Talk:Star Wars Transformers

WP:DIRECTORY, WP:IINFO

I am removing the exhaustive list of specific toy models, and consolidating third-party commentary to its own section. This article does not need the indiscriminate product list-cruft that pervades other Transformers-related articles. --EEMIV (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a list of toy models, there are sections on factions with the names of the characters in the line. Not a list, but if you want me to work it more into a paragraph structure, I can try to get something. Please just stop massive deletions. Mathewignash (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The content remains uncited product catalog cruft. Find an appropriate external link and plop it at the end, perhaps. --EEMIV (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuexe me, but those descriptions were based on the Wikipedia articles on those factions. Are the articles on them wrong? Mathewignash (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with EEMIV here. As I understand it the plot synopsis of a work of fiction only rquires the primary source to be written. If I was writing the plot synopsis to a book, I could just read the book and write the synopsis. The toy line will need to have a non-primary source to prove notability, but the plot synopsis of it's story WOULD NOT require a a non-primary source. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"...in the last 10 years"

This is a relative phrase that lacks concreteness in the absence of concrete dates. Can someone figure out when the cited issue of this magazine came out and update the line to give actual years? --EEMIV (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This issue was from 2007, so from mid 1997 to mid 2007, I'd guess. It was Toyfare's 10th anniversary issue, so this was supposed to be the list of top toys made during the existence of the magazine. Mathewignash (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bluelinks?

Please explain your term bluelinks? How does this replace the section you deleted? Mathewignash (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary rehash

I have removed the following content yet again

Story, factions and characters

The characters in the Star Wars Transformers line are broken down into several factions from the Star Wars saga. These factions include the bounty hunters, Galactic Empire, Galactic Republic, Rebel Alliance and Separatist.

The bounty hunters are an assortment of paid gunmen, hired by the other factions, but loyal to none. These include Boba Fett, his father Jango Fett and the independent Cad Bane.

The Galactic Empire is one of the main factions in the fictional universe of Star Wars. It is a galaxy-spanning regime established by the series' lead villain, Emperor Palpatine.

The Galactic Republic is the name of the interplanetary State used in the fictional Star Wars universe prior to the establishment of the Galactic Empire. The Galactic Empire employs an army of clones commanded by the Jedi Knights. Among these toys is Mace Windu who turns into a Jedi Starfighter.

The Alliance to Restore the Republic (commonly known as the Rebel Alliance, and, informally, as the Rebellion) is an interstellar faction of the fictional universe of Star Wars. Formed to oppose and overthrow the Galactic Empire, the Rebel Alliance is the protagonist faction of the original trilogy.

The main enemies of the Galactic Republic are the Separatists. Among their leaders is General Grevious, who commands a droid army.

for several reasons

• It is incredibly poorly written, with one- or two-sentence paragraphs of marginal English value.
• The content regurgitates broad plot points not specific to their implementation in this toy line, and more appropriately covered in the bluelinked articles.
• Most of the "paragraphs" merely explain what each faction is in the franchise. Two of them list members of the factions -- I suppose we're supposed to infer there are Star Wars Transformers for these characters? Without a clear connection to the product line, this is just a poor rehash of content covered elsewhere.

