Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal

Archives

 * Archive1
 * Archive2
 * Archive3
 * Archive4
 * Archive5
 * Archive6
 * Archive7

Continuity / Timeline
I'm trying to make some sense of how the various major continuities are handled, overview-wise. Some have their own continuity page; IDW's just got a timeline, with overview stuff shoved here and there among the individual miniseries. Some don't have anything. Some, like the G1 cartoon, are not much more than lists. The ones that exist tend to be hard to find, aren't categorized uniformly, etc... is there a master format for this stuff?
 * There is no master format for continuity pages. Please feel free to make one!  It would be a good thing to have! --Steve-o 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I think it would be hot if once we got more timelines up, we began putting Chronology links to the timetable on the story pages. Several Dreamwave comic pages have them, and I think IDW comics should too, since IDW really isn't telling the story in a linear fashion.--Zodberg 09:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. --MistaTee 13:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to have an overview writeup at the start of each timeline, a few paragraphs or so? Or should "continuity" be a separate page?  Where should a chronological list of issues go -- publisher's page, continuity page, timeline page?  That's not such a problem with, say, Marvel G1, but Dreamwave's a little messier, IDW's all over the place, and gods help you if you want to sort out the mess that is Marvel UK.  -- Repowers 14:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A continuity page should have the following (in my opinion):
 * * A one-paragraph description of the continuity, not more than a few sentences long.
 * * A list of what media belongs to this continuity (which can include some stuff that's vaguely contradictory, but should exclude stuff that's way out there, like Earthforce relative to G1 comics). This can be sorted by publication order, or internal chronology, but if there's a major difference between the two, it should be spelled out.
 * * An overall description of the main events in that continuity, focusing on the events actually chronicled (not the distant past). In particular, for most continuities, changes in the leadership of either side, the changing status (living/dead, present/absent, duplicated by Straxus/encoded on a floppy, etc.)of the big two leaders (usually Optimus Prime and Megatron), any events involving Unicron or Primus, and introductions of major teams or groups of characters (Headmasters, Fuzors) should be in the summary.
 * * If necessary, a timeline, which may end up integrated with one of the above parts.
 * * Pointers to important and closely-related continuities (again, such as Earthforce), discussion of divergences, etc. JW 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All that sounds pretty good, though I wouldn't get too hung up on following individual characters too much, even the leaders. In Marvel G1, at least, they changed over on a pretty regular basis.
 * On a related note... this and a lot of other overview-type pages are really lost in the shuffle. They should be top-level pages, with everything branching off of them and linking back to them, but instead they're buried and nothing links to them.  You start off reading, say, the article on Spotlight: Soundwave.  Where do you go from there to find out more?  The IDW issues category?  That's the only link out of that page.  If you're a newcomer, or even someone with an imperfect memory, how do you know what comes next?  Either the individual issue pages need to link to the timeline and continuity pages, or the category page does, or... something.
 * Taking care of it on the category page might be simplest, like what's on the Category:Marvel US issues page. -- Repowers 19:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the site is sadly lacking in both "uplinks" and "sidelinks" for the media; links from a TV episode to the TV series, links from an issue of a comic to an overview of the comic, links from one comic to the next comic in that series, etc. JW 19:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still poking around and figuring out what's been done and what's needed; it might take a while to figure out how to start cleaning things up. It looks like we've got some random timelines started (still need ones for the Beast era and a few others), as well as continuity pages for some but not all of the major storylines, so I suppose each major continuity should have both kinds of pages.  I wonder if there's a way to use a category or subcategory to get individual episode/issue pages to quickly link back to the main overview pages?... -- Repowers 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * JW, we do have that comics nav template, though I like the comic infobox on wikipedia more. --MistaTee 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah... http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Comicnav ...so we do. Very useful.  Now we just gotta propagate it over a few hundred comic issue... :S  -- Repowers 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the nav setup only can link up one level.  So Infiltration #2 can link up to the main Infiltration page, but not to the IDW continuity page above that.  Would putting a variant of this template on the main page for each miniseries, linking up to the continuity page, work instead?  Then you're never more than two clicks away from an individual issue to the continuity overview. -- Repowers 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That, or somehow add it to the main comicnav template, perhaps in small letters above the series name. I don't wanna step on anyone's toes though. --MistaTee 20:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That'd make the most sense, to add a "Continuity" level to the template, or alternately a lower-end "Mini-series" option. But hell if I can make sense out of how these things work... that might be a rainy day project, figuring that out.  :\ -- Repowers 20:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuity error?
I've noticed a few errors in episode summaries that are listed as continuity errors, but really aren't. An example from from Divide and Conquer:

Optimus Prime somehow deflects a heat-seeking missile by hitting its warhead with his arm.

I think this would be better described as a technical error. It is an example of a technical fact being misrepresented, not an internal continuity discrepancy. However, the sections titled "Technical and/or animation glitches" seem to only contain technical glitches specifically related to cartoon production. Is this how it should be, or am I just looking at the wrong stories to judge by?

If the latter, great, I'll just move the note. If the former... well, I think that's incorrect, but of course I'll go with it if that's consensus.

Is that consensus? --Sntint 16:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed a couple of things like this on the "Transport to Oblivion" article, and moved them from the "Continuity errors" section to the "Miscellaneous trivia" section, which seemed more appropriate. "Technical and/or animation glitches" should be reserved for actual production errors, and not used for things that are "errors" in the way of not actually making real-world sense. --KilMichaelMcC 16:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd be far more fun if we had a snarkily-titled section specifically for such things. ie How Can That Be?  or WTF?  Or at least Improbable Events. -- Repowers 02:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what are the categories of "error"? A) Animation/Production Error: That's clearly huffer, but he's pink. / Starscream is talking in Arcee's voice. / Swoop's arm is seventeen feet away from Swoop's shoulder.  B) Continuity Error: Airraid is present in this shot, but he's supposed to be on Earth.  And dead. / Soundwave was present at this battle, though Megatron told him to stay behind and guard his Butterfingers. / Five Faces of Darkness: Passim.  C) Plot Errors: Evil plans that make no sense. / Retreating for no reason. D) Science Errors: Deflecting missiles by hitting them on the warhead. / Yeah, the Transformers have never heard of water, right. / Neutron bombs are actually ill-suited for use against robots.  JW 03:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can totally get behind an ERRORS. OF. SCIENCE! subsection. -- Repowers 03:10, 4 November 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)
 * That actually makes a fair amount of sense to me. If we consider that we're treating these as multi-part stories similar to the way they are in the animated series episode summaries, it does follow that it would be "Infiltration, part 1" and so forth in absence of specific issue titles. It works for the miniseries issues, at the least.--Rosicrucian 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've sorta grown a fondness toward "issue", since each individual comic IS an issue of a larger title or miniseries. I also favor the parentheses since the word "issue" is not part of the title.  When the TPB is released for Escalation, for example, it is not separated by "issue" or "part", etc, it's a free flowing story.  Therefore it's simply "Escalation (issue 1)".  Now if the issue itself actually uses the word "part" or whatever (as in the UK strips for example) then I have no problem using it. --MistaTee 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think a an article title like "Escalation issue 3" causes any confusion -- the word issue and numeral 3 are clearly not part of the comic's title. It's just saying that the article is about the third issue of Escalation: "{Name of a comic series} issue {issue number}".  Parentheticals in article titles, to me, are meant to differentiate between multiple entities that have the same name.  The various issues of Escalation do not have the same name -- they have no names at all.  "Escalation issue 3" then is a purely descriptive article title which doesn't imply anything about the title of that issue.  "Escalation, part 3" avoids my parentheses concern and would be acceptable to me (it is of the form "{Name of a multipart story}, part {part number}"), but I'd rather we explicitly refer to issues as issues when possible.  In self-analysis I can't think of a reason for that preference, so it may be arbitrary.  --Steve-o 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I greatly prefer "Comic name, issue #". Or "Comic name, part #".  I really don't like the parentheses - we generally have used them solely for disambiguation, and I think we should maintain that. - RolonBolon 05:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Issue" has the great advantage of being totally unambiguous. Everyone knows exactly what an "issue" is, as opposed to a "part", a "book", or whatever else. -- Repowers 05:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As some food for thought, I took a look at the inside covers to see how IDW actually parses things.


 * Infiltration uses "The Transformers # _", with "Infiltration" printed a line beneath it.


 * Stormbringer uses "The Transformers: Stormbringer # _".


 * Escalation uses the "The Transformers" logo with "Escalation" underneath basically as an extension of the logo. Further down on the page is printed "Issue Number ___", with the number actually written out.


 * Like Stormbringer, Devastation uses "The Transformers: Devastation # _".

Stormbringer and Devastation have an obvious solution here. Simply drop the "The Transformers:" and just use the "Series Title # _" format. No commas, parentheticals, or extra words needed. It might be simpler to just apply this format to Infiltration and Escalation as well.

However, if we'd rather stick closer to the titles printed in the actual comics, Escalation should probably be "Escalation, Issue Number One" and so forth. I'm not quite sure on Infiltration though, as the way it's formatted in those books doesn't allow for a simple discard of the "The Transformers" part. Keeping that in could mean either "The Transformers # _, Infiltration" or maybe "The Transformers # _ (Infiltration)" --KilMichaelMcC 06:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * More food for thought... I also just checked at the inside covers and discovered a rather consistent pattern. If you look at the small writing at the bottom, all the IDW "-ation" series seem to have it formatted "The Transformers: Infiltration #1", "The Transformers: Escalation #1", "The Transformers: Devastation #1", "The Transformers: Megatron Origin #1", etc. --MistaTee 08:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll like to point out that the "#" can't be used in article titles. (Since it's used in links to point to sections.) Interrobang 09:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dammit, back to square 1, lol. Well on the front cover they all seem to use "issue #X" right under the IDW logo.  Without the # symbol, that would be "issue X".  If we can decide on the word "issue" at least, we can debate whether to format it as "issue X", "Issue X", "(issue X)" or "(Issue X)" --MistaTee 14:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Echoing the "dammit." Personally, I really dislike the current use of (issue X), with its uncapitalized word inside parenthesis. It just looks... wrong... to me. I think "Title, issue X" would be much better, but that's just me. --KilMichaelMcC 19:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Something worth noting: if we use parentheses, we can use pipe magic on the title in question.--Rosicrucian 20:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Example? --MistaTee 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you link to an article with a parenthetical reference in its title, you can use an empty pipe to auto-fill the link. For example Revelation (IDW) gets parsed as Revelation.--Rosicrucian 20:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, that is a nice feature. --MistaTee 20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think pipe magic will be helpful when linking to individual issues, though. If I were going to link to Infiltration #4 I would probably want the link to state which issue it went to instead of making it look like it goes to the series' "hub" page.  --Steve-o 22:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Glancing over the more recent posts -- and thanks for chiming in, folks -- it appears that a non-parentheses style is more popular. Further, the IDW books themselves seem to vary the way they write out their titles in minor ways, although the indicia consistently use "{Series Name} #{Issue Number}". This makes me think that my previous suggestion to follow the style "Infiltration issue 4" or "Infiltration, issue 4" is going to be best. I prefer the style without a comma, but it's not a big deal to me either way. Opinions on that? --Steve-o 22:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the parentheses are definitely out, I suppose the non-comma version --MistaTee 03:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Current troll problem
Is there a way to keep the IP addresses our resident troll has been using from creating accounts? --FortMax 00:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably that's the "account creation disabled" part of the block log. So I think he's hopping IPs before creating winners like Optimus the F22--RosicrucianTalk 01:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The staff at Wikia would probably be able to help. They are aware of Assautlhead, and consider him a cross wiki vandal. -- SFH 01:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at Wikia's block log, and the logs shows when it is used. So apperently our admins haven't been making use of it. --FortMax 01:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Or at the least that there's a difference between local account creation and global account creation. I'll admit I'm a little fuzzy on the distinction regarding how Wikia works versus a more standard wiki.--RosicrucianTalk 01:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

YOU WILL SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT ASSAULTHEAD OR I WILL BEAT YOU UP FAST THAT YOUR FUCKING HEADS WILL SPIN! THAT NAME MAKES ME SICK!(64.58.144.10 09:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Guess who recently got handed a permanent block at Wikipedia and is back to haunt us?--RosicrucianTalk 14:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming this is the same guy that's been trolling here for awhile, if I recall correctly, Walky was the one who asked the rest of us if he should ban the guy immediately, because he was too entertaining. True, while the guy could have returned as easily as he later did regardless of how quickly he was banned and Walky wouldn't have known the guy would continually return if banned, tolerance of trolling stupidity just encourages more stupidity, I've observed. --FFN 23:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We are indeed aware of Assaulthead. He has been globally blocked, and informed of the reasons for it, and we are encouraging him to find another community on the Internet where he would be more welcome.  Your best course of action now is to allow his exit to be a quiet one.  Talking about him on the wiki only encourages him to come back and keep reading and "retaliating", instead of moving on and getting involved elsewhere.  Please delete Category:Troll/Assaulthead and any similar pages discussing his disruptions.  You may of course continue to delete his edits, and to block the accounts or IPs he uses to evade his block, but please use neutral, boring edit and blocking summaries.   Thanks, best wishes, and let me know if there's anything else I can do to help this wiki out!  — Catherine (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Teletraan-1:Blocking Policy
Is there any chance we can get a blocking Policy? Why does SFH's Wiki has one while some Wikis do not?(EDD! 00:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

Indonesian version
I noticed than an Indonesian version of this wiki was just launched- could we link to that from the same pull -down menu on the front page that currently just links to the Hungarian version? --TVsGrady 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrators
Any chance we can get at least one more administrator for late hours? If the current idiot rage is any indicator, we need it. Interrobang 09:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the admins aren't normally online during these hours, because I assume they are located in either the same countries or timezones that aren't too far from each other, which is a problem as this troll guy knows that's the time to attack with less risk of administrative intervention. --FFN 09:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of site name
I feel like this has been discussed repeatedly, but we still haven't actually done anything about it, and it recently came up again on Transformers Wiki talk:User page. We've taken to generally writing the name of our wiki and the computer it is named after as "Teletraan I", although the site database still uses "Teletraan-1" instead, meaning that text appears anywhere the wiki SITENAME variable is called. "Teletraan I" is the way the name appears in the original G1 episode scripts and the G1 cartoon bible. Some later but still official spellings omit one of the As, or use an arabic number instead of a roman numeral, or include a hyphen, or any combination of these things. I feel as if we should stick with the original spelling, even though that spelling was only "discovered" in the last 5 years or so and, for all I know, might not even be the most common spelling. Regardless of the spelling that we pick, I am really tired of the inconsistency between our graphic logo and the SITENAME variable, and think we should take one and go with it. I would appreciate it if other users would express their preferences. --Steve-o 04:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Teletraan I. I'd prefer not to go with fan-originated spellings. Interrobang 05:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I say "Fuck it, we rename the whole thing Vector Sigma, which is a way better name for a repository of TF data anydamnway." -hx 11:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In THAT case, Underbase. But no, we're probably a little too established as Teletraan I (however you like it spelled) these days. --Sntint 12:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and changed the Sitename to "Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki" -- if you change your mind after more discussion, I can change it again. (I'd suggest leaving the "tranformers wiki" portion, however -- this improves your ranking in search engines.)

I have also added "TeletraanI" and "Teletraan1" as additional domain names, so http://teletraani.wikia.com and http://teletraan1.wikia.com both redirect to http://transformers.wikia.com -- hopefully this will also help people typing "teletraan" into search engines to find you. Good luck! — Catherine (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --ItsWalky 02:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Elements of ideal comic issue
We really should standardize pages for common things like comic issues, fer instance. We should find an accepted page that is perfect in format and either use that as the standard or just build an "example page" based on that. Using Infiltration (issue 0), I propose the following:
 * the top of the page should have the 2 most-common covers, rendered to 250px wide, and usually with a humorous comment. Other notable covers can be listed in the Covers section below.
 * The Comic Nav box should have the "pretty title" be the exact title as published, and in italics (but linked to the appropriate page)
 * 2 lines below the nav box (for spacing), should be a credits listing, usually the Writer/script, Artist/Penciler and inker, Colorist, Letterer and Editor in generally that order. The titles should be bolded.
 * Next should be a bullet point for Major characters (in order of appearance): (title in italics)
 * Next, bullet point for Originally published:, also title in italics. If published date is unknown, cover date.
 * If available, a 3rd bullet for Continuity:
 * after this, use a spacer symbol:

There should be 4 sections using a level-2 header: Synopsis, Quotes, Errors and Items of note. If information is unknown for any of these, please include a bullet point for
 * None yet identified

Synopsis:
 * General overview of the important elements of the issue's plot

Quotes:
 * in quotation marks and italics. The second speaker (if there is one) should be indented.  Below, using an m-dash, the speaker should be listed in Bold.

Errors
 * self-explanatory

Items of note
 * Connections to other issues/continuities/properties/whatever
 * special items
 * notes about recurring sections such as a letters section, etc.
 * Also under Items of note, in level-3 headers, should be a Covers section and a Advertisements section
 * Covers should list the number of covers, a very brief description of each and the artist(s)
 * Advertisements should at least list Transformers-related ads, although a complete list would be nice.

Whew! OK, let the debates begin! --MistaTee 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about instead of a paragraph for characters, we use that multicolored appearances box like we do for episodes? I like that. It's easier to read. Granted, some issues it'll be huge, but that's true for the cartoon as well. (If worse comes to worse, individuals on subgroups can be condensed down to just the group name.) --M Sipher 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea. Might have to rearrange of few things. --MistaTee 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeh, I think maybe we can use a format similar to that we use for the cartoon episode. --TX55 03:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I too support the multicoloured box. Consistency is victory. - RolonBolon 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a mock-up using that style and some re-arrangement. Have a look. --MistaTee 04:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's get some more feedback so we can get a standard nailed down. --MistaTee 12:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I really do think that for quotations that contain more than two text-boxes worth of dialog, a script format is just simply easier to keep track of, (and this better) also slightly more compact. Oh, and I think my page-by-page listing of character cameos in Beast Wars #1 was cool and should have been kept - even though it's not standard, but that issue did have a ton of characters. Oh, and I really don't like having headers for empty categories, so they should be left out. Since they just make the wiki look incomplete when maybe there just aren't any errors or references or whatever in the issue.--Zodberg 16:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zodberg about going script-style if there's more than two speakers. Also, I don't see the point of indenting a second speaker -- why not just put a break in and call it a day?
 * On a related note, I've seen some really confusing breakdowns of quotes from comic books, attempting to follow the speech bubble pattern by putting each bubble's worth of text on separate lines, even when it's all one speaker. This gives some strange, hard-to-read results and I'm kinda opposed to it. -- Repowers 15:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "script style" exactly? Here's another idea for 2 people exchanging quotes:  first person in normal font and second in italics. --MistaTee 16:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Script-style is when you put each speaker's name before each line of dialogue:
 * Optimus: Wheeljack, bring back my Doritos!
 * Wheeljack: I didn't take 'em, Prime! It was Jazz!  I don't even have a mouth!
 * Jazz: Wheeljack, you big tattletale.
 * Optimus: Jazz, you know the punishment. Give me your agonizer.
 * Putting all the attributions at the end can be very confusing when there are several people speaking back and forth. JW 16:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what JW said. For one speaker, "Quote" -- attribution  is fine.
 * For two speakers... why do they need to be distinguished? Thta's what line breaks and quotation marks are for.
 * "Oh yeah, well, your mom is a cheap -- "
 * "Hey! Not in front of the humans!"
 * -- Ironhide and Ratchet
 * I don't see how there's any confusion there. -- Repowers 17:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with Rob and JW here, I think you're severely overcomplicating something that doesn't need it. This is how I handled the quotes from the various Cybertron episodes I did up. (I should get back on those sometime. I'm pretty sure they're still available online.) --M Sipher 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the script style looks greta for 2 or more speakers --MistaTee 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we start using the character appearance infobox with bullet point listings as the standard for comic appearances? I've noted that comics contain MANY character appearances, so the traditional listing method just appears as one confusing paragraph of names and links. --FFN 01:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the [|Featured Characters] box?
 * I've got no problem with that (I was just noticing how horrible the giant mess of character in ascending looked as a paragraph.) It's a table right now, which does make it kinda a pain to implement.  Want me to take a pass at making it a template? -Derik 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Recurring Troll Problem
Wikia people re looking into... solutions. Until then, I propose this plan whenever the recurring troll returns. 1) DO NOT REVERT HIS SHITTY EDITS. This just causes the changes page to be filled with idiot bac-and-forth. Instead, just write them down for a mod to revert/delete. 2) DO NOT TALK TO IT AS IF IT WAS A HUMAN OR A MONKEY. Do not engage. 3) GO TO WIKIA HOME AND GET IN TOUCH WITH A MOD. They can enact wide-reaching bans and such. --M Sipher 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose that makes sense. -- SFH 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By Wikia home you mean... what? #wikia? -15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Image Copyrights
I asked awhile ago, and nobody seemed to know, so...

I've always been under the impression that images someone else should be credited not just with a note that they belong to someone else, but a year, for much the same reasons we identify who the image belongs to rather than simply saying 'we don't own it, but it's fair use.'  The more info we provide, the more 'seriously' the copyright is being taken. if we wipe our ass with an unadorned, clearly we don't think the holder of the copyright is important... or something.

I have a script I've been poking at. It can run through every image detail page on the wiki through a regular expression and pick out which images don't have copyright owners (Hasbro or Takara-- you're supposed to ID which even if you're using ,) which don't have dates, and which don't have any sort of copyright notice at all. (A significant chunk of our images have no notices that they belong to someone else.) It could also drop the offending images into categories to be sorted out and properly labeled. (I imagine I'd give it Steve-o and let it do so logged in as the bot to avoid the update-floods.)

...is anyone interested in this? Does it seem like a good idea? Terrible idea? ...Bueler? -Derik 15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cartoon Episode Format
I realize we've got a Help page that cites "The Agenda, Part 1" as a model cartoon episode. But...

First of all, that up-front section on that page looks pretty hideous. IMO, stuff like air date, characters, and writers is less important than the story summary.

Second, while Beast Wars and Beast Machines follow this format, Generation 1, (some of ) Armada, and the handful of completed Cybertron episodes do not. They have a different layout, typified by "City of Steel"... and again IMO, it looks and works much better, with all the messy stuff like character appearances and air date condensed into a Stats section near the bottom.

One-line summary: Following the example set by comic pages, I feel that one-line summary ought to be bold, regardless of the format. It lets your eye jump right to the one sentence which immediately tells you what the page is all about.

Quotes: Oh, those quotes! There must be a dozen different formats for them, most of them ridiculously complex or strange. My nomination for quote formatting on all episode and comic issue pages is thus:

A single speaker: "We've got to pull ourselves together and win. That's what makes us a team!  Because if we don't act like team we won't be together anymore.  And that could mean we'll lose."
 * -- Rad or Carlos or someone

Two speakers: "So you're saying that if we work together, we'll be more of a team? Golly, I never thought of it that way." "Uhhhhh?"
 * -- Carlos and Hot Shot, the latter drooling.

Three or more speakers or lines: Rad: "I know if we keep trying we can do this! We musts succeed! For the good!" Alexis: "That's the spirit. If we try then we can win!" Hot Shot: "So what you're saying is... huh." Carlos: "Hey you guys, wait up!!" Hot Shot: "I guess what Carlos is saying is true. We'll have to give it our best shot.  What do you think, Leader-1?" Optimus: "I think that we have to win in order to defeat Megatron. And GET THOSE MINI-CONS!"  -- Repowers 23:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been doing it this way for months, because the old style kind of blows. Maybe somebody should edit the Help page so we aren't giving newcomers the wrong idea about what we expect in a episode article? It creates a fucking shitload of work to correct an episode article if we go around telling people to do things the wrong way and then we have to fix it ourselves.


 * I agree on all counts. If nobody objects after a day or two, I say we change that Help link. -- Repowers 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As the person who did the Cybertron episode pages, obviously I agree. --M Sipher 16:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it anyway, because even if we later disagree and any episode recap is made in the meantime, it's far easier to edit a recap down to the old style than it is to update an old recap style to M Sipher's Cyb ep style. --FFN 16:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All sounds fine to me. One thing I consider important is that all the RID episode pages open with haikus, as a bunch (but not all) already do. :) --Steve-o 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate you. :P
 * RID ep recaps are largely dependant on those of us who go to the trouble of importing those UK DVD sets. Does anybody here actually own them? --FFN 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * *raises hand* I've thought about doing summaries, but for whatever reason the Japanese shows won out in my head. I'd do RiD before I'd do Victory, though. Yeeargh. - Chris McFeely 22:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Any recaps are hard to do. We're struggling to do the Beast Wars recaps, and it's the best series we have... then again BW and BM are very complex, so that helps in difficulty of writing. Off-topic question: Did Metrodome ever fix that subbing problem (where a sub from a later episode is used on an earlier episode) in Headmasters for the big Takara boxset? Trying to weigh which version to get. --FFN 22:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it may be a proportionate thing - the better-written the show, the tougher it is to write up. For example, I've only managed half of the really-rather-good Masterforce in three months, whereas the gut-wrenchingly stupid Headmasters was done in a month! Heck, maybe I *should* do Victory, it's the worst of the three in my book, maybe I'd get it all done in a week...


 * The error didn't get fixed for the Takara Collection boxset, unfortunately... and although I don't have absolutely confirmation of this, I doubt it's fixed for the Madman set either, since there are several other unfixed errors reported. - Chris McFeely 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I think the information such as writer, air date, etc. absolutely does belong right up front, before the summary, for cartoon episodes just as we have it there for comic issues. --KilMichaelMcC 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignorant question about Korean Beast Wars
Hi folks. Been a little while. I was just wondering if anyone could give me a little clarification about something, and if so perhaps could add it to some relevant articles (unless it's already in there somewhere and I'm just not seeing it)?

What I wanted to know is: What is HasTak's position and (presumably) thus our position on the officialness of the widely available Korean releases of Beast Wars II and Beast Wars Neo? I'm sure you know the ones I'm talking about; you often see Big Convoy, Galvatron, Magnaboss, Megastorm etc in these Korean releases. They come in large windowless boxes with pimp box art and are packaged in moulded white plastic trays, and as far as I can tell the toys are absolutely identical to the Japanese releases.

I've long heard many eBay sellers (but I'm not going to blindly trust them) swear up and down that these Korean releases are fully official and liscenced for the Korean market by Takara, and they're also sold by BigBadToystore (who don't generally have much truck with knock-offs) alongside the Japanese releases with only the proviso "Korean Box" stated.

So, does anyone have any clear knowledge on this question? Can one consider these particular Korean releases to be as official as the Japanese releases? I'd really appreciate knowing if someone has any definite info on this. Cheers, PacifistPrime

So far as I know, they are definitely official releases. Dj convoy 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They're official releases under Takara's South Korean subsidiary or distributor Sonokong. I believe it's a way for Takara to get around the cultural divide and resentment in South Korea towards Japan by selling their products through a local company. --FFN 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, that's a load off. I take it this is the consensus then? If so, it might be good to add it to a few pages there, for others such as me who might be wondering... PacifistPrime


 * TV's Grady made this. We still don't know that much about them. --FFN 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It could also be a legal thing-- didn't we get the Antex TF's because laws at the time in Brazil required the brand to be managed by a domestically-owned company? That would explain why the Korean TF's got their own separate production run instead of just being produced in China like the Japanese TF's. -Derik 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Europe/Japan/etc-"only" character categories
So I was thinking about this today... how hard would it be to change these categories a bit? IDW and the Club are pulling characters once found only in Japan and Europe left and right (and 3H grabbed a couple to boot), so "only" is a bit of a misnomer, but the category group is still, I think, an important one to have. Perhaps "-only" should become "-origin", indicating characters whose first appearances were in non-US-first fiction/toylines, regardless of later US appearances? Could a bot handle this change? --M Sipher 20:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Japanese-original characters", "European-original characters", "South-American-original characters", mayhaps? --M Sipher 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you strongly. Thus we can make something not to be confused later day. (e.g. I've already heard someone say Lio Convoy originate in IDW continuity. Gosh...) By the way, if we really use "-origin", I think Car Robot/RiD characters can be also in this category. --TX55 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would the original GeeWon characters be Japan-origin as well? Is this toy-origin or fiction-origin? --MistaTee 15:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a really good question. I think that, since A) this is a fiction-oriented wiki, and 2) "toy originated in Japan, fiction originated in America" is the "default" for the core characters, then we should use the "fiction-origin" definition, unless the character only has a toy.
 * Um, but what then do we do if a character is produced as only a toy, only in Japan, and then ten years later his first fictional appearance is in America? JW 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Where applicable, consider the Japanese tech specs/bio its first fictional appearance. Even the Operation: Combination Micromasters and such had minimal write-ups in TV Magazine before the reissue bios gave some of them more personality.  Otherwise, note the toy existed under a given name in Japan, but did not exist as a character until brought into U.S. fiction.  Mind you, the only Japan-original toys that come to my mind as qualifying are the limited-edition Mini-Cons/Microns.  There are doubtless many I'm forgetting.--Apcog 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's overcomplicating the issue. The Boosters and limited Microns that are getting first-time Club bios would fall under the Japan-origin deal. I mean, just because a toy doesn't have a bio, that doesn't mean it's not a character... it just doesn't have any characterization. It's still an individual. Otherwise, even several Japanese-ONLY characters wouldn't qualify, like Shuffler or the Godmaster Warriors... and most of the South American guys wouldn't qualify for their own national-origin category. The Diaclone / Microman-origin TFs from 84/85 would not fall under this because their premier as Transformers was in the US. One could make a case for the Car Robots characters being in the category, but the RID additions to the line would not. --M Sipher 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. The change can be made pretty easily with the DiagnosticDrone, but that will have to wait until I'm back at my home PC instead of travelling for the holidays.  In the meantime, continue to hash out exactly how you want to do them.  --Steve-o 04:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I can help with the work during my holidays after the decision is made. :D --TX55 06:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. It's a task that can be accomplished by the bot with almost zero effort on my part.  Also, bot edits are hidden by default on the Recent Changes list, so that way nobody will have to look at a hundred category-change edits in a row.  --Steve-o 05:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! ;D --TX55 12:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I figured that "how we want to do them" would be to basically take every instance of "(nation/market)-only characters" and simply change them to "(nation/market)-origin characters". It'd really only be a category name-change, effectively. We would probably then add a few guys to it, like Stepper-Ricochet and the Car Robots original dudes. That's about it. --M Sipher 06:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of potential wordings, though. A few have already been mentioned in this discussion.  "Japan-origin characters", "Japanese-origin characters", "Characters of Japanese origin", "Japan-original characters"...?   I kind of prefer a "characters of..." form because it sounds more natural, but it's also wordier.  --Steve-o 04:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It also runs counter to all the other "________ characters" categories we have, like "cartoon-only characters", "Masterforce characters", etc.
 * I think I like the "Japanese-original characters" wording. It's a bit less ambiguous. Of course, the category page would need a slight "these appeared FIRST as characters outside of US stuff, even though they may later have been put in US stuff"

disclaimer (if there isn't one already). --M Sipher 06:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think maybe we should rearrange the categories & sub-categories. Something like:
 * Category: Characters of Japanese origin (temporary name)
 * (sub)Category:The Headmasters characters
 * (sub)Category:Masterforce characters
 * (sub)Category:Victory characters
 * (sub)Category:Zone characters
 * (sub)Category:Return of Convoy
 * (sub)Category:Operation Combination characters
 * (sub)Category:Beast Wars II characters
 * (sub)Category:Beast Wars Neo characters
 * (sub)Category:Car Robot characters
 * (sub)Category:Japanese Unicron Trilogy characters (temporary name)
 * --TX55 09:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a bad idea; not everyone in each of those series is J-origin. In fact, the overwhelming majority of, say, Headmasters characters are not. Also, why would we have a "Car Robots characters" category? There's already an RID category, and everyone in that sure isn't J-origin. All this is supposed to be is a category rename to accommodate the international borrowing that's become more prevalent in the last year or so while retaining the point of the categories; noting characters that weren't created by/for Hasbro US series. --M Sipher 12:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, I forgot to make it clear. I didn't mean all characters from "Category:The Headmasters characters" are J-origin. But some characters such as Raiden, Bodiless Headmasters and some others are surely J-origin. Umm, but there is still some problems as you said, it's really difficult to separate FortMax, Chromedome and others from the category. And there's similar issue for CR guys.
 * Errr, I'm not good at explain. --TX55 15:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Errr, I'm not good at explain. --TX55 15:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change for disambig pages
As disambig pages start getting... er... long, I'd like to suggest that each entry be prefaced by a year that character first appeared since we already put them in chronological order.

An example of a year'd disambig page can be seen here User:Derik/Sandbox5 vs. the original here.

Does anyone else think this is a good/terrible idea in principle, momentarily putting aside issues of implementation/formatting etc? Is it worth exploring? (This seems like a good middle-solution that keeps disambig pages easy to use as they get long.) -Derik 05:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the idea, but mostly I just want to mention that 2004 was a really good year for Prowl. --ItsWalky 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as for Prowl's case, I really think Derik's version is quite nice. Maybe this will work. :D --TX55 12:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cartoon continuity headings
Have we decided on a definative format for this yet? most of the pages with characters who appeared in Sunbow's G1 through to the japanese series (and maybe Beast Wars as well) have quite different headings, and I recall we were worried about Transformers Animated causing problems with all the 'Animated continuity' headings on character pages. --FFN 07:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we had decided on using "cartoon" instead of "animated." So use "cartoon continuity," or for those who appear in more than one cartoon continuity, use "Generation 1 cartoon continuity," "Beast Wars cartoon continuity," etc.  --ItsWalky 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Name-Dropping
Is there a preferred term for the phenomena where, when new characters are being introduced, they all go out of their way to say each other's name? Or sometimes they say their own name? (So the kiddies will know which toy to bug their parents for.) JW 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Like that really bad scene in Beast Wars Part 1 where the Maximals decide to give themselves new names? --FFN 16:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yah, or pretty much any scene in the Marvel comic where we meet a new subgroup. Or the Starscream-Lugnut-Blackarachnia-Blitzwing conversation in T&RO.  JW 17:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Or even the initial spread introducing all the Autobots in issue 1 of the Marvel series. It's a form of exposition, but I don't know if there's a preferred term for that particular aspect of it.  "Sledgehammer exposition" works, but it includes stuff besides just naming oneself or others.  (And TF: Animated managed it in one of the more subtle ways I've seen, even if it was still obvious to us.)--Apcog 17:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Forced Introduction? -Derik 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Introdump"? (After infodump.)  JW 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I, Zodberg, feel that "introdump" is a nice enough term. When I hear the expression "name-dropping" I think of when people casually say names of other people to make themselves look smarter/better-networked.
 * Introdump is an awesome neologism. Did you come up with it yourself or steal it from somewhere? -Derik 01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So far as I understand the workings of my brain, I invented it.
 * Once I come up with a good scan of an example of such from the Marvel comic, I may even create an article for it . . . JW 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What an awesomely fertile imagination you have. I love the phrase.  (There's a term for this, combining words...)
 * Anyway- ask and you shall receive; the double-page spread with the Autobots has more obvious namedropping, but the sheer volume of text here should make a hilarious visual even when it's too small to read. And it is all, well... introduction.  It's neither exposition or an infodump (which is either universe, backstory or plot-oriented,) so I guess that means introdump can be more than a name.
 * (I keep a portable hard drive with every issue of the old comics scanned on it handy. Since I own them all in 2 or more formats I have no moral qualms about this whatsoever.) -Derik 01:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "What an awesomely fertile imagination you have." Given the dots you connected for Prowl 2, I can say the same for you.
 * I worked up a rough draft of such an article under User:JW/Sandbox. I want to poke at it a bit more before it's ready for prime time.  I'm also a bit wary of creating an article under a name I coined, since this wiki should really only document therms that have a prior existence in fandom (e.g., RIBFIR), not words I make up.  However, the phenomenon of introdumping exists, and merits an article, and if I have a good term for it, I might as well use it . . . JW 02:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Username character limit?
Considering Assaulthead's recent not-so-clever usernames, am I the only one who thinks some sort of character limit on usernames is in order? --Detour 02:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

External link box to Joepedia
Hi everybody, I'd just like to know if it's okay for me to put external link boxes that links a G.I. Joe-related article to Joepedia? Seeing as how G.I. Joe is almost like a sister franchise and if anybody wants to know more about them? I admit Joepedia doesn't seem much right now but eventually, if there are Transformers related articles that pop up there, I'd be willing to accomodate Transformers external link boxes. --Destron Commander 06:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that you're putting the cart before the horse. Right now, there's not much on the Joepedia - there's probably more stuff about GI Joe on this wiki than there is over there.  So those link boxes aren't very useful right now.  If you held off until Joepedia has some more content, there probably wouldn't be a problem. - RolonBolon 06:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)