Talk:Bumblebee (G1)

Techinical Facts

Sorry, this has almost nothing to do with the article, but I need to know how tall Bumblebee is. Maybe if we could put Technical Facts somewhere in the article... -Enryu 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How tall Bumblebee is? Your guess is as good as anybody's. --ItsWalky 14:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Elven name?

I don't get it. What's the joke here? -Rotty 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What this article needs

To polish this up to be a Featured Article, we'll need to: a) Fill out the Generation 2, Legends Anthology, Dreamwave Comics continuity, Devil's Due G.I. Joe vs. the Transformers continuity, and IDW "Hearts of Steel" continuity sections under Fiction. b) Fill out his Merchandise section (I'm on this). c) Add a nice big picture of his Pretender shell, because dude, Bumblebee as a human.

Like I said, I'm on Merchandise. Anyone else want to volunteer for one of the other six chunks? -Rotty 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We also need, well, 90% of his cartoon appearances, still. He was in more than MTMTEp1, Transport to Oblivion, the movie, and TROOP. --ItsWalky 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Voice actors

Assuming we eventually want to create entries for voice actors such as Dan Gilvezan (for whom a dead link already exists here), it occurs to me that we will need to create a new category for this kind of entry. Is "Voice Actors" too specific? Any other options that might be better?--G.B. Blackrock 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Voice actors seems like a fine category. It'll probably less populated than most others, but that's okay; if you look at, say, Wikipedia, there are lots of categories with only a handful of entries. The point is that categories are so you can find articles on a certain subject. Anything more vague, and the category wouldn't be very meaningful. I can't think of anything less specific aside from a very general "Real people involved with Transformers", which, bad phrasing aside, isn't awfully useful if you're just looking for voice actors. --Suki Brits 21:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Tech Specs

How about putting the tech specs for each character on their pages? --JJohnson 06:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The tech-sped should (theoreticly) be on TFU, which is linked to at the end of most character bios.

IIRC, this wiki's standards say DON'T just paste in spec/bio information, we want the wiki entries to say somethign meaningful and composed about the character, not just be a regurgitating of past documentation. (Which in many cases doesnt' do the character justice anyway.)-Derik 06:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also consider that many characters have more than one bio/tech-spec, what with the multiple toys thing. Guys like Prime ALREADY have massive entries, we don't need to make them even BIGGER with information that can be found in links already on the page. - User: M Sipher

Goldbug

Should we forgo doing a separate Goldbug page, incorporating his entry here, or should we handle Goldbug separately? (I think there was some discussion on this kind of thing relating to Galvatron, but can't find it at the moment)--G.B. Blackrock 22:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Goldbug's just a rename, so Goldbug (G1) will just redirect to this page, like Hoist (UT)/Smokescreen (UT). Galvatron's a different case, as his G1 incarnation, at least, could be construed as a totally separate entity from Megatron. - RolonBolon 23:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

uh, I don’t want to be THAT guy, but Goldbug wasn’t originally a repaint, his toy mold was made from scratch (with Bumblebee’s mold for reference), which is why he looks slightly different from Bumblebee in G1. They retooled Goldbug’s mold to make the Throttlebots, but after g1 ended, Hasbro decided to always make Goldbug a repaint of Bumblebee, for some odd reason. - Toasted Roasted Peanuts 12:41 PM, 18 September 2019 (CDT)

The conversation you're responding to happened over 10 years ago. Escargon (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

Japanese Legends Set

I'd never heard of this before. Does anyone have pictures?--G.B. Blackrock 22:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a pic on Fred's Variants page here. It was called the "Hero Set", and was released while Victory was out.--FortMax 00:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks!--G.B. Blackrock 01:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a vandal?

The text caption of bumblebee picture: Quit beating me up. It's not cool, it's not edgy. It's stupid and mean. HA HA WE HURT KID-APPEAL CHARACTER. Real firckin' mature.

Is this vandalism?

--Agus elex 2005 09:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. -Derik 09:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe so. Too many personal and biased quips not necessary for documentations. Deleted some.

--Eva_guy0 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So... you unilaterally deleted most of them because you felt like it? Its not vandalism. Read the Help page and our style guides. And, most importantly, ask before making such sweeping changes. Jeeezus. --FFN 04:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Toys" article referencing

On Derik's suggestion, I made it so the "toys" article shows up inside this one. On the one hand, I like the fact that all the info's back in one place again. On the other, though, I'm not keen on how there end up being two "External links" sections. Nor do I like the way the toy-article intro shows up like it's part of the last fiction section. But maybe there are workarounds? Or maybe that's just being picky? What do you, the viewer, think? - Jackpot 19:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with them being separated. It's expected of a wiki to break up big articles into smaller ones. And there's a certain point where it gets bandwith-unfriendly. --ItsWalky 19:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of transcluding the toy article into the character article. It defeats the purpose of splitting the article in the first place. At least, what I see as the point of splitting it, which is that our long articles are inconveniently long. --Steve-o 02:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

...and I thought the reason was that Wikimedia gave you a warning when articles ran over 35kb that there may be editing problems. I know Wikipedia-proper doesn't split article off for length alone, there has to be some underlying reasonf or breakign articles into pieces (they even apologize for arbitrarily breaking their Unicode index into multiple articles due to technical constraints.)

The argument against it, of course, si that once you segregate information into a seperate article- it's much less likely to be accessed. Even someone who might sit down and read the entire entry on Bumblebee- wanting a precis on the full length and breadth of the character- is unlikely to click through to the toy sub-article, as it is clearly 'less important.' But the toy section includes information about incarnations of the character that received no fiction (Like an E-Hobby recolor representing his status during the Asphalt Wars) and thus the reader's knowledge of the characters length and breadth is incomplete without it. By sectioning that section off, information uptake is passively impeded. And passive impediment is a huge deal on wikis, because of the way people tend to spider aimlessly through them for learning.

That's the issues as I see it. I honestly don't care one way or the other, I want want to make sure the reasoning behind our split-off policy is clear. If it's about the Wikimedia warning- then including makes sense. If it's about excessive page length, then there needs to be seperate standard (even if you choose to make that standard the same 35kb limit, just like the speed of gravity and light are the same.) -Derik 05:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got a pretty fast connection, so I have no sense of bandwidth scale. I'm the last person to judge what's an appropriate article length for dial-up or whatever. I do admit, though, that toy sections are going to be naturally image-heavy, so it makes sense to split those off. The question is: when? Can anyone think of a non-arbitrary point? Because if we're going to be arbitrary, then we might as well be conveniently so by using Wiki's warning as our guide. Any other thoughts? - Jackpot 15:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The hell?

Why is it Bumblebee's article is completely replaced by an article on wine?? --Detour 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course as soon as I ask about it it reverts back to normal. Someone must be out to get me. ¬.¬ --Detour 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Eight Year Run?

The current version says that there was a Bumblebee toy available for seven out of Generation One's eight year run. What am I missing? I'm aware of seven years of G1, and there was some version of this character available in every one of them. Are we talking about a year in which TFs were available in non-US countries? If so, I'm not sure that eight years is enough, since Generation Two was after a good couple of years after Generation One was gone.--G.B. Blackrock 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the comic, at least, ran until 1991. --ItsWalky 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

let's see... The original toy was sold from '84 to '86, Goldbug in '87 and '88, Classic Pretender in '89, Action Master in '90, and Classic Goldbug in '91. That leaves 1992 and 1993 (the last year before Europe switched to G2), so Bumblebee was availiable 8 out of 10 years, and also had toys released in 1994 and 1995 in G2. It is possible that Classic Goldbug was still shipping in 1992. --FortMax 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC the Throttlebots were only in the '87 assortments. The '88 case year had no Bumblebee. -- Repowers 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right about '88, so far as I can tell (just consulted a 1988 catalog via this site, and see no indication of any Bumblebee-character toy. Perhaps the person who added this line meant to say "6 of 7" G1 years, thinking US-centered, which I can hardly fault him for, if true.--G.B. Blackrock 23:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Split Goldbug?

We might want to consider splitting off Goldbug now. The IDW Goldbug isn't Bumblebee, but he is still based on the G1 toy. People looking for info on IDW Goldbug could reasonably look here, at what is G1 Goldbug's page. There would also be an advantage in keeping all Goldbug related information on the same page. - Starfield 22:01, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

No. There's no point. There's a disambig note up top that says that for the Bumblebee-Goldbug, click this link to read all about that. Splitting out major chunks of Bumblebee's page over a change in bodyform and name is pointless, considering how many other characters this happens to. We don't split off Silverstreak, or Tankor, or Hardshell, or... --M Sipher 22:08, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Totally splitting out Goldbug would make a mess of the Marvel stuff where he switches back and forth.

Goldbug isn't like Galvatron, where there's a certain ammoutn of wriggle room or he's at least very separate/different from his previous incarnation... the first line of his toy-bio is "Has the mind of the Autobot Bumblebee, but new, improved body." What IDW is doing turning him into a separate is absolutely baffling. "Goldbug (IDW)." -Derik 22:10, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

OK. Makes sense. - Starfield 22:17, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Goldbug (IDW) seems like it gets the job done. Goldbug should probably redirect to there, with a disambiguation note up top. --Jimsorenson 22:20, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Actually, scratch that - we have 3 Goldbugs, so plain old 'Goldbug' should go to the disambig page. --Jimsorenson 22:27, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

UK Goldbug

The UK Goldbug is formed in a different manner than the US one, instead happening when Death's Head blows him up in Wanted Galvatron and he is fix'd by Wreck-Gar. Understandably, to prevent confusion it is not in the article (unless I missed something), but a good number of stories that feature him spring off this UK death (and are also, by extension, ignored in the article), and they should go somewhere. A separate article detailing his UK adventures perhaps? -- 218.186.17.11 (didn't know how to put in that "this unsigned edit was made by so-and-so" tags, so I did it by hand)

First, new stuff goes at the bottom. Second, sign your posts. Third, this IS mentioned in the article. There's even a dedicated section about it.--Khajidha 08:08, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

The Cane

Could it be possible that the reason that Bumblebee has a cane is that he can't walk much after Joe Gladki shot him? Ed 17:20, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Female Bumblebee?

Bumblebee (G1) is under the category of Female Transformers. Is this a mistake, or is there a female incarnation of Bumblebee (G1)?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildfire (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

German text story. On mobile right now, will link later. Escargon (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2018 (EST)

Here you go. -Foffy (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2018 (EST)

Okay, so this is far from the first time this issue has popped up... because of a tiny, obscure bit of fiction, a character page ends up in a Category that, at first glance, makes no sense... and CONTINUES to make no sense as then a reader needs to dig for that info backing up the Category inclusion and good luck with THAT on a lot of these pages.

Is there a way to add basically an anchor-link to a Category on the character's page? We have ways of altering a Category so it shows up under a specific letter (for prioritizing real people by last name, for example) or making the main page for a Category's concept show up first in the Category's "pages" list. Is there something we can add so that, if you're looking at the Female Transformers Category page, and you see "Bumblebee (G1)", and go "what the hell?", then click on it, it takes you DIRECTLY to the one section where Bumblebee is female? --M Sipher (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2018 (EST)

There's no way to do that in the software short of doing something like making a redirect called "Goldbug (G1)/That one story" and putting that in the Female Transformers category instead. --abates (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2018 (EST)