Editing Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon (film)

<font size = 5>'''We do not care about set leaks.  Do not tell us who you saw on the set.  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.'''</font>


== Release date ==

This page claims a release date of 1 July 2011, yet one of the sources given ([http://tformers.com/transformers-/11777/news.html]) gives a release date of 4 July 2012. Which is correct? [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:25, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
: That Tformers source is from months ago, before the release date was moved up.  --[[Special:Contributions/67.149.197.71|67.149.197.71]] 12:59, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/199.90.28.195|199.90.28.195]] 15:21, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Ik hoop dat Transformers 3 is heel beter dan RotF. Of anders... [[Special:Contributions/71.254.158.28|71.254.158.28]] 22:46, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Image ==

Wikipedia has a picture of a Transformers 3 titlecard. Should it be put here too? And Megan Fox should be added to the cast list.
--[[Special:Contributions/24.69.64.254|24.69.64.254]] 22:48, 3 December 2009 (EST)
:[https://michaelbay.com/newsblog/files/a2bd79bb4c222b807e27707aaf1497e6-570.html michaelbay.com] does confirm Megan Fox, so she could be included with the reference, but I don't know where that image came from. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:56, 3 December 2009 (EST)
::Said titlecard would be from Hasbro's Investor Day presentation back on November 5. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 23:44, 3 December 2009 (EST)
:::Well, then somebody put those things here already --[[Special:Contributions/24.69.64.254|24.69.64.254]] 20:01, 7 December 2009 (EST)
:::I'm waiting...--[[Special:Contributions/142.32.208.231|142.32.208.231]] 15:06, 14 January 2010 (EST)
just take off the picture its inapropriote for the kid users {{unsigned|208.102.3.1|15:53, 12 June 2010 (EDT)}}
:The movies themselves are pretty kid-inappropriate. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 16:00, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
::a silhouette of a woman is not appropriate for kid users? They'd see worse on billboards. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 19:21, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
:::I'm not too crazy about the image, but I don't think it's too terribly bad [it's nothing compared to some of the Kiss Player stuff or the drawing of Wheelie lifting Teletraan-15's skirt; that stuff troubles me (yes, I know that's the nature of the Kiss Player beast)]. Besides, I have a feeling that the James Bond-ish pic will be removed as soon as we get some pics of the movie posters (might still see it on the Rosie article, though). - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 22:52, 12 June 2010 (EDT)
I can add a photo of promotional poster/sign/thing that was part of Hasbro's public-facing booth display at Licensing Expo 2010 (it was next to a Bumblebee Camaro and a life-sized Bumblebee replica). It's a cell phone quality photograph, but it's got Prime in.
--[[User:Wednesday|Wednesday]] 17:42, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
:You might want to just upload the picture, then ask on its Talk Page if it cuts the mustard for this wiki (that's what I did for my pics of Movie Payload; good thing I did because it didn't cut the mustard). - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 20:05, 20 June 2010 (EDT)
::[http://skitch.com/wednesday/djnmu/tf3-poster-shot-a I can do that.] I'd need to crop it down a bit. [[User:Wednesday|Wednesday]] 01:07, 21 June 2010 (EST)
:::Pretty!  We can definitely use that. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 01:26, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
::::Grainy, but purty. I know I'm just a commoner here, but I believe it can be used until a sharper image is available. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 15:14, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::Did I say 'grainy'? It looks much better when shrunk down. Good job, Walky, and thanks, Wednesday. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 16:32, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

== James Avery as Silverbot? ==
[http://unscripted.ca/episodes/show/136] --[[User:Eagc7]]

== New Actor Info ==

...is that seriously for real and not an early April Fool's prank on someone's part? Because... WTF? Who ever heard of Frances McDormand and John Malkovich doing anything in a Transformers movie? XD --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 10:54, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
:Hey now. Mrs. McDormand was in Aeon Flux, so it's not like she's above Hollywood fluff. And John Malkovich is in Jonah Hex and did things like Johnny English in the past. The Transformers film franchise attracted Hugo Weaving, Jon Voight and Robert Foxworth before them, so I don't see why other notable actors being cast would be such a shock. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 12:14, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
::Weaving and Foxworth, at least, are both actors who've done mainstream scifi franchise stuff before, so I wasn't surprised by them at all, actually. But I always thought of McDormand and Malkovich as being more artsy movie types. (Maybe I'm just still skeptical that TF3's script is going to be less horrible than TF2's.) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 12:30, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
:::Yes, well, as I pointed out, it's not ''all'' they do. McDormand was in Aeon Flux. Malkovich is in a comic book film and was in a Rowan Atkinson comedy once, just to name a few. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 12:37, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>Michael Bay signs biiiiiiiig paycheck* That's why :p --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 13:31, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::John Malkovich should totally play Dr. Arkeville.  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:41, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

== Possible Titles? ==

Has anyone else heard these rumours about the possible titles: Rise of The Primes/Unicron/Galvatron. It is unlikely to be true, but should it be put in the notes, maybe? [[User:Titanus Prime|Titanus Prime]] 14:27, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
:We do not talk about crackpot rumours on this wiki. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 14:32, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
::As soon as we get an official title, perhaps some of the rumored titles could be noted. Some, not all of them (maybe one or two likely titles and one off-the-wall one). - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 22:54, 30 March 2010 (EDT)


== Twins, Ironhide and Ratchet on TF3 ==

http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/transformers-3-on-set-pictures---a-new-look-for-ratchet-169662/

http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/first-behind-the-scenes-video-from-transformers-3-169679/ --[[User:Eagc7|Eagc7]] 0:13, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
:These are not official sources. A Humvee does not mean Ratchet WILL get a new paintjob, and a flying car does not indicate the Twins being in the film. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 00:43, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
::Well one guy sayed that skids Would Apepar and throw a car (samrt car) it he sayed that before the video apepared and the video Looks like what he syaed but like you sayed they not offical source, still --[[User:Eagc7|Eagc7]] 01:15, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
:::Bay Confirms tiwns are nto in tf3, but still the chevy spark/beat were spotted on set http://www.leftlanenews.com/chevrolet-spark-transformers-3.html--[[User:Eagc7|Eagc7]]
::::That's still not an official source. If you can find a link where Bay or someone involved with the production says they're in, then that would do. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:35, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/new-transformers-3-on-set-pictures---including-a-clear-view-of-ratchets-new-look-169900/ Isn't this enough to prove that Ratchet and Ironhide will return?--[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 04:29, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::Not really. For example, the "Ratchet" could just be a fire department truck assigned as part of a NEST unit. Or it could have been painted up after the second movie in expectation of him being used in the third, but before a decision was made not to use him. The bottom line is that those aren't officially released photos. This isn't an "OMG look what I know that you don't site" trying to beat everyone to the punch by making half-baked predictions, it is an archive of what has been officially shown. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:10, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::I don't think so. That ambulance is too similar. Hummer H2 and Autobot symbol on it. Autobot symbols are only used in Autobot alternate mode vehicles. NEST vehicles have no symbols or they have NEST logo. And what about Ironhide? Images are excatly enough to confirmation. These should be enough. There are no more proofs needed.--[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 22:46, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Doesn't matter. Those aren't OFFICIAL photos. They weren't released by Hasbro, Bay or anyone who has any control over things. They are, in effect, STOLEN intellectual property and DO NOT belong here. Whether your contentions turn out to be true or not is irrelevant. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::Not only that, Michael Bay and others are on the record that they're intentionally spreading false info. Remember how there were sightings of Barricade around the time RotF was filming? - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 14:06, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::The pics have been confirmed and both ratchet and Ironhide have official pics with them being next to optimus prime and bumblebee and Ratchet still has his ''new'' colors. {{unsigned|98.204.17.1}} 16:27 8 June 2010 (EDT) 
:::::::::Nope, we still don't count 'em unless Michael, Don, Nelson, or anyone directly affiliated/working on TF3 comes up and says so. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 16:29, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::Why is this such a hard concept. Unless any new photo/news is released by Hasbro itself or one of the authorities in charge of the film it does not go on the wiki. <Cheetor> PERIOD. <Cheetor).--[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 17:13, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
::Meh noone blevies they are i nmovie, WELL Lets wiat til lfilmngi begisn and you guys will see these pcis are REAL!!! {{unsigned|Eagc7|20:11, 10 June 2010 (EDT)}}
:::It's not a case of not believing they're in the movie. I would say most people believe it. It's a case of these pictures being leaked information without official confirmation. And we don't include that sort of info on the wiki. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 20:14, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
::::Right. This info might be "obvious", but sometimes leaked info is less obvious and open to interpretation. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and no leaked info ever is pretty clear. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 21:00, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
:I have no idea will the Twins really appear or not. But I'm sure Ratchet and Ironhide would still return. Bay has denied appearance of the Twins twice. But  as he or anyone lese part of the production says nothing to it, I've no reason to believe that they won't appear. - [[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 14:32, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
::True, but you have no official evidence that they will appear. Therefore, the wiki remains silent on their appearance or non-appearance in TF3. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:42, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
:::Looks like someone misunderstood. My point wasn't that their names should be added to the cast list.- [[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 15:44, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
::::Then what the heck WAS your point? This whole thread has been about whether or not these characters are confirmed as part of the cast of the new movie! --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:59, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

