Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon

First step on the lunar surface

There is a brief shot showing Neil Armstrong jumping directly from the ladder to the lunar surface. As far as I know he had to make a jump from the last rung of the ladder to the landing pad. (Landing pad is a circular plate or dish like base of the landing gear of the LEM. Landing gear can be crudely visualised as foots or legs of the LEM.) He then stayed for some moments on the landing pad. Then he gently took that historical first step on the lunar surface. So that was a step on the lunar surface and not a jump. Ravi arnie (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Come back Megan Fox, all is forgiven ...

There is an editor who doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word deprecated and insists that WP:DAILYMAIL means that everything from the Daily Mail, including film reviews must automatically and indiscriminately be deleted from every article, and he has done it to this article too.[1] Repeatedly [2] There may be other reviews that express similar sentiments about the film (not that the editor bothers to try and find a replacements anything he so casually deletes) but none expressed it so clearly and concisely right in the title of the review, which was "Come back Megan Fox, all is forgiven ...".

The problem is compounded by the fact that the Critical response section includes the generalization: "Much of the criticism towards Rosie Huntington-Whiteley compared her in an unfavorable light to Megan Fox." It is bad writing to make generalizations or any such claims of "much" or "many" and to then provide only one reference to support that claim. By deleting the Daily Mail review and leaving only the solitary reference New York Post, it makes the generalization look like it was not properly sourced, when it was. Maybe in time this misguided and unnecessary delete of a film review can be reverted.[3] Maybe there are editors willing and able to find other reviews to replace the one that was deleted, but it really shouldn't be necessary for anyone to have to waste time fixing the disruption caused by these poorly considered edits. -- 109.78.197.202 (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Archive Today copy of the review[4]. -- 109.78.197.202 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• The consensus reads: "[the Daily Mail] should [not] be used as a source in articles." That alone is a valid reason to remove the source. If you believe the Daily Mail is to be used as a source anywhere get consensus to re-add it at WP:RSN. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep reading the WP:DAILYMAIL discussion, it was never as definitive as this editor keeps making it out to be, and the claim that it should never be used is not supported by the discussion or the summary. Read just the boxed off summary, which makes several points, such as that the Daily Mail is sometimes reliable and has been reliable in the past. It also says to "remove/replace them as appropriate" some references can be replaced, and from this article two references were deleted (the first was redundant or replaceable) it was only the film review that I restored because it cannot easily be replaced. Not that this editor is even trying to replace anything. Deleting film reviews from stable articles is overkill and does not improve article. Deleting is easy, improving articles is hard.

I'm leaving this note and other notes like it[5] so that editors don't follow misguided edits with even more bad edits and make the problem worse. (Things like the generalization problem I explained already above.) -- 109.78.197.202 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Baz Bamigboye, the reviewer being excluded here has gone on to work at Deadline Hollywood[6] so perhaps it would be better to consider the credibility of the reviewer and not reject an opinion purely because of the publication it was published in. -- 109.78.196.224 (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at it again.(diff) Actively making this encyclopedia worse because he is determined to deplatform certain publications. Unwilling or unable to separate the independently notable WP:RSOPINION of film critic Lou Lumenick from the publication he happens to write for The New York Post. WP:NYPOST says "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting" but the opinion of a film critic is not factual reporting, it is clearly an opinion.

The point is that reviews of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley were so bad that Megan Fox was praised by comparison. This statement was previously supported by two references, and the editor who insists on deleting film critics despite WP:RSOPINION has made no attempt whatsoever to provide alternative sources. -- 109.77.192.31 (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

See discussion at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Which discussion? Why do you keep censoring Film critics in film articles? More importantly why do other editors think this makes a better encyclopedia? -- 109.76.192.85 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Fictional timeline

First please follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain your changes with an edit summary. Secondly a user made unexplained changes to the intro and plot section[7] changing the text from "two years" to "four years".

It is clear the films were made two years apart. I'm guessing the story is set four years apart and that at some point someone changed the plot section in error, since this sort of thing frequently happens with fictional timelines.

But can someone please verify this though? Maybe there should be an {{Explanatory footnote}} in the plot section to make this clear. -- 109.79.166.115 (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverted again.[8] If in doubt please compare to older versions of the article such as the version that was a featured article candidate. Whoever is repeating the same edit without any explanation is being disruptive. It is almost impossible to take edits in good faith when they are not explained and also repeatedly fail at basic punctuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.171.252 (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editor keeps doing it[9] to this and other articles. Not helpful at all. -- 109.79.175.98 (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This continues to be contentious[10] in the plot section and really does not need to be in the lead section either.[11] -- 109.77.198.7 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Still an issue (diff). I wish there was a better way to deal with this. -- 109.76.132.42 (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the timeframe altogether as it does appear to be contentious and is of minimal relevance in any case. Barry Wom (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems to work. I was too close to the subject and couldn't see that the timeline information could just be removed entirely. Thanks. -- 109.79.67.100 (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sequels section heading

This article contains a section labelled "Sequels". This is a generic section heading and consistent with many other Wikipedia film articles and film series. Some film articles use the section heading "Future" for similar information. It is better to keep section headings simple and generic and consist with other film articles where possible.

For no apparent reason User:Legobro99 insists that this section heading should be "Sequels and prequels". This is redundant and unnecessary, by their very definition prequels are subtype of sequel that happen to be chronologically previous to other films in the same series. LegoBro is not attempting to explain in his edit summaries why he feels this change is beneficial, and unlikely to engage in meaningful discussion about it here either as he appears to just be WP:HOUNDING me anyway, showing a lack of good faith by reverting multiple edits, not just the one he seems to disagree with.

There is no benefit to readers by having an overly specific section heading here. Frankly there is little benefit to readers in this section to doing anything more than pointing them to next film. -- 109.79.67.100 (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)