Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal

Archives

 * Archive1
 * Archive2
 * Archive3
 * Archive4

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, 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)

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)

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, 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.


 * 1) Vector Sigma -- It apparently knows everything, in addition to all manner of other qualities
 * 2) 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)

"Coming Soon" template?
Between the Movie and all the Fan Club stuff, there's a lot of info that... welllll, we know, but for various reasons are not putting on the wiki until a certain amount of time has passed. Like, say, the Sandokan story or the bios from the latest Fan Club magazine should should not be delved into until late March or so. But ot everyone is gonna know this who comes along. I mentioned this once before, but I'll bring it up here... I think we should have some kind of "coming soon" template we can place in an article that basically says that the article (or section or whatever) should NOT be filled out without discussion with the admin and others as to when it would be appropraite to. It should maybe also link to a page explaining why we do this. I think we should probaly handle this soon.... --M Sipher 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What about a template with a date? "Do not fill until August 2007"? -Derik 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Television series vs Cartoon
At some point we will need to disambiguate the Scramble City OVA from the "toyline"/subline/toy category Scramble City. When we do, what suffix are we going to give that article? It's not a television series. We could just use (OVA), admittedly, but this is a good excuse for me to bring up something that's been bugging me for a while -- I think the suffix should be (cartoon), and I think all the "(television series)" articles should also be (cartoon). Cartoon is more succinct and more inclusive and is more parallel with "comic" (not "comic series"). It's also a lot easier to remember. I have noticed in the changelogs that I'm not the only person who can't remember "television series" as opposed to "animated series" or other similar constructions. We started out with cartoon, but then in Singularity's initial burst of doing things, before he left and came back, he moved a bunch of them to television series, and I never got around to moving them back, and now there is some inertia to the television series scheme. But I still prefer "cartoon". Anybody have an opinion one way or the other? --Steve-o 02:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer cartoon for the same reason. It's shorter and easier to remember, and there just isn't any advantage to using the longer one. --Suki Brits 05:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thirded. --M Sipher 05:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (Television series) "feels" right to me. As would (animated series), I think. (Cartoon), though of course accurate and having the advantage of being a single word, wouldn't. --KilMichaelMcC 06:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To add a bit more, I think it's because (television series) or (animated series) seem more... encyclopedish... to me. --KilMichaelMcC 06:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved the articles to "television series" as that was what Wikipedia used. I don't particularly care about it now. Interrobang 06:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like "cartoon." Cartoons can be anything, from comic books to doodles to animated series.  To some folks, the Marvel Comics are cartoons.  I mean, heck,  I'm a cartoonist, that's my job, but I sure as hell don't animate anything.  That's why I prefer "animated series" or "television series," just to be precise.  --ItsWalky 11:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I kind of forgot we had this conversation going. I favor cartoon because "cartoon" is the way every single English-speaking fan always refers to the cartoons.  You're never going to see, in a random discussion on Allspark or ATT or whatever, people talking about the "television series", nor will you hear people saying that in face to face conversation.  "Cartoon" and "comic" are the words used absolutely universally by fans when talking about these different media.  I see no reason for us to use a longer term that nobody else uses when the short one isn't incorrect.  --Steve-o 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm behind Steve-O on this one. While Walky's right that "cartoon" is technically a vague word because of its many dictionary definitions, I've NEVER seen it cause problems of ambiguity in TF discussions.  Context very easily distinguishes the meaning, and the fact is, nobody ever SAYS things like "the BW animated series."  If it ain't broke.... - Jackpot 01:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See? Jackpot agrees with me.  Who's gonna say "no" to Jackpot?  The terrorists?  --Steve-o 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we maybe bring this to a close and make a decision? Only a few of us have commented, but I count four in favor of "cartoon", and two in favor of "television series". Interrobang sounds as if he doesn't have an opinion, having moved some pages at the dawn of time just as a matter of consistency with Wikipedia. I agree with Salt-Man Z's comment on Talk:Go-Bots (cartoon) that "television series" would not be appropriate for Go-Bots. Nor would it be appropriate for, say, Zone or Scramble City. Rather than have different parentheticals for broadcast and direct-to-video animation, I think "cartoon" wins out for simplicity. (Yes, the animated movies are also cartoons, but similar to my argument in a previous post, everybody calls those movies, not cartoons, so it's not like there would be any confusion.) --Steve-o 21:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The only downside I can see for moving to "(cartoon)" is the potential for non-televised animated fiction, say a Flash cartoon series or something. For example, say Heroes has an animated TV show and a series of animated "webisodes" -- the title "cartoon" applies to both. Granted, this is probably a rare case, but going with "television series" for the main show seems the safest choice, to me. (Of course, "cartoon" can still be used for shows like Go-Bots or Zone or whatnot that aren't really a proper "television series".) --Salt-Man Z 20:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Meh, we already refer to the Robot Masters comics as "online mini-comics" or something. "online cartoon" seems an obvious and simple alteration. --M Sipher 23:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Point. --Salt-Man Z 00:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There aren't exactly a lot of distinct "votes" in this thread, which has been live in two distinct time intervals, but it seems as if "cartoon" is the winner. Would there be an uproar if I moved things accordingly? --Steve-o 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends, are you going to change everything that links to the old conventions? -Derik 23:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What, you don't want to do it for me? :)  Honestly, it's probably not that big a deal since moved pages leave redirects in their wake.  I'd probably change a bunch of them, at least, but I might get bored and let it go.  All the old links will still work unless they become double redirects.  --Steve-o 18:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say go for it. Double redirects are easy enough to fix, I'll happily go through the double redirects list and fix everything if it means we don't need to argue about this issue again. --Suki Brits 22:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation notes
A couple things I was pondering.

There are some places where there are only two uses of a name, like, say, "Overcast", but neither one is really... the "predominant" usage. I'm not fond of a search not taking you to a proper PAGE, even if it's just a disambig. So... how to handle this? Disambig (with some "not to be confused with"s), or "first usage gets the redirect"? We've already got a couple two-use Disambigs, like Wheeljack (disambiguation) (while a straight "Wheeljack" search gets you G1), though granted the whold Downshift issue kind of adds to the point of having that one.

And on that note... I dunno, I can't say I'm fond of the idea of a straight search for, say, "Ultra Magnus" leading directly to G1 Maggie, whenthere's a good five of them, and one of the not-G1 ones is a considerably "major" character. But I realize that's probably not gonna change. --M Sipher 22:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As with many of our rules, I think these things can be decided on a case-by-case basis. For Overcast, for example, I'm inclined to call the bulk more prominent.  I imagine more people are familiar with that usage of the name since he was a big toy released with that name all over the package, as opposed to being part of a Mini-Con team which is probably referred to by most people with the team name.  There definitely should be a redirect of *some* sort there though, regardless of which page it leads to.  Regardless, in cases where a more prominent instance can't be picked between the two, I doubt it matters much which we redirect to.  At most, the user will have to click one link to get where they meant to go.  I kind of prefer that to adding another page to the database, especially since then *all* users will have to do an additional click instead of just half of them.
 * Regarding Ultra Magnus, I agree that there are other Magnii who are pretty major characters as well. You could maybe make a case for changing that redirect to point to the disambig page instead of directly to G1 Magnus.  I don't think you'd convince me personally that a plurality people typing his name into the search box are looking for a non-G1 Magnus, but, that's just me.  That debate falls within the bounds of the rules we already have, so it's a question on that specific case, not a question about altering rules.
 * There is another disambig thing that came up a couple months ago on Talk:Constructicon when I moved that article in accordance with the policy in Help:Disambiguation. I've since stopped being apathetic about it and now agree with the others in that discussion that there should never be any content in the "main" article for a contested name.  That article should always redirect to something, whether it be a disambig page, or the most prominant of the articles with that name.  I assume nobody will object if I change that rule, but, I'll hold off on doing it for a day or two.
 * --Steve-o 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuity note

 * Much of this discussion has been moved here from Talk:Ripsnorter. The same issue is also raised on Talk:Mumu-Obscura.

Walky, why in seven unholy fucks are you editing the continuity note so that it no longer actually tells you the continuity, but only the continuity family?

And you better have a great answer for this. -Derik 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because, unlike you, the rest of us don't decide new and exciting ways to change the formatting of the pages every other week and then create scores of pages the wrong way, and then get all pissy when they get edited back to fit our Style Guide.
 * And, uh, I should note, before your deceptively-stated comment trainwrecks down a crazy path, that the continuity note has ALWAYS been what franchise and what continuity family it's from! You're just fabricating semantics.  If you want, I can start calling them continuity family notes if that makes you happy.  I thought that was a mouthful, but apparently abbreviating it gets you all confused.
 * I am beginning to think I am going to have to get rid of you so we don't spend half our time on this wiki explaining the wiki to you, because, best I can tell, you want attention. --ItsWalky 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Shenanigans on that. From the style guide:

Many articles deal with characters, ideas or entities that exist in many different continuities (usually within a single continuity family, but not always). Such articles should begin with a one-sentence, italicized clarifying statement that indicates the applicability of the article. For character pages, the statement should be very similar in form to the following: "[CHARACTER] is a [FACTION/SUBGROUP/SPECIES] from [CONTINUITY (FAMILY) OF ORIGIN]." For example:
 * ''Sunstreaker is an Autobot in the Generation 1 continuity family.


 * Thats great for Sunstreaker-- but LOUSY for Emirate Xaaron, among hundreds of others. emirate Xaaron is not a resident of the big, wide g1 continuity family.  He's a member of one specific subeset of it, and his note shoudl ^&*_ SAY that.
 * I hold that parts of the SG highlighted in red allows— nay demands the single-continuity specification where applicable. Because otherwise you're distorting the material by describing it in wildly inaccurate terms.  Spanner did not appear in the 'toon, Manga, or any revival thereof.  He's Marvel only.
 * And if the style guide doesn't allow for this- we need to change the style guide because that's ten kinds of stupid (including two rare kinds of stupid usually only found in anaerobic environments.) -Derik 21:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, don't you fucking treat me like I'm X-Bob. You're better than that. -Derik 21:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * sigh* Emirate Xaaron is indeed a character in the Generation 1 continuity family.  That's like saying I don't live in Ohio because I live in Columbus.  --ItsWalky 21:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, there's more than 1 continuity covered by the Marvel comics. (US, and UK, possibly Earthforce too), and Xaaron appears in 2 of them. --FortMax 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And addressing a letter to David Willis, Ohio isn't very helpful, is it? (Well, maybe it is, I don't think many people live there...)
 * The point is- indicates the applicability of the article, in the case of single-continuity characters- that's very relevant to the applicability. It belongs there.  Just because for most specimens you can't narrow them down further than kingdom-phylum, it doesn't mean you omit the genus when you can pin it down.
 * Single-continuity belongs there.-Derik 21:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While I see Walky's point, I think Derik is actually right. The continuity notes for Masterforce characters, for example, contain the phrase "the Masterforce portion of the Generation 1 continuity family." I have no problem with using similar phrasing for characters who are exclusive to Marvel UK continuity. --KilMichaelMcC 21:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Masterforce is a *franchise*. It's not analogous to the Marvel Comics continuities.  --ItsWalky 21:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Both speak the the applicability of the article.
 * Franchise designations for single-franchise characters are good-- and they're not explicitly mentioned in the style guide. -Derik 21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think your reasoning is consistent. You say it is misleading to claim that Xaaron is a character in the Generation 1 continuity family.  What about a character who's in two or more continuities, like Nightbird?  Should the top of her page say "Nightbird is a ninja robot built to benefit mankind in the animated continuity and the Dreamwave Comics continuity and the Wreckers comics continuity in the Generation 1 continuity family"?  She's not in any of the potentially infinite number of other continuities, so saying she's just a character in the Generation 1 continuity family is equally as wrong as saying Xaaron is.  Limiting it to the franchise and continuity family was to keep things from being unwieldy.  There's no point in stretching the introductory note any more than we have to.  --ItsWalky 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Maybe designate the smallest container for the character below the franchise level, if possible.  Or maybe just designate where it seems reasonable.  Most of the BW characters are sub-designated as 'beast era,' because the various franchises are so interconnected.  Nightbird is in the 'toon, BW's version of the 'toon timeline and a fictive character in Dreamwave.  She's too complicated to pin down into a single smaller containing module.
 * I'm willing to admit that my approach may not be the right one, stipulated that saying just the continuity family, always, is more wrong, so some third paradigm is needed.
 * *goes to get a haircut so he no longer looks like a dirty hippie* -Derik 21:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying just the continuity family is never WRONG. You may argue that it is not specific enough, but it is never ever in error.  --ItsWalky 21:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. While I do agree with Derik that speficying the "Marvel UK portion" in the continuity note for articles about characters that are exclusive to it would be perfectly fine, it certainly isn't absolutely necessary. --KilMichaelMcC 22:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this debate is pointless? Can't people just, y'know, read the article and see what specific continuity/continuities the guy's in? It's right in the section titles. Interrobang 22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Derik. Of course it's pointless.  I think he spends more time on this wiki arguing over minutia and doing stuff the rest of us have to edit than he does actually contributing. - RolonBolon 00:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is a fairly important issue. I strongly agree with much of Derik's position. If a character or entity (whatever the subject of an article is) is only portrayed in one continuity, it is needlessly vague/nonspecific to give only their continuity family in the continuity note. It is vague to the point that, at least for me as a reader and possibly for others, that vagueness actually impedes my understanding of the article. I see the continuity note's function as providing context for all of the information that follows. I don't generally scan the article body to see which continuities are listed in the fiction section before reading the stuff that comes before it, and doubt that many people do, so I don't consider the fiction section's structure to be a substitute for specificity in the note.

The purpose of the note, in my mind, is to tell the reader how broadly applicable the information is. As such, I feel they should be worded as narrowly as is possible without making them awkward lists of continuities. A character like, I dunno, G1 Ironhide exists in two or three big continuities as well as dozens of small ones (storybooks, 3D comic series, etc.). The most efficient way of describing the breadth of his existence is just "G1 continuity family". Spanner, on the other hand -- or Ripsnorter for that matter -- may well exist elsewhere in the infinite possible universes out there, but has only ever been shown in one. To say "Ripsnorter exists in the G1 continuity family" is true, yes, but also much more broad than is necessary. Bill Gordon also "exists in the G1 continuity family", but his only appearance is in a Young Corgi storybook called Battle Beneath the Ice], which is somewhat less prominant. I would actually consider it confusing for him to have the same continuity note as very well-travelled characters like Ironhide.

My suggestion is that characters with only one continuity be described as such. Hence, "Spanner is a neutral Transformer in the Generation 1 continuity family," would become "Spanner is a neutral Transformer in the Marvel comics continuity," or perhaps "Spanner is a neutral Transformer in the Marvel comics portion of the Generation 1 continuity family." The same sort of narrowing-down can be done with certain franchises, such as Kil noted above with our Masterforce character articles. If a character exists in more than one continuity (or more than one franchise within a continuity) then stating the continuity family is sufficiently restrictive.

I don't want the continuity notes to become cumbersome, but I think that insisting they never be more specific than the continuity family level prevents the notes from being as helpful as they can be while providing no significant benefit.

--Steve-o 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this method. Just narrow it down where appropriate or noteworthy. --Ratbat 02:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thirded. - Chris McFeely 02:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yay, Steve-o is here!
 * One note-- you suggest Spanner is a neutral Transformer in the Marvel comics continuity
 * I'd avoid that form. It's not a big deal for Marvel?  Try it with Dreamwave.  Franklin Townsend is a human in Dreamwave continuity.
 * Dreamwave published in 3 continuity-families. A couple other companies have done the same- i think the continuity-family note should always be there just for broad orientation.  "Leviticus appeared in a Dreamwave book?  Was he part of Shockwave's Cybertron?" -Derik 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, the family should definitely be mentioned in cases where it's not clear from the specific continuity alone, and I'm fine with the family being mentioned every time. I was just giving some suggestions.  "Dreamwave continuity" isn't good enough.  "Dreamwave's G1 continuity" is, but "the Dreamwave portion(?) of the G1 continuity family" is okay too.  --Steve-o 17:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am clearly being outvoted in favor of most of Steve-o's suggestions, but lordy lordy, "in the ____ continuity family" *must* be at the end of every single continuity note, by gum. --ItsWalky 17:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. Since most guys who are limited to one continuity are very obscure, "X is a Y in the Z portion of the V continuity family" gives the reader a clear understanding of where, say, Rorza is from. --FortMax 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Walky wholeheartedly. It's a standard form that make thign easier to immediately grasp. -Derik 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose to sooth Walky's jangled nerves as a conciliatory gresture I should edit the storylink template so it can't be floated right anymore. (There's an extra bit of code there specifically to give it that hated ability!)
 * But if I'm going to be messing with the SL template, by gum, I want to make it BETTER. I never liked 3.0 (I think the current version is 3.0...) and digging further into wikia's CSS support I feel like something better can be done.  ...maybe next week I'll put some test pieces together for people to respond to. -Derik 21:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

An observation about names
There are a ridiculously large number of Transformers characters, concepts, etc. with names that are based around the word "Storm":


 * Jetstorm, a car and a dragonfly and a Vehicon and a Mini-Con
 * Storm Jet, a jet and a combiner torso and a space shuttle
 * Sunstorm, a buttload of jets
 * Stormcloud, a jet and a boat and a helicopter
 * Sandstorm, a Triple Changer and a tank and a scorpion and a helicopter
 * Snowstorm, a half-track (but not a Half-Track)
 * Duststorm, a combiner limb
 * Stormbringer, a mini-series and an unseen casualty
 * Before the Storm, a BW episode

And half of those are disambiguation pages. I'm seriously wondering if they should have their own template or something. --Andrusi 19:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A Trivia Question

 * I'm really wanting to get through my notes on Orson's World and post them wherever possible, but I'm a bit confused on where one of them might fit. Archer pointed out at one point that the Armada had a split aesthetic, with the Autobots designed to looks slick and clean while the Decepticons have assymetrical detailing and pieced together armor (I think the example used was either Hot Shot versus Cyclonus or Optimus versus Megatron, but I don't have that actually written).  Anyway, I don't know where to put this bit or even if it should be put anywhere, so suggestions welcome.


 * Another trivia thing I wonder about is actually on the talk page for Ginrai relating to the Optimus Prime (G1) toys page. I've got a chunk of stuff that doesn't actually relate to any released Optimus Prime toy, but to a completely scrapped futuristic toy redesign.  I don't know if I should put it up or not since it doesn't seem to directly pertain to anything on the page.  Suggestions?--MCRG 02:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Op Toys page was fissioned off SO it could eb larger, mroe comprehensive. And since the Ginrai toy has been released AS Optimus Prime, BOTh the released toys quality as 'Optimus Prime', while only one qualifies as Ginrai.  The trivia should go on Optius Prime's toys page.-Derik 02:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just mentioned it on the Ginrai page, but what I mean is whether it's actually worth mentioning on the Optimus page or not since it doesn't seem to pertain to much of anything actually released toywise, on which I thought the Optimus Prime (G1) toys page was centered, since this particular set of sketches isn't the lead-up to a finished toy or subline. Or is this a distinction I'm seeing that doesn't actually exist?


 * MCRG: The tidbit about symmetry in Armada toy design is a toyline-wide comment and thus belongs on Armada (toyline) and arguably also on the Armada franchise page (which is currently at Armada but should probably be moved to Armada (franchise). --Steve-o 05:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey, toyline page. Here I was trying to figure out if I should chuck it on to a character page and it just never occurred to me that there was a toyline page.  SORTED!--MCRG 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Couple things I noticed in the G2 comic that I don't have firm numbers on

 * I know Adam Patyk is one of the letter writers during the G2 series. I think it was #10 or #11.  Can anyone confirm this for me so I can throw it in a trivia bit on his page?


 * Crow T Robot is in a group shot of corpses somewhere in the middle of the series, in the part where Perceptor and other Autobot scientists are trying to diagnose what the Swarm did to the planet. It seems to me that the panel was on the left page, maybe towards the top.  He didn't have any colors to set him apart from the other dead guys, and was near the lower right corner of the panel.  Can anyone find this, 'cause it seems noteworthy, what with Dull Surprise an' all?--MCRG 04:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Series Navigation
I was looking at some of the G1 episode pages, and noticed they were all lacking an easy way to jump to the next episode. I was thinking something similar to the template used at wikipedia. It would probably be best to use the template twice when airdate and production order don't match up. The Marvel comic should have at most three (US continuity, UK continuity, Generations reprints, and the "backup" UK stories from the later issues). The biggest problem I see is when the "backup" strips are reprints. Do we include stories like The enemy within in the set of links or not? --FortMax 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"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)

Questioning general use of certain continuity designations
Hi there everyone, this is PacifistPrime. I've originated some small articles about TF resource books, as well as the articles on Micro-Continuities and my biggest article, Scale. I just wanted to raise two related issues about the deliniation of Continuity here at Teletraan 1. Since they concern potentially extensive edits I thought it'd be better to raise it here for general duscussion rather than on specific pages' talk pages, in the hopes of getting a wider sample of the usership to contribute to the discussion. I certainly didin't want to unilaterally make any changes without consulting my fellow users.

What I'm talking about is:

1]  I completely agree with the way that the site views the various different continuity families as taking place in alternative realities, however while they obviously require separate articles I find the consistant use of phrasing which treats Optimus Prime (and Megatron) in different continuities as wholly different people very poblematic. It has always seemed quite apparent to me that one should view Optimus Prime in (for example) G1, RID and the Unicron Trilogy as being alternate reality versions of the same character, rather than cosmically unrealated characters with the same name and very similar personalities, which seems to be the way this site treats them.

Although there is some argument to be made that this may indeed be the case in Japan where Convoy, Fire Convoy and Galaxy Convoy are not neccessarily "Alts" of the same person (especially in light of the proliferation of Prime-lookalike convoys in the BWII & BWNeo), I think that English-language fictions all consistently portray Optimus Primes as though different versions of the same individual, ala the common device of similar-but-different versions of the same person in alternate universes as used in sundry sci-fi, most prominently in Sliders and the Star Trek Mirror Universe. Now, granted, most other instances of name-reuse (particularly in the Unicron Trilogy) give no indication of implying that, say, Armada Cyclonus is in any way and alternate version of G1 Cyclonus, but I think that with Prime and Megs this is clearly different. I'm not suggesting that they are "universal constants" like Primus and Unicron supposedly are, merely that they are alternate incarnations of the same actual people. (Naturally I'm excluding Optimus Primal and BW Megs from this debate, as they ARE certainly different characters.)

2]  On a similar note, I disagree with the inclusion of IDW's "neo-G1" continuity being included in the pages relating to other G1 characters and concepts. Although clearly very closely based on G1, the IDWverse is extremely different from any prior incarnation of G1, and is certainly far more different from any prior version than any of the orginal G1 fictions differed from each other (or even Dreamwave's for that matter), if you follow my drift. The entire war/premise/scenario is radically different and most characters have different altmodes and/or transformation schemes. All other versions of G1 have a broadly identical story premise and all have their characters resemble their original toy (or animation) designs.

Don't get me wrong; this isn't an anit-IDW thing. I actually really like what Furman and co. are doing in reimagining the G1 universe, but it's just that; it's such a radical reconceptulisation that I don't see how it can reasonably be included as part of the overall G1 continuity umbrella. For example, apparently the IDW Galvatron not only isn't Megs, but he even predates him...!

If the forthcoming G1-inspired live-action movie is being considered by this site to be adequately different from G1 that it should be designated as outside of the G1 continuity family, then I would argue that the IDWverse should be as well. I propose that the IDWverse should have its own separate articles for its characters, just as we distinguish between G1 Starscream, Cybertron Starscream and Movie Starscream, despite being essentially the same character.

Anyway, that's what I wanted to raise. I hope some of you will engage in discussion of these topics.

Cheers, PacifistPrime.
 * I disagree with everything you said. --ItsWalky 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay... fair enough. Would you like to actually discuss it though, please? -PacifistPrime.


 * At a guess- no, he doesn't want to discuss it.
 * The problem with saying 'this character is a cosmic analog to this other character' is that... it breaks down really quickly. RiD Prowl?  Not a logician, but okay, he's Prowl.  But what about the Unicron Trilogy?  Okay, clearly UT Prowl is the Mini-con, right?  His alt-decos were even in Smokescreen's colors, so he's the Prowl-analog.  Oh- wait, no no, I take it back.  UT Prowl is Energon Prowl, the racecar/cop car who isn't the same character as the mini-con (despite both a race/cop car of the same name in the same continuity).  I mean- sure he's not a logician either, but that has to be him!  ...or is it Checkpoint?
 * The total lack of restraint in homage naming/deco/characters combined with Japan willfully ignoring the characterizations these guys are supposed to have has resulted in an unholy mess- "Hi, I'm the analogue of someone I'm nothing like." "Hi, I was designed to look like another character, but they changed their mind."  "I'm designed AND deco'd to look like Wheeljack, but I'm not a scientist, at all."  "We're both analogues of the SAME character!"  or "I'm an analog for two separate, unrelated characters who in G1 were based on the same mold!" (That one's Inferno/Hoist.)


 * Maybe we can agree Prime is Prime and Starscream is Starscream- but is Shockblast Shockwave? Is Soundwave Soundwave?  Is Arcee Arcee?  Is Battle Ravage Ravage?  Is Ravenous Swoop?  Is Skyblast Skyfire?  (I thought Jetfire was Skyfire!)  Is Hot Shot Hot Rod?  Wait wait- is Red Alert Ratchet?  Is any of the Blurrs Blurr?  Surely Longrack is Longrack, right?  Surely Wing Saber is Star Saber!  And Evac is Victory Leo, right?  Is Overload Ultra Magnus, or is Ultra Magnus Ultra Magnus?
 * It's so slippery, how do you say who 'is' who?
 * As for the IDW thing- it's Generation One. The movie probably is too- I'm just waiting for people to admit it.-Derik 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I wish he'd actually argue his points, as I don't see how we're supposed to give his argument credence if he won't even explain it in the first place. But thank you for stating your case, Derik, even though you do disagree with me.


 * I TOTALLY concur about the ridiculous use of non-analogue name recycling (which I think has been pretty definitively proved to a technique Hasbro uses to retain copyrights), there's clearly no way that Battle Ravage is Ravage, and Shockwave/Shockblast is awkward at best. But that's actually not what I'm arguing. I'm only talking about Optimus Prime and Megatron. Period. Although your argument is entriely convincing for any other characters, could you please focus on just Prime and Megs, as that is the only trans-continuity issue I'm raising here.


 * As to the IDWverse, could you please elaborate on your reasons for viewing it and the new Movieverse as deserving inclusion in G1, despite their radical departures in premise and character presentation? No offence, but simply stating that your point of view that "it's Generation One" as though a definitive fact isn't really helpful, sorry. I'd appreciate hearing your reasons.


 * Thanks, PacifistPrime.
 * Part of the problem is, I don't even know what you're trying to accomplish. If the Optimuses are more similar across the continuity families than other characters -- so what?  Do you want a simple change of wording, or...?  And why?  Who cares?  (The Megatrons are clearly distinct.)
 * And I think "radical depatures in premise and character presentation" doesn't represent the IDW universe at all. At all.  Everyone's pretty much themselves, personality-wise, and either in their G1 bodies, in pre-Earth bodies, or in updated versions thereof.  I'm not about to move all of Banzai-Tron's fictional appearances to Banzai-Tron (IDW) because Prowl is a newer year Datsun.  It would be ridiculous.  --ItsWalky 14:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I find a strong cognitive dissonance in the idea of treating all (or most) Optimus Primes as alternates of the same guy while treating all of his friends as completely new guys that happen to have the same names as the friends of other Primes. That doesn't jive with my idea of parallel universes, because the only thing that is actually parallel is Prime.  (I'm with Walky on Megatron -- I think the various Megatrons are much more different from each other than the various Primes are.)  So, I also disagree with PacifistPrime on that note.


 * Regarding the classification of IDW and Movie into their proper continuity families... That is an inherently subjective thing.  I have been planning to do some minor rewrites to emphasize that.  To me, personally, I still think of the movie as being a G1 variant, not a whole-new-thing.  I may change my mind.  I may not.  I don't know.  I agree that IDW has some major differences from most other G1 continuities, but it's not nearly enough for me personally to consider it a new thing.  I mean, Movie is more different than IDW, and I still think it's G1, so obviously...


 * PP says to Walky, "No offence, but simply stating that your point of view that 'it's Generation One' as though a definitive fact isn't really helpful". Thing is, though, that your own statement "radical departures in premise and character presentation" is also not helpful.  That's a very subjective evaluation.  I see the premise behind IDW as being almost identical to that of the classic G1 stuff from the 80s.  The characters have been tweaked only a little bit, in some cases bringing them more in line with their origianal bios than they've ever been before.  The only departure as I see it is that they aren't stranded (big deal) and they are actually trying to stay hidden for once.  (Even if I agreed that their altmodes were "different", I think that is totally irrelevant.  A character is not defined by their altmode.)


 * So, yeah. I disagree about parallel Primes.  I agree that IDW is more different than most G1 stuff.  I think the Movie is more different than IDW is.  I consider them both G1, but it's not a huge deal to me because those judgements are inherently subjective.


 * --Steve-o 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve-O's hitting it on the head when it comes to subjectivity. The question of whether this Prime is similar enough to that Prime to be each other's parallel twins reminds me of the old "Beast Machines is a new continuity because the characters are different" debate.  In the end, every individual has his or her own standards of what makes a character a character, and applying armchair psychology to the fiction can never lead to definitive answers.


 * The broader question of what makes a "continuity family" is similarly subjective. Hell, when half the Energon toys are blatant G1 homages, you have to admit that the distinctions are blurry.  To my mind, the only truly rational separation would be based on linear story connection.  If one series is meant to directly continue from another, then they should be on the same page.  But whenever a continuity-reboot occurs, that's a new page altogether.  Therefore, IDW-G1, the UT, DW-G1, RID, DD-Joe/TF, Marvel-G1, Sunbow-G1, etc., would all be wholly separated from each other.  Even the Beast era would be distinct because it doesn't flow directly from either the G1 toon or comic, but rather a never-seen third G1verse with aspects of both.


 * But while I hold that that's the most rational approach, it's not at all practical. Should literally every G1 toy character have a separate page that sums up his DW profile?  Should Sunstreaker, who's been in basically every G1 incarnation but never done anything of note, really have a half-dozen pages saying, "He's Sideswipe's brother and doesn't like getting his paint nicked"?  If not, then we have to start bunching them together in a way that will ultimately be arbitrary.  Story-wise, BW has more links to G1 than Armada, but Armada is far closer to G1 in look-and-feel and premise, both in toys and in animation.  Yet Armada is considered separate.  DW-G1 also has no actual story-links to Marvel-G1 or Sunbow-G1, but its look-and-feel apparently crosses some inclusion threshold that Armada doesn't.  Is there some objective standard involved here that everyone would agree on?  I doubt it.  And I doubt it exists at all.  If anyone DOES have a standard they'd like to share, I'm all ears.  Like I said, the only one I can come up with is wildly impractical, so I just have to shrug and go with the established flow.


 * (Incidentally, my instinct is that IDW-G1 is in the same family as the other G1's, but the new movie isn't. It's not a defensible position, just a feeling.  But like I said, if someone's got a better standard....)


 * -- Jackpot 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, been off at a wedding and stuff, so I'm pleased to see you've been busy. Well, clearly my points of view have not gone down well at all! Oh well. I don't find anything you've said particularly convincing in substantive terms, I still think it is reasonable to view different Primes (and yes, even Megatrons; one of the core concepts of alternate realities is that different versions of the same people can have quite different personalities) as variations of the same person. It simply seems like common sense. I'm sure that's not a piece of reasoning that's going to impress anyone's logic circuits, but I don't think it's an invalid instinct.

And I also remain quite convinced of my argument that "neo-G1" such as the Movie and IDW should be in a different category (or even just subcategory) to original G1 fictions, and even Dreamwave. Obivously they're more-G1-than-thou compared to clearly non-G1 stuff like UT etc, but my point is that I still think they nevertheless should be regarded with substantial distinction from prior G1 sources. And although Steve-O is quite scornful of the idea, I actually do think having original altmodes is important. Yes, of course character is not wholly determined by an altmode, obviously. But G1 is, at its foundation, a mythos based on a toyline. IDW represents a (wonderful!) continuity reboot of G1 characters and ideas, but it is very much that; a reboot. I feel that that it, like the new film, deserves to be considered a considerably more significant distinction than merely comparing the differences between Sunbow and Marvel continuities. And if you all still disagree, then I think your own logic should therefore dictate that standalone articles for movie versions of G1 characters should all be merged back into their larger G1 profiles. If cosmetic and story differences aren't important like you're saying, then it only makes sense.

...Buuuut, I also agree with what most of you are saying in that it is all obviously subjective. I'm quite convinced of my view, but I don't want to ram it down anyone else's throat, and I certainly don't want to get into any arguments over it. It would seem that there is a consensus (at least amongst the small number of users who have posted) rejecting my proposal for some recategorisations, so I'm not going to labour the point any further. Thanks for your input, folks.

Cheers, PacifistPrime.

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)