Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal

Archives

 * Archive1
 * Archive2
 * Archive3
 * Archive4

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)

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)