Sorry, this has almost nothing to do with the article, but I need to know how tall Bumblebee is. Maybe if we could put Technical Facts somewhere in the article... -Enryu 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- How tall Bumblebee is? Your guess is as good as anybody's. --ItsWalky 14:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. What's the joke here? -Rotty 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
What this article needs
To polish this up to be a Featured Article, we'll need to: a) Fill out the Generation 2, Legends Anthology, Dreamwave Comics continuity, Devil's Due G.I. Joe vs. the Transformers continuity, and IDW "Hearts of Steel" continuity sections under Fiction. b) Fill out his Merchandise section (I'm on this). c) Add a nice big picture of his Pretender shell, because dude, Bumblebee as a human.
Like I said, I'm on Merchandise. Anyone else want to volunteer for one of the other six chunks? -Rotty 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- We also need, well, 90% of his cartoon appearances, still. He was in more than MTMTEp1, Transport to Oblivion, the movie, and TROOP. --ItsWalky 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Assuming we eventually want to create entries for voice actors such as Dan Gilvezan (for whom a dead link already exists here), it occurs to me that we will need to create a new category for this kind of entry. Is "Voice Actors" too specific? Any other options that might be better?--G.B. Blackrock 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Voice actors seems like a fine category. It'll probably less populated than most others, but that's okay; if you look at, say, Wikipedia, there are lots of categories with only a handful of entries. The point is that categories are so you can find articles on a certain subject. Anything more vague, and the category wouldn't be very meaningful. I can't think of anything less specific aside from a very general "Real people involved with Transformers", which, bad phrasing aside, isn't awfully useful if you're just looking for voice actors. --Suki Brits 21:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
How about putting the tech specs for each character on their pages? --JJohnson 06:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The tech-sped should (theoreticly) be on TFU, which is linked to at the end of most character bios.
IIRC, this wiki's standards say DON'T just paste in spec/bio information, we want the wiki entries to say somethign meaningful and composed about the character, not just be a regurgitating of past documentation. (Which in many cases doesnt' do the character justice anyway.)-Derik 06:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Also consider that many characters have more than one bio/tech-spec, what with the multiple toys thing. Guys like Prime ALREADY have massive entries, we don't need to make them even BIGGER with information that can be found in links already on the page. - User: M Sipher
Should we forgo doing a separate Goldbug page, incorporating his entry here, or should we handle Goldbug separately? (I think there was some discussion on this kind of thing relating to Galvatron, but can't find it at the moment)--G.B. Blackrock 22:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Goldbug's just a rename, so Goldbug (G1) will just redirect to this page, like Hoist (UT)/Smokescreen (UT). Galvatron's a different case, as his G1 incarnation, at least, could be construed as a totally separate entity from Megatron. - RolonBolon 23:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Japanese Legends Set
I'd never heard of this before. Does anyone have pictures?--G.B. Blackrock 22:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Cool! Thanks!--G.B. Blackrock 01:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this a vandal?
The text caption of bumblebee picture: Quit beating me up. It's not cool, it's not edgy. It's stupid and mean. HA HA WE HURT KID-APPEAL CHARACTER. Real firckin' mature.
Is this vandalism?
--Agus elex 2005 09:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nope. -Derik 09:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe so. Too many personal and biased quips not necessary for documentations. Deleted some.
--Eva_guy0 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- So... you unilaterally deleted most of them because you felt like it? Its not vandalism. Read the Help page and our style guides. And, most importantly, ask before making such sweeping changes. Jeeezus. --FFN 04:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"Toys" article referencing
On Derik's suggestion, I made it so the "toys" article shows up inside this one. On the one hand, I like the fact that all the info's back in one place again. On the other, though, I'm not keen on how there end up being two "External links" sections. Nor do I like the way the toy-article intro shows up like it's part of the last fiction section. But maybe there are workarounds? Or maybe that's just being picky? What do you, the viewer, think? - Jackpot 19:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with them being separated. It's expected of a wiki to break up big articles into smaller ones. And there's a certain point where it gets bandwith-unfriendly. --ItsWalky 19:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I dislike the idea of transcluding the toy article into the character article. It defeats the purpose of splitting the article in the first place. At least, what I see as the point of splitting it, which is that our long articles are inconveniently long. --Steve-o 02:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- ...and I thought the reason was that Wikimedia gave you a warning when articles ran over 35kb that there may be editing problems. I know Wikipedia-proper doesn't split article off for length alone, there has to be some underlying reasonf or breakign articles into pieces (they even apologize for arbitrarily breaking their Unicode index into multiple articles due to technical constraints.)
- The argument against it, of course, si that once you segregate information into a seperate article- it's much less likely to be accessed. Even someone who might sit down and read the entire entry on Bumblebee- wanting a precis on the full length and breadth of the character- is unlikely to click through to the toy sub-article, as it is clearly 'less important.' But the toy section includes information about incarnations of the character that received no fiction (Like an E-Hobby recolor representing his status during the Asphalt Wars) and thus the reader's knowledge of the characters length and breadth is incomplete without it. By sectioning that section off, information uptake is passively impeded. And passive impediment is a huge deal on wikis, because of the way people tend to spider aimlessly through them for learning.
- That's the issues as I see it. I honestly don't care one way or the other, I want want to make sure the reasoning behind our split-off policy is clear. If it's about the Wikimedia warning- then including makes sense. If it's about excessive page length, then there needs to be seperate standard (even if you choose to make that standard the same 35kb limit, just like the speed of gravity and light are the same.) -Derik 05:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've got a pretty fast connection, so I have no sense of bandwidth scale. I'm the last person to judge what's an appropriate article length for dial-up or whatever. I do admit, though, that toy sections are going to be naturally image-heavy, so it makes sense to split those off. The question is: when? Can anyone think of a non-arbitrary point? Because if we're going to be arbitrary, then we might as well be conveniently so by using Wiki's warning as our guide. Any other thoughts? - Jackpot 15:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is it Bumblebee's article is completely replaced by an article on wine?? --Detour 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)