Talk:Transformers (2007 franchise)

Should this be moved to Movie (franchise)? --KilMichaelMcC 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? We don't have any other article with (continuity) as a parenthetical, but do have some with (franchise). I think it should be moved, but didn't want to just up and do it without askin' first. --KilMichaelMcC 13:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is that's inconsistent use of the tag. The uses of "(franchise)" so far on this Wiki (see here) are all for small sub-lines of larger continuities. Where the idea would be for this to serve the same purpose as the Generation 1 and Robots in Disguise pages and cover the whole continuity. Following established patter it would have been just Movie but that seems to be SUCH a vague general noun to use, if you know what I mean. Thoughts anyone? --ZacWilliam 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But the Generation 1 and Robots in Disguise articles you mention both call that which they are describing a "franchise." They just have no need of (franchise) in their titles. Heck, this article itself refers to "this Movie franchise." --KilMichaelMcC 14:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. This article should be Movie (franchise) and I am about to move it.
2. The RID article without a parenthetical should be moved to RID (franchise). It is lacking a parenthetical for no clear reason, perhaps because at one time somebody thought the franchise itself was the most prominent use of the term. Even if that is the case, the rule that most prominent uses live in the parenthetical-less space has been reversed, so it should be moved anyway.
3. Generation 1 is trickier, but should probably also be moved to a franchise parenthetical.

--Steve-o 14:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with tagging G1, Rid, and this "Franchise", my only question is does it make our use of the term inconsistent? Given that we've also used it as a tag for sub-lines within a continuity family (specifically Headmasters, Energon, and Cybertron). Is any given toyline a Franchise? In which case Beast Wars and Beast Machines, Masterforce, Victory, G2, ect. all need the tag too, right? --ZacWilliam 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the Generation 1 and Robots in Disguise articles need (franchise) in their title at all. Headmasters does, because that's also a kind of toy that exists separately from the franchise. Cybertron does, because that's also a planet. Energon does, because that's also a significant thing within the fiction. Movie does, because that's too non-specific. But G1, RID, BW, BM, and pretty much evey other "franchise"? I see no need for the tag on the main article. --KilMichaelMcC 15:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that a toyline and all of the cartoons, comics, and artifacts associated with it make up a franchise. --FortMax 16:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kil, the thing is for ALL the franchises you name there are (or eventually will be) multiple entries under the same name. Ie - BW (toyline), BW (cartoon), BW (comic), heck even BW (war) since Primal specifically names them such. If, as Steve informs above, our rule is that terms with multiple appearences ALL muct now have a tag, then the main continuity/franchise article has to be under BW (franchise). Same with all the others. Except "Machine Wars". That's the only one I can think of that won't get multiple articles.--ZacWilliam 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think it is not necessary. For example, the main Beast Wars article is obviously an overview of the entire Beast Wars franchise, with links to the articles about the specific elements of it. There's just no need to stick (franchise) in it's title. I really don't see how the fact that there are also other articles about specific elements of the franchise generates such a need. Toyline and cartoon and comic articles obviously require the tags, but the main article, IMO, does not. --KilMichaelMcC 05:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the main BW Article links to the others on the top-level. -Derik 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't the character pictures updated?

Why are only the original bodies for the movie characters in the articles? The rotf bodies should be added alongside them to keep this wiki accurate.Homey 19:14, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Er- whose ROTF bodies? AFAIK, only Megatron gets an upgrade. Starscraeam doesn't change bodies, he just repaints himself. -Derik 19:18, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Bumblebee gets some new boobs, but that's also extremely minor. (And our image is of that upgrade anyway.) I don't understand the complaint. --ItsWalky 19:56, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

You don't mean accurate, you mean up to date. Right? But one thing I'd like to know is why Megatron's main image has changed several times in the span of a few months, but Prime's image has stayed the same for two years. Can I ask why?--AWT88 20:18, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Discussing this makes we want to make the Guido art of Optimus Prime the main pic again. Can we? Pretty please? I desperately yearn for some part of this movie not to be "badass." -Derik 20:14, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

I wouldn't mind. --ItsWalky 21:33, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

That's cool. - Starfield 21:39, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

*jumps up and down like a happy little girl* -Derik 21:45, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Firstly, I am saying that if we don't include the changes to characters in rotf, the wiki isn't up date, and therefore inaccurate. I am not saying the original images shouldn't be included. Also, are you sure about that picture of prime? It should be included, but I don't think it does very good as a main image. And the caption "We are here. We are waiting." not only goes terribly with the picture, but is bland.Homey 12:31, 24 June 2009 (EDT)