Talk:Autobot

REVERT: I changed this back today based on my recollection of the comic. I will admit that I am not 100% sure on this, but close. While I usually could reference the entire Marvel series (I have the complete 80-issue series as well as the Headmaster and GI Joe crossovers and most (possibly all) of the Gen II Marvel comic archive), I am currently away from home...I am at Fort Benning preparing to possibly deploy to Iraq having been recalled to active duty. IF I am wrong, certainly change it back, but REFERENCE the issue, page and frame in this talk page, please. (That's what I would do were I the one to be changing the original were it contested.) Thanks much! VigilancePrime 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Till All Are One!Reply

Aren't the Decepticons from Cybertron too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.242.8 (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just got redirected from Terrorcon, which is a subgroup of Decepticons, not Autobots. Jayteasee (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

REVERT in order to remove this: Rodimus Prime [According to the Transformers the movie (released in 1986) where Optimus prime had his final fight at the autobot base on earth. And Rodimus was a hot head who had to figure out how it worked, but once the matrix accepted him he went from being a hot headed hotrod car to a cool modified hotrod recreation vehicle.(( then back in the series Optimus was brought back. Optimus recovered the Matrix and was returned to Optimus Prime.]

This is a bad add, and I'll tell you why, justifying each aspect I identified on the revert notice. (Note: some of this information could be the basis of a different, larger, more informational add.)

1. Inaccurate - Rodimus Prime was not a holder of the Matrix in the Marvel continuity; this is described above, and this section of comments clearly indicates it refers to the Marvel continuity. (Feel free to add an accurate lineage for other continuities!)

2. Out-of-place - This is Cartoon/Movie information in a paragraph explicitly about the comic series.

3. NPOV - "cool modified hotrod recreation vehicle"; personally, I didn't think it was cool. That's the point, some people would call it cool and some not, making it a POV statement. (For that matter, was it a recreational vehicle? It seemed like a pointed-nosed van to me...)

4. Poor grammar - Didn't capitalize "Autobot," missed the -al on "recreation vehicle" (should be recreational), double-parrentheses, Hot-rod is a hyphenated word, beginning a sentence with "And", Last sentence makes no logical sense (Optimus was returned to Optimus, is what it is saying, grammatically).

5. Incorrect/assumption of movie events - Did Hot Rod spend a lot of time "trying to figure out how [the Matrix] works"? Ultra Magnus did, but not Hot Rod as I recall.

6. etc... - Overall, this does not beling there. I would love to see something including some of this information in a Cartoon lineage, just like this one but referring to the original cartoon series! More information is better, but it must be correct, well-placed, readable, and non-repetitive. I'm all for additions (hence I'm always asking for them, like now even!), but they must fit and enhance the article. This one, in this form, didn't.

VigilancePrime 04:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Till All Are One!Reply

This page needs some major help. It doesn't make any sense at all ("Autobots were created by the Quintessons...Autobots were created by the god Primus"?). Also, it is inaccurate (or at least unspecific) regarding the succession of Primes. The succession was clearly given roundabout issue 70-ish (the final part of the Matrix Quest, when Thunderwing is taken over by the evil-induced Matrix).

I would recommend totally rewriting this article from scratch, incorporating what information IS here, but start with a good outline format. Thoughts?

VigilancePrime 06:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I took care of it. The article still needs a lot more added, but the structure is up there and it looks good. I probably made a couple mistakes in there somewhere; feel free to correct bona fide errors. Laters! VigilancePrime 11:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Till All Are One!Reply

I reorganized the Autobot names by their group affiliations, and removed many of the links. Some, like Bumblebee and Jazz, were pointing to mainstream entries, and they really shouldn’t. I’m also not convinced that every Autobot needs his own page. --Plicease 14:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did some heavy editing to the list of known G1 Autobots. Someone had had the "brilliant" idea to make the links to Headmaster Jrs and Powermasters go to the Japanese versions instead of the American ones - when none of them had any articles. I edited the links to actually go to what they said they would, adding the Japanese ones in parantheses. Was this written by some Japan-addicted fanboy geek who wasn't even born when the G1 toyline was cancelled? — JIP | Talk 19:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same user is doing it again, except this time he's leaving the American names in parantheses (the opposite way I did). Not only are the Japanese names less well-known, the way the list uses American names for every other toy makes using Japanese names for these look inconsistent. If this continues I might have to report him for vandalism. — JIP | Talk 05:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sean Black seems insistant that the list provided by many hard workign contributors should not be included. While I agree there are better uses for the page "Autobot", I disagree with his quick removal. I ask for a contributer more fluent in wikipedia page making to take the list (which can still be accessed in the page history, of course) and make a page called List of Autobot/Maximals. --Orion Minor 06:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad that you took this to the talk page. My reasoning is, Category:Autobots is easier to navigate and much less clumsy. "Hard work" is somewhat disengenous, because it was a simple list- nothing but raw data. I just think it's unnecessry, and I noticed that you noone has restored the list on Decepticon, Maximal, or Predacon. Thanks.--Sean|Black 07:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've put the list at List of Autobots. There are many entries on that list that don't appear in Category:Autobots, and furthermore the list is grouped by character type rather than a simple alphabetic listing, so there's information in this list that isn't present in the category listing. Bryan 07:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

And now there are the corresponding List of Decepticons, List of Predacons and List of Maximals too. Hopefully this arrangement will satisfy everyone, the information is retained but the root articles for those character types are no longer 90% character listing. Bryan 07:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just fine. Hopefully I can expand them to they're not just simple lists- that was my problem in the first place. Thank.--Sean|Black 07:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know that there is already a list of Autobots and list of Decepticons pages, however I would like to know if anyone would be opposed to a Generation 1 list for this page which has both Autobots and Decepticons. It is a bit more compact and you can view it here Libro0 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not exactly a 'real' logo, so can it be removed? The original Autobot logo can be moved into the fan one's place--$UIT 05:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why? The other two are miniscule in size. Perhaps if there was a good-sized version of the others. What's wrong with an adequately-sized Autobot logo that is multi-colored? To say it's not a "real" logo begs the question, "what is a 'real' logo?" If it isn't, than what is it? It's a real logo absolutely. It's a real logo that incorporates Autobots into it, which makes it even more appropriate to this particular article. And what was wrong with the size it was? That last edit to the article made no sense to me at all. VigilancePrime 13:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Let me ask you this, how many fan-created images have you seen on Wikipedia? I'm not counting screenshots or images of toys and CDs. I don't see very many. About the reduction of the image size, I recall reading something in a fair use page that fair use images should stay around 200-300 px. That was a while ago, so I don't really remember what page it was.--$UIT 00:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see the size thing, and I do recall something like that - that's why I ask to find out. As for other images of the sort, I don't (have time to) search endlessly through WikiPages for the sole purpose of seeing what other pages that are totally unrelated (or even related ones) do on their pages. There's guidelines, but even with those the consistency is largely arbitrary, hit-or-miss. I just see it as a non-issue (but I do appreciate the asking rather than straight deletion first, which many would do unilaterally). VigilancePrime 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Autobot logo s.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why this keeps getting added back I do not know. Referencing includes these forms, all of which are and have been in the article:

• "In the original U.S. cartoon line..."
• "In the Transformers Movie..."
• "...first appeared in issue #1 of Marvel's 4-issue limited series..."
• "In the animated television series..."
• "In the 2007 Transformers Movie..."
• "...in issue #14 of the Marvel comics series."

To say that "THE ARTICLE" is unsourced is, well, incorrect bordering on ignorant. Perhaps portions of it are questionable (I would validate the red eyes v. blue eyes thing), but the article in general cites sources... better than many, many other WikiArticles. VigilancePrime 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You need a dedicated References section with citations for each claim. Editors have the burden of providing proper referencing for their additions. You need to provide the exact source (website, TV program and episode, etc.) in the References section. --Madchester 15:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

List is done. Article is (constant) work-in-progress. Referenced now, and the references will grow. Thanks for providing the catalyst to improve the articles. VigilancePrime 17:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've restored the unsourced tag. Editors need to provide specific references to the media used in the article. The current References section does not specify which episodes or editions that were used in the article's creation. Simply listing an entire comic series as a reference is too ambiguous; readers should be able to find the specific issues that address the article's content.

As an example of proper citation and verifiability, see Wolverine - References or Batman - References/Footnotes. They provides comprehensive citation for the article's content by referring to the specific comic book issues or books so that any reader can verify. --Madchester 19:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

While I see the point, I think those two examples have FAR more material to source from, and thus would need more specifics. We could cite issue, page, panel and line, but that'd be a whole lot of overkill. At the same time, a lot of the old issues are being collated and republished, leading to citation conflicts (page 1 in one series may, though the very same panel, be page 47 in another). That said, though, I'll continue working on sourcing, something I am, admittedly, not as strong at compared to editing, protecting, and content-adding.

Thanks for the assistance. I hope you'll be around for helping with the sourcing as well. :-)

VigilancePrime 00:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Removed the unsourced tag once again. Since sources have been given, the continued addition of this tag is beginning to look like harassment.

--Tarantulas 10:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can't simply lump all editions of Transformers comics together and claim that all issues were used in the writing of this article. Editors need to indicate the specific issues used as a reference, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Madchester 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

In other words, as I have begun doing. I can see the points on both sides but have fallen into the Madchester camp on this. Thanks for your help in bringing that shortcoming to light. I've started adding more specific references and will continue to do so. VigilancePrime 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's worth pointing out that the Transformers 1986 Movie, 2007 Movie, the individual seasons, and the various publishers of various stories continue to use varying continuities as their 'canon'. Sourcing is sensible, honourable, necessary, and laudable, but in this sense we're going to wind up citing the scripts for each episode. One feature of an encyclopaedia is its capacity to summarise data points - perhaps we should take that view, with regard to events not under obvious alteration within series. Mark J. Shea 16:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, didn't Optimus Prime always say "Autobots, roll out!" because originally most of the autobots were automobiles? --Kjoonlee 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Which Autobot turns into a Gas Tanker truck?
• Which Autobot turns into a Cybertronian Fighter jet?
• Which Autobot turns into a USA Space Shuttle?
• Which Autobot turns into a Hybrid Car of any type?

(TougHHead 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC))Reply

respectfully OPPOSE;

i'm not a huge fan of the practice of creating mega-glommed-together pop-culture articles with everything stuff onto one page to appease the "anti-fancruft" editors, BUT even if we're going to do that, "autobots" is pretty clearly the wrong place to merge the "witwicky family" article.

sam IS NOT an "autobot", & the rest of his family isn't even closely-associated with the autobots (at least in the recent films).

if we had a meta-article for "humancharacter in the transformers universe/franchise/livwe-action-films/whatever", that would be fine; if we had one humongous-long meta-article for all the transformer characters, that would be fine as well, but this doesn't belong in "autobots".

sam may be affiliated with the autobots, he might even be an "honourary member", & lord only knows what he does @ parties when he is wasted (or in the privacy of his own bedroom-bathroom-shower); but the only thing he ever transforms into is a huge annoying-whiny-stupid-dumbass-jerk-douchebag. (i actually like shia labouef; but i mean, the way his character is written sometimes... >__<!! no wonder his hot girlfriend ditched him after the 2nd film. if i was in bumblebee's place, i'd ditch him too; & it wouldn't take me 3(+) films worth of loyal friendship to get sick of his crap... being "funny" only takes you so far. :p) </endrant>

Lx 121 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Heavy Duty (Transformers) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#Heavy Duty (Transformers) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't really seem like Autobot and Decepticon are notable by themselves. Perhaps they could be merged into Cybertronian or Transformer (fictional species)? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:949F:C33D:7BD5:A7CC (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why I have removed merge template 125.26.84.83 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of continuities missing here. 50.113.53.158 (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Guzzle (Transformers) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 26 § Guzzle (Transformers) until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply