Talk:Body-type

2011-03-07T20:12:21Z

194.228.147.9:

Do [[Drone|drones]] belong on this list? After all, they have their own page. It seems duplicative to me.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:01, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
:Drones are just that, drones, while body-types are simply re-uses of bodies between two or more full personalities. [[Special:Contributions/76.252.0.101|76.252.0.101]] 21:32, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

1) The ROTF bike chicks are actually quite different. 2) I agree drones shouldn't be included. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:20, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:OK, Anonymous and Starfield agree with me ... anyone else? If no one feel strongly about it, I'm gonna torch the drone section of the movie 'body types', since in my view hordes of drones is an entirely different phenomena. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 22:04, 7 November 2009 (EST)

Can someone tell me how the "Outstanding examples" section became a "list every shared body ever" section? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 22:47, 7 November 2009 (EST)
: Okay, I've pared it down considerably. Dude, if we started listing every guy who shared another body with another guy, WE'D BE LISTING THE ENTIRE WIKI. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 01:29, 8 November 2009 (EST)

In the similar way we should consider Starscream clones are body-type. Because while they are clones, they are developing their own personalities, and Sunstorm and Ramjet have now their distinctive heads. But still they are clones... but Spittor and another guy have the same body type, and in some way Huffer and Pipes.--[[Special:Contributions/194.228.147.9|194.228.147.9]] 15:12, 7 March 2011 (EST)

Talk:Dead End (Animated)

2011-02-21T12:42:03Z

194.228.147.9:

I don't want to be accused on fecking with the captions, so I'll just ask here: why would Dead End need to be a Sunstreaker redeco? I know about the Alternators Dead End/Sunstreaker kerfuffle, but both Jazz and Dead End were Porsches in G1, a fact exploited in [[Masquerade]]. It just seems to me that the caption doesn't work because there is precedent for Dead End being a Jazz redeco. [[User:Bobpiecheese|Bobpiecheese]] 20:09, 27 January 2011 (EST)

:Sometimes an amusing caption is just an amusing caption. And yes, there has been a Jazz toy in the past repainted into a toy named Dead End. [[Special:Contributions/95.148.10.74|95.148.10.74]] 20:40, 27 January 2011 (EST)

::If ever there is an oppurtunity for it, I'd love to see one of the Grim Fandango poems by Olivia as caption (ashes to ashes to me, perhaps?). [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:34, 28 January 2011 (EST)

:::Because G1 Jazz disquised as Dead End dont makes him they have the same alt mode. G1 Dead End is Porsche 928, while G1 Jazz is Porsche 935. They are two different cars. Besides, the links are wrong, because RotF Dead End is redeco of Sideways, not Jazz, and by searching it here, there is no model connection between Dead End and Jazz in all series besides Masquerade episode, and this. --[[Special:Contributions/194.228.147.9|194.228.147.9]] 07:42, 21 February 2011 (EST)

== Mainpic Caption ==

I note that the quote used for the mainpic caption is the same one that [[Lugnutz]] has had for several years. Maybe we could pick a ''different'' piece of Beat poetry for this guy? (Not that I have any suggestions. Poetry is not my bag.) [[User:JW|JW]] 21:17, 3 February 2011 (EST)
: Aha. Yeah, that needs to change. Hrm. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 22:49, 3 February 2011 (EST)
::I don't guess "Roses are red. Violets are blue. What difference does it make? We're all doomed." would work, would it? - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 22:54, 3 February 2011 (EST)
:::I watched through all of Dot's Poetry Corner, and I didn't see anything that struck me. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 22:58, 3 February 2011 (EST)
::::The one you picked is awesome, Walky. Thanks! [[User:JW|JW]] 12:04, 4 February 2011 (EST)

Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon (film)

2011-02-12T02:12:53Z

194.228.147.9:

'''We do not care about leaks. Do not tell us who you saw on the set. Do not present us with images of stolen toys. Unless you can [[Help:Official info|source it in an official press release or reputable news source]], we do not care. Please stop telling us who you saw in set photography.'''

{{chapters
|title=Talk:Dark of the Moon (film) Archives
|content=*[[Talk:Dark of the Moon (film)/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
}}

== TITLE ==

[http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/transformers-3-title-revealed-the-dark-of-the-moon/19947/ Looks like we've got a title.]

--[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 09:35, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:Can I just go on record that that is a crappy name? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 09:42, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::I agree with you, but it comes with many joke opportunities.
::I just.....haven't figured out what they are yet. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 09:53, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::All I can think of is the Alabama song "Fire In The Night". --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 09:57, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::::The ''Dark'' of the moon? Does that mean the movie is going to be just another one of those crappy conspiracy theories saying the US didn't get to the moon first? Does this mean this is hardly going to be a movie about Transformers? This seems pretty likely. Also, that name is just borderline teen novel. Hopefully they'll change everything at the last minute into something relatively better like they did before. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 09:59, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::Here are some jokes we could use.
:::::"Dark Side of the Moon was taken."
:::::"Is it a Twilight crossover?"
:::::(Thank you Seibertron forum posters!) --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 10:01, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::I hadn't even thought about Twilight until Loki said teen novel. Now, I can't get the word "Vampformers" out of my head. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 10:08, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Does this mean the main pic has to be that shot of John Turturro's as from ROTF?[[User:Riddlerj|Riddlerj]] 10:22, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::::No and shame on you for even thinking it. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 10:27, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::One thing I really like from the first 3 movies (86,07,09) wiki articles are the running joke used throughout. Star Wars, the 86 movie, and Empire Strikes Back. I would have thought we would use nothing but Return of the Jedi quotes here, but with this new title part of me thinks it would be great to use nothing but lyrics off the Dark Side of the Moon album. --[[User:Bluestreak7|Bluestreak7]] 12:36, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::We picked Star Wars and Empire for their respective films because the TF creative teams in those years specifically compared their products to those films--it was us making a joke out of their marketing idea. Though having captions about ROTJ would obviously "complete the set," I'm kind of against us making jokes out of ''our own traditions'' instead of the traditions of the franchise creators. It would seem like we're just jerking off. So I'd actually prefer Pink Floyd too. Of course, given that there's still a year for someone at Paramount to make a comparison between the respective 3rd films, the point may be moot. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 14:02, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::Actually, using Pink Floyd quotes here would preserve and extend the pattern we have going. 1st Movie/Star Wars Universe quotes, 2nd Movie/Non-SW quotes, 3rd Movie/SW Universe quotes, 4th Movie/Non-SW quotes. Remember that 1st - 4th is in real world terms, ignoring the fact that the 1st movie was not part of the same universe as the current trilogy. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:10, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::Agreed. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 14:29, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Should we also put in a note that "dark of the moon" is real phrase and not completely made up? --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 15:35, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Ahem. IT WAS THE DARK OF THE MOON ON THE SIXTH OF JUNE WITH A KENWORTH HAULIN' LOGS/ CABOVER PETE WITH A REEFER ON AND A JIMMY HAULIN HOGS/ WE WAS HEADED FOR BEAR ON I-1-OH ABOUT A MILE OUTTA SHAKEY TOWN/ I SAID "PIG PEN THIS HERE'S THE RUBBER DUCK, WE'RE ABOUT TO PUT THE HAMMER DOWN." -hx at work, this is all the caption you need.
:ARGH! I can't believe I forgot that! I can just see the "bout to put the hammer down" part as an Optimus Prime caption ("Convoy", don't you know. :)). --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 17:49, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::I agree with this comment. Also, now we have a title, is it time to add it to the left-hand navigation menu? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 19:16, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Save it for the Japanese release info. "Ironically enough, not a great big Convoy rockin' through the night." [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 19:30, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any Amazon listings anymore, but the [http://www.transformersmovie.com Transformers movie website] is called "Transformers: Dark of the Moon". (Don't look at the logo, look at the title of the website in the web browser.) Should we lose the "the"? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:43, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
:At the same time, the domain they registered is "transformersthedarkofthemoonmovie.com", which has the leading "The" in it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:00, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
::"transformersdarkofthemoonmovie.com" is also registered by the same party. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 17:03, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Why would they register it with the "The" if "The" isn't in the title? Whereas I can see why they'd also register it without, because people might accidentally leave it out when typing the url (and also for brand protection). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:57, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
::::Similar reasons apply for registering the name with a superfluous "the". "The dark of the moon" is a preexisting term, people might easily insert it by mistake. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 20:08, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::IDK, the title of a web page just doesn't seem like enough to me to move the page. The titles on Amazon all had "The" in them, which might have been added mistakenly by whoever added them there, or might not have been. I suspect we should wait for some sort of official unveiling, because if we move the page now, we may well just be moving it back later. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 22:13, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::According to the teaser trailer, at least in Latin America, the international title of the movie is '''Transformers 3''' (THANK GOD). Should we put it on the article?-[[User:ACIDSTORM92|ACIDSTORM92]] 03:28, 1 January 2011 (EST)

