MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Transformers (Titan Magazine)

2011-08-24T10:07:26Z

Burnout: /* The curse of letters */ new section

== Publishing dates, or rather the lack of them ==

How come these Titan magazine articles lack publishing dates that our other comic issues have? Without them, I can't determine what came out first (thus determining the order of placement in fiction sections). --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 12:06, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
:Exact publication dates (well, official ones, some places get them a few days earlier) have been added for each issue except #1 (cos, er, I can't remember that one). --[[User:Charles RB|Charles RB]] 13:45, 22 May 2009 (GMT)

== ROTF ==

I can't wait to read the synopsis for these ones! If anyone bought a copy, could you post the synopsis for the first issue as soon as possible? Do they continue where the Movie 1 comics left off, or do they start a new story altogether? I need to know. Please, post synopsis soon! --[[Special:Contributions/206.253.51.107|206.253.51.107]] 14:05, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Move?==
Shouldn't this be at "Transformers Comic", like all of the individual issue articles? [[Talk:Transformers Comic issue 1#Article title|McFeely explained here]] why that is, and I see no reason why the same logic shouldn't apply to the main article as well. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 22:32, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

:Problem with that is that the title on the cover has changed twice and currently the indicia just calls it "Transformers". -[[User:Charles RB|Charles RB]] 160:06, 15 July 2009 (GMT)
::I don't understand how that affects things. The individual issue articles, through both rebrandings and right up to [[Transformers Comic issue 2.2|the latest one]], are titled "Transformers Comic". If that's what we're calling them, then it doesn't make a lick of sense to call this article something different. Now, if you think we should change the individual issue titles to something else - or vary them depending on which rebranding they're under - then the case for this article does become murkier. But as long as we're sticking with a catch-all term, it should apply here too. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 16:21, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
:::I don't want the article to be at "Transformers Comic" because it's so damn unhelpfully ''generic''.
:::(That's not a vote against per-se, because I'm in favor of standards... but I ''really'' feel like such a move would make the article harder to use-- at least insofar that it would become harder to find.)
:::We dump on 'Transformers' in many article titles because it's clutter... only retaining it when there's no better title to use. Since ''this'' is one of those times, I feel like there's almost a correlary imperative like... "if a [subject]'s only identifying name is ''Transformers'' and the resulting title, such as 'Transformers Card Game' could ''reasonably'' be expected to refer to more than one product (there are other TF card games, even if one is 'The Transformers Collectible Card Game') some form of clear disambiguation should be mandatory."
:::...but I dont' want to make that argument, because it does nothing but open a can of worms. '''Instead''' I'm going to go with Charles's argument; The comic has changes its title multiple times. The Dreamwave [[Armada (Dreamwave comic)|Armada]] and [[Energon (comic)|Energon]] comics have multiple articles to reflect the name change. If we think this is more ''minor'' than that, and all the different incarnations of the Titan comic should be covered by a single article then that article's title should not reflect any ''single'' title the Titan comic has had, but instead become a subject article, like "Dreamwave Unicron Trilogy comic" if we covered both series in one article.
:::I don't want us to become ''victims'' of the fact that there's 8-bazillion things just called "Transformers." And the proposed move seems to do that. If there's a consistent-with-our-policies way of doing something different, I'd strongly suggest pursuing that. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:07, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
::::All I'm saying is, it's confusing that [[Transformers (Titan Magazine)]] and [[Transformers Comic issue 1]] are referring to the same series. Both "Transformers (Titan Magazine)" and "Transformers Comic" are arbitrary choices on our part from several different options between the covers and indicia. There's nothing that makes one more applicable to the series-article and the other to the issue-articles. In suggesting that "Transformers Comic" win out, I was just going with the path of least resistance - moving one article instead of over two dozen. Whatever rationale is used, I don't care, just as long as we settle on SOMETHING. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 17:30, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::I would not be opposed to retitling the individual issues if we settle on a better naming convention. I agree that it's awkward to have them where they are, given that the comic keeps changing its name. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:03, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
::::::If I had to make my own call on the matter, here's how I would do it: If a comic changes title but continues to advance in issue-numbers, then I say it's still a single series, and there should be one page for it. The title of the page should probably be the most recent title of the book, in the same way that we consider ''Universe featuring the Wreckers'' to be the "real" title of that series. Each individual issue, if it didn't have a story-title, would be titled with whatever its cover says. So indeed there would be a disconnect between some issues and the main series article, but at least it would be sensical, as opposed to the completely arbitrary disconnect we have here.
::::::So that means that in the case of this page, it would be called "Universe (2008 comic)", and it would not include any of the "Revenge of the Fallen" issues. Those would be on a new page called "Revenge of the Fallen (comic)". The individual issue-pages would be "Transformers (Titan) issue 1", all the way up to #21. Then they would be "Universe (2008 comic) issue 22" and onward until the ROTF ones, which would be a separate series anyway.
::::::(And yes, this would also mean combining the DW ''Armada'' and ''Energon'' series-pages into one page. I'm in favor of that.)
::::::One more thing - Charles might know this: When did the indicia stop referring to the series as "''Transformers Comic''" in favor of just "''Transformers''"? If it was at the Universe/ROTF break, then that would be handy - all of the pre-ROTF issues and their series-page could be "Transformers Comic", while all the ROTF issues and series pages would be "Revenge of the Fallen (comic)".
::::::If I had to make the call.
::::::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 21:18, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::::I think keeping everything under a simple "Transformers (Titan Magazines)" is going to be easier and cleaner than splitting into two volumes and altering the title with each name change, but YMMV.
:::::::I've checked and the indicia never called it "Transformers Comic". The editorial at the front called it "Transformers Comic" in issues 1 and 2, as McFeely says (I thought the indicia had as well at some point but no). The indicia constantly calls it "Transformers" only. - [[User:Charles RB|Charles RB]] 21:53, 18 July 2009 (GMT)
::::::::Certainly I don't have enough stake in these particular articles to try to impose all of my ideas on them. You're the one actually putting the elbow grease into them, so hey, whatever works for you. The one point that I'll continue to stand by is that if the individual articles are going to be consistently named with a common title, then that title should carry through here (or vice-versa). It's nonsensical and confusing (it genuinely confused me) to have a disconnect when the choices are so arbitrary to begin with. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 13:08, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

==Transformers Adventures==

What is the source of the info about a third volume - "Titan produces digest-sized collections of the UK strips under the title Transformers Adventures; two have come out with a third upcoming"? I recently asked about this on Furman's blog - http://simonfurman.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/sdcc-09-1/#comments - but he said he didn't know about Titan's plans. Also, Vol.1 reprinted #1-6 and Vol.2 #7-13. Should that go on this page? [[User:J'mie|J'mie]] 07:47, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

:There's a third advertised on Amazon. It still hasn't come out though...
:I'll add the stuff to the page. [[User: Charles RB|Charles RB]] 16:35, 25 July 2009 (GMT)

== Name starting at issue 2.1 ==

At least on the cover, the name of the magazine appears to have changed to "Transformers Revenge of the Fallen." Is this accurate? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 00:17, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

== Character info boxes ==

I noticed these articles don't have a box listing all of the named (or otherwise) characters appearing in them. We should probably get around to that. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 01:20, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

== The curse of letters ==

I'd like to point out that, so far, all the letters page answerers except sideswipe got killed off in Dark Of The Moon (including Megatron, so how the hell is he answering letters?)[[User:Burnout|Burnout]] 06:07, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Sentinel Prime (ROTF)

2011-07-02T21:39:54Z

Burnout:

Do you have a quote of Sentinel being specifically mentioned in the comic? I don't remember anything past the uni scene. While the original thirteen were killed by the Fallen in the comic and novel, there's nothing to confirm Sentinel wasn't a descendant like Optimus. Again, correct me if I'm wrong[[User:Eire]] 20.14 Oct 12 09 (UTC)
:"See, if you break down the elemental components of energon and assume a constant decay rate then extrapolate for each of the fourteen galactic convergences it took '''''Sentinel Prime's''''' expedition to get an echo you end up with a formula for inter-dimensional energy that mass and light alone can't '''''possibly''''' explain." - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 17:28, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
::Erm ok, thanks for the quote Starfield, anyway, Jetfire explained in the adaptations that The Fallen returned to Cybertron, after the battle with the first generation for Earth, slaughtering all the Primes except for the child hidden from him (Optimus). Unless Sentinel is revealed to be alive in TF3, which is unlikely considering this was not mentioned in the final edit of ROTF, then he probably died because of The Fallen. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 17:57, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Starfield, I actually wanted the answer Alientraveller gave. I'm well aware of Sentinel's existence in the movieverse, but I just couldn't remember a reference in issue 3 [[User:Eire]]

::"the fourteen galactic convergences it took '''the''' Sentinel Prime expedition to"
::"The", and no possessive.
::Look, '''I''' think it's the leader of the 7/12/13 too... but the phrasing in the movie itself (which I just checked on, er... Youtube) '''isn't''' clear-cut enough to even say for certain that Sentinel Prime is an individual-- let alone that he's one of the 12! The phrasing is just... ambiguous, and the timeline is a godawful mess thanks to ROTF's 17,000 years retcon, and questions of whether the 13 in the movie are '''the''' 13 or not. (They're not. I mean... the movie fucking cut them down to 7. But until something official comes through to make it certain... it's just a collosal brain-ache that makes logical inference almost impossible.)
::Now... I ''thought'' that something... (a book or video game?) mentioned movieverse Sentinel Prime in a clearer light, but if so... it was around the time we were swamped with new stuff, and the ref never got documented. Does this sound familiar to anyone else?
::I have checked the following sources, and they do '''not''' mention Sentinel Prime in a helpful manner:
::*ROTF novelization (quote same as movie, with an added bit at the end. Nothing from Jetfire's history lesson or the Infinite White.)
::*The Movie Universe guidebook. No mention of Sentinel Prime by name
::-[[User:Derik|Derik]] 23:59, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
:::The first time I heard Sentinel mentioned was in the movie. And the Sentinel Prime expedition. You'd be forgiven for presuming, and really there's no reason not too, it was named after the Prime in charge. And given the massively different origin of the Primes in the movie compared to the adaptations, it seems again logical that he's simple a predecessor of Optimus, not one of the original Primes. There is some assumptions being made, however they are logical assumptions. IF you're concerned, throw in a note at the bottom. Personally, I think it's a bit of an assumption that Sentinel in the comics is one of the original Primes, but I can see why AT put it the way he did [[User:Eire]] 13.35 Oct 13 09 (UTC)

== Fannon ==

I'm '''really''' uncomfortable witht he ammoutn of assumptions and made-up shit on this page. The cited blog post ''does'' establish Sentinel Prime to be a character-- but it doesn't ''in any way'' say he's Prime and Megatron's father, or that he's one of the original 12. And the storylink citing his death... Sentinel Prime's name isn't even MENTIONED in that issue! -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:37, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
:I'm just going to risk my life here and say "Is this Shattered Glass Derik speaking?" --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:51, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Move to (DOTM)? ==

Should we move this to "Sentinel Prime (DOTM)"? We moved "Soundwave (Movie)" to [[Soundwave (ROTF)]], ignoring when he was mentioned by Starscream in the UK magazine for the first film. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 15:03, 11 February 2011 (EST)
:An offhand mention in the freaking UK mag letters page is not exactly the same thing as Sentinel's existence being firmly established in the Revenge of the Fallen film. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 15:18, 11 February 2011 (EST)
::The Lord Of All Cheeses thirds the motion.
::- [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 10:25 PM, 15 February 2011 A.D.
:::Thirds what motion? We have one person on each side so far. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 01:42, 16 February 2011 (EST)
::::I'm saying this page ought to be moved. '''Alientraveler''' proposed the idea. '''Detour''' seems to be saying this guy shouldn't be in ROTF (unless I misinterpreted; he seems to say "a mention in a UK comic's letters page doesn't count as Sentinel's existence in ROTF"). '''My vote''' makes a three.
::::- [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 9:48 PM, February 2011 A.D.
:::::Detour is pointing out that Sentinel Prime is mentioned in the ''Revenge of the Fallen'' film, which counts as establishing SP's existence, so ROTF is correct. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:59, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::::::http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/Semysane/Response%20Images/748411.gif -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 04:59, 18 February 2011 (EST)
:::::::Sam mentions Sentinel Prime during his meltdown in the classroom in ''[[Revenge of the Fallen (film)|Revenge of the Fallen]]'', thus establishing Sentinel Prime exists as a character. As the first mention of Sentinel Prime is in ''Revenge of the Fallen'', his article is as "Sentinel Prime (ROTF)". Clearer? :) --[[User:Abates|abates]] 05:13, 18 February 2011 (EST)
::::::::Oh, I got it. I just never get enough chances to use that image. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 05:33, 18 February 2011 (EST)

== Sentinel~Vector? ==

Is it my imagination, or does Sentinel Prime bear a striking resemblence to Vector Prime?--[[User:Cydra|Cydra]] 01:48, 13 February 2011 (EST)
:Definitely your imagination. [[User:Karhukjnsi|Karhukjnsi]] 05:49, 18 February 2011 (EST)
::I see the resemblance mostly in those enormous shoulders. Beyond that, not really much of a resemblance. --[[User:Kaymac192|Kaymac192]] 11:35, 3 March 2011 (EST)
::: Indeed. He more resembles RID Prime. [[Special:Contributions/96.247.85.33|96.247.85.33]] 00:16, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

== Sentinel Prime in Empire magazine. ==

How should we mention [http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-news-rumors/375241-sentinel-optimus-uk-empire-cover.html these images?] --[[User:Kaymac192|Kaymac192]] 11:42, 3 March 2011 (EST)

== Caption ==

Live-action Hyper Goldfish? WTF is that?--[[User:TOM|TOM]] 13:51, 6 March 2011 (EST)
:The Japanese version of Optimus Prime (RID) had a voice chip that sounded to some people as if it were saying "Hyper Goldfish Golfball". The Leader class Sentinel Prime looks something like the RID Prime, and is from a live action movie. Thus, Live-action Hyper Goldfish. I would recommend a crosslink in the caption, but some people hate those with an unreasoning passion. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:00, 6 March 2011 (EST)

== Alpha Trion caption ==

How does it not work anymore?--[[User:Primo|Primo]] 13:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:Personally, I don't see why it ever worked in the first place. --[[Special:Contributions/81.164.209.246|81.164.209.246]] 13:24, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
::It never did, no. It was never an Alpha Trion homage redeco. It was just heavily-airbrushed enough to look purpleish. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:25, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I think that was the joke (such as it was) that there's "already" an Alpha Trion redeco due to the purple nature of the image, which, at the time, was the only stock photo of that toy. Anyway, I replaced the photo because the colours were pretty damn wrong. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 13:35, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Two different Speed Stars Bumbebee two packs ==

Hey, why are there two slightly different Bumblebee Speed Stars two packs. [http://www.hasbro.com/transformers/en_US/shop/details.cfm?R=69D4438D-5056-900B-1000-7E6F6EA5EAE9:en_US Item 29596] and [http://www.hasbro.com/transformers/en_US/shop/details.cfm?R=6EDC5079-5056-900B-10F1-6428DAB7F112:en_US item 29588]? The package art is even slightly different. Both should be listed, right? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 14:41, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Three sayings on the Leader toy? ==

Er... there must be something I'm doing wrong, then.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 02:05, 18 May 2011 (EDT)
:You have to put a MechTach weapon in his shoulder peg hole to hear them.--[[User:Primo|Primo]] 16:12, 19 May 2011 (EDT)
::Just tried it out and it's apparently true. Still, I'm pretty sure the article should mention that little feature and how to ''enable'' it... [[Special:Contributions/58.69.69.194|58.69.69.194]] 21:43, 21 May 2011 (EDT)

== Minor design flaw? ==

On mine, it looks like the left heel pieces don't seem to line up correctly, and as such don't snap together right. Is anyone else having this issue? -[[User:King Starscream|King Starscream]] 11:07, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

== We need to make this a featured. ==

Any way we could come together and finish his fiction sections and whatnot? I think it's important this page is our featured this coming month, like The Fallen was for the last movie. I'm pretty okay with just promoting it anyway once July starts, even if there's some stuff left out. It just needs a spotlight. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 02:05, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Spoilers on Sentinel. ==

Okay, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I have seen spoilers, and there is one question I have that could seriously spoil for anyone, so be warned: Should we consider Sentinel a Decepticon? -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 15:58, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
: No. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
::My memory may be fuzzy, but doesn't he call himself a Decepticon once they take over Chicago? Or does he keep calling himself an Autobot?[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 17:13, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Sentinel makes a point of slapping Megatron around when he tries talking like they're all a happy family, so...no.[[User:ShinRa Actual|ShinRa Actual]] 18:05, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
::::I've noticed this news actually spread on this site already (Shockwave's page pretty much blows it). Should we remove instances that we see so not to spoil the film just yet [[User:Riddlerj|Riddlerj]] 10:11, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

== Caption request ==

When we start adding screenshots from the movie, can one of them use "This is the one where Spock goes crazy."?[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 13:14, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
:"Goes nuts." And once the movie's been seen by more people, maybe in a week or two, that quote is TOTALLY going up at the top of the DOTM film article, same place as last movie's "I will have my revenge!" It sums up the movie pretty much the best. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:17, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

== Jerk ==

Could we mention (perhaps in a caption) that as a turncoat, this actully makes him a bigger jerk than his Animated counterpart, which I thought was impossible.[[User:Burnout|Burnout]] 17:39, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

User:Burnout

2011-04-23T11:29:10Z

Burnout: New page: Transformers dark of the moon coming up! To quote Bumblebee "I'm so excited!"

Transformers dark of the moon coming up! To quote Bumblebee "I'm so excited!"

Talk:Galvatron (G1)

2011-02-27T11:56:12Z

Burnout:

[[Image:GalvatronTVMag1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|He has a weird tendency to aim at his own troops.]]

What you have cavalierly retiled 'Galvatron IV' (Rhythms of Darkness) was explicitly called Galvatron 2 in Alignment, like as an actual title or somejunk. (It's confusing.) So a specific number has meaning in reference to this character, and his numbering should not be reassigned for aesthetic reasons- doing so removes meaning.

Also, we have at least 1 explicit letters page reference (Backed up, IIRC by the Titan Compilation recap pages) saying he's the same incarnation of the character as the one from Perchance to Dream.

The 2nd Future-Galvie is difficult. I don't object toc alling him III, but since the numbers kinda have meaning for the other two (and reflect a need to label two distinct individuals who visited the past, as opposed to a 3rd individual who didn't, and instead exists in a timeline where no such disambuigation was needed) I think it'd be better to say "Also, a new Galvatron showed up int he future after Straxus died." -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
: Yeah. Who numbered all these Galvatrons? The Rhythms of Darkness one is specifically Galvatron II. None of the others officially got any numbers. (Galvatron II gets his own page, as well.) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I requested an expert come in and rework what I wrote. I was mostly going by what Cliffy wrote at the Archive ( http://www.tfarchive.com/comics/faq/#2q ). The extent of *my* actual knowledge of Marvel Comics UK Galvatron goes no further than Target: 2006 and Perchance to Dream.--[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== IDW Galvatron ==

So, not spoiling too much be IDW Galvatron has been confirmed to not only not be Megatron, but to not even have had anything to do with Megatron, ever. I knida lean toward giving him his own page. Thoughts?--[[User:71.235.136.203|71.235.136.203]] 10:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
: I'm going to say no. Galvatron II gets his own page because he's explicitly a separate entity from a world which has already had a Galvatron. I see him in the same light as I see TM2 Dinobot. IDW Galvatron may be a different concept, but he's still just a new continuity's take on the character, and that's nothing new. [[User:Chip|Chip]] 15:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::I don't know. He's got his own background, and though originally he only was in his Spotlight, he's about to get a ''lot'' more screentime. Giving him his own page would mean we could give the new character design a good central place and separate his unique backstory from his fiction appearances.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I say we keep him here for reasons that Chip stated. He '''is''' an incarnation of his G1 self, even if he doesn't evolve from Megatron. --[[User:MistaTee|MistaTee]] 20:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

===Splitting?===
Now we got [[Goldbug (IDW)]] now, I'd like to propose splitting the IDW section into "Galvatron (IDW)". --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 00:33, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
:IDW Goldbug needed a separate page because G1 Goldbug was simply an extension of G1 Bumblebee, and so he was part of G1 Bumblebee's page. Galvatron is already a separate page from Megatron. Lots of characters have contradictory backstories within a single page. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 00:31, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
::Concur. I don't see much point in splitting off another G1 Galvatron. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 01:52, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
:::I am also against split. Something else to consider. Toy Galvatron is already a different character than Megatron. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 09:24, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

== Marvel Comics x2? ==
Why is there a second Marvel Comics section after Japanese continuity? That says absolutely nothing about what happened in the comics, but is instead dilled with badly-written speculation about the events of the 'toon version of the movie? Doesn't that sort of thing belong on Wikipedia, not here? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

== Scramble City (toys) OVA (Japan-only)==

(Note: this OVA is not canon to anything in the known universe.)

WHAT??!??
HAVE EVEN SEEN THIS? Galvatron is now where in the Scramble City OVA which should be canon no problem. What I think you are talking about are the live action TOY ADVERTISMENTS that were done in conjunction of Scramble City(I guess the ad's were a continuation of Scramble City, but all it did was re tell the story)What is described in this article does happen in these toy comercials. GALVATRON IS NO WHERE IN SCRAMBLE CITY, HE IS IN THE TOY COMMERCIALS! --Unknown IP Address

:I think you're confused, Mr. Unknown IP Address. The section is titled "Scramble City (toys)" which is the name used to seperate the animated Scramble City OVA from the stop-motion OVA. Footage from the stop-motion OVA was used for toy commercials, but never the less, the footage originated in said OVA, which ISN'T canon to the animated series, though the animated Scramble City most certainly is. So, again, there is a difference between "Scramble City" and "Scramble City (toys)" as noted in the section covering Galvatron's appearance in that OVA's fiction. Scramble City (toys) was a full-length stop-motion OVA which combined stock footage from the television series with a completely new voice track, making it more than just a standard toy commercial as it is about half an hour long and tells a story. It might do you wonders to actually ''watch'' the complete Scramble City (toys) OVA before going off the handle, just so you have some semblance of a clue as to what you're talking about. You can read a detailed synopsis of the OVA [http://www.tfarchive.com/cartoons/guide.php?s=scramblecity#toys here]. Also, TALKING IN ALL CAPS!1!1! doesn't make you appear more intelligent, particularly when you're wrong. --[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's just a toy commercial and isn't cannon then why should it be included in the Galvatron article? Oh and the CAPS was to indicate irritation that some NERD decided to include an actual half hour toy commercial(I say actual because, as we all know, Transformers was nothing more than a half-hour toy commercial in the guise of "cartoon"). I realize that it apparently had some sort of story, but come on it's a toy commercial...also, why the personal stab? Did you write this article? Because I wasn't trying to attack anyone, but you were, why? Are you still bitter that they killed off Optimus Prime?
PS Don't go locking yourself in your bedroom. --Unkown IP Address Guy

:It is canon (not "cannon", there's a difference) with itself and would qualify as a [[micro-continuity]] just like the various Big Looker storybooks and other ridiculous oddities that fill Generation 1. The fact that segments of it are stop-motion (while just as much is animated) does not mean it should be disqualified from inclusion. The fact that it marks the first appearance of Galvatron in Japan is most certainly notable. ''Also'', if you spent a little time perusing this wiki you might notice that we actually ''do'' include the story tidbits [[Nightbeat (G1)|revealed]] [[Horrorcon|in]] [[Gutcruncher (G1)|television]] [[Stratotronic Jet|commercials]]. The fact that the Scramble City (toys) OVA was actually ''sold in stores'' and lasted a half hour makes it even ''more'' notable than television commercials. ''Imagine that''. Furthermore, combining clips of various episodes to make new stories is something done routinely in Japanese Transformer animation, once again making the Scramble City (toys) OVA more than just a "half hour toy commercial" (though I feel like laughing every time I hear that).
The fact of the matter is, at this wiki we strive to be as comprehensive as possible, including all different continuities, large or small, whether they're canon with any primary fiction or not. That includes [[Action Master|toy packaging blurbs]], [[Rad (G1)|television commercials]], [[Decoy|pack-in comics]] and, yes, the bizarre stop-motion OVA such as "Scramble City (toys)". --[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 05:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow.

In terms of the Marvel Continuities, should any mention be made of the characters appearances in Marvel's Transformers the Movie Adaption? Even though they are out of the normal continuity of the comics, a lot of the characters like Hot Rod, Galavtron, and Blurr were introduced there before anywhere else in the Marvel comics and the Marvel Universe profiles even make mention of this. Or would that really just confuse things? -[[User:RiddlerJ|RiddlerJ]] October 19 2007

==Weapon name==
What was Galvatron's weapon called again? A chemical-electric laser cannon? -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
:In the 1989 Annual, Megatron's and Galvatron's weapons were called "Fusion cannon" and "particle accelerator cannon" but I forget which one was which. [[User:Takeshi357|Takeshi357]] 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::In his bio and/or TFU profile, Galv's cannon is said to be a "laser that shoots chemically-induced, direct current electricity." --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:::It was a "particle cannon" on the cover of UK #118, and the Wreckers called it a "particle accelerator cannon" in #172. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

::::IIRC it's also been called a proton rocket cannon and a proton cannon. A UK letters page suggested the tech specs are the most accurate of the five names/descriptions. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

==Universe==

Anyone know WHY galvatron's altmode is changed from a cannon/gun to a tank?--[[User:Grand-majin|Grand-majin]] 18:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
: Because Hasbro hates you. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
: That's something i know for a long time.--[[User:Grand-majin|Grand-majin]] 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::Because Hasbro has said that part of the motivation behind the Universe line is to pick up "realistic modern vehicle modes" when the Movie line ends. Galvatron's old form doesn't fit that criteria, but a tank does. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Considering that tank mode is hardly what I consider "realistic", I see no reason for the change...[[User:Takeshi357|Takeshi357]] 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::::That is why we make fun of this reasoning in the toy's description.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::His cannon-on-treads mode was reasonably close to a tank anyway, and this design allows them to pull off a legitimate transformation and the grey-to-purple color swap--both of which are firsts for this character and his homages. If anything, I was mostly surprised they used a vehicle not from the U.S., E.U., or Russia. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-news-rumors/223379-takaratomy-staff-interview-generations-2009-vol-1-translation.html It's interesting that this article states that they abandoned the tripple changing aspect because shockwave from the animated line was made at the same time.--[[User:Sunjumper|Sunjumper]] 16:05, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

==The Making of the Transformers Visual Universe: Galvatron, Rodimus Prime==
:The link is dead for over a year.--[[User:Sunjumper|Sunjumper]] 12:15, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

== The number of Marvel Galvatrons ==

We say there are "between 2 and 5 different Galvatrons" but mention only four - is the fifth one assuming Aspects of Evil: Unicron features a different Galvatron to AoE: Galvatron (as the TF Archive FAQ does) or are we into the mess of whether there's yet more timeline divergences around the movie that could make the Target: 2006 Galvatron either a standalone or multiple predecessor? (My head hurts on all this.) [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 15:01, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

== IDW split proposal take2 ==

Ok now I do think we should split the idw Galvatron from this page due to his origin being completely different and that he has a completely different personality from all the other incarnation he had. I think he should ether go to "Galvatron (idw)" or "Galvatron (Dead Universe)" or something similar. I think he would benefit from that move simply for the aforementioned difference in personality and origin and his goals. [[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 17:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:IDW seems like the less unwieldy parenthetical, and it's consistent with Goldbug.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 17:06, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::Agreed. Also, "Galvatron (G1)" would then be too broad a title for this article, so it should change to something like "Galvatron (Megatron)". - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 17:14, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:The reason I was okay with IDW Galvatron staying on Galvatron (G1) is because it was already a separate page from Megatron. If Galvatron was fully integrated into Megatron's page the way Goldbug was with Bumblebee's, than a new page would be justified.
:I don't see why separate origins make any difference. Do we need separate pages for the Dinobots who were built on Earth and the ones who were from Cybertron? - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 17:24, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::It's less about "origin" and more about "identity." If the fact that a character used to be a different character is germane enough to who they are now, then an incarnation where that's not the case could be considered to have a sufficiently different identity to merit his own page. At least, that's how I read this proposal. For example, nobody has brought up the fact that different incarnations of [[Cyclonus (G1)]] show evidence of originating from different characters, because Cyclonus's personality seems totally unaffected by his previous "self." Goldbug is a lot more clear-cut in that regard, and Galvatron is kind of a fuzzy middle.
::My personal standard is the "intro test": If you find that writing a universal intro requires an excessive amount of qualifiers or paring-down to suit all the incarnations in an article, then maybe not all of those incarnations belong. But that's entirely my personal take.
::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 17:31, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:::I will enjoy splitting Grimlock into (Marvel) and (Sunbow), then. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:40, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:::FWIW, that would require splitting virtually all of the 1987 Headmaster character articles. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 17:39, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What about tech spec bio micro-continuity Galvatron? That guy is much closer to IDW Galvatron than cartoon/Marvel Galvatron. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 17:59, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::: Two words. "Cartoon Constructicons". --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 13:35, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I know I kinda brought this one up in Goldbug, but upon consideration, I don't think it needs to be split. Goldbug needed his own article because he was a separate character from Bumblebee. But IDW Galvatron doesn't need one because he's a separate character from Megatron, as are most/all of the others, to a greater/lesser degree. We need an article on Galvatron the character, who exists separate from Megatron. And we've got one. While IDW Galvatron is a completely separate being from his Megatron, the principle is essentially the same as Marvel Galvatron being separate because he existed alongside his Megatron

And Galvatron (Megatron) is pretty ridiculous.

[[User:Eire]] 22.59 Aug 11 09 (UTC)
:Here's my take on the matter: either we split all the IDW characters to their own separate articles, or we keep them all in their G1 articles. Picking and choosing which characters are the same and which are different is incredibly arbitrary and doesn't adhere at all to wiki standards, not to mention being confusing as all hell. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] 18:08, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::Being selective is ''not'' the same as being arbitrary. There ''are'' standards and tests we can apply here. Goldbug basically just Bumblebee with some cosmetic changes. Take away the Bumblebee aspect, and you've removed ''everything'' which defines the character. Galvatron is less clear-cut, but he's one of a rare handful of borderline cases. Most IDW guys follow their previous incarnations far more neatly, however. Trying to apply a one-size-fits-all standard to such a diverse set of circumstances? Now ''that'' is arbitrary. It's saying, "Well, we're going to make our rules neat and simple, no matter how messy and complex the reality we're trying to describe is!" [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 11:23, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::I'm in complete agreement with Rob here. If we've learned ''anything at all'' since this wiki went up, it's that this franchise can and will throw up ''something'' that bucks "standards", and that it is impossible to come up with an actual broad applies-to-everything rule that doesn't overcomplicate things horribly. I mean... if "different origins" is ''really'' supposed to be a standard, then are we going to have '''three''' different pages for the G1 cartoon Constructicons alone? It's not just saying "Well, we're going to make our rules neat and simple, no matter how messy and complex the reality we're trying to describe is!", it's saying "Well, we're going to make our rules neat and simple, no matter how messy and complex it's going to make finding a goddamn thing on this wiki!". Sometimes, duct tape and chewing gum ''is'' the optimum fix for a problem, no renovating the house required. We're dealing with a problem that seriously only affects like %0.1 of our character database ''if that''. Baby, bathwather, etc. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 13:34, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

:Galvatron's multiplicity is too well-established for us to start splitting this page up now. We already include Time Wars Galv and Aspects Of Evil Galv--and the latter is specifically the ''opposite'' of the former, but they're both the same character. We never see where Worlds Collide's bizarrely Unicron-asskissing Galv's came from, so maybe he's no more Megatron than IDW's was, or only as much as Henkei's was (basically just Megatron consciously cosplaying). We split off [[Galvatron II]] because [[Unicron|word of God]] comes out and says "you're not the REAL Galvatron, Mister Future Doppelganger Dude."
:''Fun fact: in that same conversation, Unicron says the Unicron that GalvII had known "was a Unicron I may or may not become," and Hook/Line/Sinker even say it was a "different Unicron." Doesn't that kinda... not mesh with the whole [[multiversal singularity]] thing? (No, there will never be an end to the shit-stirring).''--[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:00, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::I'd love to understand why Galvatron II is split off. He's just another alternate-universe version of G1 Galvatron, isn't he? Why is his identity more distinct that any other G1 Galvatron? -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 10:58, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::Because he has a toy of his own? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 11:04, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::::But, he's still a G1 Galvatron, isn't he? So you mean, if we got a toy of IDW Galvaron, he'd get his own page? What about the new Masterpiece Grimlock who's colored like Marvel Grimlock and comes with the crown? He's different than cartoon Grimlock. Should he get his own page? -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 11:18, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:Galvatron II has a different name and was a stranger in the universe his fiction continuity came from. [[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 11:34, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::But the universe where Galvatron II came from is still part of the G1 family, isn't it? This article covers G1 Galvatrons from the cartoon, several Marvel comic versions, as well as [[Worlds Collide]] Galvatron. And IDW Galvatron. I don't understand why Galvatron II is an exception. He was created in the same way as comic and cartoon Galvatron, and he's from a G1 universe. He has more in common with most G1 Galvatrons than IDW Galvy, but IDW Galvy is here, and GII isn't. I'm sorry if I'm causing trouble, I just don't get it. -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 12:26, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::Galvatron II has an '''official designation''', and he's the second Galvatron to appear within a single continuity, which is the entire reason he ''got'' a distint title in the first place. (Originally from Alignment... IIRC; The name stemmed from a need for characters in-universe to distinguish which Galvatron they were talking about.)
:::I'd just like to underline... this is '''not''' an either/or decision. We're not really discussing "Split to Galvatron (IDW) or keep as is." The article as-is is a mess. I'd also like to point out that [[Galvatron II]], despite originating in the Marvel comics, appears in '''at least two continuities''', which is the fundamental problem I have with a publisher-specific (IDW) designation. So if ''any'' other non-Megatron Galvatron shows up, '''he''' needs to get his own article too? Does Galvatron from "[[Worlds Collide]]" need to be "Galvatron (Dreamwave)"? We don't know ''he'' was ever Megatron. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:53, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::::To build on Derik's point: If we didn't have an ''in-universe sequence of in-universe characters COMING OUT AND SAYING "this dude isn't the real Galvatron",'' Galvatron II would be treated as the real Galvatron and would be on this page. But we do have that, so he isn't here.
::::As for all the other multiples of Galvatron.... the trouble is, he really may be the exception to any rule we could come up with, just because it IS so established over so many years that there are a lot of him from a lot of different dimensions. Between "Rhythms," "Time Wars," and "Aspects of Evil" (and TWICE in that one!), the multiverse concept was demonstrated with Galvatron about 13 years before it was really applied to the rest of TF storytelling as a whole. I do not believe it would be possible--much less worthwhile--to retroactively give the CSI treatment to every little Galvatron variant and try to figure out if he was the "real" one. We cut out the one that the in-story characters say isn't the real Galvatron; but there's not much consistent ground on which to try to cut out anyone else. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 13:12, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::Looking at it the thing with Galvatron is insane, in the Marvel comics we have a whole army and then there is that DW one, who I personally don't believe is Galvatron as we know him from the 80's, he's too calm and not insane. So if we do decide to split this article I propose following designations:

*Galvatron (G1) for the cartoon and first comic version
*Galvatron (reset) for the one that is mentioned by the dyeing Rodimus Prime
*Galvatron (Earthforce) for the earthforce one
*Galvatron (WC) for the Worlds Collide one
*Galvatron (DU) for the idw one
Fuck I can see us dividing by zero. Why can't they just stick to one thing?[[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 13:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

:Now, I don't understand the idea of Galvatron II not being the real Galvatron. He's the real Galvatron from the universe he comes from, isn't he? And the universe he's from is a G1 universe, isn't it? Just because the stories he takes part in are mostly set in a different G1 universe doesn't mean Galvatron II isn't '''a''' valid G1 Galvatron. -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 19:24, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:Galvatron II is a second Galvatron in the same continuity. He's valid, but he is an independent Galvatron from the first Galvatron. [[User:Eire]] 00.52 Aug 13 09 (UTC)
::I think I understand the reason for the separate articles, but it's still a bit silly. The whole thing revolves around the two Galvatrons in Marvel comics. Both Marvel Galvatrons are G1 Galvatrons from separate G1 continuities, just like cartoon Galvatron (US, Japan), Henkei Galvatron, etc are each from separate G1 continuities, but we don't separate those articles. It seems weird that the two or three Galvatrons who have a very similar origin (Galvatrons I & II and cartoon) are separated, but dissimilar Galvatrons (like IDW) are on this page. I understand that he has been pointed out as a separate Galvatron in-fiction, but he's still a '''G1''' Galvatron. To shut myself up, I'll point out that, technically, Gavatron II ''is'' a part of the [[Galvatron (G1)]] article, but is pulled out of the article in a similar fashion as [[Optimus Prime (G1)/toys]]. Sort of a "Galvatron (G1)/II" situation. -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 21:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::Bingo. Your last point is ''exactly'' what the Galvatron II article is. The reason it exists, as far as I can tell, is because NOT having it would mean basically telling two different "life stories" in the same series summary. Yeah, there are multiple Galvies in the Marvel summary anyway, and the variation between them can be argued, but from the moment Galvy II was "born" (in 2005, not 2006 like the other comic Galvies), he was on a separate track. The fact that he has a canonically different designator that we can use for a title is icing on that cake. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 21:51, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I think Dead Metals proposed splits would be the best idea. We're establishing that a bunch of characters from G1 say that Galv II is not the original means that he gets a separate page,yet being created before Megatron seems to establish him as the same person as the orig, which is not possible unless he goes from G to M and then back to G.[[User:Burnout|Burnout]] 06:56, 27 February 2011 (EST)Burnout
==New Disambig==
I find it a rather awkward read. Also, "Aspects of Evil" had ANOTHER Galvatron from an alternate future of the Marvel universe. I tend to think the original disambig was good enough. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 09:39, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
:While I can see the argument that a disambig3.5 fits the situation better, I have to agree that the phrasing actually used is not very good. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 10:32, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::"Aspects of Evil" Galvatron is almost certainly just [[Galvatron II]]. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 10:44, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Alternate timeline thereof, but yes. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 10:45, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::::I'm not sure how much of an "alternate of Galvatron II" you can become while still being the character, since the whole point of his existence is that he ''is'' an alternate within specific conditions. Galvatron II exists insofar as he helped Unicron destroy Cybertron circa 1986; in AoE, Cybertron still exists around 2300 and only ''then'' does Unicron try to eat it. I'm not sure what else we could use to tell II apart from I, and it seems just as likely that this is actually just a "III". And, uh, apparently he's also Straxus. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:09, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

== It looks like Galvatron was a G2 Autobot ==

Judging by [[:Image:G2merch-Galvatronwatch.jpg|his watch package]], Galvatron was a G2 Autobot. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 00:15, 18 December 2010 (EST)

Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon (film)

2011-01-20T16:40:05Z

Burnout: /* Ashton Kutcher */ new section

'''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

Talk:December 19

2011-01-11T19:45:22Z

Burnout: /* ??? */

== Device label Blaster ==

This page says this was released this year, Blaster's page says it was canceled. Which is correct? [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:49, 20 December 2009 (EST)
::Checking around the net, it seems that it has been canceled. I'll remove it from here. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:00, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== ??? ==

Why do people keep taking down my page entry (2010: Transformers comes twelfth on Johnathon Ross' top 100 toys[[User:Burnout|Burnout]] 06:21, 9 January 2011 (EST)Burnout
:Exactly why does the opinion of Random Dude #426,290 matter? Your contribution doesn't seem to have any notability.--[[User:Khajidha]]

:Because if we mentioned included every time a random TV show referenced Transformers, it would need a whole other wiki to hold the notes. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 13:40, 9 January 2011 (EST)

Ok, thanks for that abates.Just thought it waxs releavent it came twelfth but , idk, the wiki only let me make a user 2 days ago.

Talk:December 19

2011-01-09T11:21:59Z

Burnout:

Talk:December 19

2011-01-09T11:21:26Z

Burnout: /* ??? */ new section