Talk:Transformers: The Ultimate Guide

Excluding RID stories

The info about Saban and Disney is all correct. However, I recall that convention reports from Auto Assembly, posted to ATT and Allspark, reported Furman saying he would have cut RID anyway--either because he didn't like it, or because assorted short stuff had to be pruned to allow more room for the then-upcoming Energon, or both. Can anyone clear that up?--Thylacine 2000 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bit o' digging dug this up. And I quote:

"We realized it would look bad by the time the book came out not to have an Energon section. So we had to scale back a few sections. Robots in Disguise lost its TV section which is a shame because it would have been nice just to have that for completists sake, you know we've got a TV section on pretty much everything."

Bah. - Chris McFeely 18:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That burns, but I was asking for it. --Thylacine 2000 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

2nd Edition

What, exactly, was added for the updated edition? -Derik 19:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Dreamwave section became "Dreamwave and IDW," and two double-page spreads were added - one for IDW's G1 universe, and one for their other projects. After that, without any kind of setion header to separate them out, just tacking them on at the end of the book, were a double-page on Alternators, and a double-page on Classics. - Chris McFeely 19:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Italics

Hey, can we have more italics for emphasis? It's difficult to work out what's meant to be funny/amazingly astounding and gobsmacking without italics hammering every single instance home like a pneumatic drill.

I see.... three instances of it in the entire article. - Chris McFeely 11:47, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

I found four, three of them in the "Editorial priorities" section. The single word one in the third paragraph of that section is hard to see. While 4 is still a small number, having 3 instances that close together is kind of much. --Khajidha 11:54, 21 October 2011 (EDT)

No, it's not enough. Everyone, but everyone, reading this Wiki is a complete moron totally unable to work out if something is stupid from mere text.

"This approach goes so far as to claim that the cartoon's Quintesson-creation origin for the Transformers is entirely conjectural—when talking solely about the cartoon!" is completely meaningless. I have no idea how strange and bizarre that situation is from just the words used and my own brain. "This approach goes so far as to claim that the cartoon's Quintesson-creation origin for the Transformers is entirely conjectural — when talking solely about the cartoon!" lets me know exactly what the score is.