Talk:IDW Publishing

I'm thinking to start filling in a page for the "Infiltration" comics that have already come out. Would it be better to do the story-arc as one page, incorporating all 7 (including issue #0) issues, or would it be better to do a page per issue? If the latter, what naming convention should I go for? "Infiltration #0", "Infiltration #1", etc?--G.B. Blackrock 16:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I could see it going either way for miniseries... If you make seperate pages, I would say they should be named after the issues themselves, as with the Marvel issue pages. But I guess it makes sense, at least early on, to put a miniseries entirely on one page. If we decide we want to split it up later, we can always do it later. --Steve-o 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope you guys don't mind me plunging ahead (I only just read this discussion page). I used the naming convention from the Dreamwave pages for the individual Infiltration and Stormbringer issue pages. --IMAGinES 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviosuly humor is in the eye of the beholder, but am I the only one who thinks having "IDW WAS WRITTEN BY WHEELIE," in all-caps, stuck into the middle of a section of straightforward information isn't all that funny and shouldn't be there? --KilMichaelMcC 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That looks like Vandalism. -EricMarrs 16:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wrote it at the same time as adding all the other non-all-caps information, and you can ditch it if you want. I didn't really expect or desire it to stay. --ItsWalky 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

At my LCS I saw some "Transformers Magazine" (I believe) IDW put out, anybody going to put up info on that? I understand it's primarily just samples of their other comics, so I personally didn't bother picking it up.

We're way behind

I was going over a few articles, we're WAY behind on the IDW continuity. Max Dinos, Spotlights and AHM. If I've got time over the next few days I'll do some, but I've a lot going on and it's quite a bit of work. Just saying, it needs a lot fo updating User:Eire 18.12 July 16 2009 (UTC)

The Transformers (ongoing) article group naming?

The upcoming The Transformers series is out soon - have we decided what we are going to name its main article? Because there's a scattered amount of references on the wiki to "the upcoming ongoing comic" with no red links, and I don't know what to call it yet. "The Transformers (IDW)"? --FFN 01:32, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

The Transformers (IDW comic). Following the style of The Transformers (Marvel comic). —Interrobang 02:51, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

The series is called "Transformers: The Ongoing Mission" [?User:Eire]]14.14 Oct 17 09 (UTC)

Really, that's official? --MistaTee 22:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

While we're at it, what are we calling the Bumblebee miniseries? I put "Bumblebee (series)" as a placeholder on the pages for Zander Cannon and Chee Yang Ong. - Cattleprod 13:54, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

How about a slight mod to "Bumblebee (miniseries)"; or The Transformers: Bumblebee --MistaTee 22:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Section about IDW's editorial policies?

Should this article include a section that discusses IDW's overall editorial policies, considering that various articles on individual titles and issues already include some details?--Nevermore 08:18, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

Not one that's as long as the one that's there now. Jesus. --M Sipher 12:58, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

We need a page on "IDW editorial policies" just so we can put it in "Category: Things that don't exist." --Khajidha 13:44, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Yes please. ---Blackout- 14:03, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Sometimes less is more. In fact, the more stuff we put in this section, the less IDW looks incompetent and the more we look like autistic jackasses. Rather than an exhaustive list of every single kind of one genre of mistake, how about we provide an example or two instead? Otherwise, this reads like a hit piece, and we reserve hit pieces for would-be criminals. --ItsWalky 14:42, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Second Walky's suggestion. --Lonegamer78 15:17, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Yeah. I'd say keep the first bit about Furman and McCarthy's lack of interaction as a example of editorial in general, the Cyclonus part (the stuff before Continuum gets brought up) as a writing example, and Blurr and/or Bumblebee for art. Probably Bumblebee, since no one ever said his randomly fluctuating VW designs were an error like with Blurr. - Cattleprod 15:31, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Complete agreement, plus the usual "this is a boring morass of text" issue. --M Sipher 15:32, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

I could probably trim down the Bumblebee section a bit with a few hours of sleep behind me. (Also: Would comparison images help?)--Nevermore 15:39, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

I know what that section is about, and even I can barely follow the bulletpoint on Bumblebee. Right now, that section just looks like a lot of general b*tching. I think most of this stuff is covered better in the individual articles for the issues where these things cropped up. Placed here, in a huge block, out of context, makes it all look like a message board rant of epic proportions. I say leave it off this page entirely, and only bring it up on the pages where it would be specifically on-topic (like Blurr's design problems in Bumblebee #2). --Xaaron 16:18, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

But then again, listing it only in the individual issues' articles makes it look like "okay, there's an error, big deal". Pointing out that there's a method to some of these problems gives it a bigger context. It'd be like only listing individual Dreamwave employees' problems with the company in their individual articles without having them pile up to a bigger context in the Dreamwave article proper. (And no, I'm not comparing Dreamwave's business system with IDW's editorial problems. I'm just arguing in favor of "individual problems are isolated incidents when treaded as such, but when put in context, they make up a bigger image".) I don't know how you can think it's "out of context" when this whole section is all about context.--Nevermore 16:40, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Well, this is basically the opposite of Dreamwave. Dreamwave was one big business clusterf*ck that might seem downplayed if it were only mentioned piecemeal on individual author pages. IDW, on the other hand, is really a bunch of minor issues that only look like A BIG DEAL when you throw them all together like this.

By comparison, think about Nel Yomtov's mis-coloring and block coloring in Marvel's comic. Would you also advocate a "Coloring Problems" section on the primary page of The Transformers (Marvel comic), listing in full the various ways he mixed things up? To me, that would draw undue attention to the matter, and make it seem like a much bigger deal than it actually was, like something that genuinely handicapped the Marvel book, when it really didn't. It's much better to address the various coloring issues on the individual issue pages, where we can nitpick to our heart's content.

Yes, IDW allowed characters to be drawn with different bodies, or different sizes. This should be addressed somewhere. But it's really not. that. big. a. deal., and shouldn't be "spotlighted" in a massive dissection on the main page entry for the entire company. --Xaaron 17:04, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Marvel issues were 75¢. Just sayin'. - Starfield 20:52, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

They were also printed on the cheapest paper possible and sold 8 times as many copies. Just sayin'! --ItsWalky 21:53, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Those were also different times with a different target audience, a different market situation for comic books, a different pop-cultural status of the brand as a whole, and different methods of official communication between the editorial team and the audience. There are things older works get away with because of different standards for their times, but modern-day works can rightfully be expected to get considerably more flak for doing the same thing. Just sayin'.--Nevermore 16:54, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

The problem is, one can pretty easily create an artificial epidemic by creating a "list of problems." Imagine if we had a "Marvel editorial policies" section where we talk about how they couldn't get their colorist under control and then make a two-page list of every error Nel Yomtov ever made, and note how obviously Marvel didn't care because they didn't address any of these problems publicly. It quickly looks like a crusade on our part, especially if your admitted purpose is to create ammunition for fights. --ItsWalky 16:56, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

We do have a lengthy section about the problems of the Energon cartoon, though. And a lengthy list of problems with the Omni Productions dub.--Nevermore 17:02, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

The Energon cartoon is over and done with, which gives us a better sense of perspective versus the immediacy of some people's anger at IDW, plus it was a train wreck of several orders of magnitude over anything IDW has ever done. This IDW section feels like a vendetta. --ItsWalky 17:12, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

So does the Continuum article. And the Beast Wars Sourcebook articles.--Nevermore 17:17, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Why do you continue to ignore the idea of context? There's a huge difference between listing all of the errors present within a single issue on that single issue's page and listing all of the errors a company ever made in every single issue it published on its page. Beast Wars Sourcebook had a lot of errors. We note them on its page. Choosing to make a compilation of things that personally upset you on IDW's main article is another thing entirely. --ItsWalky 17:22, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

I trimmed down the art section as best as I could.--Nevermore 17:36, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Also trimmed down the "bad comics written by Andy Schmidt" section.--Nevermore 17:44, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

A lot of this is making my ass itch. Furman didn't communicate with McCarthy and relied on an editor? Well, y'know, I'm pretty sure Jonathan Hickman didn't have a bloody teleconference with Mark Millar when he took over Fantastic Four, either. That's sort of how comics work when a new creative team starts. Indeed, "do not feel hampered by continuity" is pretty much comic book law these days, it's not some bizarre IDW thing. And I'm not seeing how "Andy Schmidt fucked up and didn't do the research when he wrote something" is a "policy". - Chris McFeely 18:21, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Agreed. The first thing isn't remarkable and the second thing isn't about editorial policy at all. --ItsWalky 19:50, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Transformers 3 prequel comic

Sector 7 won't be a prequel comic to Transformers 3, but Foundtaion will be. Here is confirmation from IDW: http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/1009/20/idwdec.htm--CAJH 23:43, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

OK, my istake. Sector 7 is a prequel comic just like Foundation and Rising Storm are.--CAJH 11:19, 22 Otcober 2010 (EDT)

Yes, we get it. And chronologically speaking, Sector 7 WOULD be a prequel since it takes place before all three movies (except of course the Primes duking it out on Earth). --Lonegamer78 04:31, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

Marvel + IDW? [citation needed]

TFWiki.net has been showing me this ad:

http://www.projectwonderful.com/img/uploads/pics/62823-1307500972.gif

The ad says, "Simon Furman wants to continue the original Marvel Comics run of Transformers, starting with #81. IDW says #81 will happen when this petition hits 10,000 signatures."

The ad links to:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?tf81idw

Is IDW actually paying attention to this petition, or is the petition just someone's wishing? or worse, phishing?70.17.201.68 21:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

IDW is well aware of the petition and Furman's desire. As for the ad, that's been submitted by a fan in hopes of getting more signatures. Anyone can submit an ad to TFWiki's ProjectWonderful ads, so long as they "bid" the highest. --Detour 22:03, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

That was quick. Thanks, Detour. (...Still wouldn't mind seeing the source cited, though. Also, "IDW is well aware of [it]" does not necessarily mean "IDW gives a Rattrap's sass about [it]".)70.17.201.68 22:32, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

They said the 10,000 signatures thing at their panel at BotCon 2011. It's the first I'd heard it. --ItsWalky 22:40, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

They'd said it on their message boards before that too IIRC. The guy behind the petition was pushing that validation on twitter quite a bit. I honestly hope it happens but I'm not holding any breath.--76.28.76.206 22:44, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

well, IDW has said repeatedly that they WILL make the comic if the petition reeaches 10,000 signatures. Now weather they really mean that, who knows. But they keep saying it...--76.28.76.206 22:35, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Either way, it's still a looooong way to 10,000, unfortunately. --Detour 22:42, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Uh, I think 10,000 isn't as far off as everyone thinks, as IDW announced it would be printing 81 in 2012. Link: http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?t=10249Dinoshot 13:28, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

That's a four-month-old conversation you're replying to there. No one was aware at that time that IDW were going to do it anyway! --abates 15:38, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Fair point. Still, how should this be addressed in the article?Dinoshot 16:11, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

I guess it would either go under "Others" or under its own heading like Hearts of Steel. --abates 16:39, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Mars Attacks?

Is anyone going to add the Mars Attacks Transformers crossover to the site? I'm not good at making articles, and I never seen it mentioned on the site yet. Zakor1138 15:06, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Once it gets published, sure, we'll fart an article out. There's really no point in creating anything other than an article for the single issue itself, as there's no Transformers presence in any of the other issues, so there won't be any kind of over-arcing "crossover" page like we had for Infestation. - Chris McFeely 17:11, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Rik Alvarez photos

Is there another source we could use for these, that doesn't require a Tumblr account? - BT383 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2017 (EST)

Planned issues for Rom vs TF?

This page states that there are 2 issues whereas its own page says there will be five --Kmc (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

Beast Wars (2021)

Would it be listed under Beast Wars or is that section more for the 2006 IDW Beast Wars continuity? Indridcold13 (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2021 (EST)

Probably best to add "2006" to that section and add this one in separately. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2021 (EST)