== Uh, Walky.... ==

How does "www.transformersdarksideofthemoon.com." confirm that "The Dark of the Moon" is the title? Or did you put in the "side" in that URL by mistake? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:56, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
: Yeah. Mistake. Durrr. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:02, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:: Fixed. I expect this slip-up to happen only 30,000 more times. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:03, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Yeah, mainly I was asking on the off chance that the other things we've found had accidentally left out the "side". --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:07, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

== Accident ==

Does last month's stunt accident where an extra got critically injured belong on this page, and if yes, where?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 14:22, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
:I thought the top of this page said that the wiki does not care about news on the set. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 14:46, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
::This is '''obviously''' not the kind of news the top of the page is talking about. Yes, the accident and lawsuit should be addressed on the page for the movie. Where, I dunno. Probably its own section. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 14:58, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Maybe "Production", if it ever gets made. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:30, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

== Disambig? ==

What are we going to use as the disambiguation suffix for this movie? I used (TDOTM) for the [[Carly (TDOTM)|Carly]] artilce I created, but I could see just (DOTM) instead, or perhaps something from out of left field -- [[User:G1MarvelBlaster|G1MarvelBlaster]] 23:04, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
:(TDOTM) would be the most consistent. But (TF3) would be cool. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 23:22, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
::The only other franchise I can find with an initial "the" is [[The Headmasters]], which has the disambiguation suffix (Headmasters). Going by that, I would say (DOTM). --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 09:20, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Considering Hasbro applied for the trademark "Dark of the Moon" without "the", I'm favoring (DOTM) too.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:05, 13 October 2010 (EDT)
::::(TDOTM) is a horrible disambig. I prefer (DOTM). --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 08:11, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

== The Superfund Armored Truck as Sixshot and Rosenbaurer as Inferno ==

November-21=Michael Bay confirms the Superfund Armored Truck as Sixshot.
:Hi. Cite a source. Sign your posts. Thank you. Goodbye. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 08:22, 21 November 2010 (EST)

== Should we add Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin? ==

Well, should we?

-ThiAthEhn
: And [[Walter Cronkite]]. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:56, 10 December 2010 (EST)

::Well, the question is, will they actually be ''in'' the film? This teaser feels very much like the teaser for the first movie, in that we may see only a little, or possibly even none, of the actual content of it in the film. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 11:57, 10 December 2010 (EST)

