (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

More, specifically, it's from the New Microman series. That article does not exist. --Divebomb (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, but it's still Microman. So it should all go there, as they are mere stub material. Sarujo (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually found a book on business that does a page about Micro Change and it's change over to the Transformers line. Article needed a source, but it might still need to go into the Microman article as a sub-section. Mathewignash (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. A single page in some book. My belief in any possible individual notability of that line is shattered. Merge it to Microman. With extreme prejudice. --Divebomb (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't say don't merge it, I just said I added a source, since the article had NO SOURCES and should have something. If you merge it, take the source over to the merged page. Mathewignash (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Pepsi Convoy isn't much better either. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that Wikipedia was playing host to a "Biggest Understatement Ever" competition. :)

Seriously, if any Transformers page deserves to be AfDed, it's that one. It doesn't even pretend to be notable! --Divebomb (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds more like a foot note for Optimus and Pepsi. Surprisingly, Pepsi Convoy had a section on the Pepsiman article back before it was merged. Why? Sarujo (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BEFORE, merge discussions should be considered before AFD. Requiem Blaster seems an obvious and easy candidate for that as it has only been in one series, and so I've set up a discussion to that effect. --Malkinann (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Merging Requiem Blaster to the Armada character list is redundant since it's already covered there. --Divebomb (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets not forget about the Skyboom Shield. Sarujo (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Much like the Requiem Blaster, there's no point in merging. It's a useful redirect though. --Divebomb (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Input at Star Wars Transformers

Another Transformers-related article issue: User:Mathewignash continues to add what boils down to a product list of individual products to Star Wars Transformers. I've continued to remove the content -- which has come both as a list and, more recently, paragraph-looking stuff -- on the basis that it invariably a) restates content at e.g. Galactic Empire (Star Wars) and Galactic Republic without explaining immediate relevance/development in the toy line and b) indiscriminate listing of the products. Repeated entreaties on the article and user talk page that product lists are inappropriate, but third-party commentary on the products -- such as reviews, etc. -- is have gone unheeded. Would appreciate input at the article and/or its talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Very neutral way of putting things there. Basically we would appreciate it if people would give opinions (and perhaps even ones based on Wikipedia rules) as to whether it's legitimate to add some details in the article about the characters, or if it should be deleted. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've said User:Mathewignash in the past is a fundamentalist inclusionist before and it never stops amazing me having looked at the so called "sources" it's quite pathetic. Having looked at Star Wars Transformers. Can anyone really not call [3] [4] [5] fansites. Its been demostrated by myself and others why they are unreliable sources of information but User:Mathewignash refuses to listen to reason. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters merge

I've just proposed the merge of most of the Masterforce autobots into the list of characters page, as I don't believe they meet the GNGs. Please give me your opinions. --Malkinann (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, I proposed Ginrai not too long ago, and it was reach to no consensus. Sarujo (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I left Ginrai out of the proposed merge for just that reason - the characters in this proposed merge are Ranger (Transformers), Road King, Metalhawk, Lander (Transformers), Phoenix (Transformers), and Sixknight.--Malkinann (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Those guys don't seem likely to be notable. Just go ahead and merge, but make sure you follow the merging guidelines. NotARealWord (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The merge of the autobot characters has now been completed - the only ones I've left out are Ginrai, Diver (Transformers) as the name refers to two different characters, and Minerva (Transformers) who is currently tied up at AFD. --Malkinann (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Diver, just move the stuff to the appropriate character lists and AFD. Sarujo (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be inappropriate, as the article history must be retained if any text is used. --Malkinann (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It never truly gone. Admins can resurrect articles and their history. But a redirect would be for the first character to bear that name. Sarujo (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of attribution by everyone, the article history is gone, and this course of action is explicitly advised against. A better solution would be to merge the Masterforce portion to the masterforce character list, the beast wars portion to the beast wars character list, and set up a disambiguation page with a few {{merged-to}} templates on the talk page. --Malkinann (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

decepticon merge

Have proposed a similar merge of Devil Z, Doubleclouder, Wilder (Transformers) and Gilmer (Transformers) into the same list article. Please discuss. --Malkinann (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If I may ask, I think there are some characters from Masterforce who already got deleted before you started merging. Should they be merged instead, or at least can we get that proposed? Mathewignash (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that administrators will restore an expired prod for the purposes of merging. Which articles are you thinking of? --Malkinann (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you already got them. You are way ahead of me. Mathewignash (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. :D Could you please comment here on the proposed merge of the decepticon characters? The more people who give their blessings, the happier I'll feel about doing the merge. --Malkinann (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

non-merged

In addition to Ginrai, Diver (Transformers) (2 characters), and ~~Minerva (Transformers)~~, the other characters I've not merged are the relevant portions of Scorponok, Overlord (Transformers), Hydra (Transformers), Dreadwing, and Firecons, usually because they aren't simply one character's article. --Malkinann (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Got Minerva. --Malkinann (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This might be a catch-22. Sarujo (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

All it means is that these articles need attention from someone who's actually seen the series. --Malkinann (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We should seriously remove articles that are about different unrelated characters that share a name. Or at least edit them to be about one character. NotARealWord (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture on project template

The template put up on the various Transformers-related talk pages has File:Optimusprime-classictoy.jpg which is also in Wikimedia commons. The file has copyleft templates even. But, according to this, a photo of a copyrighted work of art has to be under fair use, and thus, cannot be licensed or be uploaded in commons. The picture is fine if used in articles related to Optimus Prime or Transformers toys, but not on talk pages, considering WP:NFCC. So, said picture should be removed from commons and the template. NotARealWord (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've updated the license and will add di tag for someone to offer a FUR. Also going to axe from WikiProject template. --EEMIV (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time a photograph has been used for the project template. Sometime ago, there were photos of both Masterpiece Optimus and Megatron, and those were deleted. I find it very unsurprising that this was an upload by Ignash. We need something to represent this project with going into copyright territory. Maybe we can get that Japanese artist that created Wiki-tan to maybe make a Wiki-tan dressed like an Autobot, a Decepticon, or both. Sarujo (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignash indeed uploaded the picture, but it was a while ago and he's since been okay about using the right tags -- it's just that a lot of old uploads he didn't return to. The image itself was added to the template by a completely different user. --EEMIV (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Goes to show that we shouldn't blame Ignash for all our WikiProject's problems. NotARealWord (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. Save for one ongoing point of personal annoyance, he's generally eventually come around to correct his practices re. image licenses, article content, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Need I remind that the only reason for his catharsis', is due to the drastic acts from other editors. If AFDs, merger, and redirect proposals hadn't started popping up, he may have continued to keep the articles in their previous state.

So am I to take it that everybody here feels that a Transformers inspired Wiki-tan image is a bad idea? Sarujo (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should be noted that when I uploaded the pictures as free, it was because I was told by other editors at the time that they would be free IF I took the picture myself. So I took dozens of pictures and uploaded them as free. Only then another editor came in and say they weren't free. I changed a lot to non-free, but eventually I just decided to let let the remaining pictures be deleted. I'm not sure why someone used my picture of my Classics Prime as the Wikiproject template. Anyways, as to the need for new picture - perhaps a request could be made to the Transformers Collectors club to allow one of their toys images to be released as free to us? Or maybe one of the pictures from one the Transformers patents? They are free. Mathewignash (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If the patents are free, we can use them. A Transformers-based Wiki-tan doesn't sound like a good idea since TF is an intellectual property instead of a genre or something general. NotARealWord (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's the thing; you're not going to find anything regarding the Transformers that in fair free use. Just because they’re on Google Pattens doesn't classify them in the public domain. Where are Wiki-tan is. There is nothing that states a restriction from this type of thing regarding whether it's an intellectual property or genre or whatever. If we make her up to look robotic with some car kibble on her body and give her some blue void eyes we got something that can represent this project and stay within the confines of copyrights. We could also do a parody of the Autobot insignia with her face. Use her is the safest and most guaranteed route to take here. Sarujo (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's allowed on Wikipedia. Remember, the requirements on WP are much more strict compared to actual copyright law.I think the "safest route" would surely be something like "TF" in large chunky letters. Or no picture at all. no harm in that. NotARealWord (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is there any rules prohibiting the use of a supped up Wiki-tan? Sarujo (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If you mean dressing up an existing WP mascot, then no rules against that. I don't really care. NotARealWord (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the pictures on the patents are in the public. That's how they were uploaded to images in google for Optimus Prime and Starscream. I asked all the right places for help tagging them properly. Could we edit thos pictures? Maybe take the Patent pictures of Megatron and Optimus, and have them facing each other. Mathewignash (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the argument regarding the image used on the Bugs Bunny article here. It's image in commons, yet the character isn't. Those drawing are of copyrighted characters/toys regardless of the images' status. Sarujo (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Even more delete nominations

The characters Landshark and Sentinel Maximus have been nominated for deletion. NotARealWord (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Are these articles necessary

I think these are amongst the worst TF articles I don't believe they are necessary to still exist any opinions I the following articles should be ADFed Z Foundation (Transformers),Omega Sentinel, Intelligence and Information Institute, Powerlink, Autobot City, Tech spec, Heroes of Cybertron. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't even know a Heroes of Cybertron article existed. Sarujo (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sarujo I found dozens more equally as bad you would be surprised. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, ones this bad are more obvious AfD candidates than many others. NotARealWord (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Transformers templates being removed

User:DragonZero has replaced several of the talk page templates with {{WikiProject Anime and Manga}} instead of adding a new template to the talk page. I have corrected the 3 I have found, but there could be more.陣内 _Jinnai 15:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Primus and Cybertron

A merge discussion at here. Helpful feedback would be necessary. NotARealWord (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

More AFDs

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raf Esquivel Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miko Nakadai Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Darby --Malkinann (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treds Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbo (Gobots) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geeper-Creeper Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tank (Gobots) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeemon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rest-Q Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loco (Gobots) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoons (Gobots) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small Foot and yet more AFDs. :( --Malkinann (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are AfDs about Gobots listed here at the Transformers WikiProject? JIP | Talk 06:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Presumably because the Gobots stuff is now at least implied to be part of the Transformers universe.

It's complicated. --Divebomb (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Less complicated: Hasbro bought Tonka (the company responsible for Gobots) and now they can use some Gobots stuff in their toys and media. NotARealWord (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cyber Planet Key,Mayhem Attack Squad,Z Foundation (Transformers),Omega Sentinel, Intelligence and Information Institute, Heroes of Cybertron and Pepsi Convoy are much stronger candidates for ADF than these Gobot articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Remind me to add the above post to my list of most laughable things ever seen on Wikipedia. --Divebomb (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

They seem just as strong of a candidate as the examples you've shown. Sarujo (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Also nominated: Ransack. NotARealWord (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources list

Looking at the main project page here and the insistent of what's reliable or not reliable, I feel that project page should host a list of reliable and unreliable sources. That way we can finally put to rest once and for all the notion of what's reliable and stop trying to submit these fansites. Any thoughts? Sarujo (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. While most "fansites" are NOT third (or even second) party sources, I do think they can be occasionally used to find better sources - like when they report on a newspaper or magazine article that IS a third party source. You can use them to follow to a good source.

One site I'll defend as a legitimate review site is Ben Yee's site. I've made the arguement before that he's been recognized in the legitimate media as an expert on Transformers - he's been asked to do DVD commentaries, he's the go-to guy when the media need some person to talk to on Transformers. While being on Ben's site IS NOT proof of something being notable in itself, it is a good support if you ALSO have other sources.

I was actually curious about interviews on "podcasts" and "fansites" when it come actual writers and voice actors telling about the series/characters. While they are not great sources as podcasts/fansites, if the writer/actor of a episode mentions some fact in an interview, I'd think it would be worth citing from their reputation as a professional, even if the interviewer is some only guy with a MP3 recorder. I'm not sure what Wikipedia thinks about this as a source, so if there is already a call on this either way, I'd like to know. Mathewignash (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of podcasts, they would still have to pass as reliable. Fan interview usually don't as the interviewer is not anybody of credible respect. The thing about this list, when using sources like Ben Yee you can list his credentials. This kind of thing is crucial for future editors that take an interest in this subject.

You're right, fansites are a great way of keeping in the know, and using their sources instead of themselves as our sources is what I make a point of doing for any article. It might also be prudent to list links the proper source templates for added the source, whether it be web, journal, book, or TV. Sarujo (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll make some inquiries about using "fan" interviews as sources with the proper people on Wikipedia, and abide by whatever the current rules are. I'm sure this sort of thing will have some rules across the board for Wikipedia that we can follow. Mathewignash (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The article on Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight cites this as a source. Seems rather good for a fansite. Although it's a primary source since theinterviewis simple transcribed. NotARealWord (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone gonna actually merge these?

Its been a long time since a decision was made it these articles should have been merged a long time ago. Most of it needs severe pruning especially fancruft like toys. I thought someone would have sorted Ultra Magnus (other incarnations), Rodimus (other incarnations), Blackarachnia by now. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected them all; edit histories are intact in case someone decides to merge them. --EEMIV (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Transmetal Driver is another been ignored. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I merged the content of Ultra Magnus (other incarnations) with Ultra Magnus (Transformers). Should we just move the page now to simply Ultra Magnus now? There is no other Ultra Magnus article on Wikipedia to disambig for. Mathewignash (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Mathew, I reverted the "merge" -- consensus at AfD was for the content to be substantially trimmed of cruft and miscellaneia, and not merely for all 26 kilobytes of information to effectively be copy-and-pasted to a new destination. If you plan to carry out a merge of this material, you must exercise a discerning eye as to what is appropriate, encyclopedic content -- otherwise, you put the destination at similar risk of being AfDed and eliminated for being overwhelmed with cruft. Note, also, the overuse (I'd even say abuse) of non-free images. --EEMIV (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Any such AFD would be immediately shot down. 1. WP:ITSCRUFT and overuse of non-free images were not valid deletion rationales last time I checked and, 2. the character is notable. --Divebomb (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Unmerged content

These are a few of the unmerged Transformers articles. Clocker (Transformers),Kicker (Transformers),Transmetal Driver Dwanyewest (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Separating the wheat from the chaff

Since alot of mediocre Transformers articles are being eliminated. I feel greater focus should be improving major TF characters such as Optimus Prime and Megatron. My main concern is with articles such as Bumblebee (Transformers Animated) I really think sections such as Toys are trivia and sources such as these fansites [6] [7] [8] aren't reliable. Some of the summaries are over detailed plots and I want everybody's opinion. I wanna form some sort of general consensus I don't want disputes from inclusionist moaning this or that wasn't agreed. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind cutting the toy sections down a LOT, as long as you simply summarize the toys, not delete it out completely. Please see what I did for movie Starscream - cutting 20+ toy listings down to 4 sentences saved tons of space. For the plots, feel free to start by cutting out anything outside what the character did in the episode. That should cut a lot of useless text. If you have some proposals for SPECIFIC reductions, I'd love to see them. Mathewignash (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the whole galaxy of Transformers articles would be greatly improved by removing the toy-catalogue stuff completely. Not only would this make them better articles, it would also bring them into line with our other articles on fictional characters. James T. Kirk, Luke Skywalker, and Homer Simpson, for example, have all been made into action figures many times over, but their articles mention this only in passing, preferring a more encyclopedic treatment with a focus on cultural impact instead of a hobbyist's checklist. Don't forget that no vital information will be lost, as the toys are all covered on various Transformers wikis and fansites that don't require reliable sourcing like we do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say there was a difference between Transformers characters and the fictional characters you mention in that Transformers is a toy line FIRST, that has fiction based on it. Star Wars didn't start off as an action figure line that was so popular that George Lucas made a movie for them. I'm not saying keep the long catalog lists we have today, just that the toys deserve some mention in an article about a "toy line turned fiction". Again, please see my movie Starscream section to see how short and simple over 20 toys can be summed up. A single sentence about the toy is all most articles will need - bigger/major character maybe a few sentences at most - particularly if some fact about the toys can be cited by a good reference or third party source. Mathewignash (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW - Homer Simpson does have 2 sizeable paragraphs devoted to his merchandising. They are written as part of the article, not a list, which is what we have done to pages like Optimus Prime. That seems to work. Mathewignash (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A more relevant comparison would be Masters of the Universe, a franchise that also started as toys. Sarujo (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article for He-Man, it seems to work mention of various toys into the fiction sections, mentioning years and line names right in with the story. That's another possibility I suppose, although personally I like the way Optimus Prime's toy section is written right now. Mathewignash (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So what we to do then I agree with Andrew Lenahan views regarding character bios I would like some sort of resoultion rather going round it circles. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

One important thing about Transformers canon is that it's different from others. Unlike Star Wars, Doctor Who, etc. pretty much anything official is canon in some way. Unlike Marvel comics, there's no "main" continuity. There's also that bit about how toys are real important. So, we'll have to invent our own way of organizing character articles. NotARealWord (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Organizing the "List of..." pages

I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to better organize pages like List of Autobots. It seems put together haphazardly with little reason. It is a "toy list", or a show character list, is it by year, by line? Should it be alphabetized in sections? It seems to start with the 1984-95 toy line, then throw in some TV show characters, then have some sub-groups. Honestly it's a mess. I'd like to try to organize it better. For instance, if it's a "character" list then it shouldn't probably have seperate entries for Optimus Prime and Powermaster Optimus Prime right? Should the main categories be by series, or by year the character first appeared perhaps? Thoughts? Mathewignash (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think those pages really just shouldn't exist. Perhaps lists like "List of Autobots in Transformers Marvel comics" and so on would be better for G1 characters. This does mean that lots of characters would have to be covered multiple times over, but I don't see why not. They had different adventures and backstories (and sometimes different personalities) in the different continuities, so why not? It's better than those unhelpful lists anyway. NotARealWord (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Why faction exclusive lists? Sarujo (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Cos there'd be too many characters, so list by something like Autobot, Decepticon, and "other" or somesuch. NotARealWord (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that maybe a list of character in the 1984 animated series, and a list of character in the Marvel Transformers series would make more sense. It would be like a character list for any other TV series or comic book. Mathewignash (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, why is everybody insisting that series specific character lists are over bloated? They're not. Sarujo (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I said that. I'm somebody. Mathewignash (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume because characters that get deleted for poor notability then get redirected to such list hence the accusation of bloated lists. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

When we have enough series-specific lists, we should delete the unhelpful lists. NotARealWord (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder about merges

Place the {{mergedfrom}} and {{mergedto}} tags on the talk page of the destination and originating articles, respectively, in order to maintain edit/contribution history (sort of). --EEMIV (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to follow the directions at Help:Merging#Performing the merger. I'll fix the ones already done if someone provides me a list. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposals for individual Transformer characters

I feel its unnecessary Optimus Prime has a Optimus Prime (other incarnations), Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated) and a Optimus Prime (Unicron Trilogy). Strip the individual articles of the overly detailed plot summaries and excessive fancruft such as toys you have a small articles, you have a short articles support with "sources" that are fansites. I feel they should be merged to the main article as its about the same character. There is little to no reliable third person information to show these individual incarnations are so distinctive to justify solo articles. If you wish to discuss to to Talk:Optimus Prime (Transformers).

I have initiated similar discussions at Talk:Starscream (Transformers), Talk:Bumblebee (Transformers), Talk:Cliffjumper,Talk:Megatron (Transformers) Dwanyewest (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, the main article should be focus on the original, as he was the more notable version. You start merging these incarnation into one character article, and you'll get a cluttered on lesser knows with a bunch of fat plot sumaries. the other incarnations has more value in the character lists. Sarujo (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Um,I don't think the "original" versions matter much more than later ones. It's not like the Marvel multiverse withe their Earth-616. NotARealWord (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think they do. Since when has it ever been reported that death of the Unicron trilogy, the 2007 Film, or Animated Optimus Prime ever caused little children to lock themselves in the their closets? It would be like having an article on the original Gundam and each section being dedicated to every Gundam that came along that was based on it's character design. Sarujo (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unlike other works, the original TF universes were pretty much discontinued. Modern G1-ish stuff are set in their own continuities. The only recent stories set in the original (as in from the 1980s cartoon and comics) continuities were Kiss Players,-related stuff, as far as I can tell. Some fan club stuff sorta counts, but not quite. Also, about the Gundam thing, it's not like Setsuna's Gundam, Domon's Gundam, etc. were actually alternate versions of Amuro's Gundam in the way that Ultimate Spider-Man is an alternate version of 616 Spider-Man, or that the Starscream voiced by Michael Dobson is an alternate version of the Starscream voiced by Chris Latta. Or how many of the characters in Kamen Rider Decade were alternate versions of Riders from previous TV shows. NotARealWord (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay you're losing me here. All you're doing is pointing out how the alternate versions fair in the series specific character list. You see as the years go by, more and more incarnations will be created. There are other works besides Kiss Players set in G1, so you can't call G1 discontinued. Hasbro/Takara Tomy does create new original stuff all the time. Yet they always revert back to the old stuff. You're coming off like the companies just discard the original stuff and start new and never look back - which is not true.

No, but they were all based on Amuro's Gundam, as were all the known Transformer incarnations. Sarujo (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The original G1 continuities are pretty much discontinued. The only current TF media directly related to the original universes is the fan club's Classics and Wings of Honor stuff, and they're continuities were only based on the original (Classics is an alternate sequel to the Marvel comic, Wings of Honor continuity is mostly like the original cartoon's). It's true that HasTak look back on the original 1980s stuff, but the original continuities are pretty much over. If the character articles only describe how the were in the original continuities (Marvel and Sunbow), that would be as if TF is no longer relevant after the 80s. Later G1 media (Dreamwave, IDW, etc.) are remakes. About as much relation to the original universe(s) as Ultimate Marvel to Earth-616. Also, about those Gundam's, like you mentioned, they were just based on Amuro's. they weren't meant to represent the RX-78-2 in a different universe, unlike the various Starscreams, Bumblebees, etc. that were. TF characters are alternate versions of their namesakes. NotARealWord (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

But seriously, it's not like describing an incarnation of a character in the character's article would mean that the character list relevant to the incarnation can't describe said incarnation of said character. There's nothing wrong with the article n Starscream explaining what he was like in the Armada anime while the character list also does the same. The info is relevant to both topics, doing so will not mean indiscriminate information.

Articles are generally written with independent context as appropriate, so the subject can be learned without much clicking away from the actual article.
— User:Pomte, the talk page for an unrelated article

While the source for that quote is an entirely different topic, the quote itself helps explain what I'm trying to tell. -NotARealWord (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

[Deep breath] Again, all I see is reasons why they serve better on list. You the G1 is discontinued, then so are the other incarnations. With 2007 movie and Prime versions being relative. But in truth these character articles should be generic - as in to be about the basic stuff and not go in any one direction. Focus on what they all share and go with that.

Yet, the idea is not to go in trivial direction. Yet if we through in strong emphasis on the other incarnations then we will head in that direction. Remember, current or discontinued is of no reliance on notability. What is is the real world impact. Sarujo (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what I've noticed? All the articles Dwanyewest is proposing to merge are either already preposterously long, or would become preposterously long after the merge. The only exception here is Cliffjumper.

Ah well, more stuff to add to the "laughable/ludicrous stuff I've seen on Wikipedia" list..... --Divebomb (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's just it nobody's concidering the ramafacations of these mergers. The lists are what this kind of uber mass was designed for. Sarujo (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not you again with the lists. We've had this discussion before. The lists are just lists. This information belongs in the character articles, not the lists. Knock it off with the fucking lists. --Divebomb (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me pottymouth, but that kind of conduct with get you in trouble. Mater of fact, I will report you for. Cheers. Sarujo (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What shall it be? WQA? Or the dramaboard? --Divebomb (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Divebomb if you had bothered reading the beginning if this debate that many of the articles I mentioned had excessive fancruft and poor sourcing so if they were removed the article would be sufficently shorter hence mergers wouldn't be a problem in the first place. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're going against Sarujo's decision to merge most of the stuff to character lists instead of the character's articles themselves. I don't object to your suggestion, Dwanyewest. NotARealWord (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Decision? Did I get upped to the head of a committee? :| Sarujo (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion, sorry. NotARealWord (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Also the argument which has often been made that multiple incarnations can't exist on a single TF character on one page. Because it is unwieldy or confusing to the reader is intellectually dishonesty. The nearest comparison would be to a Toy based character with multiple incarnations would be GI Joe. Look at the likes of Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe),Hawk (G.I. Joe),Scarlett (G.I. Joe) they have multiple descriptions of each incarnation of their characters and still manage write about the toys with sprawling checklists and is still readable and they are much better written and sourced than many of the TF articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dwanyewest. Also, is there any G.I. Joe character article rated as GA-level quality? NotARealWord (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

None that I find. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

New AFD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shrapnel_(Transformers). Please thank you. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do they still exist?

Can anyone justify to me why these articles still exist. Some could do with a good ADF

Windburn (Transformers),Steamhammer (Transformers),Ejector (Transformers),Hive (Transformers),Omega Sentinel,Laser Rods. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at them, the first two were just created a couple weeks ago when the toys were announced. They have yet to even appear in ANY fiction. Probably created prematurely in the hope/dream of that they would actually become more notable. They might not need to exist yet. Ejector is a film character. Hive is a reoccusing villian from the Marvel G2 series. Omega Sentinel could probably be merged with some info on the Energon series. Laser Rods - I wish we had a page devoted to Transformers technology/terminologt/gimmicks where all ones like that could go. Mathewignash (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Hive is a reoccuring villain from the Marvel G2 series"? Did you read the article? JIP | Talk 06:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Crappers, I got them mixed up with the Swarm. Hive was the evil nebulans in the TV series finale. Mathewignash (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, created "a couple of weeks ago"? As in after we started cracking down on articles about these non-notable, terribly unimportant characters? NotARealWord (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently yes. And by an experienced editor to boot. --Divebomb (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but one who didn't agree with the massive deletions taking place. I mean look at Windburn, the character has appeared in no fiction, and they toy isn't even out yet, and we only know about it from previews Hasbro has released to fan sites. Even I thought an article devoted to him was a LITTLE premature. At best it deserved to be in a simple list of the characters for it's toy line until it does SOMETHING. Mathewignash (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I started AfDs for Windburn and Steamhammer. NotARealWord (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, it seems that these two were actually created before I started making multiple AfDs, but still, those articles honestly just shouldn't be there. NotARealWord (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are there two versions of Ultra Magnus

I don't believe this User talk:Mathewignash I always knew you were an inclusionist but can you explain why there are two versions of Ultra Magnus and Ultra Magnus (Transformers) inspite of the fact there was an ADF where it was mostly AGREED via debate to merge. But because it doesn't support your view you don't like it. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's already been explained on this page. Seriously, just look up there. NotARealWord (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Mathewignash has just recently split the articles into Ultra Magnus and Ultra Magnus (Transformers) i was refering to Ultra Magnus (Transformers). This is patiently ridiculous depsite being agreement on ADF. Dwanyewest (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If you check the history you'll see that I've been working on Ultra Magnus (Transformers) and that another editor made the page at Ultra Magnus in an incorrectly done attempt to move the article. Mathewignash (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the other to a dab page. The most appropriate solution is to delete the dab and then move the Ultra Magnus (Transformers) article atop its original location. --EEMIV (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Why are two versions of Ultra Magnus"? Why must a senior editor display such horrible grammar? - Areaseven (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Why must a senior editor display such horrible grammar?" Why can't you try to be polite? This is a talk page. Grammar isn't that important in this situation. NotARealWord (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not? After all, this is the English Wikipedia, and you're all expected to observe proper English. - Areaseven (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the wikiproject and related article content -- not a talk page about the grammar on this or other talk pages, and certainly not a forum to gripe about individual users' grammatical lapses. Areaseven, two editors have now pointed you toward WP:CIVIL; please abide by it. If you have something to say about actual articles, your comments are welcome. --EEMIV (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And who would those two editors be? - Areaseven (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:NotARealWord did it here and I did so here. --EEMIV (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Another AFD decision ignored

Once again despite the inclusionists ignored an AFD decision to merge an article after it has been clearly agreed. This time it regarding Turbo (Gobots). Dwanyewest (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not an "inclusionist" thing; it's a occasionally problematic editor. Dwaynewest, efforts to improve articles where appropriate and remove/redirect/merge them in other cases are not even remotely assisted by framing problems/progress in terms of "inclusionism" or "deletionism." Those are loaded terms that immediately put people on edge and make it much harder to reach consensus. --EEMIV (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought I withdrew that nomination. --Divebomb (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You did remove the nomination, and I provided more references, so the page was restored. Mathewignash (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A nominator's withdrawal is a moot point if there are non-keep !votes at the AfD. Other editors chimed in and overall consensus, despite the nominator's withdrawal, is that the article does not warrant stand-alone inclusion. Per policy, rather than personal whim (Mathew), feel free to appeal to the closing administrator and/or take it to WP:DRV. --EEMIV (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That has already been done. Mathewignash (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As the closing admin. has indicated, withdrawing the nomination did not halt the overall discussion, and his/her decision stands. WP:DRV remains a final option if someone is so inclined. In the interim, however, the admin's decision stands and the article should remain a redirect; restoring the content at this point would be inappropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirge (Transformers) (2nd nomination). Tedescoboy22 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of nominating an article 4 weeks after it was kept in an AFD? Also, who are you anyways? Your history suddenly appears last month, starting almost immediately with advocating all Transformers article get mass nominated for deletion by a bot. Were you some other name before, and made a new identity for yourself? I wouldn't ask, but we have had TWO different mass Transformers deletionists who were banned for sock puppeting in the last few months. I wouldn't want that to happen again. Mathewignash (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth checking out with the admins. To be honest, I getting tired of taking part in malicious discussions. Sarujo (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone's wondering, those sockpuppet cases are mentioned here and here. NotARealWord (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the fact that since I mentioned sock puppetry the account has gone silent is a telling sign. Mathewignash (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I've "gone silent" since its the weekend. I really don't edit every day. Hell, I don't even use the computer every day. I don't think I've either ever advocated deleted articles by a bot. I was just encouraging the process of deletion of these thousands of articles to get better organized. I will start a new thread on my thoughts below. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So you forgot your post on Black Kite's user talk page where you said: "Perhaps someone can approve a bot or automated program to nominate all the transformers articles at once?" You are not only dishonest in your nominations, but a flat out liar. Mathewignash (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am being both civil and honest, unlike you. Mathewignash (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mathew, whipping out a snippy "unlike you" essentially negates the assertion behind the first half this exchange. If you feel you're being baited or that Tedescoboy22 is being uncivil, you're best course is simply to disengage and continue editing articles. --EEMIV (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did forgot that post -- that was one month ago. My apologies. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugnut (Transformers) Tedescoboy22 (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD Transformers

I feel that too many articles have been renominated for AFD after going through the process. I feel there are great many better candidates for AFD than have been nominated recently. So I have begun by nominating Hailstorm (Transformers), Omega Sentinel, Laser Rods. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a word of advice: don't call a spade a bucket. Those articles are not, in fact, "full of original research" as you said in those nominations. --Divebomb (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive?

This talk page is already over 145 kilobytes long. Isn't it about time we had a sixth archive? JIP | Talk 19:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

~~Feel free to do that with whatever threads you hink have been inactive fr a long enough time.~~NotARealWord (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed that MiszaBot box. NotARealWord (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

New Afd

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rage (Transformers). Tedescoboy22 (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You know it's gotten very annoying that Tedescoboy22 seems to have started following my edits then nominating articles I edit for deletion each day. I edit the Lugnut page and the next day he nominates it for deletion. I edit the Rage page and the next day he nominates it for deletion. I see a pattern. I might consider that harassment. Mathewignash (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

More AFDs

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane (Transformers)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leadfoot (Transformers)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoketron

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steel Wind

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.E.V. (Transformers)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorvators

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chase (Transformers)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Rod Patrol

--Divebomb (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormcloud and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splashdown (Transformers). --Divebomb (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Transformers Wikia links

I have been removing Transformers Wikia links from articles recently. IF, and I stress the "if", these articles are gonna rely on links to wikis as "sources", then they might as well use links to wikis that aren't, for all intents and purposes, zombies. --Divebomb (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted several, but I'm not sure I got them all, so please either tell me if some still remain, (better yet) remove them themselves, or smack me with a trout. --Divebomb (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In case anybody can't tell, by "zombie", Divebomb means the wiki at http://transformers.wikia.com not David Willis' TFWiki.net. NotARealWord (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.

(Also, for the uninitiated, the two wikis listed above were originally one wiki, but there was a falling out between the wiki's editors and Wikia, leading to the split.) --Divebomb (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone considered selectively transwikiing content from the TFwiki to Wikipedia? In this afd, a list of episodes was transwikied from an external site to wikipedia, and enough of it was re-sourced to Wikipedia's standards for it to be kept. --Malkinann (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think so. --Divebomb (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify for outsiders - tfwiki is written from an in universe perspective (a wikipedia no-no) and has a more relaxed tone including a large amount of humor (also against wikipedia style). Content from there would most definitely not fit here, and changing that site to match this one's style would be vehemently opposed. --Khajidha (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. :) --Malkinann (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat related

I've noticed that, the way article sections are organized, it seems that many TF character articles are condensed versions of their TFWiki counterparts. Stuff that would get it's own article on TFWiki simply gets a separate section under a first-level header here, resulting in articles about unrelated and totally separate characters. (For example, compare Star Saber here to the TFWiki stuff) So, I wanna ask: why are the formats so similar? Is TFWiki's format of organization somehow based on the one used here? (Considering that the crappy TF articles here have been around for quite a long time) NotARealWord (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I really wanna know the answer to this. NotARealWord (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't accurately hypothesize, having not looked at TFWiki. BUT -- wiki <-> wikia movement is pretty common, although usually wiki -> wikia post-AfD. Is the overlap limited solely to layout or also to matching content? I wouldn't be surprised if the handful of editors who actively add lots of Transformers content are mining TFWiki for organization ideas (not thinking that other similar content/products already at wiki might be better templates) or even actual article material. --EEMIV (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The overlap is mainly layout . For example:notice how on both sites, toy lists (which somehow managed to last on articles here) are separated according to "continuity family" . Regarding actual content ,the TFWiki policy page is highly against using Wikipedia's TF articles, partly due to how bad they are. So, mostly layout. NotARealWord (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the early work on wikipedia TF articles was done by current TFwiki contributers (particularly ChrisMcFeely). That work later became the basis of a lot of the wikia Teletraan 1 site, and then was moved to tfwiki when most of the active editors from Teletraan 1 left. --Khajidha (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Be Bold with the precedent to delete

It is undisputable that the typical "minor" transformers article (e.g. a transformer that is not Optimus Prime, Megatron, etc) fails several wikipedia guidelines. The result of the scores of AFD discussions held on these characters has been a near-unanimous "delete." This sets a precedent. What we need is a bold admin to take this precedent and to speedily delete the remaining transformers articles. Sure, people may be pissed off, but what are they going to do? Its for the best. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 17--Divebomb (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC):28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would expect any admin who attempts to pull off a stunt like that to be instantly de-sysopped.

Blindly deleting is not the way to go about this. These articles need to be judged, individually, at AFD. For all we know there's a "minor" character out there that has been covered in a reliable source. I know, it's unlikely, but not impossible.

Besides, how do we determine whether a minor character really is minor? For all we know, the article may just be lacking in information, thus making the character appear minor.

Also, read your talk page. --Divebomb (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal seems to go against the editing policy, especially the parts which state that perfection is not required in articles, and that instead of deleting text, one should consider many alternatives first. --Malkinann (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is utterly ludicrous. First, not all of the Transformers character articles nominated for deletion were decided to be deleted. Second, even if they were, it does not mean at all that because of that, all Transformers character articles should immediately be deleted on sight, just because they happen to be about Transformers characters. Each article has to be judged on its own merits. Really, if I went around immediately deleting articles just because articles about similar subjects have been deleted in the past, I would be stripped of my administrator rights. JIP | Talk 19:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A complete waste of time from a suspect editor who should probably be investivated. When was the last time this editor added good content to a Transformers article instead of deleting it? As for the comment "Sure, people may be pissed off, but what are they going to do?", I think that proves that ANY post made by this editor should be suspect. He's trying to provoke people, not improve wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that this has now gone far enough to make a request for comment about Tedescoboy22's behaviour. What do you think? JIP | Talk 08:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully support the above proposal. I have had just about enough of this.

Also, wasn't there an editor who expressed a concern that the dude was a sock of someone? Perhaps an SPI should be filed as well? --Divebomb (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe so, does anyone suppose its the return of User:Blest Withouten Match Dwanyewest (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That was a sock of User:Claritas.

So, uh, who's gonna file the SPI? I'm hardly the right person to do that. --Divebomb (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never filed an SPI or an RFC against anyone. If I was going to do it, I would have to take the time to read the instructions first. I have hardly ever participated in RFCs either. I think there was one time where a North American (I forget if he was USAn or Canadian) editor insisted that articles about ice hockey players must not have diacritics in the article names, even if the names of the players themselves have diacritics. That was about four years ago. JIP | Talk 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read the RFC instructions, and it would appear that at least two editors must have taken up the dispute on Tedescoboy's talk page. I'm the only one that has done this, so an RFC would be inappropriate and would be closed pretty quickly. --Divebomb (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI filed. --Divebomb (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WOAH QUICKEST SPI EVER

They're not the same guy. --Divebomb (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So in that case, what we have here is not a sockpuppet, but a genuine editor purposefully trying to disrupt Wikipedia. In that case, we should probably file an RFC instead. If you look at Tedescoboy22's talk page, you're not the only one who has complained about him there, at least User:Mathewignash has done so too. And I'm starting to get up with Tedescoboy22's behaviour as well. JIP | Talk 18:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I said that before Mathewignash posted on the talk page.

RFC it is then!.....but don't expect me to do it, I don't have the slightest idea how the system works. (It's one area of Wikipedia I never researched back in my lurker days.) --Divebomb (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. It's available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tedescoboy22. My first RFC! Let's see whether it is accepted or rejected. JIP | Talk 06:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have endorsed your summary at the RFC and added my name to the list of people who tried and failed to resolve the dispute. --Divebomb (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tasmanian Kid?

Tasmanian Devil is currently at featured article review, and I wouldn't know where to go to find a reliable source for Tasmanian Kid being based on a tasmanian devil, just something like DC's Tasmanian Devil's mention in Tasmanian_Devil#Cultural_references would be great. (except, of course, without the {{fact}} tags!) Thanks for any help. --Malkinann (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Both Beast Wars Second Tasmanian Kid and Beast Wars Snarl are Tasmanian Devils (they are almost identical toys, Snarl is the original US release, and Tasmanian Kid is the Japanese re-release). Most original sources for Tasmanian Kid are in Japanese. Probably a reliable ENGLISH source would have to be a primary one, like the Beast Wars Sourcebook by IDW or the original toy instructions. You can read the instructions for Snarl here where it calls him a Tasmanian Devil - http://www.cobraislandtoys.com/tf/1997/snarl-bw.html but the instructions for the Japanese release under the name Tasmanian Kid are in japanese. Mathewignash (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I've put Snarl into the article. --Malkinann (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, here is one for Tasmanian Kid that's in English. http://books.google.com/books?id=8wPl8cJ_y-EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Beast+Wars+Sourcebook&hl=en&ei=Y9jITIa7IMycnAeb0MWoAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Just go to page 166. Even though Kid and Snarl are nearly idential looking, they are considered TWO characters, both got seperate biographies in the comics. Mathewignash (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. :) --Malkinann (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fansites used as "sources"

What are we to do with fansites which are used as "sources". They are clearly unreliable as independent sources of info. I feel they should be removed from Transformer articles. You know what fansites I'm talking about inclusionists sites such as these [9], [10], [11]. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, I'm working on it. Sarujo (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dwaynewest, your initial observation above seems spot on and appropriate. However, then launching/dwelling on this being a problem with "inclusionists", you probably lost some buy-in. Please focus on the content/sources rather than the people behind them. --EEMIV (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How about making a page with a list specific to this wiki project of sites that are to be encouraged and discouraged as sources, that is, sites specific to Transformers. For instance a professional sites Lee's Toy Review or BWTF.com might hold more weight than one just run by fans like tfu.info or seibertron.com. Some primary sites might be good for "external links", but not as sources for an article. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. (I foresee edit wars though.) --Divebomb (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, some fansite sources are just transcriptions or translations of other material. People should just cite the source for said material instead of the fansite they saw the transcription/translation on. Some people don't realise this, aparently. For example, the Primus article cites this fanmade translation instead of the actual book. Also, I think citing the toy packaging is better than citing the tfu.info page where you saw the on-package text transcribed on. I'm sure there's other examples. We should put up a notice or something, perhaps even make a template. NotARealWord (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that making a list of good examples would go much farther to improving the articles then just complaining about people doing things the wrong way. Please, make some examples, I'd love to see them. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that reliable souces for fiction and pop culture may be quite hard to find. I think primary sources,like official TF books (with at least one exception), or the fan club magazine might still work. They don't establish notability (due to being published by affiliates of Hasbro and/or Takaratomy), but they're not useless. Some toy guides could be helpful with describing toys. NotARealWord (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ToyFare is always a good source. Sarujo (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Lee's Toy Review magazine always has Transformers in ever issue from my experience, especially older toys (they often pick a year to review in part with each issue). There are seveal unlicensed and unofficial Transformers books that would certainly NOT be considered primary. In fact I just say at book at the store called "Totally Tubular '80s Toys by Mark Bellomo" which had a whole chapeter devoted to Transformers in it, and this included the story, writers, background, toys... Some good stuff. Mathewignash (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Help! Starscream

Hi, over at the disambiguation pages with links project, we've come across the disambiguation page Starscream with 233 links that need fixing. Now, I've taken a stab at it, but really, you need to know which continuity the article/section is dealing with before you can decide which Starscream to put in. Easy stuff for a local; near impossible for me. For instance, Decepticon; which Starscream should be in the infobox? And what about the other two links? I'm not sure. Could an expert help? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 00:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if anyone wants to fix a few (dozen? :D), navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true is a huge help. --JaGa^talk 00:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the first 18 pages. Anyone feel like helping? --Divebomb (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And now another 11 pages are fixed. --Divebomb (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Since articles under this project are apparently plagued with bad sources, there should be some sort of notice to warn people against putting up unreliable sources and explaining what reliable sources relevant to this project are like. Maybe a subpage on this project or somebody's userpage. That would be totally helpful. Plus, we wouldn't have to explain the case over and over every time we see obviously bad sources. NotARealWord (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally think these sources should be evaluated on a case by case, article by article basis. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe we have a problem because the film articles are plagued with them. With the first film being categorized as FA. Sarujo (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh.....no they're not. There are some fansite citations in the first film article, but they're lost in the sea of reliable sources. --Divebomb (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that a source may be reliable for one thing, but not another, like how a toy review isn't the best source to describe a character's role in a tv series. But still, there should be a page explaining reliable sources specifically relevant to this project. Mostly a general description with a few examples and where to use them, and what sources not to use. For example, how a toy magazine is more reliable than something posted on TFW2005, how TFU.info doesn't pass cos it's content is directly copied from the toy packaging, and whatnot. We don't need to have surces that are reliable all the time or never ever reliable, but an explaination of what sources are generally reliable and what usually aren't reliable. NotARealWord (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like resolution on these merger propasal

A month ago I proposed there should be mergers on Talk:Optimus Prime (Transformers), Talk:Bumblebee (Transformers),Talk:Cliffjumper,Talk:Megatron (Transformers) and Talk:Starscream (Transformers) article obviously editors have been dealing with other wikipedia articles beside Transformers. I would like a conclusive decision whether they be inclusionist or deletionists. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose all the mergers except for Cliffjumper. --Divebomb (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Unmerged material

I have noticed there is alot of un merged material from AFD debates such as Doctor Arkeville,Kicker (Transformers),R.E.V. (Transformers),Transmetal Driver. I sure there are others I just thought I should let others know. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have redirected the Kicker article. My rationale for doing this and not merging is that there is really nothing in the article that can be merged to the list that isn't already in the list. --Divebomb (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Another sock puppet deletion/disruption attack?

Anyone else worried about the "new user" Carolyn Baker III? This person has been posting tons of profanity on my talk page, most of which has been encouraging me to fight over articles. Now after editing for less than a week this person is making badly written nominations for deletion. Is this yet ANOTHER sock puppet targeting the Transformers Wiki Project? Mathewignash (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been on wikipedia since the Spring of 2009. That's a little longer than one week. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

With a single edit. Your second edit was less than a week ago. Mathewignash (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sleeper sock perhaps? --Divebomb (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it telling that Carolyn Baker III started posting here 3 days after Tedescoboy22's last post. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it could be a coincidence.....but I really don't think we have the luxury of dismissing things as coincidence anymore, what with all the sockpuppetry and disruption that has been going on.

SPI anyone? --Divebomb (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor has been accused of socking before. Sarujo (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Where was that again? I can't seem to find it. (Also, as a side note, I got quite a kick out of the "I'm being hounded and threatened" thread at WQA.) --Divebomb (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor was accused of creating the sock Bunkerdiver. It was said to be blocked as seen here. Sarujo (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And under that account this person was one of those people who kept posting fan nonsense that Grindor is Blackout in the Transformers films. Figures! Mathewignash (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing anything beyond the sudden appearance of rude edits that connects Carolyn Baker to Tedescoboy22. It bring the adage, you get rid of one and five more pop up. Maybe this wave of Transformer socks might be a bigger conspiracy. Where a collection of people on a forum are formed with the sole purpose of vandalizing and or destroying articles. Case in point the Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit article was constantly vandalized by members on the Atari forum to illustrate their argument as to how unreliable Wikipedia is. In this case, it might be members on 4chan or some other forum with little moderation governing it. Sarujo (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't wanted to suggest that, but I am aware of people on a Transformers fan wiki who have posted happy responses in forums to Transformers articles being deleted from Wikipedia, under the arguement that their wiki should be the sole source of wiki'd Transformers information on the internet. I don't want to think they are sending vandals here to get articles deleted and scare people away from maintaining the project. 198.111.56.66 (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Which wiki? There are two I'm aware of, TFWiki, which is definitely not the one you're talking about, and Teletraan I.

Also, I agree with Sarujo on the conspiracy thing. The Claritas sock farm gets shut down and Torkmann pops up sometime later. The Torkmann sock is banned and Tedescoboy22 appears. He gets banned as a troll, and suddenly CB3 and the VOA below pop up. This is clearly an organized campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if this was 4chan trying to "stick it to the Transformers fans" again. --Divebomb (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

4Chan'er have done this before to Transformer articles? Sarujo (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, but they like to annoy the TF fandom. (And pretty much everyone else.) --Divebomb (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe Sarah Palin and Jessi Slaughter can concur. Really unless we can find the nest, the only thing to do is pick off the vandals and uncivil editors and IPs as they make their presence known. Still, this kind of situation troubles me. These editors can turn the tables and resort to deep personal attack. By which they can pull up personal information and start harassing a person from their home. It was the reason why the Collectonian/AnmaFinotera left Wikipedia. Sarujo (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Finding the nest is really quite difficult. The one thing we can be sure of is that it's not WR. --Divebomb (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Now this new one showed up: "AntiTransMaster.". Carolyn Baker III (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

SPI started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carolyn Baker III. Mathewignash (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed: CB3 = Tedescoboy22. [sarcasm] Who would've thought?! [/sarcasm] ----Divebomb is not British 10:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It goes deeper. CB3 = Tedescoboy22 = User:Wiki brah, apparently. ----Divebomb is not British 07:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Frustration grunt. Sarujo (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a joke on TFWiki kinda related to that 4chan conspiracy thing that I never quite understood (Item42 over there is me). NotARealWord (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

pats on back* Join the club. ----Divebomb is not British 15:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, if anybody's wondering on that Wiki Brah thing, please see here.NotARealWord (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it be out of line to ask for an SPI of the former Transformers Wiki Project members who have posted anti-Wikipedia rants on message boards against the recent disruption attacks? It's probably one of them. Mathewignash (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Which ones? Specify. ----Divebomb is not British 17:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Should I be worried? A new user started editing wikipedia on the 15th, 3 days after the last sockpuppet was banned, and already nominated 3 Transformers articles for deletion and has been disrupting Wikipedia in general. User talk:SwinginFromaStar I started an SPI right away. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwinginFromaStar Mathewignash (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Update - Yep, it's him AGAIN. Mathewignash (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Transformers#In the real world

* A British television series about the Eddie Stobart trucking firm said that one of the firm's trucks "is a Transformer" because it and another have trailers that unfold and transform into a two-storey site office.

That's a rather obscure thing to include, isn't it? JIP | Talk 17:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that section. ----Divebomb is not British 14:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Unmerged and inadequate Transfomers articles

Tailgate (Transformers),R.E.V. (Transformers) and Doctor Arkeville are still unmerged just so everyone knows.

I feel Blaze Master,Impactor (Transformers),Smallest Transformers and Pepsi Convoy could do with an AFD poor notabiliy and unreliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to be bold when merging and follow WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Impactor. He has starred in a recent notable comic series, so RS might be out there somewhere.

The rest, though, should be redirected and/or merged. ----Divebomb is not British 09:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I just added two third party sources to Impactor to get started. It was citationless, so that should help. Mathewignash (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

SOMEONE ELSE has nominated my ideas but it looks like they may be sockpuppet. If it turns out to sock a AFD has been wasted for nothing. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If a good number of intelligent arguments are made, the AFD will remain unaffected. It's happen before. Sarujo (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Those AFDs have been closed, but there is no bias against opening legitimate AFDs to replace them. I think some of them can be merged or given better citations, so check for those options first, but if you need to, they can be AFD'ed again. Mathewignash (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell, it's another sock?

When will this end? ----Divebomb is not British 10:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you watch your language here. Sarujo (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Hmmm, they got reverted. Sarujo (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone's wondering, Sarujo seems to be referring to an uncivil comment by somebody else (not Divebomb) that has just been reverted. NotARealWord (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture limit on pages

I know some people are trying to limit the number of non-free pictures on wikipedia pages, but I do think is some cases, where the pictures do add something to the article, they are justified. For instance Witwicky family, showing only pictures of 2 family members doesn't tell you what the other characters looked like, or for characters like Shattered Glass Thundercracker, he's NOT colored like all the other Thundercrackers in blue, so he's exceptional. I was wondering what others thought. Are there any articles that justify more than one or two pictures? Mathewignash (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Superficial details like a color scheme or "what a character looks like" are on their face not encyclopedic details. NFCC is pretty clear: the inclusion of non-free art must substantially lead to one's understanding of the subject. Does knowing what a Witwicky *looks* like help us understand the *character*? Does a different paint job influence the role that character played in the series? If those superficial details are themselves the subject of commentary -- e.g., if someone asserts that giving someone a different color scheme was intended to make him stand out as a leader or outsider -- then an image is justifiable. However, merely "illustrating" a subject does NOT meet the bar set by NFCC. --EEMIV (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If the appearance of a character isn't important to an article, then why do we have ANY non-free pictures at all? 198.51.174.5 (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, given the coverage of their subjects, most Transformers articles, and most articles on fiction-related subjects, would be 100% fine without non-free images. --EEMIV (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial toys

Is there any reason why the toy sections for the TF articles are infested with unofficial stuff some fans made? Who is adding this crap? ----Divebomb is not British 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Or to take a more neutral point of view, if some character is popular enough to raise immitation by non-Hasbro toy companies, isn't it proper to mention that they inspired toys from those companies? This might cover "knockoffs" or third party addons. Wikipedia isn't a mouthpiece for the Hasbro corp, it's a neutral group which holds no bias against one company or another. If a fictional character inspired immitation, it may be notable. Mathewignash (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But is it necessary to have listings for them in the toy sections? Surely the few notable ones can be mentioned in some other way. ----Divebomb is not British 13:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That is probably true. I'll try to find sources for some of them, and I'll agree the KNOCKOFF ones can be removed, while the "third party" items can maybe be worked in. Mathewignash (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Those "unofficial toys" usually aren't claimed in any way by their manufacturers to be TF characters. Since there was a debate on whether or not to say "Power Rangers Samurai is based on Samurai Sentai Shinkenger" due to how no news sources,publicity material, etc. explicitly mention Shinkenger, I'm sure saying that "Fansproject Warbot is a toy of Springer" is an even bigger no-no, since it's far less obvious than the Power Rangers Samurai/Samurai Sentai Shinkenger issue. So, please remove secions on unofficial toys for lack of verifiability. If they can be verified, they'd look better in a section like "Reception" or whatever since it's what fans did instead of anything actually within the TF brand. NotARealWord (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I just remembered, work projects aren't really suppose to cover such things that are fan produced. Such as toys and dōjinshi.
— Sarujo, This project's talk page, less than two months ago.

Also, since these fan-toys were neither distributed through general retail stores nor advertised in television the way official TFs are, they'd be certainly obscure, and thus, fancruft or somesuch. No more important to the characters than say, popular pieces of fanfiction. NotARealWord (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have the right to label something "fan toys" or fan cruft if it was made by a company. It may not be made by a company as big as Hasbro, but they are made by a legitimate company, not some fan in his garage. Also, I could see the point that it might be considered "original research" to say that "Warbot Defender" is a "Springer", I'm sure citing a review of him could prove that fans liken him to Springer. Also, add one for existing toys to admit they are for certain Hasbro products. The Cliffjumper head and gun set is of Classics Cliffjumper, the City Commander is for Classic Ultra Magnus. Mathewignash (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fan-made toys or third-party creations seem to be the toy-world equivalent of third-party mods for video games. I think the same general rule for inclusion applies: if any third-party press agency or company cares enough about the product to *comment* [distinct from merely listing or acknowledging], then it's appropriate to mirror that commentary here. Otherwise, it's just vanity fan homage and not encyclopedic. --EEMIV (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate companies don't make direct copies of other people's intellectual property. These companies are small groups of fans making what they claim are better versions of Hasbro's characters than Hasbro makes. They ARE fan-cruft and probably an infringement on Hasbro's rights. Mention the fact that some people engage in the manufacture of such things, mention any outside coverage they may get, but there is no reason to go into detail about them and even less reason to mix them in with legitimate Hasbro products. --Khajidha (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it can be proved that IP is violated by characters like Warbot Defender or by add-ons like City Commander. They are toys made by companies other than Hasbro, and yes, they target fans of Transformers with their designs, but their are neither amature nor a violation of IP. Besdies, I'm not aware of any limitation on Wikipedia on reporting on things that violate US copyright law. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

City Commander was designed to look just like Ultra Magnus, that is the definition of IP infringement. This company is a small group of fans, not professional toy designers. They are BY DEFINITION amateurs, no matter how skilled they are. Finally, I didn't say that they should be excluded for those reasons, but did say that they should be included only if they are notable in and of themselves and should not be mixed in with Hasbro toys. --Khajidha (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

City Commander is an original design, with no copyright infringement. It's designers make toys that are sold in online stores, and they make money, so they are BY DEFINITION professional toy makers. Mathewignash (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

An original design that just happens to look just like Ultra Magnus's armor and was made to fit on the Hasbro Ultra Magnus toy, yeah, keep deluding yourself buddy. --Khajidha (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

An original design, in that it's not copied from an existing mold. Yet, it's clearly INSPIRED by G1 Ultra Magnus, but it's not any copywritten mold or trademarked name. It's an original toy. There is no LEGAL problem with them making it. No more than making some sailor cartoon duck with a speech impediment infinges on Donald Duck from Disney. Mathewignash (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven'y found mentions of Yu-Gi-Oh The Abridged series on this wiki's aricles on YGO characters, and that's buttloads more well-known than the fan-made action figures. So, those fan-toys have gotta be not worth mentioning in even the slightest bit. NotARealWord (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm still against listing unofficial toys and knockoffs, they're not actually important. Don't see how they would be important enough, legal or otherwise. NotARealWord (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

New AfDs

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prima (Transformers) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers: Timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rail Racer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyburst.NotARealWord (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(not a project member but a talk page-stalker) You know, you folks could set up your own XFD subpage to consolidate such deletion discussions, like we do over at WP:VG; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion and how that is constructed. It's not bot-operated or anything; it's all done manually. Just thought I would bring that up if that would make life easier for you folks here. –MuZemike 18:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We already have one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Deletion sorting. It's even linked to in one of the boxes at the top of this page. NotARealWord (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with articles under this project

I started a page at User:NotARealWord/Transformers articles to address the issues and problems with articles under this project. Hopefully, it will be useful in improving large quantities of Transformers articles. Said page really needs help expanding. NotARealWord (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Feedback requested

I'm currently working on an improved version of Energon (power source), and I was wondering if I could get someone else to take a look at it and perhaps offer some suggestions as to what could be added/removed.

Thank you for your time, ----Divebomb is not British 13:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look at it if you insist. Where would I do some background reading on Energon so I can intelligently improve the piece? Are there any scholarly, peer-reviewed journals that comment upon the subject? Or governmental studies? Surely, such a signficant topic must have been studied by some body of experts at some point. Just point me in the right direction, please. Help me help you, as it were. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

~~y sarcasm detector is going back and forth.....result.....inconclusive. ----Divebomb is not British 13:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)~~

I take the above back. CB3, you are trolling. ----Divebomb is not British 14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Who are you, anyway? Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, can I get some actual feedback that isn't trolling? ----Divebomb is not British 17:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a much better written Engergon article non trivial mentions of Engergon and best all the information was gathered without resorting to fansites. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is the article on the energon cube, which has some sources, many of which you already have. If I can ask, I know Hasbro capitolizes "Energon" (probably because they own a trademark on it or something), but is it really a proper noun? Mathewignash (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I know about the Energon cube article, I used some sources from there.

Also, the capitalization is inconsistent, so it's hard to be sure. The upper-case "E" is more prominent these days, though. ----Divebomb is not British 09:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I know Hasbro and fans usually use upper case, but what is encyclopedic? Mathewignash (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are descriptive, so it seems that we should use whatever the source uses. --Khajidha (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Instead of citing episode summaries, if you've seen the episode, cite the episode. {{cite episode}} can be used. --Malkinann (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Summaries are secondary sources while episodes themselves are primary. Shouldn't the summaries be cited instead since secondary sources are generally recommended over primary ones? NotARealWord (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In the case of plot summary in fiction, I believe that primary sources have always been acceptable. If you write an article on a movie, you need only watch the movie and write the plot summary based on what you saw. This is the same thing. Mathewignash (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer summaries myself. ----Divebomb is not British 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(At Mathew) Primary sources are acceptable, not recommended. If reliable, accurate secondary sources for a topic have been located, they should be used. NotARealWord (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not actually the case when talking about fiction plot summaries, primary sources are recomended according to this: Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Citations "Plot summaries written purely from other summaries risk excessive loss of context and detail. While consulting other summaries may be helpful in narrowing down on what the major plot elements are, be sure to consult the primary source material to make sure you get it right.". Mathewignash (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Using others' plot summaries risks dilution and inaccuracies, and the summary site itself may not be considered a reliable source. If the characters talk about 'energon' and it is shown in the episode, then a plain description of what happens with the energon in the episode should be ok, cited to the episode. Also, in some of the subsections, the prose presents energon as if it is real. For example, in the Beast Wars section, "In its raw form, Energon is unstable and extremely harmful to most Transformers.". A more out of universe presentation would be "In Beast Wars, the raw form of Energon is portrayed as unstable... etc." The citations need to be more complete to improve verifiability. (page numbers, etc.) --Malkinann (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I would include page numbers if Google Books wasn't being so goddamn pesky. (You showed this bit to me before! Why can't you do it now? ----Divebomb is not British 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, yeah. That's happened to me before. XD Authors, years, and ISBNs are also helpful. The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917 has two editions, so it could be important to specify which one you cited it from there. --Malkinann (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. I have fixed the sourcing issues you helpfully highlighted with [X needed] tags. I'd appreciate it if someone who has the "Transformers: the fantasy, the fun, the future" book could check the page I cited, Google Books refuses to show the page properly. ----Divebomb is not British 09:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to list toy mentions of Energon, for instance on the ROTF Rollbar toy, which turns into a Delivery truck, it says "ENERGON EXPRESS" on the side of the truck? Or is that too trivial? Mathewignash (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mere mentions are too trivial. Maybe toys of energon can be explained like the energon weapons from the Energon toyline. NotARealWord (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The ehobby Insecticon repaints from Japan came with energon cubes toys (just pink blocks), and the McDonalds Happy meal toys from Transformers: Energon came with energon cubes that light up. Mathewignash (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay if you go ahead and list the kinds of toys Energon had. Don't list every single figure that came with energon, just mention the forms of toys for Energon. Although, I'm also okay if your edit gets reverted once you do write that up, if the reverter had a good reason. NotARealWord (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to be snippy NARW. Divebomb requested feedback for the page HE is writing, and I offered it. Mathewignash (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not being snippy (i think). If anybody has a good reason for reverting, they should go ahead. Of course, you haven't yet made such an edit, but if somebody has a good reason to revert when you do, they can revert said edit. NotARealWord (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The mentions are too trivial, but including the toys could work. ----Divebomb is not British 09:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

About Plot summaries

While there is always a risk at losing details, this is a substance that appears regularly throughout the decades-long history of the franchise. An article about it should not go into too much detail, plot summary-wise. NotARealWord (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Latest AFD

Transformers: Timelines,Skyburst, Rail Racer, Sky Garry,Scrounge,Heavytread,Transformers: Dinobots,Heroes of Cybertron,Road Rocket, Rotorstorm, Skram. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why is there a long plot summary and a small toy list on the List of Transformers: Victory characters page? This should only be about the character in that show with brief summaries on each character on who and what they are. Sarujo (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a page for the episode summaries like has been started for the Transformers: Prime page? Perhaps it needs seperate pages. Mathewignash (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a character list is a place for long plot summaries either. JIP | Talk 10:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I reckon that was probably a side-effect of a merge. ----Divebomb is not British 11:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Final resoultion

A few months ago I proposed there should be mergers on Talk:Optimus Prime (Transformers), Talk:Bumblebee (Transformers),Talk:Cliffjumper,Talk:Megatron (Transformers) and Talk:Starscream (Transformers) article obviously editors have been dealing with other wikipedia articles beside Transformers. I would like a conclusive decision whether they be inclusionist or deletionists. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 17#Transformers: Timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 18, specifically the sections on Landshark (Transformers, Heatwave (Transformers) and Transformers: Timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Character lists

Somebody please give a complete list of all character lists under this project. I think there are more that we require yet still don't have, but it's important to know which ones specifically. NotARealWord (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Transformers: Timelines has been renominated for deletion due to the result of the deletion review. NotARealWord (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts

Since there are many AFDs added to the deletion sorting page, I have added article alerts subscription on the subscription list. Note: I am not member of this project, the article alerts are automatically updated by AAlertBot (talk · contribs), and the bot is operated by H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs) and Headbomb (talk · contribs). Please note that the bot is currently on 14 day trial at BRFA until December 29. The article alerts include Requested moves, Proposed deletions, AFDs, FACs and GANs. JJ98 (Talk) 00:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Another sock?

This one took me by half surprise. It seems that Divebomb was a sock as well. When it rains, it pours. Here it was, they were all in the fight against socking, yet they were neck deep in the activity. Now it's getting kinda hard trust anybody in this work group. Sarujo (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspected this for a while. compare the comments made by "-Blackout-" here, here and here. Didn't really report since I didn't know who to compare them to. Plus, they seemed to have been doing nothing wrong. Helped with making mergers. Oh well. By the way, when was Divebomb investigated? No information on that at here at the sockpuppeteer's investigation page. Also, what's gonna happen to this page? NotARealWord (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I notice this when I was looking at my watch list, as I always do. Maybe Amalthea knows as they were the ones to make the additions to Divebomb's user and talk pages. Sarujo (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, User:Divebomb/Energon (power source) will have to be transferred under somebody else or put in main namespace. NotARealWord (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would make the suggestion, but I've got too much on my plate right now. Sarujo (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, to me it was obvious that User:Divebomb was a sock. If you read on some noticeboards of "tfwiki.net," there was some plot hatched to attack the transformers wikiproject in waves. There were three "teams" that were using code names named after South American countries. I believe Divebomb/Blackout was the leader of team "Argentina." Just watch out for more attacks. These people seem pretty hardcore and have a chip on their shoulder for some reason. Batphone boy (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any links regarding these discussions? Sarujo (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I never came across any proof of this. Batphone boy's comment sounds more like trolling. NotARealWord (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it just keeps going. You'd think with Christmas just days away that they'd slack off. Sarujo (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like new user User:6Shot see contribs, the latest sockpuppet of "Divebomb," AKA "EditorXXV," has been confirmed by a checkuser as actually being Wiki_brah. see here. So if that means Divebomb is actually Wiki_brah, then that Energon article should be speedied, and all those merges and re-directs "Divebomb" effectuated recently should be reverted by the Wikiproject. Just something else to think about . . . Thanks, Tamiamiboy (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Batphone boy is sock puppet, and I suspect Tamiamiboy is too. Maybe wikipedia should just start an automatic SPI case against EVERY new user as Wiki brah? It would save time. Mathewignash (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki brah wasn't the only problem. Clearly there does seem to have been other people sockpuppeting. Although, it turns out that Tamiamiboy was a Wiki brah sock. NotARealWord (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Creating a sock just to call yourself out, what the point? Sarujo (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a disruption attack. Probably just to prove they can do it. Mathewignash (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As you all may be aware, it appears that this Wiki brah has moved to heckling editors on their talk pages. Revealing their supposed true identity as Andrea DeMarco, and stating that they will continue their activities until the day either this site or they die. So I guess we'll never be rid of this twerp. Now, I got really cheesed off when this person tried to compare their actions to Stephen Colbert. I will never group this loser with the likes of the great Stephen Colbert. This girl, if that's who this is since as far as I know Andrea is a girl's name, needs to get a life. Sarujo (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)