Talk:Pokeformers

I would like to cite the actual comments made by Hasbro at the convention just prior to Armada, but I can't remember now which year it was, or if it was OTFCC or BotCon at that point. I'm getting senile in my old age, I guess. Vanguard 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

BotCon 2002 was the convention where they debuted Armada's first episode, and was going to be where the first retail Armada toys would be given to the public as dinner exclusives... until they shipped them to Walmart and co. and the toys had been available at retail for a few weeks prior to the convention, as I recall. --FFN 08:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to say I think this article would be much, much better without the in-your-face sarcasm. --KilMichaelMcC 04:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I re-wrote it a bit to that effect, but apparently "merge" now means "revert." - Chris McFeely 15:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh. One out of the five paragraphs is sarcastic. That doesn't seem like a lot to me considering how asinine the term is. The joke paragraph has two gags in it, one being the "entire premise" part and the other being the "baby shit" part. If we were to eliminate one, I'd rather lose the premise hyperbole, since it's pretty rationally discussed later in the article, and is the less irritating aspect of the Pokeformers "argument" anyway. --Steve-o 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I find this revision, that was reverted, to be far less obnoxious than the article as it currently stands. As it stands now, the purpose of the sarscastic paragraph seems to be less about providing information about the term, and more about condemnation and ridicule of anyone who ever says it. --KilMichaelMcC 18:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I also thought it was a smidgin harsh. I gather it's been softened since then. -Derik 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What? Softened since when? I'm saying the article as it currently is now is excessive in its use of sarcastic ridicule, and that restoring this recently-reverted edit would be better. --KilMichaelMcC 20:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean the one that actually gives the impression that "Armada is a rip-off of Pokemon" is fact and that's the wiki's stance on the matter? I don't think it's possible for me to agree less with that. --M Sipher 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, see, now I took the use of italicization and the "Yeah" in there as an indication of sarcasm. Less in-your-face about it than the current version, but still sarcastic. If it doesn't read that way to everyone, and rather comes across as sincerely stating that Armada is just a rip-off of Pokemon, then no, I would not recommend returning to it. --KilMichaelMcC 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, is there some reason we shouldn't ridicule anybody who's ever used this term? What makes this any different than neon, trukk not munky, or ruined FOREVER? --Steve-o 04:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "neon" and "trukk not munky" articles are less snarky, more straightforward explanations of the terms, and I'm on record on the "ruined forever"'s talk page as seeing no point to its existence. --KilMichaelMcC 05:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps the fact that, as the article itself says, there actually is a certain degree of merit to the comparison between the two series, and the article as writ smacks of trying to decry any parallels in a snarky opening before grudgingly acknowledging that there are a lot of similarities, but, um, they totally used a few of them maybe one time before twenty years ago and not again until now, and, um,, it only lasted for half the series, and so, like, so it's not that serious, really, um, it doesn't count, and um? - Chris McFeely 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. If there is merit to the comparisons, and the last SEVERAL iterations of the article have admitted that there is, then it seems inappropriate to pretty directly attack the people who bring up those comparisons at all (i.e. "stodgy insecure fans who don't know what they're talking about"). I will try my hand at it....--Thylacine 2000 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is barely more than zero merit to the comparison, and as I wrote in my revision, it always seemed as if the "real" motivation for using the word was just to affix latent anti-Pokemon sentiment to Armada. It was used by people who have a knee-jerk reaction to anime and who want Transformers fiction to be written for adults. "Stodgy insecure adult fanboys" is wholly accurate. --Steve-o 04:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deliberate?

Did we ever find a record of the comments noted by User:Vanguard above, wherein Hasbro execs stated that they were deliberately targeting the Pokemon crowd? That's definitely worth noting in the article, if it's correct. -- Repowers 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation

This article contains too much misinformation about Pokémon. For example, it suggest that Pokémon is just an anime. We need to fix that, pronto.--Delibirda (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2019 (EST)

We are not a Pokemon resource. The level of detail of this article is fine. --Khajidha (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2019 (EST)

Yeah, the chances of this article being mistaken as a definitive resource for Pokémon information are pretty slim, I don't think it's that big a deal. It's not even specifically about Pokémon anyway, it's about people comparing Transformers Armada to Pokémon. Plus there's a Bulbapedia link at the bottom of the page if anyone needs it. -Foffy (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2019 (EST)

O.K--Delibirda (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2019 (EST)