Talk:Transformers (toy line)

Move proposals

Can we move this to something like Transformers (toyline) - at the basic level the Transformers were a toyline first and foremost with the comic and cartoon emerging from them. User:Timrollpickering

I think the determining factor should be the predominant influence, not so much the genesis. User:Mallignamius

IMHO: Some of this should be moved to Transformers Universes (e.g. Decepticons, Autobots, History) assuming it isn't already covered there. This article should cover the toyline, not the fiction associated whit it, given the existance of the Universes article.

k

I agree. The Toyline article should be devoted to the toys, not the cartoon or anything else. Any story included in the bio/tech specs or anything on the packaging is fair game, but otherwise, save it for one of the other dozen TF aticles. Crockalley 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough that there's a short backstory section (the toys do, after all, have a backstory), but why does it focus on the G1 Cartoon? Surely it should be amended to reflect the basic backstory of the various continuities or be non-specific. Bouncelot 23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Transformers (2007)

I thought there's already a wiki page for Transformers (2007) movie ? Do we really need to include it in an article about the toyline? --Destron Commander 03:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest changing that section to: "The live-action Transformers movie has been set to open in the U.S. on July 4, 2007 and is being produced by DreamWorks Pictures with collaboration from Hasbro and Takara. It is expected that the release of a new movie will involve the production and release of associated toys from Takara and Hasbro."

The rest is irrelevant to the Toyline article. Crockalley 14:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"however there have also been reports that no movie line will be produced." Where in Primus's name did that piece of crap come from? All reports from anything resembling reliable sources stated that there would be a movie line. Not only that, but pictures of toy prototypes matching some of the movie designs have surfaced. --Andrusi 17:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I DEMAND THE WORLD SHOWS JESUS WAS REALLY A TRANSFORMER!

Don't be silly. Jesus was a zombie. Optimus Sledge 10:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Transportation Former"?

The opening of the article says that "Transformer" stands for "Transportation Former". I checked Google and found no evidence of this. I am quite sure Transformers are called that because they transform. Does anyone actually have evidece of "Transportation Former", or should it be removed?--24.224.184.234 23:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris McFeely removed it on August 13.

Logo design

Does any one know who design the original Autobot and Decepticon head logos? --24.249.108.133 22:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 08:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have a link to the walther p-38 page. Herojoe1000 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Metal parts

The earliest Transformers did not have entirely metal bodies. The toys simply each had a few metal parts on them. Optimus Prime, for instance, had a metal upper chest and metal toes, but beyond that he and his trailer were made entirely out of plastic (except for things like screws). Fully die-cast metal Transformers, or even mostly die-cast metal Transformers, are merely a myth created and perpetuated by a combination of nostalgial, purism, and hazy memories. --Andrusi 20:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed?

Someone's put a "citation needed" tag in the following line: The taglines "More Than Meets the Eye"[citation needed] and "Robots in Disguise" reflect this ability

Is the citation needed because someone questions whether "More Than Meets the Eye" is a tagline (which is easily demonstrable, at least for G1), or because someone questions whether or not that tagline reflects that toys' ability to change?--G.B. Blackrock 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Transformatrix and other cheap knockoffs

Should we mention the transformatirx toys and other (cheap spin offs of the transformers toys into the article) since i found this while searching on the internet. Luna191 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There are waaaaaay too many Transformers knockoffs to list in this article, and just mentioning that they exist would be redundant, as any toy line significant enough to have a Wikipedia article will be bootlegged. --Andrusi 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So?, its better to mention them than not mentioning them at all. Luna191 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

what about the cheap pull back and go rip offs that i recieved for x-mas in the 80's?-anonymous

I've heard about those. I think they are actually a hasbro product. Herojoe1000 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Transformatrix? A Hasbro product? Not by a long shot. JIP | Talk 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo

If there's going to be a single photo illustrating the toyline, could it at least be one of a Transformer transformed completely? Jetfire, whatever his other shortcomings, has longer legs than that. Optimus Sledge 00:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MP04MasterpieceConvoy.jpg What about the pic of MP Convoy in the WikiProject header? Without a doubt more iconic than Classics Jetfire, and transformed correctly to boot. Marcus-e 09:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Optimus Sledge 14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the image link to a blue link, since that image is non-free, and thus not allowed in Talk: space. --Phirazo 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And now the MP-04 photo is no more. A replacement is sorely needed. What about this one on flickr? It's CC-BY 2.0 and fits the bill quite nicely. --Marcus-e 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Question re: translations of this article

I was looking at the Chinese-language version, and I have a question that I don't know where else to direct. I see the Chinese version has multiple versions, but all they seem to do is change the character set, not the content. What do we do about articles like this, where, for example, Optimus Prime is known as one thing in China, another in Hong Kong, and another in Taiwan?--211.74.219.104 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Heat Responsive Logo

There seems to be no mention of the heat-sensative logo that was put onto some lines in response to cheap knockoffs. It was usually somewhere obvious on the toy, and was black until heated (by putting your thumb onto it), when it showed the logo of the side that the transformer belonged to. I always understood that only 'official' toys had these on, and that if it didn't have a patch it wasn't an official Transformer. does anyone have any sourced info that they could add on this?

Cheers 212.85.28.67 13:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As I recall the heat sensitive logo was a gimmick, not a certification process. For an "official" transformer all one has to do is look for the Hasbro trademark. Cobratom 22:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

212.85.28.67 is partly right. Only official Hasbro Transformers had these rub signs, but not all of them had. Rub signs were used in the middle of the G1 line, there are both older and newer figures that don't have them. JIP | Talk 16:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

List of G1

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 19:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with the list is that it really includes less than half of the entire G1 toyline. JIP | Talk 19:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I never said it was complete. I was suggesting the format. I didn't want to make the whole thing if it wasn't going to be used. Libro0 (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"China Promotional Toyline"? Seriously?

Swerve had a Universe logo (the old one from the 2003 owards line) on his instructions. That is official. "He could fit into the movie line because of the Chevy logo on the car" is speculation and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Hey, he could also be an Alternator because he's a licensed car!

There's no substantial evidence that the toy was ever officially available in China, since all the information we got from there was hearsay. Please cite me a source that proves he was available in China that isn't a translation of an untraceable message board post, or a rumor posted on Seibertron, or whatever.

Swerve WAS, however, officially available via the Chevrolet online store for a day or two. That is fact, and there is evidence for that. The article doesn't even bother mention this.

Why exactly is this alleged "China Promotional Toyline" that consists of exactly one toy, has never been officially addressed by Hasbro, lest be declared a "line", has not been confirmed as having ever been officially been available in China to begin with, but has been officially available from an online retailer, given its own subsection, whereas Machine Wars (about ten toys, released in the USA), Dinobots (three two-packs, released in the USA), the Titanium series (...) and various other lines don't merit their own sub-point? What's so friggin-tastic amazingly outstanding about Swerve that he can't simply be filed under the line his instructions attribute him to? Why does he merit more space dedicated to him than the 2006 Classics line?

Someone please explain the logic behind this to me.--132.252.185.42 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no logic. Swerve should only be included in the Universe line, not get his own section. Oh, by the way, that yellow version? It was a custom. Not an official version. And no one gives a damn about what lines he looks like he might fit into, that's for the viewer to decide. I'm gonna edit that out and replace it with something that makes a bit more sense, seeing as he should probably be a footnote in Universe, not deserving of his own section

Oh, by the way? We STILL don't have evidence he was ever offered in China. That's only what we think. All we know is that he was sold on the online store, and lasted about a day before being sold out Mecheon (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any good reason for the information to be here at all, there is a whole Transformers: Universe page seperate. Put the info there. Mathewignash (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Size classes

Shouldn't there be a mention of the class denominations given to figures according to their sizes? --uKER (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• It might not be worth it responding to a question asked four years ago, but anyway, I think no, there shouldn't. In the time of the original Transformers (Generation 1 and Generation 2), "size classes" didn't exist. Hasbro introduced toys in whatever sizes suited their fancy. The whole "size classes" were only invented in the late 1990s with the advent of Beast Wars. Keeping in mind that it is the original Generation 1 that most people associate with Transformers, and that toyline was what originally made the whole franchise so famous, mentioning "size classes" is superfluous. JIP | Talk 18:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Unclear or misleading point in intro?

Hasbro would go on to buy the entire toy line from Takara shortly after giving them sole ownership of the Transformers toy-line, branding rights, and copyrights, while in exchange, Takara was given the rights to... (emphasis added)

Could it be that the emphasized part should read obtaining? It seems illogical that Hasbro (the original buyer) should have been giving Takara (the original developer and seller) sole ownership to the product line. It seems more imaginable quite the other way round. Even more so as the text goes on to say that Takara received some assets in exchange (you normally don't receive something in exchange when you're receiving something in the first place, or do you?)

Just so this point gets detected and handled more quickly, I take the liberty to insert a ? in the place in question.

--217.226.40.183 (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Optimus Prime patent image

I don't see what's wrong with using this image on the article. It demonstrates the patent of the single most memorable toy of the franchise. Granted, it was originally poorly placed without any caption, but if that's fixed, I don't see why it shouldn't belong in the article. JIP | Talk 21:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Transformers universe toy advice.

I bought the universe Optimus Primal toy but there was an issue, when I tried posing the figure, the legs broke off, accidentally I dropped the figure on concrete, I was outside during that day, as a result the face detail was heavily scratched, What should I do now?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.102.31 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the article about the Transformers toy line. It is not a general Transformers discussion board. JIP | Talk 21:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hall of fame error

In the section mentioning the characters to first be put in the hall of fame, it says the dinobots. This should be Dinobot singular. 2600:1008:B063:6A1E:6070:7E2:9368:C176 (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose merging Decepticon into this article. The article is currently about 100K of wanky fancruft w/ a few sentences of relevant, properly sourced material. Let's move those few sentences here and make this an article worthy of WP. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why should Decepticon be merged when Autobot has its own article? JIP | Talk 10:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Good point. Let's merge them both in. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and Improve. Keep the articles separate, but the Decepticon article can be improved with more relevance. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 02:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - tthe merge to "Toyline" is incorrect.

  BoyHayHay (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  What if we merged them into the media franchise article instead? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the fanwank and left the properly sourced real-world discussion, which doesn't leave a whole lot. I may make a formal proposal for merger into the media franchise article at some point in the future, but for now, this merger is closed.Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Tailspin (Transformers)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tailspin (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/2023 June 24 § Tailspin (Transformers) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Air Patrol (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)