text:
Talk:Galvatron

Mergeto Megatron
Shouldn't Galvatron and Megatron be merged into one article since it refers to the same character albeit that there was an evolution of the character that occurred, wouldn't it be better to have one article explaining the origins of the character and it's evolution into it's current character form. In my personal opinion this would also save space on Wikipedia if this article were merged into one. Misterrick 00:55, 17 October 2004 (UTC)

 * I kind of think they each deserve their own page. As depicted in the cartoon, they behave in very different ways.  Megatron is cunning and constantly scheming to steal Earth’s resources, while Galvatron is nuts and constantly abusing his own troops.  Also, in the G1 Marvel comics, Galvatron is plucked from an alternate future by Unicron, and there is a short under developed plot arc where Megatron and Galvatron interact with each other.  That is just my opinion though, if done properly the two articles could be merged. --Plicease 09:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * In some stories like the movie Galvatron is Megatron, but in others (IDW, some novels, Dreamwave) Galvatron is a seperate character, so he gets his own page. Mathewignash (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Unicron
Unicron could not inflict pain on Megatron. He attempted to absorb Megatron unless he agreed to do what Unicron asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.115.61 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As a result of the reconstruction process, Unicron gained the ability to assert control over Galvatron at considerable range through the apparent infliction of physical and psychological pain, inasmuch as a synthetic life form can feel pain.

I don't agree with this sentence because

 * 1) Unicron demonstrates the ability to inflict pain on Megatron before recreating him as Galvatron.
 * 2) the statement "inasmuch as a synthetic life form can feel pain" is unnecessary as one of the primary assertions in the Transformers Universe is that Transformers can feel pain.

Unless anyone objects I would like to remove the statement, or rewrite it stating that Unicron was able to inflict pain on Megs/Galvatron --Plicease 09:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Triple Change
Hi there. I was reading the Space Pirates tpb last night and noticed for the first time a completely different alternate mode of Galvatron. Before his meeting with Cyclonus and Scourge Galvatron hides from them by transforming into a small gun and having a human carry it, just like Megatron used to. As Galvatron's alternate mode is traditionally a cannon platform in the comics, does this qualify Galvatron 1 as a triple-changer? SMegatron 12:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it does, sort of. The toy had three modes, robot, gun platform and hand gun, but the hand gun mode was very rarely used in the comic. This is a great example of Simon Furman being creative with familiar characters, which was always one of his strengths (The same story puts Springer's leaping ability to rare use as well). But I wouldn't call him a triple-changer, as he wasn't released as part of that range. There are other TF's with three modes not counted as triple changers as well (Metroplex and Trypticon spring to mind). I think the category should only refer to the characters actually branded as triple changers on their toy release.Coyote-37 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Galvatron is one of the 3 form characters who isn't an official "triple-changer" toy line member. I think he is actually refered to as a triple-changer in his Dreamwave comics biography, so are several others - like the Headmaster Horricons (robot, animal, jet triple-changers). talk:mathewignash

Previous Identity
It is Astrotrain not Motormaster who said that Megatron and Galvatron were the same guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranciscoG0473 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Although it was said the only autobot to have knowledge of Megatron = Galvatron, wouldn't Rodimus Have this knowledge as well.

Galvatron: "First Prime, then Ultra Magnus, and now YOU, if you autobots didn't die so easily I might finally have a sense of satisfaction now."

A lot of autobots died here, and the two listed before Hot Rod have the common trait of being finished by the same person although different versions. Thanks for clearing that up guys.SMegatron 09:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Section on knowledge of previous identity deleted on grounds of OR and notability. This article is way too long as is and this seemed as good a place as any to start trimming the dross. 81.154.116.164 (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Galvatron said "First Prime, then Ultra Magnus, and now you. It's a pity you autobots die so easily or I might have a sense of satisfaction now." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.247.21 (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Size
I notice the article is getting quite long - 36 kilobytes. Should the article be split into several smaller articles on each universe's Galvatron? I'm not sure the other versions are different enough to warrant an article each, but the article looks to be getting a bit unweildy. SMegatron 19:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd agree, as the current Megatron article is the same. We could have 4 articles where one is now. G1/G2 Galvatron, Beast Wars Neo Galvatron, RiD Galvatron and the "Unicron Trilogy" Galvatron. In fact the RiD Galvatron could be merged with RiD Megatron, and same with the Unicron trilogy one. Same guys after all. User talk:mathewignash

 * No, I don't really think so. As you say, the other versions of Galvatron really aren't large enough or important enough to warrant their own articles. Although it may be on the cusp of unwieldly, the article is, after all, not actually going to get any larger right now, since another Galvatron does not seem to be likely in the immediately future, and there's really nothing of any sufficient size to be added to it as it is now. I just think splitting it up spoils it's... comprehensiveness. - Chris McFeely, May 28th 2006

Sounds good to me. SMegatron 13:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think RiD Megatron and Galvatron could warrent one article for himself, not two seperate ones. He's one guy. Unicron trilogy Megatron/Galvatron should get one article for himself too, not two like he has now, since he's just supposed to be one guy who changed him name 5 times. G1 Megatron/Galvatron gets one article, Beast Wars Megatron gets one article for himself, and one article for Beast Wars Galvatron. That's a total of four articles for four unique characters. user:Mathewignash

 * While I can see the rationale behind RiD and UT Megs and Galvy having merged articles, the two G1 characters should most definitely remain separated. But, see, I'm of the belief that RiD and UT Megatron don't even NEED to have separate articles outside of the main Megatron article. BW/BM Megs is a hugely important and memorable character who did so much that he's easily justifiale in getting his own article, but the other two just... aren't, so much. Generally speaking, I'm not keen on putting so many separate articles like that on the regular Wikipedia. And yeah, I know other series and characters have it, but it all strays terribly into that subjective region of fancruft. There IS a Transformers Wiki out there where single-character-specific articles would be *much* more at home - on Wikipedia itself, I'm behind the notion comprehensiveness in a singular article. Hence - four Galvatrons, one article. - Chris McFeely, 28th May

 * I agree we should keep the number of articles dwn, but in a different way. RiD Megatron and Galvatron is ONE character, so one article, not two. UT Megatron and Galvatron is ONE guy so, he should have one article. We should have one article per guy instead of devoting parts of an article to the guy depending on their name change. The UT one is especially stupid, because he changed his name back and forth 3 times - TO read about one guy you have to switch between articles back and forth with each name change user:Mathewignash

 * Looking at the RiD and UT Megs articles, they actually already HAVE the details of their careers as Galvatron included in them. And that's right, they should - they are the same characters, just repainted a bit (where the G1 blokes were two independant individuals). No changes actually need to be made to their articles as they stand now to incorporate the information in this article - you don't need to flip back and forth between the articles. The only alteration that would be made is to this page, and that's just taking something away from it. I don't think there's anything wrong with this page singling out their time as Galvatron, it being the Galvatron article - the subsections have links to their main articles, so readers can get all the details if they want them with a single click. The way I see it, if they want to learn specifically about the characters' time as Galvatrons, then they come to the "Galvatron" article - that way, they don't have to search through a larger article. But if they want to learn about their full stories, as Megatron, then they go to that larger article, to the "Megatron" articles. I just really want to see this page remain the one, singular comprehensive Galvatron article - as it is unlikely to undergo any real change for the time being, I see no harm in leaving it as is. - Chris McFeely

Well, when you put it like that... SMegatron 09:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Grand Galvatron
Heh, just saw the edit where someone thought this image was an animation error - sadly, no, it's not, it's what Galvatron actually intends to turn himself into by merging his body with Earth. - Chris McFeely 5th June, 2006

IDW
I added in the details of The Spotlights issue on Nightbeat, which according to the interview listed featured Galvatron recently. But on closer inspection, as he is never named or even seen in full, should it really say its him for sure? I was thinking of rving the section to an earlier version, but I'd appreciate the feedback.SMegatron 11:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

editsemiprotected request
Please dab thus: change Nexus Prime to. Thanks. 86.147.202.170 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem with the above edit - the new link has an extra preceding [ which needs to be removed. Thanks. 86.147.202.170 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad I know I shouldn't copy paste without checking sometimes. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 86.147.202.170 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedurally closed as being in the wrong forum. A merge request has been opened below. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Galvatron → Megatron – user:71.162.105.77 01:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Speedy close this is a merge request, not a move request, as can be evidenced by the edit log, where clearly says "mergeto Megatron". So this should be closed an optionally relisted at WP:PM as the wrong forum. Futher the destination contains an article, so you can't move this page anyways, without deleting the other article. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request
editsemiprotected
 * Don't the RID, UT, and SG Megatron/Galvatrons belong at Megatron because that's who they are?
 * Provide a specific request C T J F 8 3  21:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 2 November 2011
wanna add other pics of megatron

206.53.70.98 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please be more specific about the changes you would like to be made, but also see our [|policy on when non-free images] shouldn't be used. If you still feel the images should be included, feel free to make another request. Thanks, Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  05:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
If you could make an edit for me, could you please bring back the toy section for the Unicron Trilogy Megatron/Galvatron? It seems someone has removed it as Vandalism. Thanks.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I do not see what section in the history you are talking about. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
This request continues the previous one answered by Jnorton7558.
 * See: this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.105.125 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, could you also bring back the lead section? It's also missing.71.162.105.125 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ The whole section is unreferenced. Keep in mind that every fact has to be verifiable by the reader through references. For the lead-section: there is one in this article. So please be more precise in what should be done (like: change X to Y; history link and additional refs at: link). mabdul 13:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Merging Most of This Article Into Megatron
In most continuities, Galvatron is a reborn Megatron, so why not merge the two pages.

173.57.37.132 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Anonymous173.57.37.132 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I honestly don't know why this article hasn't been merged already. Most versions of Galvatron are clearly reborn versions of that universe's Megatron. That sentence may be disputed, but another thing other than merging we need to work on is cleaning up this article and summarizing up toy sections. There is a lot of crap in this article that does not need to be there. Before we think about merging anything, someone needs to seriously clean up this article.71.162.100.101 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 * We should start by removing the seriously unneeded "Controversey over identity".71.162.100.101 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
I don't know about G1 Galvatron, but the RID, UT, and SG Galvatrons are Megatron. Can you please move them back to that article where they belong?
 * Remember to sign your comment ( (without the space)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Unicorn/Unicron
New here on Wiki. Signed up just for this; but, the article is locked.

There are at least two references to "Unicorn" that ought to be corrected to "Unicron"

Unicorn/Unicron
New here on Wiki. Signed up just for this; but, the article is locked.

There are at least two references to "Unicorn" that ought to be corrected to "Unicron" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tko78 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2014
Either rewrite or remove AOE Galvatron's entry about Autobot Stronghold, as it is stolen directly from TFWiki, and as a result, it retains the same informal tone as used on that site, i.e. pointing out how horrifying it is that the Autobots "use the souls of the dead". Also, in the sentence mentioning his inclusion in Rise of the Dark Spark it should be "Galvatron is confirmed to appear[...]", not "Galvatron has confurmed to appear[...]" Finally, under G1 Galvatron's bio, Unicron has been misspelled twice as "Unicorn"; this will need to be fixed.

136.181.195.25 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. TFWiki uses Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and therefor content cannot be "stolen". Please propose your request for change in a please change "X" to "Y" format and someone would be happy to help you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was very clear in what I was asking in all three cases, including using the "change X to Y" format. I specifically said "This typo in this section needs to be fixed, and these two misspellings in this section need to be corrected." And the issue with using TFWiki's text isn't that it's stealing; as I pointed out in my original request, it's that it doesn't fit the more professional tone of Wikipedia. Just look at the passage below:

 * "The Decepticons keep coming and coming in wave after wave. They're relentless! Fortunately, by taking the sparks of their fallen foes, the macabre Autobots can purchase LG technology to upgrade their offensive capabilities. They can also use the souls of the dead to buy duplicate versions of themselves to keep the Decepticon hordes occupied. It's kind of horrifying when you think too hard about it."

 * That is not the tone of writing Wikipedia promotes, at least according to WP:TONE. In my original request, I did suggest removing it, which again fits the "X to Y" format. In the future, please read these edit requests more carefully. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Coradon for fixing most of the problems. The only thing remaining is fixing the "Unicorn" misspellings. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Galvatron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202232701/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/books/comics/news/article_1343405.php/Creators_of_Transformers_Beast_Wars_The_Gathering_are_back to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/books/comics/news/article_1343405.php/Creators_of_Transformers_Beast_Wars_The_Gathering_are_back
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105130657/http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-toys-products-30/hasbro-website-updates-part-2-the-age-of-extinction-is-nigh-listings-updated-178696/ to http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-toys-products-30/hasbro-website-updates-part-2-the-age-of-extinction-is-nigh-listings-updated-178696/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Actual article
Could someone make a genuine article about Galvatron himself? They are technically separate characters 78.16.100.115 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 * First we need to show he meets WP:GNG. Otherwise it would be WP:FANCRUFT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Galvatron


text:
User:Asmodai~enwiki

Asmodai is a student of mathematics and lives in Croatia, Zagreb

He is interested in too many things to list, and has this uncanny knack to remember small details from random things he reads but still has a hell of a time studying for an exam.

Some of his wide interests include comics, pop-culture, kaiju, literature, anime, manga, role-playing games, cooking, writing, thinking too much and then vocally discussing it with someone.

And, yes, before you ask, he is pretty good with English and does note his spelling mistakes... however he has the horrible habit of not thinking to copyedit his own writings... to all of you who helped me before i got to editing such an article (or addition)... THANKS!

Current Submission Plans

 * Wildstorm (connecting the characters, series editions and everything into a coherent category)
 * Planetary (comics) issue guide including references for each issue of Planetary (as there are plenty, and most readers without a wide knowledge of Pop Culture, comic book history and a wide knowledge of literature)

 * Mage: The Ascension (getting more info there, rewriting and adding extra articles
 * Council of Nine Now this is something that is severly lacking...
 * Technocracy (Mage: the Ascension) ... as is this
 * The Five Elemental Dragons This may not beas important for mage as the last few, but it's loads of fun
 * Mage articles to rewrite
 * Virtual Adepts It is lacking in detail and they are covered pretty thin, it's almost a stub
 * Sons of Ether Not very through, jumping on and off, needs some coherentness

 * Misc additions
 * The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket Gaaah... nothing on the ending or the construction of this work and that'a probablz what makes it the most noteworthy...

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Asmodai~enwiki


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal philosophy

Universal philosophy
More nonsense from User:Etavernetti (see "Einstein's Mistake" above). Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 23:55, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * D, title sounds like the pseudoscience advocated by the "better humans" people, but it's not, it's some other brand of pseudoscience. Joe D 01:54, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: A different article by the same title got deleted before. I won't abuse the system by speedy deleting this, but it's all the same.  Many of the ills of mankind come from not leaving one's garden.  I hope the author does go outside to play.  (Delete for original research.) Geogre 04:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Anything that can happen, will happen, like the Deletion of this article. --Improv 06:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Delete. --Slowking Man 06:14, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Deluded drooling drivel.--NathanHawking 07:26, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
 * Delete. More likely a nonsense content. --*drew 07:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure nonsense. jni 12:41, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonsense. utcursch 11:09, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

My plan is to teach physics to fools, so far I have failed. Keep watching. Keep reading. Keep learning. One of my articles is going to be so simple, so fool proof, so informative...just wait... For my previous, and obvious, failures, I apologize for wasting YOUR precious time.

JeD

 * Note that user has gotten personal and added statements on anger towards VfD on the page. By the time you read this, I will have reverted that. --Improv 19:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Patent nonsense. (A small part might belong to BJAODN.) Delete - Mike Rosoft 12:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Ohmygod! Not that it needs the help, but delete!  Its even signed!  -Seth Mahoney 19:43, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Steinsky/Archive1

Photo copyrights
Hi, what is the copyright situation of the images you are uploading? Did you shoot them yourself? Image:Old Harry Rocks, Dorset-(aerial).jpg looks like it is taken from here -- note that with few exceptions, you cannot upload images to Wikipedia unless you are the copyright holder or have received explicit permission to do so by them. See also Image use policy. --Eloquence 21:54 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * You appear to be correct. I found the image on a site unaffiliated with Dr West, or the Uni, with had no notice, attribution or claim to image.  I have just emailed Dr West asking him whether he could confirm he is the copyright owner, and requesting its continued use for the project.
 * I'm just following up a couple of the other Jurassic Coast images, all the others are mine or in the public domain. I can scan a couple of Jurassic Coast photos if neccesary, they just won't be as good as the aerial photos.
 * Updates will be posted soon.
 * --Steinsky 23:45 19 Jul 2003 (BST (UTC+1))

 * Update: The photos are cuttings from an old copylefted file used in many places. --Steinsky 15:04 20 Jul 2003 (BST (UTC+1))

 * Could you add source information to the image description pages? --Eloquence 14:19 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Percolation
Unfortunately your editing of percolation makes it look as if the meaning a percolation theory and the one having to do with filtering are completely unrelated, rather than just slightly different ways of looking at percolation (with emphasis on slightly). Michael Hardy 20:24, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * They appeared to me considerably different ways of looking at percolation, in terms of the scale and the situations in which the terms are used, but I'm not an expert on either. The Percolation theory article doesn't bear a great deal of resemblance to any situation I've ever used it in either chemistry or earth sciences though, and doesn't explain percolation in terms relavant to any such article linking to it.  From here I'll leave it to everyone else to decide where it should go, but it definitely needs work. --Steinsky 21:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey I see you flagged ear piercing - I listed this on pages needing attention, I don't know if I should unlist it or what? Sorry this is my first day. Pakaran 19:52, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) pakaran
 * Well, it definitely needs attention, so I recon you probably did the right thing! -- Steinsky 13:14, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

RE: Can I request a clarification of the "right side": I think you refer to the right side of the lake? I think it should be banks of the lake. diwiki

Just a hint - there is definitely a second meaning for all M1 till M102, as it is the common name for the Messier objects - but so far only few of them are created yet. So you should make sure that all highway links point to the actual place, not the Mxxx article - when yesterday someone added several of the Messier objects I did change several of them already, but I am not sure if I catched them all. andy 20:11, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Groyne/Groin
Hello! I note you are changing the "groin" to "groyne" on many pages. Personally, I like "groyne", as distinct from from between your legs (or is that groyne too?), but it is wrong spelling from an American perspective. In fact, I had never seen "groyne" before and I do work in the marine environment as professon. Would it not be better to do this groin for those locations in America or where America is spoken? - Marshman 03:34, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Concordant coastline
Hi, just a quick thanks for the concordant coastline link on Natural bridge — I hadn't thought of looking up the compound name; just "concordant" itself :-( I've similarly corrected the "discordant" case now. Lupo 12:24, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wareham photo
Hi, thanks for taking the photo off the Wareham article. I'd done a bit of Googling, found a Wareham address for the Bankes Hotel, put two and two together, and evidently came up with three. :) - Hephaestos|§ 04:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Evolutionary Biology
Hi. Are you interested in this? we've got three population geneticists so far, so it might be a bit biased. Duncharris 15:34, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Duncharris 17:27, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * What would it involve? I already have loads of biology pages on my watchlist that I review.. --Steinsky 00:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

 * First job really I think is to try to pull them together the rather disparate sections that have grown up a bit higgledy-piggledy. But I suppose its mainly useful as a discussion forum.  Let's just see how it develops? Duncharris 10:24, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

UK and GB
Thank you for your support on the UK versus GB issue. For some reason, people insist that the default is GB unless it is proven that NI is involved. Bizarre. It has been debated widely on Wikipedia and even on my own talk page. Thanks again. Bobblewik 17:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clifton Cathedral
I've put a new picture of Clifton Cathedral up, showing the north side. I think it's an improvement on your picture of the east side, mainly because it shows more detail, especially in the spire. I'm not entirely sure, though, and would welcome your opinion. I've also taken out the explicit width from the Image code, which makes it a bit smaller on the page. --rbrwrˆ 15:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Usage of WP:PR
Hi, the usage of WP:PR (Peer review) was changed a little lately. Now we put requests on top, and not at the bottom. I've fixed Greensand's entry. Have a nice day. =) Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Canal Lock
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've sorted the diagram out now. Ta, -Nommo 00:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kukla, Fran and Ollie
FYI, Marknyc has asserted ownership of the website which gave rise to your copyvio report on Kukla, Fran and Ollie and asserted he is in a position to licence the text under GFDL, and so the copyvio has been delisted and advice posted on Talk:Kukla, Fran and Ollie. Just thought you might like to know how it was resolved, lest you be unhappy with any of it. best wishes --Tagishsimon

Removal of Bristol Bridge pics
I'm sorry Steinsky but I have removed your pics on the Bristol article. I don't think the quality of your Summer/Winter/Spring Bristol Bridge trilogy is quite good enough for WP. I've substituted a pic of the cathedral. I hope you won't be too offended by what I've done but I'm aiming for a high quality of illustrations. - Adrian Pingstone 19:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC).

what?
my stubby article page is cool. i dont think you should have made it a candidate for speedy deletion. it is a serious page, there are heaps of stubby articles out there on the wiki

Brilliant intervention!
In my opinion, your intervention was brilliant to remove the rambling from Talk:Creationism. I was too involved to even see that option at the time. Your intervention was brilliant because it provided an effective thumbnail index to the subpage and allowed the work on the controversy to continue where it should--on the actual subpage itself. ---14:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bristol Harbour
I agree that it would be nice to have some top quality articles on local topics, though I must confess that I got some books out of the library with this intent a couple of months ago then didn't get anywhere.

I will give Bristol Harbour a good long hard look over the next few days and kick off some discussion on the talk page. I take it the scope of the article is meant to be the Floating Harbour - i.e. from Totterdown to Hotwells, post-1803. If that is the case I think we should nevertheless make sure that the appropriate supporting information about the Cut, the Feeder, the docks pre-1800, Avonmouth, Portishead and Portbury and the railway lines and so on is all in place. Some of this will also feed back into the main article on Bristol, as the port was for so long inseperable from the town.

Have you read Derek Robinson's A Shocking History of Bristol? That has a chapter on some of the less glorious aspects of the way the port was run over the years. I have access to a few other books that may be useful, too. --rbrwr± 22:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is continued at Talk:Bristol Harbour.

Contact table
I've kinda stolen your 'contact me' table for my own page. Sorry :p. If you have any problems with me using a similiar design, please get in touch. Barneyboo 11:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That's fine, everything's free on Wikipedia! --Joe D 11:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Good man. :) Barneyboo 11:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Cabot
I've removed your pic of John Cabot because, being a big-headed so-and-so, I reckon my pic is better than yours :-) If you've the slightest objection just revert to yours, I won't mind. (PS My son is doing Economics and Marketing at UWE, final year) Best Wishes, - Adrian Pingstone 19:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Cabot was born in Geona,Italy on June 24, 1450.Dead in 1498.He traveled with Christopher Columbus.

81.156.181.197?
What to do about 81.156.181.197's insistant vandalism?--FeloniousMonk 22:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Geography of the United Kingdom
Thanks for putting back the main article link to Geology of the United Kingdom (that section in Geography of the United Kingdom is a pretty long and transparent précis of that article anyway). I must have accidentally deleted the link when playing with the geology map image. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category Order
Nicholas, is there any pattern to the way you're rearranging categories? i.e., moving Category:Dorset for no obvious reason? Joe D (t) 19:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Just that 'location' categories are usually at the end of the list - I try to arrange categories in a Most Relavent -> Least Relavent order. Nicholas 19:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

British Trade Unions
Hi Steinsky. Thanks for adding the categories bit to National Union of Ship's Stewards and Amalgamated Marine Workers' Union. I just wondered, did they seem okay to you? I'm new at this and whilst I've read and partially digested the rules I'm still nervous that I'm screwing up the whole thing. I created those two, by the way, though apparently I wasn't signed in at the time. Cheers, Mattley

 * The articles look good, one possible addition would be references if you have any.. Joe D (t) 17:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I do indeed have some and I will build them in. On another topic, I note you have done some stuff on Bristol Harbour. I'd like to contribute some articles on the Port of Southampton and the Port of Glasgow. Do you think it would be worth creating a category of 'Ports and harbours of Great Britain and Ireland' or some such? It could be a nice series. All the best, Mattley 17:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * That's a good idea, if you create the category I'll help populate it. I was in So'ton on Friday and am currently preparing photos of the port etc for wikipedia.

You were? Cool. Okay. Where were you planning to put the photos? I don't want to tread on your toes or duplicate work if you already had something planned. On the other hands, ports seem poorly covered and I'd be happy to make a start redressing that. My interest is mainly historical, however, and would have a hard time sustaining an article past 1930. If you have stuff on Southampton's more recent history, many that wouldn't be a big problem. Cheers, Mattley 18:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UKCOTW
Don't we need to wait until 6pm to decide whether Religion in the United Kingdom or Monmouth Rebellion becomes WP:UKCOTW (24 hour voting extension, given both were tied at 4 votes at 6pm yesterday)? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh..er.. I'm not sure actually. On Talk:UKCOTW it said we were using the "Golden goal" system which I assume means the first one to take the lead wins, but I'm not sure if that's how its been done before... Joe D (t) 11:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The UKCOTW page iteself talks about a 24-hour extension rather than golden goal, but I guess we can use golden goal if we want to - this is the first time a tie has happened, so we can make it up as we go along, but we need to make sure the UKCOTW page is consistent. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My "Vandalism"
Uhm......I didn't vandalize anything....what I did was changed days ago and I haven't done anything......what are you talking about? 69.139.229.242 04:01, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Internationale
Hi, Joe. You took this out from The Internationale (album), calling it an "incorrect statement"...

 * This is unusual for Bragg: though he is known for his association with left-wing causes, overtly political songs are a minority within his repertoire.

What part of that is wrong, then? Overtly political songs aren't a tiny minority, but they are still a minority: a quick count of the tracks on Must I Paint You a Picture suggests perhaps 35%. And The Internationale is unusual as an all-political release: only "Between the Wars" really compares with it. And don't tell me that Bill isn't known for his association with left-wing causes. I'm confused by this edit. Please help. --Baffled of Bristol±
 * Over half of Back To Basics, well over half of DTTAH, 7/12 of EHE (the most recent), half of William Bloke, just under half of Reaching To The Converted and just under half of Victim of Geography are overtly political. Gigs and the Mermaid Avenue albums are also about 50%, not a minority.  It is notable as an all political release, but the rest of the albums are also extremely political.  Joe D (t) 20:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we differ on what constitutes "overt" politics - I make DTTAH 7/16, for example. (Yes, I have been counting, and I almost posted lots of long lists). I would still stand by a figure of... well, more like 40% than 35%. That's probably more than straightforward love songs, but it's still not a majority.

Anyway.

Obviously the disputed sentence isn't NPOV; I'll try again.

--rbrwr± 21:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ps. I have been too lazy to do anything about Bristol Harbour yet, for which I apologise. --rbrwr±

61.3.160.160 obvious copyright problems
Hi! I noticed your polite question to User_talk:61.3.160.160, as well as I've been anoyed by his/her messy and probably wrong contribution to Digital sigature for example. Do you think we should revert this contribution now, or wait for more explanations from this user, though I doubt it will happen? --ClementSeveillac 22:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wanted to be sure ;-) See you around! --ClementSeveillac 03:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion on references and citations
Hi Joe:

At the end of October you began to do some work in the article on Apoptosis. You began to change the way references and citations were handled en that article (since they took up a lot of text), and used one of the accepted and respected styles; namely, to create a References section and refer to the citation by (Author, year). After giving it a thought, it occurs to me that the best way to handle this in Wikipedia is not by (Author, year), but to proceed as follows: 1) Make a direct hyperlink to the summary of the article in the on-line journal or a hyperlink to the on-line book, as long as they are free and require no registration (examples: a hyperlink to an article summary in PNAS, or to The Molecular Biology of the Cell); 2) If the direct link to the article is not possible, the hyperlink should be directed to solid and reputable public sites like PubMed or arXiv.org (example: when citing Nature or Science, which require subcription); 3) Use (Author, year) as the last resourt, because it is quite bothersome to Wikipedia users to search the publication and go back-and-forward to the References section. Thanks in advance for your attention to this note, and please use the discussion section in the Apoptosis article to tell me if you agree with this, so I can proceed to make the changes throughout the article. JaimeGlz

Culture of the United Kingdom
You voted for Culture of the United Kingdom, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Creative Commons
Hey, just wanted to let you know that you can use the   template on your user page to update your Creative Commons license to include version 2.0 as well as version 1.0. -- Ram-Man 03:35, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

St. Mary's Cathedral
Hi there,

I would like to know as to why you saw fit to move this page to Limerick Cathedral? It is not, nor ever has been, referred to as such. For one thing, Limerick also has a second cathedral, St. John's Cathedral. Please do not move this page again.

zoney ♣ talk 15:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Because it's not wikipedia standard to name cathedrals only by the saints they are dedicated to (you can surely see why doing so would be problematic?). If there are two Limerick cathedrals, the page should be named "St Mary's Cathedral, Limerick".  (By the way, the dot in the abbrev of saint is also generally dropped, though this isn't strictly enforced it makes things easier.) Joe D (t) 15:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The place is called "St. Mary's Cathedral", the article should reside at that location. I have never heard of such nonsense as hiding the real name of places on Wikipedia in a clumsy attempt to be politically correct. Meanwhile, appending ", cityname" is only used when disambiguation is necessary, or by convention for particular topics (For example, US towns always have the countyname appended even when no article resides at the town name - this is only because many were bot-created and others have to match. Irish towns reside at the town name by default). I can assure you that our convention with Irish topics is not to add this suffix to article titles unless necessary for disambiguation.

 * A final point, the inclusion of a dot or not after St. is indeed discretionary - but neither one nor the other is preferred officially. The dot is more common with regard to the actual place in question. zoney ♣ talk 16:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm referring to the page name, as I'm sure was obvious. With the regards to appending the city name, I'm aware that it's only used for diambiguation only, and that's why it should be named as such.  There were three St Mary's Cathedrals on the Irish list alone, there must be many throughout the world, and people may be searching for any one of them, not just the one in Limerick. Joe D (t) 17:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Once again, I disagree with your reasoning. First of all - no other St. Mary's has an article at present. Secondly, of the St. Mary's in Ireland, the one at Limerick is by far the most notable. So if articles are created for the others, we will continue to have the Limerick one at St. Mary's Cathedral and the others linked to on a disambiguation page, linked to by a line at the top of the main St. Mary's page.

This is all quite standard. Until such time as someone has a more notable St. Mary's Cathedral to place at the main article location, I suggest the Limerick one remains there.

And yes, I know you were referring to the article title - I was simply pointing out that one generally calls a spade, a spade. That is the case on Wikipedia also, unless for technical reasons it is not possible.

zoney ♣ talk 17:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * This discussion was concluded on IRC.

List of places in County Durham
Note on Talk:County Durham. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Odd bit'o code mangling
Hi,

In this edit of List of Wikipedians by number of edits some of the table code got messed up. Any guess as to why? --Ben Brockert 00:55, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * I have no idea, but I'm assuming it's something Opera has done automatically, though I've never seen it do it before, and I can't tell you why it chose those particular tags to mangle. If the list were to use wikitax ( {| |- | | | |- |} etc) I expect the problem would go away.  Anyway, I have no reason to edit that page further, so it shouldn't be a problem. Joe D (t) 11:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I've seen effects like it before, it must just be an Opera bug. No big deal, I just thought it was odd. Thanks for looking at it, and of course you're always welcome to update that page. --Ben Brockert 00:19, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Osborne collection template on the commons
Hi. I have added the proper copyright tag to commons:Template:OsborneFossils. Hope this is Ok with you -- Chris 73 Talk 00:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Victorian era
You voted for Victorian era, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Partition of India
You voted for Partition of India, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Cossington
The article you have placed under Category:Villages in Kent is solely to do with the one-time megaliths found near the farm of that name (and now apparently lost!). The article says that Cossington is a "farm settlement", but the OS map 188 at TQ 761616 has no other buildings other than Cossington Fm in the area. It lies right on the M2 south of the Medway Towns conurbation.

I have therefore deleted your category reference: there are well over 400 villages in Kent without adding "settlements"!

Peter Shearan

 * Thanks, I don't know Kent at all so i was just guessing at the category from the information in the article. I've corrected the categorisation based on the new info. Joe D (t) 12:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

National Health Service
You voted for National Health Service, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shoplocal spammer
Have we reverted them all now? --rbrwr± 19:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * ...to answer my own question, I'd missed Portsmouth, but it's done now. Both IP addresses involved (172.202.165.243 and 172.191.96.70 are almost certainly AOL proxies, so there's almost no chance of the talk page messages getting through to the right people. Oh well. --rbrwr± 20:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image tag
Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

 * Image:Durdle_Door,_Dorset-(small).jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use   if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License,    if you claim fair use, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much. Denni☯ 04:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Irish places
Hi there,

I notice you've made a group of edits to Irish location articles. I would suggest that the "stub" format for external links and see also is retained on those articles which are stubs. You will find it is an accepted option, and one that we use for Irish location article which aren't well developed (it looks tidier when there are no other sections/headings).

Also, as regards Northern Ireland... By and large, Irish topics are treated apolitically on Wikipedia thus far. Certainly as far as geographic articles are concerned, the island is treated as a whole. After all, the current partition is only a modern political development, and the region, while part of the United Kingdom, it physically/geographically, culturally, etc. remains Irish (the culture aspect is certainly trickier, some aspects are "simply British", many are most definitely truly Irish, and others are fudged as "Northern Irish", though that is a somewhat contrived term).

In summary, I would suggest you rename the UK geo-stub to GB geostub.

It does not make sense to distinguish the separate jurisdictions in Ireland when referring to things in an apolitical geographic sense.

Thanks, zoney ♣ talk 17:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The heading format may be accepted, but it seems the Ireland places are the only articles that actually use the format. Which looks tidier is highly subjective, and I prefer the standard heading format.
 * As for the towns, these are not entirely geographic and apolitical: in an encyclopedia article the country which a town is in is just as relevant and important as its physical location, and these stubs rightly mention the political geography in the article. Using either stub 'plate would be factually correct, but IMO following political boundaries is more useful in the case of categorising stubs (we may differ on this because I use the templates in order to categorise the articles, while you may be more intrested in the text they add to the article).  I am particularly against using Great Britain as an area, as it has no political meaning whatsoever, and excludes all those other little islands that make up the UK, and belong on this category.
 * Perhaps this is one of those cases where Northern Ireland does derserve its own boilerplate: one that includes both categories? Joe D (t) 17:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * While I still suggest the Ireland templates are perfectly fine, I guess as a compromise a Northern Ireland template can be used, with it being a member of Irish and UK stubs. This has been a compromise on a number of other issues. (Categorising NI separately and NI cats having UK+Irl parents).
 * zoney ♣ talk 10:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clifton Suspension Bridge - sorry
Sorry, I shouldn't have used the rollback buton on you. That was rude. But I have explained myself at Talk: Clifton Suspension Bridge; the original County of Bristol was tiny - it didn't even include Bristol Castle - and Clifton wasn't incorporated until the time of the Reform Act. --rbrwr± 14:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talk:East_Sussex/to_do
Just to let you know ive taken the unusual step of re-reverted your reversion :D erm have a look at Talk:East_Sussex/to_do i put your list back as you suggested but I thought that the other categories i had mentioned were helpfull -- It looks like we are working on similar stuff (as we have similar interests) so maybe you can point me towards what lead you to create the todo if theres something I should read. I generally dislike the "list of..." lists but if thats what people want, I don't have a problem with it :) What I had started to do was create geographical categories as well as political ones in a small way -- anyway enough rambling....

Duplicate Stretton
I see you have reverted my removal of Stretton, Cheshire from the list of places in Cheshire. I have no objection to that, but there are links to Stretton, Warrington from other articles. Neither article has yet been written, so this may not be a problem for a while. --Etimbo 20:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Duel (with an e) versus dual (with an a)
Hello. Before you write any article titled duel-carriageway road (mentioned in your median (disambiguation) page, or challenge a rival to a "dual" you may want to consult a dictionary.

But ignore the paragraph above. I appreciate your attention to the formerly messy median page. Michael Hardy 22:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening
You have been named as a disputant in the recently opened Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case brought before the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to add evidence to Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:33, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Scott
Thanks for the tip G-Unit

Articles on the X and the Y chromosomes
Please see the new comment at Talk:XY_sex-determination_system. I think we need to remove two of the redirects, and allow Wikipedia to develop one article on the X chromosome, and one article on the Y chromosome. What do you think? RK 22:33, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Creatoinism nonsense
Hello there! I see you've had a run in with the ever irritating 138.130.194.229 (aka 138.130.195.166, aka 220.244.224.8). Lucky you! I've been trying to combat his general nonsense and vandalism on RNA world hypothesis, abiogenesis and origin of life. I have placed him on the list of vandalism in progress but nothing has been done. He is also now blatantly violating copyright. We are currently voting in the talk page of Talk:RNA_world_hypothesis on whether to include one of his creationist links.... This is, to me, one of the single most irritating aspects of wikipedia. The amount of valuable time spent by editors who genuinely care about the project and who actually know what they're talking about on reverting absolute BS and completly anonymous vandalizations must be huge. I'm contemplating giving up on wiki entirely because the creators/admins seem to not care a whit about this.--Deglr6328 10:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

please see requests for comment/138.130.194.229

Cornwall
Why is it so necessary to emphasise Cornwall is in England all the time? Surely using "Britain" and "British" is neutral enough to suit both POVs, and is still factual.

Spelling
Hi! The forms with -ize are perfectly good British English too (check the OED and Fowler's Modern English Usage for why they might be better: 'The suffix itself... is in its origin the Greek -izein, Latin -izare; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic.'). But I agree with you that it's good to have consistent spellings within an article. Lesgles 13:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add that it wasn't I who wrote "the Stonehenge Organization"; you are right that we shouldn't change proper names. Lesgles 13:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Justify yourself
Seem like you think me pointing out a user is a vanddal is personal abuse, well I find your attack to be personal abuse. Refrain from it, your being a hypocrit.--Jirate 17:29, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * You have no evidence that the user did not act in bad faith and you have rushed in to calling the user a vandal instead of asking the user to stop or discuss the edits. Therefore it's up to you to justify your calling the user a vandal.  So far you have done no such thing, and the way you've dealt with this issue has made a very bad impression on other users. Joe D (t) 17:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The evidence of the users distruction is evident all over the place as now is your support for it. The user is demonstrably untrustworth, wont engage in debate, and does what they like.--Jirate 17:46, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * Then point it out. Your comments on User_talk:82.35.37.118 have not established that the user is a vandal, untrustworthy or acted in bad faith.  The user's contributions appear to show that (s)he was simply standardising the categories and it appears from the comments I've seen that you have overeacted.  You have not demonstrated that the user is untrustworthy.  I have not supported the user's edits/"distruction" I have only asked you to justify your comments.  I have not engaged in any main namespace edits on this matter so your claim that I have supported the distruction is unfounded, or even supported the user's edits, I am simply asking you to provide the evidence that you claim is so obvious, but which have failed to provide.  The fact that you are now attacking me on this matter has convined me that you are unwilling to take part in civil discussion and the community side of wikipedia. Joe D (t) 17:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Very simple look atall the cats I have reverted, look at his lack of explanation, stop deleting my warning to other users, just because your don't care about wikpedia doesn't mean that others don'either. You last comment is typical of the personal attacks people like yorself use and encourage others to use. I see no eveidence that you are prepared to engage social activities but lots of indications that you will cary on blidly ignoring the world around you. It's just a pity you seek to abuse wikipedia with your missue of it, to boolster your own ego.--Jirate 18:56, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * Sorry for interuption, I came here by chance, to appreciate Steinsky on his help to recover vandalism on other project. I ask both of you to try thinking once another party was on a good faith but a manner to deal things was different from your own style? And try to think misunderstanding came from the gap of those difference? It is sad to see two good editors say bad thing to the other.

Moved to Requests_for_arbitration/Irate.

Meta
Thank you for your cooperation! -- Aphaea *  17:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Issues about school articles
In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On 207.97.185.102
Sorry about his destruction. He happens to be a co-worker. All edited pages by the person from seth up are blankings --SgeoTC 18:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the award
It is truly a badge of honor. Joshuaschroeder 02:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bournemouth
Hi. Why have you reverted the edits made to Bournemouth today by 131.111.243.37? I can't see why. Also, can you say when you have reverted back to please, as it makes things easier for people trying to see what has happened. --John 21:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I reverted because I didn't consider the edits to be an improvement / encyclopedic. The edits were basically only prose rather than content changes, and IMO they made the prose worse.  Joe D (t) 21:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree that it was all bad. I have put some of it back, and done some of it differently.  Se what you think. --John 21:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Looks good now, thanks. Joe D (t) 21:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Hi. I don't know which page you are referring to but I'm guessing it was a constituency one. Can I point you at WikiProject_UK_Parliamentary_Constituencies therefore. If a different page let me know. --Vamp:Willow 23:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Meme
Talk pages are not held to the same standard as articles. Besides, the discussion you keep deleting is indeed related to the article. Removing other people's discussion is also inconsiderate. — Stevie is the man!  Talk 15:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Meme.

Reverting 'substub' to 'stub'
If you're going to revert substub to stub, could you at least explain your reasons for doing so? This "article" (Survival techniques) seems pretty clearly to fit the 'substub' criteria. --Dcfleck 12:13, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

 * I was removing the articles from Category:Substubs which is redundant and looks to soon be deleted. Joe D (t) 14:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

RE: Lyme Bay
Thanks for helping out with Lyme Bay, I didn't expect anyone to pitch in so fast, thanks! WikiDon

TFD logging
Thanks for helping with the maintenance of TFD, but please note that we log debates differently than VfD does. We use two logs, one for deleted and one for not deleted, see Templates for deletion/Log. We don't use the talk pages, because those are deleted along with the template. Would you mind archiving the substub debate, since you're the one that delisted it and "made the call". -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Punctuation question
I've seen a few people do this, but you were the most recent so I thought I'd ask you. On the talk page for Robert Anton Wilson I noticed that you replaced a couple of apostrophes with some coding. I'm curious as to why. As I say, a number of people have also done this but I was told Wikipedia automatically formats punctuation. For example you'll note I've used several apostrophes here without coding and they look fine. Is there a policy I'm not aware of? Thanks. 23skidoo 13:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't actively change the RAW article. The apostrophes on that page were non standard (something other than ') and most browsers automatically change nonstandard charactors to html code.  Joe D (t) 13:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware it was something that was automatically changed. Thanks for the clarification. 23skidoo 14:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

stub-sorting
I am absolutely in awe at the number of stubs you've sorted recently. Do you find time to eat? Blink? Exhale? Joyous 01:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, when stub sorting be sure to watch what you mark as a minor edit. Adding the nonsense template to an article puts it on speedy delete track - that's not minor. And cream pie is a sub-stub that needs writing, not nonsense. I put bogus text there because people clicking from articles about cream pie flavored yogurts, ice creams, etc, were being redirected to the porn term creampie which is not at all what the linker is looking for. SchmuckyTheCat 18:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

-

I noticed you gave Astrampsychus a biographical stub, again, and over my protests without explanation. Here is my argument:

1. Astrampsychus wasn't a person. 2. Astrampsychus is not something a general biography buff is going to know anything about—mooting the point. 3. There is no good stub category for it. Someone tried "writer" stub before. Magic-Occult is better, but not right. Divination seems like magic now, but in Antiquity it was not, unless you were diving through the dead or something like that.

Any ideas?

(For a better idea of the topic, see the Wiki Classical Dictionary.
 * Roman-stub combined with magic-stub would probably be the closest Grutness...  wha?  14:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Astrampsychus.

-

Thanks for sorting the stub on the 'Nessy the Dragon' article. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and didn't know how to do category-specific stubs. --Psyk0 19:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

-

Thanks for sorting my article on deductive databases. Was about to do it myself (I'm new here :-S) and noticed you'd already done it. Thanks! :-D GeorgeBills 12:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BBC-stub
Hi Steinsky - I'm a little concerned about this one... you've done enough stub sorting to know that WP:WSS likes to go through a debate about new stub categories before they're created, to make sure that they don't cut across the hierarchy of stub categories that already exists. Well, this one does, quite thoroughly. You've got articles in the category which should have station-stub, others that should have Tvseries-stub, some Radio-stubs - it's a bit of a problem, really. I've listed the stub at WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria - if you'd like to comment on the category there, feel free... Grutness...  wha?  14:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Moved to WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria.

Unfossilised dinosaur bones, etc
On this debate, I think you should try to let the argument drop for a few days. There's no way that "Truthteller"'s "article" will survive Vfd, and its ultimate deletion will speak for itself about what Wikipedia thinks of his POV-pushing. In the meantime, I think everyone should just quietly let it be deleted, without debating "Truthteller" on any of his non-policy points. If "Truthteller" tries anything stupid, like reincarnating the article, we can put him before the arbcom and get him banned. Debating anything other than policy with him is only going to inflame the situation.

Hope I didn't seem too sanctimonious. Cheers, →Iñgōlemo←   talk 04:28, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Lyme Bay Map
I changed the size of the text on the map instead, I just thought it was hard to see at 300px. WikiDon

WikiProject UK subdivisions
Definatly willing to help, although my knowledge is limited to London, Hampshire and Staffordshire. Grunners 18:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design revision
Thanks for the feedback. Where do you think my information fits best? Dbergan

Spoken Wikipedia
Hi there. Keep up the good work on WP:SPOKEN. We need more non-American contributors. :) — Chameleon 14:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I second that - keep up the good work! :-) Just one question, this RSS code on the Spoken page, bloody good code, but my computer is trying to open it in "Microsoft Picture It!" but then fails, could you let me know what it is? Thanks Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) 01:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Theory
Hi - a recently signed on creation type has been removing evolution from the theory article and posting quite a bit on the talk. I thought you might want to take a look and comment on the discussion. Thanks, Vsmith 01:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation headers
I heavily disagree with the many removals of the disambiguation headers you've done. Not all users understand the disambiguation process, so please stop deleting them. Cburnett 18:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sydney harbour bridge pic
Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I have the high resolution version now of this image up for featured picture. Thanks, --Silversmith Hewwo 23:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

English coast and countryside by county

 * Could you please stop implementing this "decision"? I do not accept that there was a concensus. Nominator plus one supporter is a quite inadequate basis for such a sweeping change. Another objector has since emerged. Thank you. CalJW 12:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Abiogenesis/Archive1
This archive was created for our dicussion to be moved off the Abiogenesis talk page; and personally I don't it on my talk page. - RoyBoy 800 06:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UK constituencies
Aagh! Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies! It's reckoned that because so many UK constituencies need some sort of disambiguator, and quite a few need "(UK Parliament constituency)" - because of Scottish, Canadian constituencies etc. - that all should have the same disambiguator. As far as I am aware, there is a rough consensus for this. Also, 611 of the 646 constituencies already had the full disambiguator, which was why I was just mopping up the last few this morning. sjorford →•← 13:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your sensible moves to (constituency). There is no such consensus as claimed above. The idea that another constituency named Epsom & Ewell exists is absurd. Dmn / Դմն

 * Well, it's clear to me there is no consensus one way or the other. Please note that I'm not trying to aggressively push this - I initially was in favour of only disambiguating when required, but it seemed to me that we had decided, for good enough reasons, to consistently use the same disambiguator for every constituency. I'm restarting the discussion on the WikiProject talk page, to try and settle this properly. sjorford →•← 13:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AIM
i just wanted to tell you, your AIM contact links to a disambig, (you might want to pipe it to AOL Instant Messanger or something along those lines). Also, can i steal that idea? i like it a lot. thanks, -mysekurity

Family trees
Thanks for the feedback; I've answered on my talk page. Dewet 19:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Steinsky/Archive1


text:
Talk:Prarie Fire

from VfD:

Prarie Fire
Non-notable cocktail recipe. It's probably spelled wrong, too. RickK 23:56, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * might as well delete everything on List of cocktails then... they're all like this for example Sex on the Beach. Alkivar 00:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there's a cocktail recipe article not much better than "Prarie Fire" currently featured in the Did you know section on the Main page. (No vote) Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 01:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, or perhaps merge it into an article discussing those types of cocktail. - SimonP 03:17, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This appears to meet our standards for cocktail articles.  If you find misspellings, then by all means fix them. Factitious 04:08, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Besides the misspelled title: Prairie Fire ought to be reserved for Prairie Fire: the politics of revolutionary anti-imperialism (the political statement of the Weather Underground). A hell of a lot more important than a cocktail. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * the spelling error was done intentionally by me as thats the way it is in my bartenders guide, but that seems to be a valid reason as well. Alkivar 17:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete: nonnotable recipe. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:13, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. These are fairly well-known on the college scene, and a common accompaniment to screenings of Tarantino's From Dusk Till Dawn. Mackensen 05:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. After reviewing the entire VfD page, I am now under the impression that Mr. RickK spends his days censoring articles he doesn't agree with.  A travesty.  Radman1 14:16, 18 Oct 2004 (PST)
 * Radman is trolling VfD in order to get vengeance on everybody who is voting against keeping his articles. RickK 21:49, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * RickK, please put an immediate end to your constant demonstrations that you do not understand the spirit of the Wikipedia. Radman1 17:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook. -- WOT 22:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Isn't really an encyclopedia article, but is viable info, Transwiki. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:30, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

title: Talk:Prarie Fire


text:
Talk:Megatron (Transformers)

Mergefrom Galvatron
I have placed a request in Talk:Galvatron to merger Megatron and Galvatron since these characters are the same even though an evolution of the character has occurred. Please post your reply in the Talk:Galvatron page. Misterrick 00:56, 16 October 2004 (UTC)

"superior" beast
Many fans consider this beast version to be a "superior" version of Megatron, because of his unique personality.

POV? --plicease 11:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Long
This article is 34 kilobytes long. No other individual Transformers characters have several articles about them but should this one be the first one to be split? — J I P  | Talk 18:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Megatron (Beast Wars/Beast Machines) already exists. There's probably some duplicated content between the two, though.--Sean|Bla ck 21:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced that RiD and Arm/Eng Megs need separate articles, myself.--Chris McFeely 3rd Jan 2006

 * I agree. I think Beast Wars Megs is the only one who needs a separate article.SMegatron 19:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Megatron Pervert mode
I was reading the article for 2007 Megatron and words dildo,fuck,cum,and ass were used.Can someone fix this because I can't figure out what to replace the vogurness with. For future reference, if you go into the edit history of the page and click up the most recent edit (the vandal's edit) there's an option at the top which says undo. Click on that, then save it as you'd normally do to undo everything that he did automatically. As you're a user, thats one of the priveliges that comes with it.SMegatron 09:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese series modes
Just curious, but what are the alternate modes of Super Megatron, Ultra Megatron and Star Giant? I was going to add their alternate modes to the article but I can't seem to find them anywhere? SMegatron 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Pervert Megatron
Shouldn't the Megatron with a cock for a tongue be mentioned here?

--Charlesknight 13:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed my comments - I guess they thought I was joking:

http://www.fantofan.jp/news/mag/dengenkidaioh-oct06-1.jpg http://www.fantofan.jp/news/mag/dengenkidaioh-oct06-2.jpg http://www.fantofan.jp/news/mag/dengenkidaioh-oct06-3.jpg

--Charlesknight 13:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be from a fully licensed line called "Kiss-Play" which has a hentai manga associated with it. However I know next to nothing about transformers but saw this mentioned in a few places --Charlesknight 13:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

-I'd agree, only it's not actually Megatron. It's one a team of Decepticons collectively known as "Legion," that just have Megatron-looking heads. - Chris McFeely 17:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

 * 88.105.55.212 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 88.105.55.212 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary Chalk
I'm just putting this on the talk page so that everyone can see and understand it. In this article's infobox, Megatron is credited as being voiced by Frank Welker in the original animated series, and by Gary Chalk in Beast Wars. Please understand that this is not claiming that Gary Chalk voiced the Megatron of Beast Wars and Beast Machines - it is not. That was David Kaye. The original G1 Megatron, however, made a guest appearance in Beast Wars in the episode titled "The Agenda, Part 2," in which he was voiced by Gary Chalk, hence the credit. And since this article is only about G1 Megatron, and not BW/BM Megatron, David Kaye should not be included in this infobox. Do we all understand? - Chris McFeely 21:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as a lot of people don't, here's Chalk's IMDB profile, with him listed as G1 Megatron abouthalfway down the page. I realise they're not perfect, but they've had 10 years to get it right SMegatron 12:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

 * Also, for what its worth, I'll just mention that it's a semi-popular misconception that Blu Mankuma did Megs in "The Agenda." He didn't - Chris McFeely 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

 * That really is better placed in the information for Beast Wars/Beast Machines Megatron,not the main article for G1 Megatron,because this inclusion is completely external to G1 continuity. If you're going to include every errant portrayer of Megatron.why not toss in Hugo Weaving too. Sochwa 06:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 * This information is about the G1 Megatron character no matter where he appeared - even on the beast wars show. user:mathewignash

Images
Do we really need quite so many pictures on this page? It looks rather cluttered. Surely we just need one picture showing each of his different incarnations? -- JediLofty User 14:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By which I mean one picture per incarnation of course! -- JediLofty User 14:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I had ONE picture of his Action Master incarnation, and you keep removing it. user:mathewignash

To be honest, I think it looks okay as is. A quick glance over the article indicates most of the pictures that aren't just "Megatron in his whatever incarnation" aern't extraneous. A lot of them are more detailing intersting stuff about Megs the casual fan might not know like the schematic of Megatron's design or how he originally looked in the animated series. Ohters, like his Dreamwave War Within design or the Ratchet/Megs hybrid detial important events in that version of the character's fictional history. I will admit the toy section is maybe overdoing though. Still, most of the different toys are of interest to someone. Regards.SMegatron 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My fear is that the articles overload on fair use images. Editors should make free photos of toys and donate it to the commons. Alientraveller 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Aside from the aforementioned Action Master/Bw images, which ones do you have in mind in that regard?SMegatron 08:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to organize the clutter by making some go left and some right to put the articles in the center but if it's too odd I apologize. Also I added pictures of my MP-05 Megatron, replacing my magazine scan, and Revoltech Megatron some time ago. User:Phorpus 9 May 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Megatron0000.jpg
Fair use added. SkierRMH 07:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I gather the use of the Dreamwave images has been reined in, from examining recent edits of other Transformers pages. Having said that, the Dreamwave images are really rather good; given the company has collapsed, has anyone got the time/clout/possibility of talking the contributing artists to contributing their work? Mark J. Shea 16:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to know what happened to the "toy box" image of Megatron (and each and every Transformers characters in Wikipedia). Why are they removed from their respective pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.245.86 (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Some users complained about the "fair use" of box art, and most of it has been systematically removed. Their claim is that is is replaceable with a picture of the actual toy. I tried to argue that the original box art isn't always like the toy, and they are unique, but I was overruled. Additionally they are getting very strict about using the exact correct licensing of images on wikipedia, and if something isn't 100% correct, it gets deleted, and few people seem willing to help you learn how to do it correctly, so perfectly acceptable images get deleted because they don't have proper licensing text on them. Mathewignash 16:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

dann from thursday comment
honestly how does someone think this http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/headlines/headline1819.gif looks like this http://alma.skr.jp/mtblog/archives/toy/dann019.jpg

Optimus Prime and Megatron as brothers.
Please see Talk:Transformers_%28film%29 for a discussion of how, if at all, to address the "brothers" line in the live-action movie. Chime in. --EEMeltonIV 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection
I've protected this article from editing by anonymous and new users to prevent vandalism. Any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khu kri  07:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 Movie Megatron Image
Why was the image for the 2007 Movie Megatron changed to that of an unused, and therefore inaccurate early version of him? --Sauron18 04:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also confused over this change. The design being shown isnt even used in the movie. It needs to be changed back. RiseDarthVader (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just because the original image was deleted (someone didn't make the proper copyright os somesuch) and someone offered this one to replace the blank space with some image. Feel free to upload a better one. Mathewignash (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ultra Movie Megatron toy???
In the toys section for the movie version of Megatron someone lists an ultra class toys. I have never heard of this toy before, can someone verify it?

2007 movie Megatron and Spike Spiegel's jet
Doesn't Megatrons vehicle mode in the new movie look an awful lot like Spike Spiegel's jet from the anime series Cowboy Bebop? please discuss. Taco khan 5000

Opening Paragraph
Ok, considering this has a suggested 'rewrite' tag, and the character is very much in the public eye at the moment, I say we begin at the beginning (as Julie Andrews says...)

"Megatron is a fictional character from the Transformers universe. Megatron was originally portrayed in film and on television by the voice of Frank Welker. The character is of such popularity and significance that he has undergone many revisions and reincarnations in an attempt to reconcile various continuities; however, Megatron has remained pivotal character across the various media in which the universe is portrayed. Megatron is invariably the chief villain, most recognisably as the leader of the Decepticons. In his most common appearance, he is a heavily built grey robot, pitted against his Autobot nemesis, Optimus Prime."

Failing suggestions, I'll place this or something like in the opening paragraph in the next day or so. Including links, obviously. Mark J. Shea 16:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Scene
I added info on the Delete Scene from the Beast Wars finale where G1 Megatron's spark is returned from Beast Wars Megatron. I couldn't find any information anywhere on how to find it on the DVD, so I finally discovered it on my own. --Flib 21:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is WAY TOO LONG
What the hell. Backsigns 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Admitidly it's an article about 3 characters named Megatron. Maybe the second largest one, 2007 movie Megatron, should be given his own page to inhabit. Mathewignash 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've never seen such a long article about a character like this. Deatonjr (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Returning in Transformers 2
Does anybody know that Megatron might be returning in the sequel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.117.112 (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mr/Mrs/Miss IP User... this Talk page is for discussing the article, not the films. For what it's worth, the writers haven't even been confirmed, so it's far too early to be asking about which characters will be in the next film. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Movie-Related Question
Should we add in the Transformers: Animated part that his head resembles the movie incarnation? Because it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.152.186 (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Metatron?
Is megatrons name in any way related to the angel Metatron for angeology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.135 (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't know, but I somehow doubt it. In any case, we can't put it in the article as a supposition as that would count as original research, but if you can find any third-party sources suggesting that it was derived from that name, feel free to add it.--  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * According to Bob Budinsky (the guy who made the name up), it's a combination of Megaton and Electron. MEGAton + elecTRON = Megatron. Mathewignash (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Original Toy photos
I noticed that there are no photos of the original toy anymore (copyright issues I assume?) Would it make sense to add a site like http://www.toybin.org/search.php?q=1984+Decepticon+Megatron to the external links? toybin.org follows all of the guildlines on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Fan_sites.3F (they own the images, is not a wiki, or blog, just a transformer site) Icefox (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Animated Megatron
I have noticed that the picture uploaded is not the appearance of megatron in the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongzoe (talk • contribs) 14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
The reasons I reverted the changed include: Any other opinions on this? Mathewignash (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Megatron was released as a Predacon alligator, so both Decepticon and Predacon should be noted.
 * Main section should include ONLY the info on the G1 and later Megatron, moving all his info into that section (including the infobox), and other headers considering other Megatrons.
 * I disagree with putting information on the toy's origin in the header, it should be in the section marked "Toys"

 * I've posted my responce on my talk page. Sarujo (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I see that no responce shows that your insisting I come here and there and discuss my thoughts. But as I stated in my talk page, virtually all the Transformer character articles are travesties. They are simply biographies and fancruft made to look like an article which are wikipedia violations. This article and some of the G1 characters are the only notable characters within the franchise. Characters like Thunderblast are not notable and are not entitled to their own article. The important aspect that help the foundation of an article are real world content. Which is development and reception or their cultural impact. These are the section that are needed for this and other character articles: These are all the thing that are needed with development and reception sections a must before it can be called an article. Thoughts, I know you've got some. Sarujo (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A good intro paragraph
 * A development section discussing the creation of the character
 * A personality section discussing the characters attitudes and feelings
 * A abilities section discussing the characters powers and attributes or in this case what item the character transforms into.
 * A "very brief" history of the character, no more than a paragraph at the most
 * A other media section, discussing official and some unofficial appearances the character has made.
 * A reception section discussing the character's cultural impact and fan reception.
 * A reference section to list all the reference tags.

 * Why don't you make a proposed replacement/change to each individual section, and let the people who watch over this article have a vote on each section's change? Are there any sections which you think should be downright deleted or added, or are they just to be changed? Mathewignash (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I'll focus on Megatron for now as he is clearly the single most iconic Decepticon within the franchise.
 * First off, the toy section must go as it is a clear violation per WP:Cruft and are in list form. The only notible toy is the Gun Robo/G1 Megatron toy and that can be listed in the development section.
 * Second, Appearances within the comics and other shows fall under appearances in other media and can be summed up in a paragraph.
 * Third, his ranking in the Wizard poll should be in the reception section.
 * This a start for now I'll examine the article some more. Sarujo (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 * On second thought I'll do a ruff draft rewrite with all the aproprate aspects and bring it here evaluation before any drastic are to be made. If you don't have any objections. Sarujo (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus against move looking at all three move requests together. The articles are about the characters in the Transformers universe as a whole and includes details on both G1 and other incarnations such as Beast Wars. The disambiguator appears unnecessary to clear up any confusion against other articles. Of course, (hatnotes should be placed for the articles discussing particular incarnations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Megatron → Megatron (G1) — The G1 incarnations of Optimus Prime, Megatron and Starscream are the original versions of the characters and were the inspiration behind all their other incarnations. In addition, they are thought of by many fans to be the "real" versions of the characters. However, they are by no means the "definitive" versions as the non-suffixed article names imply, due to the large relative success and arguably equal importance of Transformers universes succeeding G1, among other factors. If someone says "G1 Prime is THE Optimus Prime", that is an opinion, not a fact. The non-suffixed names linking to the G1 versions of the characters inadvertently gives the impression that Wikipedia is biased towards G1 as the "superior" and "main" Transformers canon, which not only opposes Wikipedia's neutral point of view but also would probably be frowned upon by fans of Beast Wars, the live-action movies and the like. In my opinion, in order to remove G1 bias, the names (without any suffix) should link to disambiguation pages linking to the G1 versions, any other versions (such as Beast Wars Megatron), and an "other incarnations" page listing all the minor incarnations of the characters.--172.165.156.112 (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

76.66.194.17 (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not soley a G1 article, and "G1" is a horrible disambiguator.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox merge
The current infobox for "G1 Megatron" currently icnludes Megatron from, Generation 1, Generation 2, Beast Wars, Robot Masters, Titanium, Classics, Attacktix AND Transformers: Universe. We put these 8 different series together already because they are basically different incarnations of the SAME CHARACTER. Any other Megatrons who have different infoboxes are essentially different characters who share a name, but not the same Megatron. They need their own infoboxes. That said the Megatron infobox on this page should be within the section about THIS character. If we add more characters to this page they should get their own infoboxes. Mathewignash (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate info on other Megatrons
Since this page has a disambig link on the top, having a large section listing other uses of Megatron is redundant. If you are looking for other Megatrons look to the disambig. Mathewignash (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambig page
Should the main Megatron page be a disambig page and G1 info placed on a seperate page? Perhaps put the character info on Megatron (Transformers)? Or should we just have all the disambig info on the top of this page and the G1 character info below it? Mathewignash (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Megatron
I feel it is unnecessary that this character has a separate articles for Megatron (other incarnations). It is full of fancruft, badly sourced fansites and plot summary it would be better to for them to be redirected to the main article as it's about the same character and there is innsufficent independent information that the different incarnations are notable or distinct enough to have their own article. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC) :Strong Oppose  You're kidding, right? The combined length of all three Megatron pages is 141 kilobytes. You really want to end up with a page that long? --Divebomb (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Divebomb has been blocked as a sockpuppet.
 * Yes, but at least half of that content is trivia and plot summary that could be discarded. 70k is fine. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The characters, while sharing a name, are very different characters, each is noteworthy and deserves an article. Mathewignash (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

 * As I mentioned at Wikiproject Transformers the argument which has often been made that multiple incarnations can't exist on a single TF character on one page. Because it is unwieldy or confusing to the reader is intellectually dishonesty. The nearest comparison would be to a Toy based character with multiple incarnations would be GI Joe. Look at the likes of Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe),Hawk (G.I. Joe),Scarlett (G.I. Joe) they have multiple descriptions of each incarnation of their characters and still manage write about the toys with sprawling checklists and still readable and they are much better written and sources than many of the TF articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you apply this logic to Megatron from Robots in Disguise, who was called Gigatron in Japan, and wasn't even supposed to be Megatron except that the Hasbro people decided to reuse the name they already owned the Trademark for? He's not even a Megatron except in the English dub. Mathewignash (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support per same rationale as Talk:Optimus Prime (Transformers) (except here there may be a reason to keep a disambiguation page).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Megatron a Prime
Although Megatron is not said to be a Prime in the movies, I believe he is. In the second movie, The Fallen says only a Prime can defeat him, wanting Optimus Prime killed. Megatron has succesfully engaged Optimus in battle in both movies. In the first movie, Megatron beats Optimus badly enough that he is assured victory until killed by the All-Spark. In the second movie Megatron destroys Optimus' spark. Further proof is that the Fallen is a Prime, but stops calling himself that once he founds the decepticons. Megatron is a Prime, but would have stopped calling himself that once he became a decepticon, the name Prime being an Autobot title, and Megatron seeing it as beneath him.

Since the movies depart from continuity of the animated series and the comics Megatron could be a Prime in the movies, even if he isn't in the other media. --Preator1 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because "only a Prime can defeat the Fallen" doesn't mean only a Prime can defeat Optimus. Mathewignash (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Content Dispute
It is apparent that several editors are rapidly approaching the 3RR criteria due to a dispute on content. Also the article was getting very big based on a huge amount of unsourced material. I have gone back to a "reasonable" version and applied protection to stop the war. The editors are now asked to discuss the potential edits here, and come to a consensus of what should be added/removed when the protection expires in a week. I would not expect to see any editprotected templates being applied to speed up the editing.  Ron h jones (Talk) 16:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

– Relisting with multimove ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Megatron (Transformers) → Megatron
 * Megatron → Megatron (disambiguation)

 * Unnecessary disambiguation for primary topic. Just as Optimus Prime (Transformers) redirects to Optimus Prime, Megatron (Transformers) should redirect to the primary article for Megatron. The disambiguation page can then be located at Megatron (disambiguation). Fortdj33 (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been the subject of previous page move edit warring and is not uncontroversial. older ≠ wiser

 * Comment. "Unnecessary disambiguation for primary topic" is an unsatisfactory reason. I have yet to see an explanation on why Megatron (Transformers) should be the primary topic. Just because it was decided that the Transformer is the primary topic for Optimus Prime does not automatically make it the same way here (see also WP:OTHERSTUFF). In this case, both Megatron (Transformers) and Megatron have previously been the subject of edit warring, partly on this issue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support; none of the other uses on the disambiguation page even come close. Powers T 13:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Powers. Seriously, just look at the dab page or do a google search for Megatron – the Transformers character is the clear primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Surely this is really a multiple move request, and the DAB should move to Megatron (disambiguation) if this goes ahead? Perhaps not a critical issue; In view of the edit wars and no-consensus requested move outcomes concerning similar Tranformers franchise articles, and the sorry history of the DAB, I but preach caution. Andrewa (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, moving the dab was mentioned by the nom. Jenks24 (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Other potential primary topics listed on the include two other Transformers characters, a rebadged engine, a short film with no article, and two people with nicknames of Megatron. It's quite clear that this one is the primary topic. Reach Out to the Truth 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Google Insight suggests that people typing in "Megatron" as a search term are looking for this character, since all of the associated words are Transformers-related. suggests American football player Calvin Johnson as an alternative referent. But I doubt anyone will move Johnson's article to the title "Megatron". So the Megatron lemma is free for use here.  Kauffner (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:Megatron (Transformers)