User talk:Suki Brits/2006

You are now an Admin
Hi Suki Brits, I've made you and ItsWalky admins for this wiki. I'm glad you can help :) Let me know if there is anything you need help with or can't do.  Please have a look at Wikicities:Help:Administrators' how-to guide for the basics, and let me know if you want more admins added - two should start you off, but you may want more in time.  Thanks again -- sannse (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

...so 'sexy piece of autobot ass' goes, but 'masteurjailbate' stays? -Derik 06:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not. The captions aren't supposed to be serious, and mostly, I can't think of anything to put in there instead. --Suki Brits 06:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The image caption is also phrased in a way to not sound like it's endorsing pedophilia. Bonus points for that. --M Sipher 06:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ep Template comments
Hi. Thanks for your feedback. The bright colors had fit in better with the design of my personal TF website, which already had more color; thus it didn't stand out as much. But here I can see your point, as the style of this wiki is pretty plain to begin with, such bright colors do stand out, and I can sort of see how they might be distracting. I like the idea of having some color in the table to help as an extra visual identifier of the groups. I have therefore muted the colors. Please check it out and let me know if you find it less distracting now. Telet093 18:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "vandalism"
I'm very sorry you consider that editing an entry to reflect a neutral point of view is considered to be vandalism.

My experience with Wikis so far has been that they are information resources, and while I don't object to humour being used in an entry, there is a certain amount of self-indulgent college-humour that diminishes potential of the resource.

That said, I respect that I am a newcomer to the community, and will do my best to insert a fart joke into a suitable entry at the first opportunity, in order to gain editorial approval. :)


 * Thanks for the reply. I think what concerned me with the Grapple article is that the caption that was there was expressing an opinion, *and* wasn't particularly funny.  That being the case, I figured boring but accurate beat lame and indulgent, though it seems we differ on this.


 * Like I say, I have no problem with things that are actually *funny*, but why leave something like this intact? It's restating something that's stated far better further down the page, and isn't actually funny, and has terrible grammar.  When I changed it to something more sensible, it got reverted.  Another example here - this caption could be interpreted as a homosexual slur.  To my mind, things like this *do* interfere with the quality of the articles.  It looks amateurish, and this reflects on how worthwhile the wiki is as a whole.


 * How could "Kneel before my epaulettes" possibly be taken as a homosexual slur? He's a self-important guy in a silly suit.  The 'kneel' part is clearly imperious, not sexual.  And why would kneeling inply homosexulity anyway?  Can't girls kneel before the socialist might of Abdul Fakkadi?  And even if it was- how is Abdul Fakkadi asking someone to serve him sexually a slur?  Do you think any any homosexual act is inherntly degrading, and thus a slur?
 * I mean, christ, get it right. Abdul Fakkadi is offensive to muslims, not gays.


 * Look, here si what we concluded. "The main wikipedia has Transformers articles.  If you can't figure out that orange guy is Grapple without a caption saying 'a picture of Grapple,' you belong there, not here.  Teletraan 1 inherently assumes that you already have a decent-enough familiarity with Transformers to keep up with the way the articles are written.  It's FOR FANS."  And that means it doesn't have to be dry, informative and joyless. -Derik 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The "homosexual slur" comment was regarding this caption. Which was more making fun of people who WOULD make that joke, but since the joke had to be made in the process, it's easy to misinterpret. - Jackpot 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! I mean... ha.
 * Anyway, he's allowed to say that. -Derik 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * True, it doesn't have to be dry, informative and joyless. But neither does it have to be one huge puerile fanboy in-joke. --Sofaman 01:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that this stuff relating to use of humour is kind of spelled out in "Tone and Voice", but are we just giving licence to subjective standards of humour that detract from the quality of the information overall? How much is too much?  Is it only you and ItsWalky who decide?  Is this the best place to discuss this?  I really want to make a useful contribution to this wiki, and I'm happy to be advised on how to do that, but I need to feel that differences of interpretation and presentation are going to be respected, which is really about the only way that wikis can work. --Sofaman 14:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "He blowed up real good", I believe, is perfectly fine to have in the bio of a hi-then-die character, even if it restates it in the fiction section. Of course, that's largely my history in newspaper journalism talking, where all the important information is included in the first paragraph and then everything is elaborated in further paragraphs.  This way, someone can get an idea of the most important attributes of the character without having to read the entire page.  With this in mind, it's perfectly fine to mention that the character only shows up to die in his profile.  --ItsWalky 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding a broad topic
Hi there,

I was wondering if, as an admin, you could please advise me on something? How can I go about fielding a question/suggestion for general discussion in a more systemic way than just on individual talk pages? It's just that I have a differing perspective on the way that this wikia designates certain continuity issues, and it's something that effects many entries. Naturally I don't want to go around unilaterally changing things to reflect my point of view, but I can't see any more general forum to discuss this. On Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki, they have a page they call the Senate Hall where people can discuss general topics concerning the site. Is there any way we could do something similar here? Failing that, how would you advise me to go about raising my issues for borader discussion?

To just give you an idea of what I'm talking about: I approve of the way that the site views the various different continuity families as taking place in alternative realities (obviously), however, I find the consistant use of phrasing which treats the Optimus Prime (and Megatron) character in different continuities as wholly different people poblematic. I view Optimus Prime in G1, RID and the Unicron Trilogy (for example) as being alternate reality versions of the same character, rather than wholly different 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 is the case in Japan where Convoy, Fire Convoy and Galaxy Convoy are not neccessarily alts of the same person (especially given the proliferation of Prime-lookalike convoys in the BWII & BWNeo), I think that American fictions consistently portray them as being different versions of the same individual, ala the common device of different versions of the same person in alternate universes as used in sundry sci-fi. 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.

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. 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 (or even Dreamwave for that matter) differed from each other, if you follow my drift. The entire war/premise/scenario is radically different and most characters have different altmodes and/or transformation schemes. If the forthcoming live-action movie is being considered adequately different from G1 to be considered outside of the G1 continuity family, then I would argue that the IDWverse should be as well.

...Anyway, that gives you an idea of what I want to discuss. ;-) Can you please advise me how I could most effectively air these issues to the wider usership?

Thanks, PacifistPrime.

Central Discussion Area

 * Thanks for that to you and Steve-o. We've got a small trickle of discussion on my topic happening over there now. I invite you to join in. Thanks, PacifistPrime.