Talk: Community Portal

Improvement drives and new templates?

So some brief perusal of Wookieepedia showed me a few things they do that could really be co-opted here, both to make the site look better and be a litlte more functional.

EDIT: Example page was changed -- M Sipher, who is having problems with "loss of session data" on this motherfucker and it's really starting to piss him off.

I like the idea of an "improvement drive", taking a dedicated focus on certain areas... some sections really DO need work. I think some of the more confusing and semiforgotten eras of TF fiction or toylines should really get fleshed out and soon, like the RID show, Enegon cartoon (ugh), late-G1 characters, Omega Point, etc.

And then there's the templates they use. I like the use of images and quotes. Looking through their bigass template section [1], there are a lot we don't need, but a few might be good, like the image and argument templates, plus the aforementioned improvement drive template. And this one is just awesome.

Also, we should totally add an image of a Quint with death-face forward for the "marked for deletion" template.

Just a few suggestions. Let's discuss. --M Sipher 17:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the 'Bobba Fet, where?' template... do you have a thought on an equivalent sentiment/piccie for TF? -Derik 01:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Something with Reflector, natch. Alternately, "Hot Rod, look! There's a hole in the ~~shuttle!~~ article!" Also, we probably need to work the various generations of TF in across the board. Use some RiD, some UT, some G1, etc. Mix it up. Have Vector Prime for the "upcoming events" template, maybe the Ratchet/Megatron monster for "this article is self-contradicting." (alternately, Galvatron vs. Megatron). -hx 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, for a page that's had a lot of debate, use cartoon Galvatron, with "Well, all I have to say about that is... BWAAAAAAAH." -hx 03:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Dinobot and "Again your democracy fails us"? (paraphrasing.) -Derik 03:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tech-spec template

The tech-spec numbers, I think, should be archived, but people kept wanting to put them in the main profile section, which is not where they need to be. Then it hit me... why not at each toy's description? You know, where the TS numbers specifically apply? Maybe after the ID number...

STR	INT	SPD	END	RNK	CRG	FRP	SKL
7	6	6	6	5	9	7	7

Just a thought. It's info that we probably really SHOULD archive. If someone wants to make this prettier, feel free. --M Sipher 12:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm out for the weekend, but I'll take a stab at it when I get back, hopefully some format that remains small and un-annoying even if you have multiple stats. (I doubt you'd list ALL of Optimus Prime's, but you'd probably list the original, and his G2 spec where he's Rank 9...) -Derik 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a Wiki is far from the best format for archiving tech spec numbers. I agree that such information should be archived, somewhere, it already is archived in many places, and in dedicated lists and databases that are way, way better for that sort of data. I'm not going to say that it's a "bad" idea to include them here, but I think it should be a low priority. Certainly below things like writing articles for cartoon episodes and comic issues. Anyway, I do agree that if we include them at all they should be included in the "toys" section since many characters have more than one set of numbers depending on which toy you're looking at. Also, any template we make for them should have switches in it that can change FRP to FRB and also trade in the Mincromaster teamwork/coop stats. --Steve-o 20:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good thought, both on the location and the optionals. -Derik 20:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not about to go on some huge TS# update spree, don't get me wrong. There are certainly a load of things I think would take higher priority (like that whole more-colorful-header thing brought up a while back). But I'm just thinking it's a piece of info that can be somewhat unobtrusively added to a relevant section, might be worth looking into at some point. --M Sipher 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some UK exclusives with little to say abotu them BUT their tech-specs. -Derik 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the LOCs. Having the numbers there would also help fill some of the vertical space to prevent messes like what we see with Jetfire's page. The "Attacktix" sub-section really needs to be "page-breaked", but doing so will levae a LOT of blank space. A TS number addition would solve that nicely. --M Sipher 00:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

i was looking at wookipedia and saw on the search toolbar that they had a wookie on top of it. could we do something like that with bumblebee on it.also it would be cool to have a background for the site like mabey cybertron or a picture of an autobot decepticon gen 1 battle, or just a big autobot logo.

A little more color?

Just an idle thought. Is there a way to tweak the colors of the picture thumbnail borders? Like, say, for a Decepticon character page, their pictures would be bordered with a pale purple, while the Autobots would have light red... and uh... blue for humans? Green for Quints and miscellaneous aliens? Black with white text for Unicron?
Yeah, it's functionally pointless and a lot of "going over old pages" work, but the graphic design part of me is screaming for a little more visual "oomph", and since TFs don't lend themselves well to the kind of "core data table" whatchamadoozie you find on most other character-centric wikis... --M Sipher 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We've started to hash this out, and I've constructed a mock-up of the idea. Also see the talk page, for M Sipher's proposal on colours. If you have any thoughts, please post them, as this is obviously a MASSIVE sweeping change to what the wiki will look like. --Suki Brits 02:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC) how do you do that?-grimlocker

Sitename

So, like, this is completely frivolous in the large scheme of things, but it's always sort of bothered me. I don't like the name of this wiki! I mean, even beyond us needing to get it spelled right when you type {{SITENAME}}, I just don't think it's a very apt one. Now, Teletraan I could answer just about anything on the cartoon, so long as it was pertinent to the plot, but it never struck me as a Repository of All Transformers Knowledge. There are at least two much better options.

Vector Sigma -- It apparently knows everything, in addition to all manner of other qualities
Underbase -- A dedicated Transformers knowledge database.

Now, of the two, I vastly prefer Underbase, firstly because scores of fan sites already use "Vector Sigma." (The same problem is present with "Teletraan I.") And secondly, it sets up all sorts of jokes about how too much knowledge about Transformers leads to madness or death. Ha ha ha.

Anyway, I mostly wanted to get that off my chest. --ItsWalky 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but. At this point, the Teletraaanagh-eleven name is pretty much associated with the wiki. Rebranding your product right after it's finally starting to get name recognition in the fandom seems like kind of a dumb idea.-hx 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Teletraan I is not the coolest possible name for this wiki, but I think Hooper_X is right that it's too late to change it. It's certainly an adequate name, and honestly it has much broader recognition than your other suggestions, which is probably a good thing. Pretty much anybody that knows anything about Transformers will recognize the name Teletraan I. Most of those same people will have never read or heard of the Underbase story and probably won't remember the name Vector Sigma either. The name we have is good enough. Also, I imagine getting the SITENAME variable changed is as simple a matter as leaving a note on Wikia:User:Angela's talk page. --Steve-o 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

yah i dont like the site name either.we could call it "autobots roll out!" the transformers wiki.

"Sunbow universe"

I've noticed a number of pages that mention the "Sunbow universe" of the "Sunbow portion of the G1 continuity family" or pictures that state the source as anepisode of the "Sunbow cartoon". I remember a discussion about this awhile back, and I seem to remember that we decided against calling the the G1 cartoon the "sunbow" anything, as there was only one G1 cartoon that didn't already have another title, and there's about as much stuff in there that wasn't done by Sunbow anyway (most of it it Japanese fiction, but still...) --FortMax 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's usually me (since I prefer the exact terminology.) I haven't been doing it since we had that discussion I think, just had a brain-fart today. So, uh, yeah, you're right, we did decide that. -Derik 22:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Botcon 2007 Battle of the Boards

From Brian: "Faction Feud â€“ The Battle of the Boards

This Transformer trivia game show pits different Transformers web sites against each other in the battle for all Transformers knowledge. Faction Feud was a huge hit at BotCon 2006, so donâ€™t miss out on the chance to compete this year! There are eight slots available for this tournament so sing up ASAP! It will truly be a battle of wits! How to enter: email Christie@mastercollector.com with your web siteâ€™s URL and the 5 names and screen names of your 5-member team. Deadline to enter: June 1, 2007."

We need to do this. I'd like to volunteer, but I realize I haven't been the most active contributor to the wiki. I'll step aside if need be. I just want to see Team TFWiki happen.Chip 03:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we argue collaboratively about the answers before arriving at a consensus? -Derik 03:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful. But maybe we can find a way to work awful jokes into our answers. Chip 03:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish to hell I could get in on this one. Oh well. Maybe next year. -hx 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to go ahead and submit our entry. I volunteer, and I need 4 more players. Who's with me? Who will give up the power to transform to... wait, no. Chip 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can count on me / Though I know not UT. --Rotty 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You absolutely do NOT want me on your team, since I don't know crap, but if it's down to four people and nobody else will step up, I'll totally do it.

At the very least, I will totally get some pom pons going. --Suki Brits 01:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am... willing. But there would be plenty of better choices than me. I guess the contest seemed pretty easy last year, so I could probably perform well, but Walky, Sipher, and LV would all be way better than I. --Steve-o 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Graham, Sipher, and I would also be way better than you if they use the same questions as last year. 'Cuz, y'know, we wrote them. --ItsWalky 03:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's probably reason enough for you three to bow out, I guess. We'll get by.Chip 03:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah... sure, why not. I'll sign up. Someone will need to keep an eye on me near gametime so that I don't forget to show up, though. --Monzo 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. That makes 5, but I'll give it another day. If anyone else wants in, or someone on the team changes their mind, let us know.Chip 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah hell, I'll toss my hat in too. If necessary, I'm totally happy being a B-list sub in case someone who already volunteered or is just plain more knowledgeable than me bows out. - Jackpot 22:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've sent the e-mail! After a little bit of discussion, we ended up with me, Rotty, Steve-O, Monzo, Jackpot, and Blitz as our alternate. This is gonna be great. Chip 02:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The deadline has come and gone. Other sites have received their confirmations; we have not. So... apparently we're not in? A polite "piss off" e-mail would have been preferable to just not hearing ANYTHING... Chip 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good job, everybody who actually ended up on the team when they let us in at the last minute. (Who was in the lineup, again?) It would've been damned embarrassing if the Wiki had been out-trivia-ed, so thanks for doing us proud. I think we need that photo of Monz with all the medals on the BC07 page. - Jackpot 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Titles for characters with multiple names

I want to predicate this by admitting that at some level it doesn't matter at all because of the existence of article redirects.

In looking over the recent changes, I noticed the Wing Dagger article, and wondered why, if our rule for characters who got new bodies with new names is that we list them under the name they first appeared in-fiction with (such as Hot Rod and Overhaul (Cybertron), the Wing Dagger article is a redirect. Walky said it had been discussed at some point and decided to do "name of the first TOY". I found mention of this on Talk:Overhaul (Cybertron) where LV seems to basically settle on that after realizing that all the more sensible options lead to conclusions we seemed to have already violated.

Currently, Help:Article types and titles says, "Characters with multiple names (as in the case of alter-egos) should have their article listed under their most prominent name..." Leaving aside the issue that prominence is ambiguous for a few characters, this seems, to me, to be by far the best option. Our wiki has developed into something HIGHLY fiction/character centered. The toys are almost an afterthought. Basing something as seemingly fundamental as what to name a character's article on what name happened to be applied to their first toy is totally out of left field.

I admit that the first-toy rule would be unambiguous and solve nearly all the tricky cases (I sort of have a problem with Overhaul/Leobreaker, but not a huge problem). However, it still feels wrong to me. In principle, some canon source could state that a character who is extremely visible in some franchise was a new body for some random no-fiction toy character from the previous franchise, and we would end up listing them under their old and irrelevant name for perpetuity. It pains me to replace the phrase "most prominent name" with "name applied to their first toy". It's not a rule that has any logic or sense behind it. It's a kludge that happens to solve most of the practical problems but doesn't fit my idea of the "spirit" of the wiki.

I would appreciate hearing suggestions/comments from other editors.

--Steve-o 04:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. The fact of the matter is that TF fiction is a patchwork of ambiguities, contradictions, dangling threads, and irregularities. Oftentimes there just CAN'T be hard-and-fast rules; we have to bite the bullet and accept that the only logical option is to allow for subjectivity. In this specific case, the standard has to be "prominence." Sure, such a thing might lead to arguments and fights and what-have-you with no clear Law to arbitrate, but that's what we get for putting together a wiki on Transformers of all things. - Jackpot 18:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template for continuity organization?

Is there a page somewhere that lays out a standard for how the continuities are grouped? Like, one massive article filled with headers and subheads for every possible universe, which families they're under, and what order they should go in? Because I'm a little confused as to the specifics sometimes, such as in this discussion, but that died with no resolution. It seems like a good idea to have a template-page where we can hash out the details. - Jackpot 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Toy-photo policy?

What's our policy on toy photos, officialness- and copyright-wise? I imagine pics from Hasbro's site and publications are preferable, like how we only use Hasbro-approved art and never fanart. But what about shots from places like Toybin and TFU.info and Remy's photos and all the galleries of the various TF-news sites and so on? I've certainly seen such photos in articles, but I've also seen people discourage the use of specific sites' images (like TFU.info). What's the principle at work here? - Jackpot 21:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, my principle is "TFU.info's images look horrible and have depict toys which are sometimes fan-painted and have stickers all over the wrong places sideways." Also, I think as a general rule of thumb for the wiki, the background of a toy photo should be white. Not "you can see the unwhitebalanced panels of cascaded posterboard in the background," but actual white. But these are just my thoughts! --ItsWalky 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like our policy is 'official is always good, if Hasbro's stock photos aren't too off, but if you're usign another source, they'd better look good, and make sure you give them full credit with a link.' (Or at least that seems to be how we've handled it thus far...) -Derik 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can agree to that. "Official toy photos are best, if they're the non-photoshop-retouched kind and the toy is transformed correctly and the paint apps are the same in the production version." If you can't get that, take your own. If you can't get that, steal! --ItsWalky 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a 'how to construct an Article' page? Not just format- but 'places you should really look for information, link to, etc'?-Derik 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the input. The one other time I've seen discussion on the matter (I don't recall which article it was in), someone was discouraging use of TFU.info pics because that site exists almost entirely to show photos. So swiping photos from there seems more like intellectual-property "damage" than if you take from, say, the more diversified Seibertron.com. Thoughts on that? - Jackpot 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I was part of that convo. And yes, Seibertron is my theftable-of-choice even though their pictures tend to have blacks a bit too sweet (Remy is second,) in that case IIRC I swiped from TFU because they had just the right angle I needed to highlight something. -Derik 22:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Archival time

I'm moving everything that hasn't seen a reply in two months into the archive. If you still want a topic raised on this page, don't hesitate to either start it again, or copy it back here. --Suki Brits 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler template

FFN fixed a glitch the other day with Frenzy's spoiler template overlapping his picture quote. I just found Arcee's the same way. Barricade's page has an odd manifestation where the template doesn't overlap anything important, but it does cover the top edge of his picture. It then, presumably because of the picture, line-breaks inside the template, causing the Jazz image to cover the words of the template.

I brought this up in the channel, and Walky said it looked fine on his screen. So I checked it in IE (I normally use Firefox), and it looked fine there, too...

So I'm not going to go altering a bunch of pages just because of something on my screen, but I want to put this out there to see if anyone else has the problem. Apparantly FFN did at least once. It appears to be browser-related, and I'm not sure what the precedent is on that situation. --Sntint 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got that same exact problem with the Barricade page, using Firefox. Looking at it with IE, the spoiler template doesn't overlap the picture of Barricade there, but the beginning of "follow" in its text is still covered over by Jazz. --KilMichaelMcC 17:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a result of the spoiler template being after the picture- and the main bod doesn't get shoved left properly. I feel liek there should be a solution to that... I'll look at it, but for the mo ment, if you just move the spoiler template ABOVE the picture, the problem disappears. (This may actually be a problem with Firefox's float implementation, neither browser does layout 100% spot-on perfect.) -Derik 20:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks awful in Opera, too. In both Opera and Firefox, I'm not seeing any words covered up. It's just that crazy wrapping thing happening. --Steve-o 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly how it looks in Firefox on my computer. --Sntint 22:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, done with pure styles, the messagebox stays behind, but somethign with the wikipmedia's messagebox styles (which were intended to be banners across the tops of articles) doen't play nice with floats.

Since Spoiler and some other templates are frequently used mid-stream, it looks like we (I) need a separate approach for these mid-stream templates. -Derik 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Blackout's is REALLY bad... but only in Firefox, again. It has some glitches in IE, but they aren't as obstructing to the article itself.

The problem boils down to placement on the page. We could easily get around this by deciding on a set placement for the spoiler template. That would let us work around, but not actually solve the base issue.

It appears that the writing in the spoiler tag accounts for the image and line-breaks appropriately, but when it does so it no longer accounts for its own template image. This happens in IE as well as Firefox.

Additionally, in Firefox, when the wording line-breaks, the border box fails to shorten itself so that it matches the end of the writing, and instead extends across the screen presumably to the end. This only happens in Firefox and, at least once, Opera. --Sntint 13:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories in redirects

Is there a reason that we have categories on redirect pages? I can sort of understand the reason behing it, as G1 Prime isn't an e-hobby exclusive but Orion Pax is. Yes, the article is (indrectly) on the category page, but the actual article is not in the category. This means that you can get to say, Spiderman from the "Journalists" category, you can't go the other way because Spidy isn't the journalist; Peter Parker is. You wouldn't even know the category existed from looking at the Spidy page.

I propose a fix for this. All categories from character redirect pages get moved to the character's article. Others, like where a city redirects to the city-state it's part of, the city get it's own article. If Telemark VI, which got nothing more than a passing mention, is important enough to get its own article, so is Kolkular. --FortMax 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? --FortMax 17:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with having Rodimus (G1), Rodimus Prime, Hot Rod, and Rodimus Major all being in the Autobots category. I don't care if they're not all individual articles. If someone wants to look for one of those, they shouldn't have to already know to only look for Hot Rod. --ItsWalky 18:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is more about when a redirect is in a category and the actual article isn't. --FortMax 16:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that either! --ItsWalky 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Movie/nonmovie parsing

On a few different topics, the problem has come up that the movie -- which is arguably the central, primary feature of the franchise -- spells or parses words one way, but all other aspects of the franchise spell/parse the word another way. The examples I'm thinking of are AllSpark/All Spark, Brawl/Devastator, and NBE with "entity" versus "extraterrestrial". And I think there are one or two more. I feel like whatever solution we pick, we should stick with the same solution for all words where this has come up. My personal inclination is to use the dominant words even if that is not what the movie itself goes with. I see the movie's different usage as an inconsistency or aberration, even though all the other fiction is descended from it. However, I don't feel all that strongly about it. I mostly just feel that we need to apply the same logic to each case, whatever that logic ends up being. --Steve-o 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course the movie nomenclature is wrong. It's not real. The ARG says so. :)

Seriously, though, I do agree, and I think Brawl/Devastator is the archetypal example. Every single damn thing - from toys to games to comics - calls him "Brawl" except the ONE time he's named in the movie, and even Hasbro calls that instance a "continuity glitch." And since he's such a hi-then-die, there's very little chance of his "Devastator" legacy perpetuating into the sequels. So the current situation - where we mention "Devastator" as a side-note and then move right along - is ideal and should be the model for all such nomenclature issues.

- Jackpot 15:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If I recall, one of the upcoming issues of the UK movie comic, probably #2, is all about Devastator. And they called him Devastator in the solicits. Before the movie came out, we were all STUPID FURMAN THAT IS BRAWL NOT DEVASTATOR YOU FOOL, but oh how wrong we were. --ItsWalky 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It was we who were the poor fools. --ItsWalky 15:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Their entire kingdom, united or otherwise, is dead to me. You hear me? DEAD. - Jackpot 16:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But then who would write every single Transformers story ever? --ItsWalky 17:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Timelines

I want to create a category for the various timelines we've got here, but I'm not sure what to call it or where to put it. Category:Timelines is already taken since we have a franchise by that name. Additionally, one of the timelines we have is a real-world timeline of the TF brand, rather than a timeline for a fictional universe. That means the timeline category should not be a subcategory under some fiction-releated category. (I was initially going to put it right under Category:Stories (which by the way still needs a real name)). Any thoughts on these issues? --Steve-o 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd suggest maybe Category: Chronology since Timelines is taken. Put that as a sub-category of Transformers in general if it must be under something else, and then put the individual timelines also under the category of their own franchieses (of course) and the real world one under just Transformers or create a Real World category for it and pages like it.--ZacWilliam 19:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh the Humanity

Would it be possible to use less anthropocentric metaphor and phraseology when speaking/writing/describing the mechanoid denizen of a planet/empire not based on or around the carbon atom,and by extension human or fleshling life? ChoHIlqoq 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I.E. "cut his teeth" "bloodthirsty" and other such terminology,fine if you're depicting Maximals or Predacons,but the Old Cybertronians it's not especially fitting or accurate.

But Transformers do have teeth, which is supported by countless, well, pictures of Transformers with teeth. From Optimus Prime to Longtooth, these robots gots teeth. --ItsWalky 04:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it... If you prefer to use more colorful robot-ish figures of speech, feel free to do so, as long as you don't make up any non-canonical robot anatomy. --Steve-o 13:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki is written for humans. Trying to eliminate human-anatomy-based phrasing is senseless. If a word like "bloodthirsty" is wrong because robots don't have blood, well, it's wrong for humans too because most "bloodthirsty" people aren't actually thirsty for the taste of blood. But when you're communicating to a specific audience, it's okay and even preferable to use the idioms of that audience, no matter their literal accuracy. They're idioms, so they probably aren't literally accurate in any circumstance.

And personally, I find "robotic" reworkings of English phrases to be kind of annoying. What the hell does "oilthirsty" mean? I don't begrudge people for doing that (it certainly has quite a history in TF fiction), but it's always read more awkwardly to me than leaving metaphors as-is.

- Jackpot 16:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No love for Oceania?

Something I've noticed in the G1 Toylists is a) there's only lists of releases in the US and Europe and b) many figures are incorrectly being referred to as "European exclusives" - Australia got /everything/ Europe did - Classics, Overlord, Motorvators, AM Elites, Turbomasters, Predators, Pyro/Clench and their crews etc. - in the same years as Europe. So is it planned to create a list for Australian releases, and can we correct this whole "European exclusive" nonsense that's been going on for so long?

(I know no one really cares about Australia, but still..) --Specimen-17

From the "Europe-only characters" category page...

"Europe-only" is a bit of a misnomer, as many of the characters' toys listed here have also seen release in Canada, Australia, and parts of Asia. However, as the primary market for these items is the European market, it is used as a general umbrella-term. (Obviously, this caveat doesn't apply to the comic characters)

--M Sipher 00:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Character page quotes

Some people are clearly fond of the new "putting a representative quote at the top of character pages" thing, but I am against it. A recent rash of additional quotes only makes me feel this more strongly. My objection is that the quotes are highly visible/prominent on the page, as if they are supposed to embody the character in one sentence, and yet the choice of what quote accomplishes this task is highly subjective. Some of them I think are appropriate (although even the good ones add very little to the article that the capsule didn't already cover), and others I think are abysmal. I don't think that policing them and getting rid of the bad ones is enough. I think they all need to go. Otherwise the existence of some quotes will only lead to quote-bastarding and disagreements. Anonymous editors will constantly be putting up their favorite stupid quote, uncited and with mangled grammar. People will change existing fine quotes into no-more-fine quotes that they personally like better. It's not worth the trouble. Am I the only one thinking this? If so, I will just keep my mouth shut and let the rest of you deal with it, but on the off chance that people agree with me I wanted to raise the issue. --Steve-o 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh... isn't that also a problem with EVERYTHING ELSE on the wiki, due to the very nature of wikis? --M Sipher 23:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm an admin over at Wookieepedia, where we're very liberal with quotes, so I haven't got a problem it. Granted, I'm used to seeing them at the top of the page, but that's not a big thing. Also, I've added a few quotes from time to time, so my neutrality on it might be debated. -- SFH 23:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... no, it's not a problem with everything else. Not in practice, at least. We know from experience that image captions are more prone to annoying edits than other parts of the wiki, for example. They seem to make tempting targets. And the majority of the content here is not subjective, or at least nowhere near as subjective as "this quote is the quintessential essence of this character", and therefore much less of a (potential) hassle. --Steve-o 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit, I've started a few articles with quotes- but not character pages I think. It's just so rare that you have a quote that serves as the perfect intro point for an article.

Would a MoS for {{quote}} saying ti shouldn't be used to lead-off na article unless it's actually a good jump-off point solve the problem? (It would give a firm justification to delete sucky ones, or ones where the quote isn't inteegrated intot eh flow of the write-up.) -Derik 00:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe it's just that I grew up on G1 tech spec cards, but I like character quotes as part of a character profile. I'd personally stick to ones that had them on their bio cards, but given that we are a Transformers wiki above all else, stylistically it seems to fit.--Rosicrucian 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem there is that the quotes went away for a long time. Also, for characters with multiple toys... which quote? You'd end up with major characters pretty quoteless. --M Sipher 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As the guy who put "These fools worship Transformers!" on the Fandom page, I think there are some quotes that in context are frankly too good not to use. I strongly disagree with the idea that there must be a blanket policy forbidding all of them anywhere. I think the choices should be ad hoc, dependant on how well the quotes clearly personify the characters ("Make deals, not war," "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings") or pithily speak to events or locations (as per the Wookiepedia example, "wretched hive of scum and villainy"). Snipping away inappropriate quotes should be no more or less significant than snipping away poor writing or unsupportable conclusions. --Thylacine 2000 02:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The last part is my basic point. It's not like we're actually creating MORE whatever to be policed. It's the same shit we go through every hour, only with a certain template involved. I like the quotes, as noted above it's a very TF-y thing to have, plus presents a little nugget of information in a new, eye-catching way. --M Sipher 02:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We demonstrably are "creating more". We are adding a new "piece" that will be appearing in a lot of articles. As to the appropriateness, I agree that it's a neat idea, but I still feel that in practice it is not shaping up. I just did a count of character articles using the quote template for top-of-the-article shoutouts, and well over half of those are, in my opinion, weak to poor choices, and I'm not simply counting ones that were put up by random IPs. I think the quote for Falcia, for example, is marginal. Maybe I'm interpreting the "point" of the quotes differently than you guys, but, I thought the idea was to pick something especially evocative, but a lot of them right now are simply memorable or "cute" lines that say little or nothing about the character. (I think I only read Linkage once, but judging from Falcia's capsule bio, I would think a quote that shows her to be unambiguously difficult would be far more appropriate than one in which she is seemingly giving an attitude justifiably.) My biggest fear, I suppose, is that people will get it into their heads that character articles "should" have a quote, because I really can not believe there is a decent sum-up quote for every, or even most characters unless we are just going to plaigerize their tech spec or MTMTE mottos. I would love to go on a deleting spree and zap over a dozen of them right now, but I know that some users -- most notably Sipher -- really like the quote idea. That's why I decided to speak up and whine rather than just doing it. I am hoping that I might get some sort of concession like, "sure, you can delete the ones that are bad or so-so". Then at least all we'd have left to discuss is why I think so many of them are bad or so-so and should be deleted. --Steve-o 03:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Rhinox's is clearly a piece of shit. I have no problem with discussing quote quality/appropriateness and deleting stuff that doesn't live up. Just because I like having quotes, doesn't mean I'm gonna like every quote someone barfs up. --M Sipher 04:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are enough people who don't mind - or do enjoy - keeping an eye on quotes and policing them for taste, then I don't see the problem. As with the captions, a community-wide sense of appropriateness will emerge. When done well, a quote can add a lot to an article, and like Siph, I think a baby-with-the-bathwater approach is too much. - Jackpot 17:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler template 'expiration' length

Is there a length to how long a spoiler template stays up on a page? Til the end of the miniseries, til it comes out on DVD, 'Til all are one? Or is it situational? -- SFH 23:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd almost like the creation of a new category like Category:Articles with spoilers to allow us to track which articles are using the template at a glance. It'd make removing the template once the spoilers become common knowledge much easier to police.--Rosicrucian 23:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That could be easily and automatically done by altering the spoiler template to add the category. However, it's not really necessary, because you can also visit Template:Spoiler and use the "what links here" link in the toolbox on the left to get a list of every page which includes it. --Steve-o 01:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd previously suggested an edit to the comingsoon template so that if you put it in as {{comingsoon|~~~~~}} (5 ~'s = a timestamp) it would say "This subject will be free for adding on..." (A date 30 days hence, or whatever we decide is a default spoiler time.) If you fail to supply a timestamp it'd just show the general 'don't put up yet' with no time mentioned.

We could do the same to the {{spoiler}} template that would (I think) cause it to vanish after that date had past.... -Derik 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Spotlight image

Okay. So, check this out...

I'm guessing what they do is grab the Main Page image and just use that... which means that if we want all three Optimusses in there... we need to change THAT image to be more of a square.

I'd done this to go up in the Spotlight at a smaller size, but it looks like they just kipe the main image. Thoughts on using this as the main image so Primal is still there, the "proper" name for the wiki is there, etc? --M Sipher 18:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That might be risky, depending on how they crop it. It's hard to tell where the top half of their letterboxing ends. If the new image is too tall, then the edges of the words will get chopped off. Might be worth asking the admins about - if they can give you the ratio they use, then we can do it safely. (I'm looking at the "Pushing Daisies Wiki" spotlight right now, and the non-letterboxed area is definitely wider than it is tall.)

Also, we need to be sure that the new design will actually be readable and decent-looking when shrunk down that far. One thing to keep in mind is that if the caption already says "Transformers Wiki," then there's no need to repeat that in the image. If the pic just said "Teletraan I" and nothing more, then that'd help prevent the design from getting too crowded.

- Jackpot 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already accounted for all of that. Not every Spotlight image has that hideous textbar on it; the "Symbolism Wiki", for example, is nothing BUT an image. They only apparently use textbars if "______ wiki" is not in the image itself, or hard to read, or not sufficiently square, or whatever. I noted the size of the box in pixels when making the image; the shrunk-down-to-actual-size version is already uploaded here;

. --M Sipher 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then. Sounds good to me! - Jackpot 21:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it could be just our luck and they'll take the lovingly-resized image and re-crop it and add redundant text...--Rosicrucian 21:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Messagebox placement

Here is what UT Jetfire's article now looks like in my browser:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb234/sstoneb/misc/boxes.png

I understand that people are more prone to notice and be guilted into fixing things if the messagebox notices are at the top, but I feel that the presentation of the articles shouldn't be made to suffer for it. I consider it unacceptable for two-thirds of the first screen to be taken up by boxes. There's going to be some variation depending on readers' screen resolutions and window sizes, but still, I can't be the only one who finds that excessive. --Steve-o 06:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I consider it motivation to fix the problem, myself. Interrobang 07:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I run my monitor on a fairly high resolution so I forget it would be huge on lower resolutions. I'll move the stub back down, but the point still stands - having an annoying stub messagebox there compels one to finish off the damn article to get rid of it. --FFN 12:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to horizontally compress the stub/picsneeded messageboxes and make it so they will line up vertically? Taking up only one "line" and minimizing blank space? --M Sipher 16:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to only use image messageboxes when it's a pressing or immediate need. Other messageboxes are all-text, short, and designed to take up as little space as possible. (They're also designed to stack neatly with no whitespace in-between.)

Under such a modern- a template like Cleanup or Deletion might remain a pic box, bot other general-maintenance templates like 'pics needed' would become (ironically) pic-less. -Derik 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How will we cover VHS and DVD releases?

How are we going to cover the various VHS and DVD releases of the cartoons? Are we going to limit those to the pages of the companies who released them or have pages covering each series with dections for the release market? We definently need something to list what is different on various releases, especially that the recent Madman release of G1 uses Mavrick's transfer for at least Season 1 (which in turn uses the original broadcast video with Rhino's 5.1 audio) --FortMax 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that The Transformers: The Movie (1986) is a decent example of a good way to do it, as is the Scramble City page. For the individual animated series, release details can be covered on their specific series page. So things like Armada (cartoon), Beast Wars (cartoon) etc. Seems to me to be the most logical place to look for that release information and any key differences in transfers/dubbing/wombat placement.--Rosicrucian 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Animated Continuity Confusion

So, throughout this wiki we refer to the Sunbow cartoon as the "Animated continuity". Given that the upcoming cartoon is specifically titled "Transformers Animated", and that we're using "Animated" as the franchise marker for it, this has the potential for causing confusion. So, I'd like to recommend that we change all extant headers that read "Animated continuity" to "Sunbow cartoon continuity" or similar. Opinions? JW 15:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, IIRC, the term "Animated continuity" which is now in use by this Wiki refers to "G1 animated continuities", including "Sunbow cartoon continuity" and "Toei animation continuity (Japanese animation continuity)". TX55 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Sunbow doesn't have a page, I'm personally a little unclear on what their role in the creation of the G1 cartoon was. However, regardless of what we call it, I still think we need a change from "Animated continuity" to another term. JW 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How 'bout "G1 cartoon(or animation) continuity"? And it should be clearly defined. But if the original term "Animated continuity" really changed into a new term, wow, I would be a big reconstruction, though. --TX55 16:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'd have a bot do it, I assume. Turning every occurence of "===Animated continuity===" into something else would be trivial for a bot, and 99% accurate. JW 16:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as needless, as characters with fiction in the Sunbow cartoon are unlikely to also have continuity in the new cartoon. We are for these purposes treating the new cartoon's characters as new characters in their own right, just as Optimus Prime is a different character in the RiD and UT settings.--Rosicrucian 16:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I can't believe I forgot. (my God...). --TX55 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as needless While in any page that is clearly within a given continuity, there will only be a minor chance for confusion, there will be much greater change of confusion on the many pages that cover cross-continuity topics. (Or, for example, if someone on a G1 page wants to refer to Transfomrers Animated for whatever reason.) Simply put: Since we've chosen "Animated" as the marker for Transformers Animated, this means that the term "Animated continuity" should probably only be used refer to the Transformers Animated continuity. (Or, maybe we shouldn't use "Animated" as the marker for Transformers Animated, but it might be too late for that.) JW 16:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Similar discussion on this issue has been had before on this Wiki, though I can't seem to find where. Just to point it out, we don't use "animated continuity" just to refer to the G1 cartoon. It's used on UT character pages as well. I am thinking it may be wise to go ahead and just have that phrase replaced with "cartoon continuity." --KilMichaelMcC 20:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. Yah, "Cartoon continuity" would do the trick. (Until the day there's a TV series called Transformers: The Cartoon, at least.) JW 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

'Cartoon' was also the conclusion we reached last round of this discussion.

So do we want to make it aa formal request for the 'bot to change all instances of '==Animated continuity==' to 'Cartoon continuity'? (Except probably with regular expressions.) -Derik 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's give this thread a chance to attract more comments (say, until tomorrow afternoon), and then request it. JW 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of "Cartoon continuity." The only objection I recall seeing was Walky pointing out that "cartoon" has multiple meanings besides animation. But I think the common usage in TFdom is strong enough that it'll do fine. The only alternative I can think of is something like "Televised continuity," but that's an unnatural term. - Jackpot 20:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comic Issues Naming Convention

Okay, so MistaTee and I have gone back and forth on this, so I'm putting it out in the open. He's lobbying for the format to be "Comic Name (issue number)" with the issue number only being there if it's a multi-part story. Personally, I don't care what the spotted heck we use as long as we use the same format for all the comic issues. Thus to get this noticed and foster discussion, here it is. Ideally once we decide something, it'd be great if we could get Walky or Suki to bot-edit everything so we're over and done with that.--Rosicrucian 00:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning is this: The title of the issue is not "Escalation, part 1", it's merely the first part of the title "Escalation". Also I don't care is we use "Escalation (part 1)", "Escalation (issue 1)" or "Escalation (#1)" as long as we're consistent. Please see my talk page for the conversation with Rosicrucian. --MistaTee 00:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little reluctant to make a universal rule on this sort of thing. Contrary to MistaTee's statement, sometimes the title of a story really is "Blah blah, Part 1". However, in cases where there is no known title (like most of the IDW issues), I think "Series Name issue #" would be best, much like what we already have for the Dreamwave Armada series (except that, of course, normally the publisher's name wouldn't be in the title, it's only there for Armada to differentiate from the Panini series). It doesn't feel right to me to have a comma or a set of parentheses. That's the model I would prefer for the IDW minis. In cases of a multi-part story which has a known title and takes place in a series of a different title, but the individual parts do not have titles, we can't use the word "issue". So... then I guess either "Story Name, part #" or "Story Name (part #)" is cool with me. I guess I have a slight preference for the comma approach, since it mirrors the way multi-part stories are titled when they are actually given titles. I agree with MistaTee that decapitalizing "part" in those cases is more correct, although it's not an issue that engenders any passion within me. --Steve-o 18:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comic Art from unknown issues

Just wondering if we need a new template/category like "issues?" and "Category:Images from unknown issue" to present some comic arts from unknown issues, like the way we use "artist?" --TX55 03:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd suggest also making a discussion page on the images in question so we can ask... but questions here tend to go unanswered in my experience. --FFN 10:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've created Template:Unknown source to satisfy this request. I made it applicable to all images, not just comic scans. Please feel free to make use of it. --Steve-o 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Accessory listing?

Nautilator's toy-entry...
Just an idle thought I had. Bullet-pointing the ID numbers seems like a good idea, and I've been thinking it can't hurt to have a simple rundown of the stuff the toy came with, using the "proper" names for the weapons whenever available, with links when necessary, like for special weapons of which there are more than one (Blaster's not the only one packing an electro-scrambler, right?). Most of the G1 instructions for that kind of this can be found on Botch's site... thoughts? --M Sipher 05:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. BTW, what are your thoughts on the comic book naming convention (2 comments up). --MistaTee 10:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have one, not really my field. --M Sipher 16:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Accessory listings would be a good thing to have. TFU.info and Cobra Island Toys are about the only places that have the weapon names in text. We should probably include the entire list as according to the instructions, including the robot. The only snags I can think of is when different markets had different accessories (Headstrong and Tantrum had only one gun in Japan), when there is no mention of an accessory in any of the printed material (Megatron's chrome gun), or when reissues came with additional parts (Ricochet, TFC Megatron and Prime). --FortMax 17:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, unnamed accessories can be unquoted, decapitalized short descriptors (chromed handgun, for example). International accessory variants can simply be another bullet point (Accessories (US) vs Accessories (Japan)). As for reissues... shouldn't those be listed separately from the originals ANYWAY? --M Sipher 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to split the entry for Prime's first toy into the umpteen reissues it's had. Why must Takara insist on another reissue every few years? --FortMax 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki