Like the Energon article, I edited the "production" notes. They were riddled with opinionated bias that did not properly reflect the success or outcome of the overall product line. Lets keep opinions out of this guys. Armada wasn't a financial failure and plenty of fans, especially kids, bought the hell out of it. -Bodycount

May I cut and past Wikipedia's Armada article? X-BoB58

NO DAMN CUT AND PASTING FROM OTHER SOURCES. How many fucking times do you need to be TOLD this? --M Sipher 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You know Wikipedia encourages such out-sourcing, right? you can set it up an article to live-mirror an article on another wiki? (I think it checks for changes every 24 hours or so.) Legally speaking it's aboveboard- content on other wiki's is public domain. (you know, assumign they didn't just C&P from a non-pd source.)

Or is it just a point of policy on this wiki that other wikis may mirror our content, but everything ON HERE originates centrally? - 21:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The latter, really. Especially since this wiki would be more expansive on just about any subject of TFs than the main Wikipedia. Plus, it does discourage C&Ping from non-public-domain stuff.
Now, I KNOW that the claim of DW character models was made in an official capacity at some point, but I can't remember WHEN and by WHO. It's been what, four years now? This is driving me up the wall. --M Sipher 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You pretty much nailed it with the second part, We can legally use Wikipedia's content... but this isn't Wikipedia, and hopefully, we'd like to have articles on this wiki end up being different from ones you'd find there. Wikipedia, as much as it's wonderful, has a very different perspective on TF things than we do here; and not only does it just reflect better on our part if our content is original, but it actually provides a far more useful resource. If someone wants to look at what Wikipedia says about a given subject, then let them go to Wikipedia.

Although as just a side note, Wikipedia or this Wiki aren't public domain: they're released under GFDL, which basically sums up to "you can do whatever you want with it, so long as you let others do the same, and give credit". It's not quite just semantics, since if we wanted to copy Wikipedia content (WE DON'T), it'd have to be credited as such.--Suki Brits 21:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

...and because it means we give up any control on derived work created by someone usign TT1 content. (I wasn't disagreeing w/ the idea that everything originate on this wiki, merely seeking if this was actual policy or a lack of understanding of the possible relationships involved, legally and technicly.) - 22:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"_____ remains a toyline of controversy still to this day." should be on EVERY fucking toyline page in the wiki. --M Sipher 18:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Put a better effort on this.

Please put better effort on this because you made one beginner do all your work. That beginner is a soldier not an expert.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:20, 20 September 2007.

We are not here to work for you, or for him. We are here to work with the both of you. Obviously you feel that these episode summaries are an important thing. However, neither of you apparently feel it is worth putting much of your time or effort into researching the episodes and doing it right. So it's not "our" work any more than we're "making" the "beginner" do all the work. It's just that at this wiki we feel it is wasted effort when we have to fix the mistakes of someone who is plainly not expending the effort to put things into the proper format, use complete sentences, or even use more than one sentence in most cases. Better to leave a summary blank than to put out a halfassed article that looks like the dog's breakfast.
If these summaries are important to you, then show us that you're not lazy before asking us to invest more effort or help you out.--Rosicrucian 23:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well we can all watch the Armada Episodes on Youtube instead of getting or wasting money on DVDs.(Anti-Spammer 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Except that's, you know, illegal and whatnot.

Erm... actually...

Mr. IP Guy had a point - there's a lot of missing Mini-Cons, and the list doesn't appear to be in any order at all, alphabetical or otherwise. Is there some reason Jolt, et al, aren't on the list? -- Repowers 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuity Question (Painful as that may sound)

Is there anything that definatively suggests that the armada anime was in fact a totally diggerent continuity? Any retconning aside, the one thing I noticed on wikipedia which might be worth looking into was that apparently Armada conceived or planned as a sequal to Gen1. I don't know how true that is but looking at some of the characters (Like Red Alert aka Ratchet, and Smokescreen aka Grapp) and all the cameo appearances it seems that might have some basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black kille (talkcontribs).

Armada is in a whole new continuity. Armada is a prequel to Energon. As for Cybertron/Galaxy Force, it (Galaxy Force) was originally set in another continuity, but Cybertron is a sequel to Energon. --TX55TALK 11:33, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.