:::And we don't know if (though unlikely) they are main cast. And save their page for another day. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 12:00, 10 December 2010 (EST)
::::I dunno, I think all promotional stuff still counts as "fiction" under our mandate. While they shouldn't be on the main cast list, I wouldn't be opposed to making articles on them and making some mention of them on the article. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:16, 10 December 2010 (EST)
:::::And in any case, we already have a [[Neil Armstrong]] page, per [[Ghosts of Yesterday]]. So I'll ask my question here: how much do we want to put into that article? -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 14:42, 10 December 2010 (EST)
::::::I'm tired of seeing useless perpetually incomplete pages for trivial as fuck foil characters that usually were only ''mentioned'' in the movie or even movie novelization in question and have no real story signifigance at all. I respectfully say nay to more character pages like this and I would recommend deleting such pages that are already created, such as the Mohammud page. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 11:14, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::Then that's really too friggin' bad, because ''that's what this wiki is for.'' --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:28, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::You really want your wiki to go to hell, to run rampant with the constant mindless page creations of anonymous IP adresses? You made one of the qualifications to delete a page "We are not a dictonary," but now you want to contradict yourself. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 11:32, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::Uh, we've been making pages like this since the very beginning of the wiki back in 2006. At no point has this site ever succumbed to your insane scenario. So pardon me if my eyes roll so hard they pop out of my skull. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:36, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::::What you said officially makes it okay to make pages like the pages made by anons from the start, so now you have put yourself in the situation where now a whole lot of anons who look around without editing will get that idea and tell all their friends about it and soon you have too many pages for Detour to put the speedy template on. Sure, in the past this has never happened, but now there is the possibility. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 11:39, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::::Now that we're going to continue doing the exact same thing we've been doing for the past four years, suddenly it's all going to be different now and ruin us. Got it. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:41, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::::::It's not that you've been doing the same thing all along, it's now you've said that doing what has been described now is alright and acceptable, and you seem to be ignoring/avoiding that. Besides, of course the consequences are not going to affect you immediately, so you shouldn't just assume that if the ramifications aren't immediate then there aren't any at all. Your 16-year-old level of sarcasm and quickness to attempt to avoid a situation is what makes people not like you. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 11:47, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::::::I'm not ignoring anything, because I shouldn't have to distinguish for you the differences between making a page for a guy featured heavily in a trailer for a blockbuster Transformers film and between making a page for "floor." The difference seems to be obvious to everyone else. Do you have any other recourse to people disagreeing with you that isn't calling them an X-year-old? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:58, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::::::::The reason I used the X-year-old argument is because that is what I usually only see here that warrants a recourse from me, what with the "Um, yes it does" and "pardon me if my eyes roll so hard they pop out of my skull" statements. I understand now that you have from the start always had a staff that can make the distinction between what is too little information and what isn't and make decisions based on that. I don't think that most people know what "too little information" is (including myself), so maybe that could be something you could put into the FAQ of the wiki for anons that want to be good editors but aren't and so people like me don't go anally retentive apeshit and get in heated arguments with the wiki's administrator. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 12:10, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::::::::When the sole basis of your argument is "tons of anons will make bad pages", it's kind of hard to do anything but roll one's eyes at it. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 12:14, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::::::Anons will make useless pages regardless of policies. I truly doubt making a page about Buzz Aldrin is suddenly going to open the floodgates for pages about grass, the birds, the bees, the peanut butter jelly time banana and Zartan's male pattern baldness. Your apocalypse scenario is ridiculous to say the least. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 12:01, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::They exist in the Transformers universe. Why shouldn't we have pages for them? --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 11:17, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::Saying something like, "What would Jesus do?" is not making them in-universe. Besides, the pages always stay shitty and are just bytes of worthless space-taking crap. What if the wiki made a whole page for every single obscure character that happened to be seen in a passing glance of the camera? The whole wiki would be have millions of pages of crap that nobody cares about. Besides, if somebody wanted to read about Buzz aldrin, they could just go to wikipedia. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 11:21, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::Um, yes it does. If someone mentions Jesus in Transformers, that means that Jesus is in the Transformers universe? That'd be like if there was a standalone story where someone mentions how Bumblebee is a great scout, but Bumblebee doesn't appear otherwise. Does that mean Bumblebee doesn't exist? And there's a difference between making an article for someone who has no name, personality, or role, and making an article for someone who has a name and has a role hinted at. (We wouldn't make an article for a generic with no dialogue who's just there in the background, but we WOULD make an article for Bumblebee since he was named and we know that he's a scout.) And what if someone was curious about what Buzz Aldrin did in the Transformers world? Wikipedia wouldn't have that. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 11:24, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::You know very fucking well what I am talking about, don't act like a ten-year-old. I do not mean that important characters fiction wise (as in appearing in more than one piece of fiction in one universe) shouldn't have pages, they do have pages that account what they are important in. I mean not have pages about characters like the [[Muhammad]] or [[Jesus]] page that have no significance whatsoever in any piece of fiction. If they were more important in another piece of fiction, then they could have pages. What I want is quality control that isn't headed by ten-year-olds or anal people. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 11:29, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::::But they do have significance. A character mentions them and gives some details. Small significance, but they exist. When I said "standalone", I was referring to a whole new universe, where we don't know if Bumblebee exists or not. Then, someone confirms he exists, so we make a page for him. How am I acting like a ten-year-old?
:::::::::::(I WILL admit there's a line. Remember "History vid Megatron", anyone?) --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 11:34, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::::I think someone needs a timeout. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:02, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::::I remember "history vid Megatron"! According to a history video in Animated, he was a Decepticon during Animated's Great War. He looked like he commanded at least a platoon or something. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 12:19, 14 December 2010 (EST)

== Astronomical/Apollo Errors in Trailer ==

The trailer seems to suggest that, after it landed, Apollo 11 passed around to the dark side of the moon, or out of radio range, or something. This is, of course, nonsense, since the moon doesn't rotate with respect to Earth. If the trailer counts as canon, do we want to start an errors section for this? [[User:JW|JW]] 14:59, 13 December 2010 (EST)
:I think it is canon. That was strange. That looked like a real clip from Walter Cronkite, but maybe it was spliced together from different reports. Or maybe it was actually from before the landing when they were still in orbit. They sort of undercut the impact of the radio silence bit when mission control was still able to communicate with them. Maybe it was Sector 7 technology? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 15:19, 13 December 2010 (EST)
:: My reading of the trailer was that the astronauts WALKED to the far side of the moon once the feed was cut, explored, and then returned all within 21 minutes. Which is just as ridiculous. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 15:24, 13 December 2010 (EST)
:::You could be right. I was thrown off by one image where they were right next to the lander when they were "dark on the rock". That was probably out of sequence. Then again, being a movie trailer, the whole thing may be various images and dialog thrown together without regard to sequence. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 15:34, 13 December 2010 (EST)
::::But ''did'' they go to the dark side? I took "dark on the rock" to mean that communications were nil, that they were "in the dark", as it were. A figurative phrase, not literal. After all - you can SEE the Earth in the sky behind the spaceship! That couldn't be the dark side! - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 16:02, 13 December 2010 (EST)
:::::Cronkite says "We now have had confirmation of loss of signal from Apollo 11. Apollo 11 is on the far side of the moon". - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:07, 13 December 2010 (EST)
::::::"Apollo 11" is the name of the mission, which involved the Columbia rocketship and the Lunar module that landed. The Columbia was in lunar orbit while Buzz and Neil were on the surface of the planet. The Columbia part of Apollo 11 definitely could have been on the far side of the moon, unless it, was, like, circling the exact circumference of the moon that we can see from Earth. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:13, 13 December 2010 (EST)
:::::Mind, the actual "dark side of the moon" where the Autobot spaceship had crashed sure had a lot of friggin' light about and plenty of crisp shadows. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:09, 13 December 2010 (EST)
::::::I tried to find out if the lander bounced signals off the ''Columbia'' but my Google skills failed me. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:18, 13 December 2010 (EST)
::::::I'm pretty sure the whole "Dark of the Moon", "dark on the rock" thing is figurative, to both describe the mystery on the Moon and NASA's real reason for traveling there, rather than literally "the ''Ark'' crashed on the dark side of the moon, and the dark side of the moon is a short walk from Tranquility Base." [http://science.howstuffworks.com/lunar-landing2.htm This article] suggests that ''Columbia'' served as the communications link between ''Eagle'' and Earth. Wish I could find a better article or source, but my google-fu is not great. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 06:50, 22 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::Even taking that as figurative, the trailer shows the Earth close to the horizon, when it should be nearly directly overhead. It also appears to move between shots only a short time apart. [[User:JW|JW]] 06:55, 22 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::Yea, it doesn't look like an actual error, except the movie makers wanted the Earth in every shot (I don't blame them). But the trailer doesn't make it clear that the ''Columbia'' is a communications link or anything like that so it is confusing. If it wasn't on the far side of the Moon, I don't see how they could have kept it secret. Anyone with a big enough telescope would be able to see it, I would think. At least observatories. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:19, 22 December 2010 (EST)

== MEGATRON IN DARK OF THE MOON ==
I have been looking around the internet about Transformers 3, and everywhere says that Megatron is returning for Transformers 3 as a Mack Titan Tanker Truck, I know that Michael Bay hasen't released any news yet on any Decepticons apart from Shockwave, but if Hasbro didn't release the pictures of the Megatron tanker truck toy, how the hell did they get on the internet, even Leader Class Ironhide pictures are around. Does anyone think that megatron should be added to the Decepticons?
Thanks Plo Koon 1
:It's most likely a stolen prototype from a factory, and NO, Megatron '''will not be added until Hasbro or Michael Bay or some other official source says he's in'''. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 12:42, 27 December 2010 (EST)
:Kindly go away and never return. This is all you do, come here once a movie is in production and either add stolen info, or rant on talk pages about how we should add stolen info, and frankly I am sick of it. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 15:13, 27 December 2010 (EST)
::Why don't you go look up some more information and get adding to the page instead of waiting for Michael Bay's and Hasbro's precious information. {{unsigned|Plo Koon 1}}
:::Because we only use OFFICIAL information. If it doesn't come from Hasbro, Bay or another official source, it ISN'T information as far as we are concerned.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 16:45, 27 December 2010 (EST)
:::Yeah, that's a great idea, let's post every single thing anonymous people post on Wikipedia, that's the best way to do research. Or post about stolen toys, thieves are always the best source of info. And then we'll have to take it down, because it turns out to be wrong. Or get crap from Hasbro, because it's stolen. That'll work out great. This Wiki is interested in getting things ''right'', not ''first''. The policy and the reasons for it have been explained quite clearly. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 16:53, 27 December 2010 (EST)

== Ashton Kutcher ==

Just noticed, along with Ben Kingsley theres a spoof of the Heidi Montag audition by Ashton Kutcher. I can't put a link in though, as i have no idea how to.[[User:Burnout|Burnout]] 11:40, 20 January 2011 (EST)Burnout

Just paste it!—[[User:TOM|TOM]] 13:05, 23 January 2011 (EST)

== THE FIRST offical Images for DOTM Toys ==
Are these Officals right? http://www.asmzine.com/geekly-rewind/2011/01/28/toy-fair-uk-images-of-starscream-and-ironhide/ If so then its time to add these pics to Starscream and Ironhide Pages and make the DOTM Toyline Page well that its if anybody here considers these officals—[[User:Eagc7|Eagc7]] 28 January 2011 (EST)
:Well, the article ''claims'' the pics are from Hasbro, but we better hold off until we're sure (as well as hold off on creating any 'MechTech' articles) - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 22:41, 28 January 2011 (EST)
::ASM would be the last site in the world to lie about that. They're official, and they were delivered to most every Transformers website. I wouldn't be surprised if we got them too, but I'm not [[User:Monzo|Monzo]], so I couldn't tell you. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 22:48, 28 January 2011 (EST)
:::Yes, we received the images from Hasbro as well. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 02:23, 29 January 2011 (EST)
::::Thank You, Jesus, we finally got toy pics that aren't stolen prototypes! :D - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 14:19, 29 January 2011 (EST)

== Ratchet and Ironhide ==
i think we should add ratchet and Ironhide in the cast and character list sicne the 2 were in the trailer and the trailer like an Offical Source—[[User:Eagc7|Eagc7]]

== Laserbeak (?) ==

A bird-robot was also in the trailer.--[[User:TOM|TOM]] 19:51, 9 February 2011 (EST)
:Looked more dragon-y than bird-y to me. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 20:03, 9 February 2011 (EST)
::Either way, the wiki isn't much of a place for speculation so whoever it is is moot until we get an official toy listing or promotional render. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 20:07, 9 February 2011 (EST)
:::Indeed, Detour. It could be Laserbeak, or Buzzsaw, or something new. Could it be Laserbeak? Most likely, yes. However, like Detour said, TFwiki.net doesn't deal with "most likely". Be patient, folks; we'll find out soon enough (the movie will be out in five months and we might find out officially before then). - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 21:40, 9 February 2011 (EST)

== New guys? ==

Just a question. From the Superbowl trailer you can see that there are some "already dead" guys. I mean Barricade°(here it isnt really certain), Long Haul and (desert) Brawl. Should these be added into the list of appeared characters, since they were'''officially revealed''' via trailer? --[[Special:Contributions/194.228.147.9|194.228.147.9]] 21:12, 11 February 2011 (EST)

MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Body-type

Talk:Dead End (Animated)

Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon (film)