WikiProject Transformers		TransformersWikipedia:WikiProject TransformersTemplate:WikiProject TransformersTransformers articles
v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transformers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transformers articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

WikiProject Comics / United States	(Rated Start-Class, Bottom-importance)	ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:ComicsprojComics articles
Comics portal v • d • e This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Bottom  This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups:   United States comics work group

Contents 1 Is the Allspark Really Worth $41K 2 Fate of the Allspark; spoiler warnings 3 Dr Who and The Matrix 4 Evil Allspark? 5 Football sized? 6 Movie section 7 Wilhelm Reich's Orgone

[edit] Is the Allspark Really Worth $41K

Thought I'd mention this that the Allspark prop that was used in the movie went for a considerable amount on Ebay. Edson88888 07:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, very interesting. I can't imagine that the buyer will every get that kind of money back for a movie prop. --UntilMoraleImproves 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fate of the Allspark; spoiler warnings

Shouldn't there be a little more to the spoiler warning here for the movie? The information presented, especially when dealing with what happens to the Allspark in the movie, is basically the ending. Is it really useful to put the movie's ending in this article? If so, I think we need to go beyond Wikipedia:Spoiler warning UntilMoraleImproves 20:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean an EVEN BIGGER spoiler warning? Uh? Please reread Wikipedia:Content disclaimer - David Gerard 19:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the ending of the movie really need to be there to accurately describe the Allspark?? UntilMoraleImproves 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, considering it is a vital component of that scene in the film! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not about the film, just about the Allspark. The article doesn't need to have a description of what happens to it at the end of the film, it just needs to be informative on what the Allspark is. UntilMoraleImproves 21:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler tag was removed as "redundant as per WP:SPOILER." The consensus has been that it is redundant in Plot and Themes sections. Here, it's not redundant, and called for as long as a plot detail is discussed on a "character page." Feedback? Please, put it here without edit warring. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction The last time I'd reviewed the guideline discussion, fictional character pages were an article type which could support spoiler notices. Since the guideline has been changed yet again, they are considered redundant, EXCEPT "around specific details that a reader might not expect to come across." So ... please discuss whether the plot details around Allspark in the 2007 film are "expected" on this page.... TIA, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

I should think that they are - especially since the spoilerish material here comes a fair bit into the section. Between the fact that the section clearly notes that we're going to be talking about the Allspark's role in the movie and the fact that a cautious reader can see where this is going and bail out, I think the spoiler warning is unnecessary. Phil Sandifer 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting sick and tired of saying this, but the ending of the movie should be removed from the article all together. Forget spoiler warnings, just take it out. The movie's ending is NOT needed to explain what the Allspark is and the whole point of Wiki is to present the information requested.UntilMoraleImproves 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The movie endding is needed to define what the AllSpark is. The ending of the movie establishes what happens to the AllSpark. This article does not just define what it is this articles explains its past and current status. If that is not what this article is for I suggest taking any referrence of the origins as well as its current status of what the AllSpark is and just define what it is and leave any ablities and anything else out. Basically killing the article.Ldstryfe

I am just wondering the reason why certain editors do not wish to allow for the fate of the AllSpark to be listed on the article page. IS not what happens to this item not relevant to the article? Ldstryfe.

No, it is not relevant. This article is about what the AllSpark is, NOT what happens to it at the end of the movie. Again, there is no need for this information. Ldstryfe appears to be attempting to insert spoilers for a nefarious purpose.UntilMoraleImproves 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If the point of the article is to just define what the AllSpark is should not every source talking about what happens to it not be removed from the article? UntilMoraleImprove please do not state things that you have 100% no idea about. I have no wish for this article to be a spoiler I just want it to be an accurate representation of the current status of the AllSpark. Guess articles aren't designed to be up-to-date on what an item is only what it was. I would recommend if you do want any spoilers remove all referrences to any of the movie as well as the comic books since those would be considered the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs) 16:44, July 12, 2007

I must apologize, but I am confused by the previous, unsigned statement. Would this be from user Ldstryfe? Please refer to WP:HOWTO
UntilMoraleImproves 20:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The fate belongs in this article, just like in the case of articles on real things and people (e.g. destruction of an object, and date of death of a person).--Patrick 13:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only do I disagree w/Patrick but I am very happy w/the current state of the article and I hope no other editors try to revert it (check the history, I didn't make the changes)UntilMoraleImproves 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am with you Patrick. This article is about the AllSpark. The whole article is a spoiler to those who have not seen the movie so thus having a information that is in the movie about the AllSpark makes sense as would what happens to it. The article in and of itself at its current stage is not an accurate up-to-date article on the AllSpark.LdStryfe

This is getting ridiculous. As other editors have agreed, the movie ending does not need to be part of the description of what the Allspark is. LdStryfe seems to be overzealous in constantly putting it back in. --UntilMoraleImproves 15:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The fate of something is most certainly part of encyclopedic coverage. If we're going to mention how it figures in the plot, it should be done so comprehensively. --Eyrian 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

UntilMoraleImproves I can't seem to find any editors on there that are in agreeement with you that the movie ending does not need to be part of this description. I believe you to be fanatical about your belief that this article should stick to what the AllSpark is without stating anything about the movie. That would be an impossiblity. Reading through this discussion page shows an overwhemling majority, except for you, that it should be included.--Ldstryfe

Ldstryfe, you are mistaken and from what I can tell, not very experienced in using/editing WP entries. --UntilMoraleImproves 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on a contributor is generally inappropriate; please comment on the content. What reason is there to not provide comprehensive coverage of the AllSpark's role in the plot of the film? --Eyrian 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that if you look over said user's comments, revisions, etc. they do not keep pace w/WP standards. Not a personal attack. As for the revisions/reverts, as stated before, what happens to the Allspark at the end of the film (movie ending) is NOT necessary for an encyclopedic article about what the Allspark IS. I'd rather not get into a reversion war so shall we leave it as is? --UntilMoraleImproves 18:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Eyrian, I do not believe that it was appropriate for you to revert again and throw out WP:3RR as I am now blocked from making my point if I change the page back. --UntilMoraleImproves 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC):::As a fictional object, what is important to the discussion is the AllSpark's role in the story. It's final fate is an important part of that.

I said nothing about personal attacks, you've made no such transgression. It is, however, usually best to not remark about the contributor at all. Discuss the issues instead.

I wouldn't block you for violating 3RR; I don't like to think of the rule as a club. I'd rather hash this issue out first. Remember, as a fictional object, the goal of this article should be to discuss the AllSpark's role in the various transformers stories. That includes the ending. To avoid doing so would be to fail to provide comprehensive coverage. Which, while not "necessary" (Nothing about Wikipedia is "necessary"), should not be removed. --Eyrian 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad we cleared most of that up, but I do still disagree on the fundamental point at hand. As far as I can tell, the only benefit anyone can get out of having the movie ending in is that it spoils the movie, in whole or in part depending on your POV. I don't see any other real benefit to having that statement in the article. --UntilMoraleImproves 19:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because that is comprehensive coverage. Wikipedia articles should strive to be comprehensive. I personally don't object to a spoiler tag (though others seem to), but the fact is, when covering fictional material, there is no reason to not cover it completely other than "We haven't gotten there yet". --Eyrian 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Who and The Matrix

What does the Dr Who reference have to do with Transformers? Both the other references are to in-universe uses of the term "Matrix", but then we get to Dr Who. Should we remove that, or should I add things like, I don't know, a major motion picture named The Matrix that shouldn't be confused with the allspark? Kuronue 13:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would mention the Keanu Reeves movie(s) as the section is called "Disambiguation." David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Allspark?

In the 2007 Transformers film, the Allspark creates a few new transformers, but everyone of them is violent and aggressive. Can anyone explain this? Should it be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.36.2 (talk • contribs) 09:40, July 16, 2007

Good question, perhaps that should be explored. Any other thoughts? Also, remember to sign your postsUntilMoraleImproves 18:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

i think that the allspark gives life to machines, but it is up to them to decide what team they will be on. remember the claw marks? that CD boombox no doubt resented the way S7 was treating it and decided that the bad guys were more in line with his priorities. 24.208.200.173 17:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, they all seem to default to being bad at first. Look at all of the machines created towards the end when Sam is running towards the building. --UntilMoraleImproves 14:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the novelisation of the film, the transformers created by the Allspark are primal entities that are almost feral. All the transformers thus created are made either by humans (who presumably don't know how to harness the Allspark fully) or accidentally. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost all animals have a basic "fight or flight" instinct; clearly, creatures made with the allspark, not having had time to learn anything nor teaching by parental figures, are defaulting to these basic instincts, choosing either to run away (not very interesting to watch, thus not much screen time) or fight to defend themselves from the perceived menaces of people and cars. At least, that was my take on it. Kuronue 20:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But all the Allspark transformers are depicted with red eyes (such as the cell-phone and vending machine). Moreover, the Movie somewhat uses the "Decepticons have red eyes, Autobots have blue eyes" concept. Comments? --Optimus91 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source to cite then feel free to add this. If not, it is original research and can't be used. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the reason all newborn Transformers from the allspark are "evil" is because they were just born. They have no morals or upbringing to go by. All they have is survival instinct. The're not evil, they're just trying to survive in a world where all these squishy fleshy creatures keep screaming at them. Also, eye color in the movie makes no difference as said by Jetfire in Revenge of the Fallen. It's a choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.139.1.68 (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Football sized?

At the end of the film section, it says the Allspark "can be converted into a smaller, football-sized cube". Few questions. How can a cube be "football-sized"? I mean, yeah, they could be roughly the same length, width, or whatever, but they are completely different shapes, and to use one as an example of the other just seems a bit weird, to me anyway... On a similar point, what is meant by football...is it the ball used in proper association football, the ball in American football, Aussie rules, rugby, etc, or what? And they're not all the same size, or even shape, and like before, not cubes. It seems unclear.
I believe the sentence originally said it became small enough to be carried by a human, or something like that, but that got removed (if I've checked the history right). Something along those lines would make it clearer, though what to put, I wouldn't know... --86.130.32.30 23:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

Football sized is exactly how it's described in the novelization. That doesn't make it a good description. You could say 'honeydew melon-sized' I suppose. Basically it's big enough to be carried like a football, rather than a tennis ball I suppose. WLU 17:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie section

I re-wrote the movie section mostly for tone, someone with more in-universe knowledge might want to proofread it for accuracy. I split it into short sections and tried to streamline the info about different 'sources' or alternate definitions of the Allspark from different franchise sources. I also took out the 'product placements' where I could - it doesn't really matter what kind of cellphone or vending machine was allsparked, though the other two are more difficult. I've tried to give a brief overview of the history as I understand it from the novelizations and movie, but I don't know how appropriate it is. WLU 17:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I just re-wrote the other section, and completely took out the disambiguation - there's no real need, this isn't a disambiguation page, and no-one will confuse the term Matrix with Allspark. Further, Matrix and The Matrix don't redirect here - the section wasn't really useful in my mind so I just took it out. WLU 17:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I necessarily agree that "it it doesn't really matter what kind of cellphone or vending machine was allsparked". I think that since they make a point of telling you the model (they specifically say it's a "Nokia" and that they make nasty robots and the Mountain Dew vending machine is very prominent in it's display of "Mountain Dew" logos) that I believe they would actually be a significant addition to the article. --UntilMoraleImproves 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's blatant product placement in the movie, and really don't see how it adds to the page here - the brand of phone was mentioned once, with no other context or comparable statement with other brands. I'd happily remove the specifics on the car and game system too, but the Xbox doesn't really have a generic equivalent. I'll change the Cadillac to a generic SUV, what about an equivalent for the Xbox? Because they plug something doesn't mean we have to :) WLU 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "plugging" something, it's a matter of being factual and factually speaking, it was a Nokia phone, a Mountain Dew vending machine and a Cadillac Escalade. GM/Ford/Peterbuilt references aren't removed from the descriptions of the Autobots in their pages so why would we omit them here when talking about other "Transformers"? I think you need to seriously reconsider or go update all of the other pages to remove references to Camaros, Mustangs, Peterbuilt Trucks, Solstices, Topkicks, etc., etc., etc. --UntilMoraleImproves 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between citing OP, a major character who is vital to the plot and entire franchise, as a Peterbuilt truck, or Bumblebee as a Camaro, pointing out that he was conventionally a VW bug, and discussing the specific brand of a one-off plot point. I don't see it as vitally important that people know one specific cell phone was a Nokia. I see the discussion of specific, developed characters' vehicle identities as important, but generic creatures that appear once and are destroyed or disappear from the plot less than a minute later, I see as product placement. I see it as unnecessary detail rather than factual accuracy. For me, it's jarring to read through an article and cite specifics like that. Also, by saying it was a Nokia cell and a MD vending machine, it may give the impression that the specific brand matters - like a Motorola phone wouldn't be transformed into an evil robot. Leaving it generic means it's the device that is important, not the specific type of device. We could always take it to WP:3O for a 3rd opinion. WLU 13:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest we go for WP:3O. The Sector 7 agent specifically states that Nokia's are nasty robots so I think that if nothing else, that should be mentioned. As for the Cadillac or MD machine, I'm open on those but I don't see the harm in pointing out what they are. --UntilMoraleImproves 12:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Nokia phone I'm willing to settle on, you've got a point with that, but I don't see a reason for the Cadillac or MD machine. Wanna have a go at re-wording the Nokia? Perhaps put in that tool-section7-agent-guy got the country wrong? I'd rather not clog up 3O if we're close to agreement. WLU 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll try and work on it soon and get the section updated on the phone. --UntilMoraleImproves 13:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait.. what's wrong with being accurate? Since it's stated what kind of machines they were, what's the problem listing that? It's not OR, it's Verifiable information... Kuronue 04:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the changes, unfortunately, I do not have time right now. --UntilMoraleImproves 20:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's verifiable, but is it encyclopedic? I find it jarring to read an encyclopedia page that discusses things in very general terms, until you get a bunch of machines which suddenly zoom in on specifics. I don't think anything is added by having a 'Mountain Dew' vending machine or a 'Cadillac Escalade' SUV in the text. The Nokia is better as a mention because the guy makes a point of discussing the brand, but otherwise the products' names look like product placement without adding anything to the page really. I think it detracts from the credibility to have (in my mind) pointless product placement in the page. WLU 06:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelm Reich's Orgone

The channelling of Allspark energy into the Nokia cellphone by the Sector 7 agent reminds me of Reich's Orgone accumulators (cosmic energy that can create life from non-living matter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.29.11 (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)