== Megan Fox ==
She was reportediy axed due to a want not to have Sam tied down with a love intrest.
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.accesshollywood.com/megan-fox-dropped-from-transformers-3
:Reuters.com states it's due to Bay and company wishing to go a different direction. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J04920100520 Bottom line, Fox is gone. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 21:32, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
::That news about Fox(cited) should probably be front and center in her own article, rather than down the bottom in trivia. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 01:11, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Shockwave Has villian and FInal Film in the franchise ==

http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-news-rumors/308221-transformers-3-movie-details-possible-spoilers-2.html
:The above link is to the second page of a forum thread about an article ABOUT the article in question.  Here's the actual article: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-06-11-Transformers11_ST_N.htm?csp=usat.me -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 21:21, 10 June 2010 (EDT)
::For those who don't feel like reading through it: no more goofball humor; twins are basically gone; new love interest for Sam; Shockwave is new villain; involves USA/USSR space race; characters who die stay dead this time. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 21:30, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

== DINOBOTS? ==

In a interview with Josh Duhamel was asked if the dinobots are going to be in TF3,and he sayed that ''I can't answer that question'' which pretty much confirms that the Dinobots are going to be in it like they did with devastator in ROTF.so can we add them? {{unsigned|98.204.17.1}} 02:28, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
:His deflection of the question  doesn't "pretty much" confirm anything. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 02:39, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
How so, he is playing coy and by now its common sense that when they do that it means its coming.Mis-information campaign. {{unsigned|98.204.17.1}} 11:27, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
:That's not official confirmation. Besides, Josh Duhamel is just an actor; for all we know, Lennox might not interact with the Dinobots. He might not even know who the Dinobots are. For now, they aren't confirmed. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 11:32, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
::"he is playing coy and by now its common sense that when they do that it means its coming.Mis-information campaign." But he could be acting that way to make you think he means the Dinobots are in it when they really aren't. That's the thing about mis-information campaigns, you never really know what it all means until the movie comes out. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:17, 13 June 2010 (EDT)
:::So in short, ''wait'' until Paramount or Bay or other reporting agencies outright says either the Dinobots are going to show up or not. Better accuracy that way. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 13:44, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

== SIDESWIPE ==

Sideswipe was spotted on set.And YES michael bay and crew members were their so can we count that as confirmination? --[[User:Primetime]] 13:49,18 June 2010 (EDT)
:Source? --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 15:52, 18 June 2010 (EDT)
Transformers 3 - Update # 12 ( Filming Locations, Mark Ryan Interview and more!) --[[User:Primetime]] 13:55,18 June 2010 (EDT)

Dear God. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 15:56, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

I Found a video with Be,, swipe and ferrari on set can i psot it? --[[User:Eagc7|Eagc7]]
:'''''NO.''''' We've been over this countless times before, for the first film and for Revenge of the Fallen and now for this: We do not post anything that has not been officially released or revealed by Hasbro, Paramount or Michael Bay. This video was shot without authorization by onlookers on set and is not official. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 02:03, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

== Disclaimer ==

Do we need using a disclaimer/notice on the page<sup>[http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Transformers_3_(film) for reference]</sup> (not only the talk page), too? Since some users (especially new comers or anons) usually edit the page without reading the talk page first. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 04:55, 19 June 2010 (EDT)
:An excellent idea. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 12:23, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

== MARK RYAN ==

Mark Ryan the previous voice for bumblebee sayed in a interview that he was going to be doing several voices for characters(possible bumblebee).Since we don't know who he will be voicing but this is OFFICIAL can we put this in the notes section or take it in consideration?You can find the interview on the site.--[[User:Primetime]] 13:36, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/
:That doesn't seem to say anything about him doing the on-screen voices, just that on-set voices (as he's always done). Bumblebee is not a guarantee, either. His only known line as Bumblebee in ROTF was cut. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 13:54, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

== Why ==

So let me get this straight...ummmm...so we can't add characters that were seen in videos or set pics.It safely confirms them so It seems strange that we cant add them it seems a little too...uptight(e.g.Ratchet,Primes G1 style trailer).Don't start bashing me and chewing me out.I just need a calm and good reason why.--[[User:Saberblade|Saberblade]] 1:20, July 15 2010 (EDT)

: We saw Barricade on set during ROTF's filming.  Guess who wasn't in the movie?  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 01:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Yes that's true.But Ratchet, sideswipe, and prime were seen during a big chase scene in chicago with a camera crew.hmmmmm.--[[User:Saberblade|Saberblade]] 01:47, 15 July 15 2010 (EDT)

:This is Micheal Bay, he probably drives to work every day in a huge car chase, firing an uzi out of his window.  Besides, just because they were being filmed doesn't mean they will actually be in the movie.  They could easily be cut later.  Plus, it is NOT an OFFICIAL SOURCE. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 01:50, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

:Correct. And we only add officially-released information. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 06:51, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::The simple reason is that this is an archive of things that "have happened" in the Transformers universes, until the movie is released it "hasn't happened yet". --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:49, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

:::And Barricade ''wasn't'' on set during ROTF's filming. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 13:18, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

"We saw Barricade on set during ROTF's filming.  Guess who wasn't in the movie?  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]]"

:actually, we did't. His altmode was seen 2 months before filming {{unsigned|24.253.95.14}}

I would have one little question: Are the call sheets trusted information?
--[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 7:41, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
:I would say 'no' because Bay could allow phony call sheets to be "leaked". Remember 'The Empire Strikes Back' which had a phony page in the script? I know it's not the same, but it's the same idea. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 09:13, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
::Never heard about that thing with 'The Empire Strikes Back'. --[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 18:34, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
:::The fake page had Vader telling Luke that Obi-Wan killed Luke's dad. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 14:24, 17 September 2010 (EDT)
:::: Obi-Wan kills Luke's Dad? D@mn it, SPOILERS, MAN! Those of us watching through the Clone Wars cartoon to get the story in order don't want to know what's coming up!  -ZacWilliam (not signed in and unable to resist.)

== Carly? ==
do this Count has offical Confirmation or not? http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?7552-Every-Little-Girl-Should-Be-Told-That-She-s-Pretty-Even-if-She-s-Not.&p=143091#post143091
:I'm so baffled by this I forgot the overblown "NO" reaction I had planned. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 13:20, 20 July 2010 (EDT)
::[http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?7566-Transformers-3-Chicago-Set-Photos I guess it's official now.] Also, his news post on Bay's site apparently reveals [https://michaelbay.com/newsblog/files/6e7f5a008e98162953abdfdfca1d32e8-612.php the name of the Ferrari Autobot]. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 13:36, 20 July 2010 (EDT)
:::Darn, I was pulling for a Bewitched-esque "No, Mikaela's always looked like this". --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:48, 20 July 2010 (EDT)
::::He edited the front page news. Now it says the Ferrari is parked on Rush Street. That's a weird screw up... --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 16:19, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Optimus' Trailer ==

There have been multiple pictures and videos of a semi truck with flames driving a trailer which heavily resembles [[Optimus]]' trailer from G1.  The truck is a different truck than the two previous films which does support his redesign.  Should we mention it?
:What were the sources of those pictures? Were they from Paramount? From mainstream news programs? From some guy hiding in the bushes and taking pictures with his cell phone? ONLY officially released information may go on this page. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:53, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

==Soundwave's Return==
Is it safe to put Soundwave on the character list since his head was seen on set?
:As the page says, repeatedly and in big letters, SET LEAKS DO NOT COUNT.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 00:49, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
::Is there any way that the Edit button could be rerouted to a page that only reads (and perhaps states audiably) "If your info is from a set leak, don't post it here!"? I know that's virtually impossible, but I (and I'm certain quite a number of those here) are frustrated that these scoop hounds don't seem to understand what "officially released information" is. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 08:24, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
:::The page itself is semi-protected, which already keeps our signal-to-noise pretty good.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 13:24, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

== Rush ==
Where's Rush? He's official, in the movie and confirmed. He should be on the character list
--[[Special:Contributions/92.238.181.196|92.238.181.196]] 13:02, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
:Source? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:17, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
::I haven't seen Geddy Lee in any of these pictures. - [[User:RolonBolon|RolonBolon]] 13:19, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

Who's Geddy Lee? And it DID say Rush was the red ferrari but they must have changed it. That does not make it wrong. You cant just put a character in and remove it when it was confirmed before. Rush seems accurate and its clear they could not miss out the "st" the first time round. Its pure logic. --[[Special:Contributions/92.238.181.196|92.238.181.196]] 13:31, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
:Now it says that the Ferrari is parked on Rush Street. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 13:31, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
::That is NOT logic. It's quite possible that a picture could have been labeled Rush (no "St") as an indication of location. This note could easily have been misinterpreted by someone who didn't know the location as a name and posted. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:34, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

You are perhaps aware of Michael Bay's admission that he likes to spread misinformation right up to the day his movies are released?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 13:38, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

OK so lots of people were mislead as well. And who is Geddy Lee and what has he got to do with the movie? --[[Special:Contributions/92.238.181.196|92.238.181.196]] 13:45, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
:Geddy Lee is the lead singer for the rock band Rush. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 13:45, 24 July 2010 (EDT)
::If Rush is in this movie, I will line up for tickets. "Closer to the heart!" -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 16:41, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

== Page edit == 

I was correcting a grammar error when the human list (and Sam Witwicky) were deleted, moving everyone else to the Decepticons. Can anyone help? -- [[User:Shackwave123|Shackwave123]] 9:33, 28 July 2010 (EDT)
:If </ref> is forgotten from a footnote, it happens. Same thing happened to me once, when I got a permission to edit this page. --[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 10:00, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

== Jolt ==

I know this isn't confirmed but look at this. [http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-movie-discussion/310669-tf3-info-regarding-jolt-confirmed-i-am-100-certain-details-inside.html [1]] But it may be helpful in the future! [[User:Erimal|Erimal]] 22:06, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
:We can't accept "insider source" info like that, nor is it truthfully helpful, and we don't care for info like that. As we said many, ''many'', '''many''' times, the '''''ONLY''''' sources of info that we'll accept is: A) directly from the press, B) directly from Michael or Steven themselves, C) directly from Nelson, Michael's webmaster. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 22:18, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
::I'm afraid Jolt won't return. Check this: http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/nelson---no-jolt-for-transformers-3-170344/ --[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 10:37, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== Nelson - Michael Bay's webmaster ==

How do we classify Nelson's comments? Like he posts official news and filmed official hype videos of the Chicago set, and does things with (presumably) Michael Bay's authorisation, but he's also been linking youtube videos by people (unofficially) filming the Chicago set on the front page of Bay's website, videos that reveal things that have not yet been "officially" revealed. So we pick and choose what he says and does based upon what we think is "official" and what is merely him drumming up hype for the movie? I ask because he revealed what the three Nascars (seen in both youtube videos, unofficial set photos AND Nelson's own official set visit video) are referred to as on set at TFW2005, but I don't know how to classify that comment. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 23:52, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:I'm inclined to go with Nelson's confirmations/denials on the boards, but videos we should hold off since we don't have context to go with it. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 00:05, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
::Yeah, I think if Nelson confirms stuff, we should take that as official word. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 04:05, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
:::http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-autobot-arrives-and-more-boom.html Nelson confirmed this new Autobot vehicle. It's a fire truck, but it's not Inferno or Hot Spot. --[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 09:11, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== The Wreckers? ==

Should we include this? ([http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/UnForgottenHero/news/?a=20901]) --[[User:HeyTFWiki|HeyTFWiki]] 03:43, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
:I am asking that very question above your edit. Also, please sign off on your comments. It's the signature-looking button, or just type four of these <nowiki>~</nowiki> --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 03:57, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
::I'd feel better about including the Wreckers story if they included a link to the forum post in question in their news story. I can't even find a link to the forums on that site! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 04:00, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
:::I found the post, unfortunately the staffer at TFW who reported it is rather inexperienced and gets overexcited, so he forgot to link to the post. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 04:06, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
::::I'm just sayin'. --[[User:HeyTFWiki|HeyTFWiki]] 04:14, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::Just clarified my above statement. I added the Wreckers thing to the page a few odd minutes ago :) --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 04:46, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::Hope I contributed a big thing :D. By the way, [[User:FFN|FFN]] are you the only one who can edit Transformers 3 --[[User:HeyTFWiki|HeyTFWiki]] 05:00, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

== Einstein Bot not "Q" ==
Nelson confirmed that the "Q" thing was not true information and commented that he didn't know where the confirmation came from. It should probably be taken down, as "Q" seems to merely be a hint as to who it is, but not a potential name. Link is [http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?7595-Ok-has-the-bot-list-got-crazy-or-what!/page3 here]. --[[User:Faded-Myth|Faded-Myth]] 21:01, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
:Thanks. I am vindicated of my belief of that NIBMRatchet guy's overeager incompetence. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 23:18, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/more-transformers-3-spoilers-and-rumors-from-detroit-170570/ Though I read this article, I can't say that Wheeljack's name should be added onto cast list of the film. Word from extra casted people from Detroit filming can't be fully trusted. Even extra casted actors can have misinformation. --[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 18:34, 14 September 2010 (EDT)
:We're not until Nelson, Bay himself, Spielberg himself, or Murphy says otherwise. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 14:39, 14 September 2010 (EDT)
::To CAJH - What part of "We do not care about set leaks. Do not tell us who you saw on the set. Unless you can 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." do you not understand? NONE of the various things you have brought here have been official information. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 18:51, 14 September 2010 (EDT)
:::I told you all that information from the previous link can't be fully trusted. Are you saying that because of that, I still shouldn't have even add it here? --[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 8:38, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
:::And besides, this discussion page is to talk about the movie, not for collecting official information. So, there's no reason I would have done anything wrong. --[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 8:41, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Wrong. This is not a chat room or a message board. These talk pages are for discussions relevant to the Wiki and its articles. Just discussing movie speculation is not for here. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 02:13, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
:::Wait a second, you think that even Nelson's words about Jolt's not returning to film and Wheelie's return can't be trusted? "NONE of the various things you have brought here have been official information." I know this page must have an official information revealed. An information that is revealed by any member of the filming crew or producers of the movie. You have no proofs that webmaster's words contain nothing but rumors. That extra casting member who told about Wheeljack or Shockwave can't be fully trusted, but anything else I've added here is not misinformation. Well, anything I've added after I read the rules of these pages.--[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 9:07, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
::::All we're saying is that you didn't need to bring it up because we know not to add Wheeljack's name unless otherwise. As for webmasters, both Nelson and Don work WITH Michael directly, so we trust them a lot more than set reports from extras or people working on the set. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 02:31, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::I wasn't saying it should be added here. But if you say that only links with information that will be necessary are permitted here, then I'll obey.--[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 10:05, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::Hey hey, I forgot one thing. That Mercedes car hasn't evem been seen in Detroit. So how could anyone know that the Wheeljack really meant that Mercedes? By no means. I can't believe I didn't write it earlier. --[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 14:49, 15 September 2010 (EDT)

==Wheelie==
Wheelie returns. Confirmed by Nelson. http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/wheelies-back-in-transformers-3-170366/
The sam elink confirms also that the Jeep seen in Chicago is not in movie as we thought. --[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 8:42, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:Who is "nelson"? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 09:32, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
::The answer is [[Talk:The Dark of the Moon (film)#Nelson_-_Michael_Bay.27s_webmaster|on this very page]]. But if you don't want to click, Nelson is Michael Bay's webmaster, and here his information is considered an official source. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 09:40, 15 September 2010 (EDT)

==Inferno as new Autobot ?==
yes  as new Autobot ::[http://skitch.com/wedenesday/djnmu/tf3-poster-shot-a I can do that.]
:I followed the link and saw this: "This object is not available! Perhaps you should contact wedenesday for more information?". Sorry, ace, but no dice. Everybody with me: "Wait for ''official'' (please denote the "'''official'''" part) news releases about the movie." In other words, if Michael Bay's website or the Associated Press didn't say it, it doesn't go here. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 22:20, 7 August 2010 (EDT)
::If you mean that firetruck Autobot, you better know this. Nelson told that it's not Inferno. You wanna watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWCkIggT8yk Don't take it as official information, but this will sound very crazy. - [[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 13:52, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

==MEGATRON==
Megatron is coming back for Transformers 3 so why does his name keep getting removed from the cast his face has being seen pinned up in Chicago. Check out the Link. http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/megatron-returns-for-transformers-3-170294/ --{{unsigned|Plo Koon 1}} 14:58, 25 August 2010

:READ THE NOTICE AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE. We do not accept ANY info that was not released by Bay, his webmaster, Hasbro, or Paramount. We take officially released info only and these pictures ARE NOT. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 15:02, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
::And there's always the chance of them changing things mid-shooting. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 15:15, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
:::Plus, may I add that it could be a stand-in for a new baddie? It's cheaper to use a leftover prop than make a new cardboard face. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy who slapped that face on the pole didn't even know who it was. It's ''likely'' Megs will be back, but wait for '''''official''''' news. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 16:49, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

== Decepticons ==

Since when were Megatron, Starscream, and Soundwave confirmed? I've seen them being added a ton of times but I can't find any official source that confirms it. Should those edits be undone or did I just miss something big? --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 11:43, 3 September 2010 (EDT)
:Those names were added by a relatively inexperienced editor, I have removed them. Unless he/she can show reliable sources for their being in the movie (not just "but OF COURSE they'll be back... It's Megatron, Starscream, and Soundwave!") they should not be listed. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:03, 3 September 2010 (EDT)
:Yeah, I thought so. I just thought that putting it on the talk page would be better than going right up and reverting it. I've noticed that a lot of my edits are just removing stuff --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 12:06, 3 September 2010 (EDT)
:I don't think that Hasbro can not put Megatron, Starscream and Soundwave in the new movie, the popularity of the transformers would drop.
::You wouldn't think that Hasbro would kill off most of the memorable G1 cast either, but they did that too.  What I'm getting at is that stranger things have happened. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 04:04, 10 November 2010 (EST)

== 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)

== 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|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 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)