Talk:Matrix of Leadership

Untitled

Alpha Trion, the 'old man' transformer who was Optimus Prime's mentor was his predecessor in the line of the Matrix, this is clearly shown in the episode where Prime comes back to life and uses the Matrix to wipe out the plague that affects the entire universe, Prime converses with Trion inside the matrix.

"The Matrix was also included in the Japanese-only Masterpiece Ultra Magnus redeco of the toy, but it could not be opened."

Unless this was intended to be a joke at Magnus's expense, I beg to differ. The Matrix inside my Masterpiece Ultra Magnus opens perfectly well, and infact appears indistinguisable to the one in my 20th Anniversary Prime, aside from a lighter gold on the casing around the gem.--TheTurnipKing 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Alpha Trion was a leader. He lead the original Transformer rebellion. But it was much later on though when he first possessed the Matrix of Leadership prior to passing it to Optimus Prime. Since he was a leader at some point would help explain why he was inside the Martix even though he would not have the Maxtrix itself until the 6th Autobot leader had died for a short period of time before he recontructed Optimus Prime and passed it to him. From the original cartoon it did appear that only dead Autobot leaders reside within the Matrix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.49.196 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

anti-Decepticon bias

"Galvatron (Any attempt to use the Matrix has met with failure)"

This is clearly POV. The same could be said of Ultra "I can't lead the autobots out of a paper bag" Magnus, but it isn't mentioned in the entry. --66.216.68.28 20:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Allspark/Matrix

The Matrix and the Allspark are entirely different things. The Matrix is a relic passed from Autobot Leader to Leader. It was a small blue crystal held within said Leader's chest that had a wise variety of powers, including bestowing knowledge and destroying evil like Unicron.

The Allspark is of unknown origin that creates Transformers. It is a large cube that can change into a small cube, and emits transformer energy that changes objects into Transformers. It is also highly dangerous and can destroy a Transformer when it comes into contact with their Spark.

The two are entirely different objects, there is no similarity beyond "they create Transformers". Saying they are similar is OR and entirely incorrect. And until someone provides a source that says the Allspark is similar to the Matrix instead of just using OR to say it is, I'm going to remove this section. Even if they were similar, because the two are named different it's still OR to link them. The Clawed One 22:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your message displays that you do not understand them. The Matrix was first seen as a computer program and then as a casement with the Matrix within it (ref: Marvel US as on page). The Matrix was the source of life for Transformers (ref: later issues in the 65-75 range) and gave life (as referenced on the page).

The Allspark gives life (as shown with the cellphone in the movie) and is the source of life of Transformers (early comments in the movie). How is this different? It is not.

Their appearance in BOTH is questionable. The Allspark was inside the cube, never seen directly. The Matrix was almost always shown inside its casing (when it was shown, which it often was not). There is no evidence that they are the same or different.

The simple fact is the Allspark is plainly derived from the Matrix. We are not, in this article, saying that they ARE the same, but that they at the least seem to function in very similar fashions (as I have described above). It is both a factual and relevant statement.

VigilancePrime 00:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: The Matrix just about destroyed Thuderwing and later almost destroyed Prime, and that was without direct contact.

If there's no evidence that they're the same or different, then again, it's OR. You are of the opinion that they are the same and are using your own perception of the two to justify these rvs without a viable source. The Clawed One 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the content. I am not saying that they ARE the same. The text is not saying that. I am saying that they appear to operate in a similar way or have a similar function. The text tells the same. You're the one that is mis-reading it to your own ends. VigilancePrime 05:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, if the text just implies they are similar, then it's still OR, non-NPOV, etc. You're miss-reading my comments as well. It doesn't matter if they are similar or not, either way, the statement is unsourced and should be removed. If they are similar, then it's still unsourced. And if it isn't, it's speculation, and Wikipedia does not list speculations. The Clawed One 06:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In the 2007 Transformers movie, there is a hidden relic called the Allspark, which Megatron plans to use for his own ends. Although called the "Allspark" in the film, it appears to function like the Matrix.

This is an unsourced, speculative claim. It makes a comparison based on personal observation. This isn't acceptible. Please do not add it to the article without a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a sufficient reference. It is a blog. Please use a reliable source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Waitasecond. Whether or not that's a blog, that doesn't even make the claim. It doesn't compare the Allspark to the Matrix. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Matrix

"Any similarity between the Matrix and the Allspark is already noted on the Allspark page, and there's no good reason why the page needs an entirely new heading to say what another, more appropriate article discusses at length. Unless you have anything but your observations of the movie's content, and no written source to back the claim up, it is still direct observation and OR. The Clawed One 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)"

That's a ridiculous argument. You're saying that it is perfectly viable for one page but not another? That is a direct contraditcion of your earlier arguments where you state that it is not acceptable from a Wiki standpoint. You can't have it both ways. Think of it like this: The Battle of Gettysburg should be listed on BOTH the General Lee page and the General Grant page. Your argument is like saying, "since it's talked about on the General Lee page, we shouldn't even mention it on the General Grant page." Think about it. VigilancePrime 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"You're twisting what I said to meet your own needs. The Allspark page as a whole in unsourced, and yes, that sentence is not needed, but I know you'd just revert that as well. You still do not have a source besides your own observation of the film. The Clawed One 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)"

In other words, the film is not a good enough reference? I'm confused. THIS page is marked as unsourced as well, and that is slowly changing. I have already sourced a good deal of it and continue to do so. You keep deleting one section that you seem to have a penchant hatred for. It's been explained, reworded pursuant to your concerns, and still is not good enough, even though it is now clearly not drawing conclusions and even is (though meagerly) referenced. I don't get it. What's your problem with it this time (since it keeps changing)? VigilancePrime 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're still avoiding the sourcing issue. Provide a written source besides direct observation of the film. The next time you revert this, I *will* report you. The Clawed One 15:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OOOH! You'll report me for what? Adding a perfectly factual statement to an article? You're the one off trying to cause trouble here. No matter how this is modified to address your concerns, you still have some chip on your shoulder about it and I have been trying constantly to improve this for you. That is impossible as each time your argument changes. I'm not the only one in this camp, but you're the only one I see deleting it constantly. Take the hint. FIX it if you think it needs to be re-reworded. VigilancePrime 15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Now your starting to imtimadate people.Oldandslow217 15:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

More accurately, he's TRYING to intimidate... VigilancePrime 15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)  :-)

I'm just saying what I'm gonna do. You two are both continuing to avoid the real issue of NO SOURCE TO BACK UP SPECULATIVE INFORMATION. Instead of yelling at me for removing such improper data, try to find a viable source to back up your claims. These will help. The Clawed One 15:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research
Wikipedia:Verifiability

And you are both about to violate this one as well.

I can't make this any clearer, but here it is.

You have NO SOURCE. The data is based on your own OBSERVATION of the film. The similarity is SPECULATION. You're VANDALIZING. Is any of this getting through to you? I have nothing more to say. Provide a written source besides observation. The Clawed One 16:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this: Nobody has been yelling at anyone. You've been threatening, but there's been no yelling, even by you (and besides, I have my speakers turned off).

I have not been reverting. I have been elaborating in most all my edits. I have been adding information for the purpose of appeasing you. You're the only one who does nothing but revert.

Maybe I'm missing the part where the movie is not citable. It'd be pretty tough to have any movie article without citing the movie, eh? (And you can verify it by watching the film... have you done that yet?)

Vandalizing... you don't know the first thing about vandalizing. I have seen (and reverted) vandalism that would set you straight on the term. (But that accusation did add needed humor to this page.)

The similarity is not speculation. Try this: "Lantana is a plant with green leaves and colored blooms. In this way, it is similar to many other garden plants such as roses, tulips, and hyacinth."

The source is stated. The information is not speculation. It is fact. You may not like it, but it is the case regardless.

But have a nice day anyway. VigilancePrime 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC) :-)

Comment — Right, enough. I've warned both of you since you're both well past three reverts. Continue to ignore this rule and you will end up blocked. I'm not involved in any way, but edit wars really aren't helping to better the encyclopaedia. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 16:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

SOURCE ADDED.

And I have not "simply" been reverting.

But I don't suppose actual improvements to the article matter to you.

VigilancePrime 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

self-reference

"The Answer.com page you sourced was just quoting Wikipedia. Try again. The Clawed One 16:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)"

Whoops... I missed that aspect. I had read a more recent version of that Wiki page and so it sounded different (cause it was). My mistake. (I knew it couldn't be that easy to find...) VigilancePrime 16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC) :-)

I honestly don't understand why you two cannot accept that you cannot win this. An Admin himself removed the information and agreed with my reasons for such an edit. Does that not mean a thing to you guys? The Clawed One 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And an Admin cannot be wrong? Why was it removed? If I find a reference, not quoting Wiki, that states something along the lines of the Allspark being the source of Transformers life, making it analogous to the Creation Matrix from the Marvel Comics, which is what this entire debate I THINK has centered on, would that be enough for you? VigilancePrime 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you have a viable source providing the comparison, go nuts. I have no problem admitting when I've been wrong.

As a note, though, IMDB isn't a good source. Most of the data there is user submitted and not reliable. The Clawed One 16:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hi. I'm AMIB, an administrator. I would like to educate those present on what to use as a source.

A good source is a publication independent of the subject written with editorial control or peer review. (We can ignore peer review in this case; it's not happening here.) These are called reliable sources.

A bad source is something that isn't those things. The further away it is from those things, the worse it is. Thee worst kind of source is personal observation (I looked outside and saw the sky was blue).

Let's take this edit. VigilancePrime, while his heart was in the right place, misses the point of sourcing claims. He simply cites the movie, while his claim is evaluative (such-and-such thing in the movie is like something else).

You cannot simply cite a fictional work for an evaluative claim about that fictional work. This is how we keep out claims like "Transformers is an allegory for turn-of-the-century European international politics (source: Transformers)." The claim in this above diff, while less ridiculous, is equally badly sourced.

Then, there's this edit. OldandSlow217 also has his heart in the right place, but Answers.com is simply a mirror of Wikipedia. We cannot cite Wikipedia for claims on Wikipedia, because otherwise someone could perpetuate a hoax in two places at the same time, then have them cite each other. Not helpful.

What you need for a source is someone claiming whatever your evaluative claim is in a reliable source. Not a blog, not a forum, and preferably not a fansite.

Has anyone ever compared the Allspark to the Matrix (or the Underbase, for that matter) in a reliable source? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can. It's just a matter of finding it. I understand and am (still) continually trying to improve the article and the sourcing (see the first couple paragraphs of the article, which were completely unsources - though true - a week ago).

I am trying to improve the article through clarification rather than blind deletion.

I'm working this issue now. VigilancePrime 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is traditional to let simple unchallenged facts sit until they're verified, but challenged fact and evaluative statements need to be sourced or removed. Bear in mind that you can always replace that section if you find a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also this Matrix appeared in the Unicron Trilogy Series.(TougHHead 00:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Welcome back (to me)

So, I've been away from this article for awhile... real life, Capybara, Oozlefinch and the like having taken my WikiTime. Anyway, I made a couple minor copyedits but had a question for the masses...

With the recent name change, I noticed the line in the article - one which I accurately added a long time agi IIRC - which stated, "The first appearance of the Creation Matrix, later also known as the Autobot Matrix of Leadership, was in Marvel's Transformers comics<ref>Marvel (US) Comics, Transformers issue #10, page 2, panel 3</ref>" If the first use of this article's subject were as the Creation Matrix, and that really started this whole thing, shouldn't that be the name of the article with Matrix of Leadership redirecting there instead?

Food for thought (and consensus) from someone who actually has the complete 80-issue series (and the 4 GI Joe crossover issues, and the 4 Headmaster crossover issues). VigilancePrime (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the concept of "Creation Matrix" predates "Autobot Matrix of Leadership". But I think using "Matrix of Leadership" as the article's title is okay because the term "Matrix of Leadership" is much more frequently used. --TX55 (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)