The article currently encapsulates and bluelinks to the factions. Consensus is that a product list is not necessary here (or in most other Transfoermers related places, it is clear). Can anyone offer a substantial reason why this poor collection of blurbs is appropriate here? --EEMIV (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for not being insulting while trying to make your point there EEMIV. As for reasons, it's not a toy list, it's relivant information to the article. You have been op top of this article like you own it ever since you nominated it for deletion and failed. You seem hell-bent on removing all information from it, and i don't see why. I wrote up some additional information for the article, cited it properly, and you still CONSTANTLY revert for no good reason. Mathewignash (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It's quite poorly and inconsistently cited. The material remains a complete rehash of content covered elsewhere. It does not, for example, articule how the toy line develops or expands on the story for these factions and/or characters. Sorry, but it merely adds no value to the article. Best to keep it ditched. --EEMIV (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, you've repeated that several times before. I have my own ideas, I was hoping to entertain someone else for an opinion on than the person who wanted the article deleted outright - since I know you feel it should go entirely. Mathewignash (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, now that it's written in coherent and succinct English without a wasteful list of products, it's quite fine. If there's additional material on third-party coverage and response to the toys, all the better. Why take it a step backward? Anyway, a third opinion is thisaway. --EEMIV (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The recent addition, bulkier and still poorly written, is merely an expansion of the above unencyclopedic material: a rehash of plot summary with no articulation of the connection between the factions and the toy line, and a paragraph-ified product list. The single piece of third-party commentary -- the rating of the Millennium Falcon toy -- is already covered in the lede. --EEMIV (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: I think my larger issue here with the article is that all the references are primary sources. I'm concerned with all these links to the online Hasbro store; it's not advertising directly, but it certainly looks a little weird. The current version does come off as a catalog of sorts, even if it's in prose form. If there's no secondary coverage of the toys then that's probably an indication that they shouldn't be included. EEMIV's version, though brief, both fulfills notability criteria and takes care of the sourcing issues. Now having said that, I would definitely consider other versions of the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to work with having better references from non-primary sources, if the section could be kept. Mathewignash (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the editor who creates content. Without reliable sources to back up the text, we shouldn't really have the text in the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the 3O above, I've again removed the content -- but, I've set up a userspace sandbox at User:Mathewignash/Star Wars Transformers additional information for any interested editor to offer an appropriate balance of product description cited to appropriate independent, secondary sources. --EEMIV (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I've reinserted the information that you keep deleting, as you have no legitimate reason to delete it. I have deleted the primary sources, as was suggested by the third opinion, and started adding some more third party sources. Mathewignash (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Your secondary sources include siebertron.com and theforce.net (fan sites that aren't reliable sources) and what appears to be a passing reference to a toy giveaway (hardly significant coverage). Furthermore, you fail to address the third-opinion commenter's observation that, regardless of the sourcing, this entire section reads essentially as a product catalog -- a definite no-no at Wikipedia. Please explain. I am going to move your most-recent version to the userspace sandbox I created and will begin working on it. We ask for another third-opinion for transfer back to this article once it has appropriate sourcing and isn't just a glorified product catalog (see numerous times above and on your talk page for what this thing needs -- critical commentary and review, development history, etc.) Please add User:Mathewignash/Star Wars Transformers additional information to your watchlist and work with me there. --EEMIV (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've still got an eye on this page, and I agree that those edits - while better than the previous round - were still problematic. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read my posts you will see I said I removed the PRIMARY sources, which are the ones from Hasbro's web site. I then added third party sources, which if you look were from Dayton Daily News and other newspapers. I didn't touch the fan sites yet, however we have established in the Transformers project that BWTF is a legitimate review site by a notable author. The ones from seibertron and theforce.net are old and probably should be deleted. I'll do that. Mathewignash (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mathew, you continue to restore citations to inappropriate fan sources. Additionally, you have yet to address the observation from two editors that your content persists in being little more than a product catalog. You also haven't expressed an interest in the suggested "middle ground" of working in user space to collaborate on an appropriate expansion of this topic's coverage. Please address these concerns. --EEMIV (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I continue to improve the page and add more third party citations, while you offer nothing to improve the page except unhelpeful massive deletions. 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewignash (talk • contribs)

Mathew, please address the following problems with the content you are adding/restoring:

• The material reads like a product listing - regardless of whether the sources are from the manufacturer or a third-party site, the actual content is almost overwhelmingly a simple product list.
• Missing encyclopedic content - Only two assertions -- rankings of a single toy -- offer real-world, third-party commentary/reaction to the topic.

Note that these two concerns have less to do with citations -- which you've made some significant progress toward moving in the right direction -- and more to do with content, which has remained largely unchanged (even through the formatting overhaul you offered a few weeks ago).

I am happy to wait another week or so to see how this concerns can be addressed. However, changing the formatting yet again won't cut it; merely changing the sources without focusing the content won't cut it. This is now the third or fourth post where I've offered to work collaboratively with you to improve this content; you've at least twice posted to this page without even the suggestions of your willingness to do this. I appreciate that you feel put upon and irritated by multiple editors' essentially shitting on and adamantly seeking to delete Transformers-related material -- I've deliberately stayed out of most of those AfDs because I'd like to work with you to work with material that genuinely belongs. However, it's hard to maintain that interest when you don't even acknowledge the offer. --EEMIV (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "toy list" as it's not a list, and it doesn't mention EVERY toy. I would agree to perhaps some standards as to which characters get mentioned. I'd say any character who is in Star Wars Transformers and who has an individual Wikipedia article should get mentioned. I'd have to assume such characters are notable by Wikipedia standards. I'd also say any character who I can site a SPECIFIC third party article which talks about them could be included. Anything else gets removed as trivial. Would you agree to this? Mathewignash (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your thinking is a bit backward: it would be appropriate to mention a Star Wars Transformer product in the merchandising section of e.g. General Grievous or Anakin Skywalker, but a toy based on a character having a Wikipedia article doesn't seem an appropriate threshold to drop a mention here. Again, the criterion for inclusion here should be whether the toy itself -- not the originating source material -- has been the subject of third-party commentary. As such, and considering there's been no substantive improvement to this article in many weeks, my plan is within the next few days to again remove the pseudo-toylist/plot summary regurgitation and instead replace it with a nascent Commentary or Reaction section -- I think there are a pair of third-party observations about specific toys that can start off such a section. --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Plot summary & product list replaced with Critical reaction section

Per WP:MOS, WP:TRIVIA, several sections of WP:NOT, and the third opinion above, I have replaced the product list with a nascent section of third-party commentary on and reaction to the product line and individual products. I encourage taking specific product info. -- e.g. the Palpatine shuttle, Anakin Y-wing, etc. -- in the article history and merging it to the relevant Merchandise section of the characters' and vehicles' articles. --EEMIV (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I still agree with EEMIV on this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So no list of the toys should exist at all on wikipedia, in full or partial, even if cited by a reliable source? Mathewignash (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Luke Skywalker as Optimus Prime and Darth Vader as Megatron

Just imagine this: Luke Skywalker as the Autobot Optimus Prime and Darth Vader as the Decepticon Megatron. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

List of characters and vehicles

There should be a list of which characters and vehicles that have been used, so we know who is what, like this:

• Darth Maul as Sith Infiltrator
• General Grievous as Tsmeu-6 Personal Wheel Bike or Belbullab-22 starfighter
• Battle Droid as AAT(with both trade federation and CIS color schemes, one of each)
• Captain Rex as AT-TE or Freeco Bike
• Commander Cody as Clone Turbo Tank
• Clone pilots as V-19 Torrent starfighter, Low Altitude Assault Transport/infantry, V-wing starfighter, Y-wing or ARC 170 starfighter
• Shock trooper as V-wing starfighter
• Magnaguard as MagnaGuard Starfighter
• Clone ARC pilots as ARC 170 starfighter or Low ALtitude Assault Transport/infantry
• Han Solo and Chewbacca as Millennium Falcon(both combine together)
• Luke Skywalker as X-wing or T-47 airspeeder
• Kit Fisto, Plo Koon, Saesee Tiin and Ahsoka Tano each as Delta-7 Aethersprite
• Mace Windu as Eta-2 Actis-class interceptor
• Yoda as Nu-class attack shuttle
• Obi-Wan Kenobi as Delta-7 Aethersprite or Eta-2 Actis-class interceptor
• Anakin Skywalker as Delta-7 Aethersprite, Eta-2 Actis-class interceptor, Y-wing, the Twilight or Republic star destroyer
• TIE pilot as TIE bomber
• Palpatine as Imperial shuttle(with two kinds of color schemes)
• both AT-AT driver and imperial trooper as AT-AT
• Darth Vader as Eta-2 Actis-class interceptor, TIE Advanced, Death Star or Imperial Star Destroyer
• both Boba Fett and Jango Fett as Slave 1
• Cad Bane as Xanadu Blood
• Clone gunner as TX-130s fighter tank

Also I wonder if any Star Wars Rebels characters will be included, I kind of hope so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.22.193 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, really, there shouldn't; Wikipedia generally does include indiscriminate product lists. --EEMIV (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

New Japanese Star Wars Transformers from TakaraTOMY

Hey, everyone. In case you haven’t heard, TakaraTOMY is bringing back Star Wars Transformers for the Japanese market! The first figure, Darth Vader to TIE Advanced X1, will be released this March.

Should we add this information to this article?

MatthewRC (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC) MatthewRC (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)