Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal

Archived Talk

That awful picture and the name
Although secondary to the vandalism, we have an admin-type who can deal with the problems left by the creator. There's a couple locked things that we can't change: We should get some other people's thoughts on both these matters. If we can get some sort of consensus going, we can probably get both of these matters fixed. --Suki Brits 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The title is misspelled. The computer's name is "Teletraan-1", and we should really have the title reflect a name that 'isn't' the wrong spelling. We fixed it on the main page, but it still shows up in the titles of every page.
 * The wiki symbol in the top left is horrendously ugly and kinda embarassing. And not only is it hideous, but it also reflects the same problem as the title: Teletraan-1 is spelled incorrectly. I made [[Media:Potential-wiki.png|a new image]] for it, but it's not too great either, and I'd like to invite any artist to do something better.
 * I agree on the wiki symbol. That was the first thing I was annoyed by. I'll whip up some proposals this week. Mallignamius 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)]]

Besides the spelling, I don't see anything wrong with the logo. Heck, I'd be downright surprised to see anything else. Well, with the possible exception of the Decepticon logo.--Octopus Prime- King of the Road! 22:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What about that spinning logo that goes from bot to con to max to pred to blendtron etc. etc. etc. X-BoB58


 * For the title issue - I'll contact our one of our technical support staff. It's not something that can be changed on-wiki (he should be on-line soon).  For the logo - I've unprotected the logo for a while, so you can chose what should go there and upload.  All you need to do is upload to Image:wiki.png.  It does have to be a .png image, so the animated logo idea is out I'm afraid.  If you want to try changing your favicon (Image:favicon.ico: [[Image:favicon.ico]]) then I can unprotect that too for a while.

I definitely fall in the "don't like the logo" camp, so here's one proposal for a change: new logo proposal. Aurax 16:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose an Art Contest or something similar. -X-boB58
 * Well, anyone is welcome to and definitely encouraged to make a new logo to replace the old one; just upload it and post it here if you do. If we get any more people proposing replacements, we can just put it to a vote. Although I do personally like Aurax's a lot. --Suki Brits 00:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I also like the logo Aurax made, although probably we should pick between "Teletraan-1" and "Teletraan One". The logo spells out the number, whereas it's written elsewhere with the digit.

--Steve-o 03:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it's likely easier to change the text in the logo than it is to change the name of the wiki (again), I made a new version of the graphic file. It fixes the spelling and addresses some text readability issues that I had with the original, stuff that I was gonna fix anyway. For your renewed consideration. Aurax 03:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the old logo with yours, as there weren't objections; but if anyone opposes it now, please feel free to post to that effect. --Suki Brits 03:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

While were on the topic of apearances what about a new skin, Idunno something more "transformery"

To be utterly and stupednously anal, the computer's name is actually spelled "Teletraan I," with a roman numeral and no hyphen. - Chris McFeely, 17th March 2006

Nobody has further commented on this, but Chris appears to be right. I would personally prefer that the site name match the canonical spelling. