Jump to content

Talk:Transformers (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bignole (talk | contribs) at 01:10, 27 July 2007 (→First paragraph of synopsis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
  1. September 15, 2005 - February 19, 2007
  2. February 19, 2007 to July 2007
  3. June 28, 2007 - July 21, 2007

Blackout and Brawl not speaking?

There is a scene in the movie in which Brawl and Blackout most definitely say 'Devastator reporting' and 'Blackout incoming. All hail Megatron!' respectively. -Machine758

I should change it to "not speak English." Alientraveller 16:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's electronic communication, so they do not actually speak. Mcr29 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the current phrasing. Their electronic speak is as much a language as humans speaking. Alientraveller 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Communication is not the same as speaking. We are communicating with each other, but we are not speaking to each other. Also, one cannot assume they do not speak English. It's sufficient to say they do not speak in the film. Mcr29 17:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The way it is now seems ambiguous. It implies that they do actually speak, just not in English, in which case they would have voice actors. —  Scottjar  → Talk 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, don't some characters speak in Cybertron-ese without just having electronic sounds for voices? I could swear some of them definitely had human voices, just garbled and filtered, and others had just noise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs)

Shortening Reference Section

I was wonder what other people's thoughts were on shortening the references section using a scrollable box, a la Lindsay Lohan. Since this article has over 100 references, this could shorten up the overall length of the page considerably (though not reduce its size in kB). It really is more of about how the article looks, although I haven't found anything in WP:MOS that says we can use this. This would be tailoring mainly to IE users, since reflist|2 only works for Firefox and Mozilla browsers. And P.S., I only happened upon that article because of recent news events :) —  Scottjar  → Talk 17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you didn't know, the scrollref template was deleted. Alientraveller 13:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was then someone created a new one, because I saw it on another page just yesterday. I don't particularly like it when I'm trying to sort through references. I'd much prefer a "hide" option. This way, if you need to look through refs you can see all of them together, but if you don't then you can hide it so it isn't in the way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Alientraveller is right. The template was posted for deletion, and consensus, from what I recall, was to delete based on formatting issues and how it would not reflect how referenced an article was. Also, I'm sure that there will be a DVD with extras that can be cited to trim down the number of references down the road. Bignole, I've seen people apply DIV coding to {{reflist|2}}, basically the coding that was used in the template, but it's used outside of it, like the original way to create two columns of references. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two columns, three columns, that only works for FireFox and like browsered users. If you use Internet Explorer it does nothing. Just an issue one must deal with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a version of scrolling references used on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article. This works fine for me in Opera, although I have no idea how Internet Exploder or Firefox will handle it! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the revert, but the template that utilize the same (or similar) coding was deleted here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11#Template:Scrollref. If other articles have it, they probably shouldn't have it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is talking about the Scrollref template. That isn't the one I used. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the deletion of that template was because consensus felt it shouldn't be there. If someone creates the exact same thing, just under a different name, then it's circumventing consensus for deletion. It's like having an article deleted for some reason, and instead of going through the proper review channels someone just recreates it with a different title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this isn't a template - it's a <div>. To be honest, this is a trivial thing - if the consensus is to go back to the long list, then I'll drop it. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I find it annoying to look through. You only get a selected bit of information. I prefer to be able to see all references at the same time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, why do some people seem to prefer the {{reflist}} form of listing references rather than the <references/> form that is specified in Wikipedia:Citing sources? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Template:Reflist utilizes DIV coding in a more compact form to shrink the size of the references. Smaller print of references is common not only on Wikipedia, but in literature as well. Also, the link to the template that was deleted used the same DIV coding as what you're trying to add. Like {{reflist}}, it used the template to make the coding more compact. Due to this similar nature, any DIV coding that creates a scrollbar for the references does not belong. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Stereotyping

Why was the racial stereotyping section removed? Which of wikipedia's guidelines does it not meet? Malamar 13:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more appropriate in the section that details the reviews, since what you have are reviews that talk about it, and not scholarly articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems to be the opinion of an extremely small minority, which would make it non-notable. Mcr29 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since they are reviews, they should be written like such, and not presented as a wide spread controversy, which it wasn't (nothing like what happened with 300). I say, move it to the reviews section and rewrite accordingly. The negative opinion of the movie based on those concepts is better to use than say someone going "the actors sucked", or something like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bignole above. If it is to be included, it should be part of the Reviews section. It is still too early for the film to be criticized by those with academic credentials, either in film studies or an area that may be related to contemporary racism. When these scholarly articles arise, they can be included in a prominent capacity in a subsection or even a section. Time will have to tell; it's difficult at this stage to tell what kind of criticism the film will get in the long run. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I finally get to see the film tomorrow (I hate the fact that the UK is a poor cousin when it comes to film releases) but this reviewer's complaint sounds very tenuous to me. Jazz was always "black" in the cartoon (he was voiced by Scatman Crothers for pity's sake!) and frequently made use of "black slang". My issue with including the review, however, is its source. I always thought that blogs were verboten when it came to Wikipedia? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer in this case is the one from Ain't It Cool News, right? The site is actually very prominent (having been mentioned and quoted in numerous newspaper articles), but its layout is crappy on purpose. It's a constant challenge to cite it because, like you just noticed, it does not seem credible at first glance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources seem credible. Alientraveller 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph of synopsis

The first paragraph of the synopsis is chronologically correct but does not follow the events of the film as they unfold. It should be reworked to follow the film properly. Mcr29 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot don't have to be followed in the event that they take place. Says so in the MOS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigs is right. The direct link is WP:MOSFILMS#Plot. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's meant more for films that are shown largely out of chronological order, such as Pulp Fiction (which is used as an example in the MOS) or Memento. But if that's the consensus then that's fine. Mcr29 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not restricted to any film. It reads better to have chronological order as well; you don't have to worry about clarifying which timeframe you're in each time. Batman Begins makes use of that style as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformers_(film)&oldid=147354228"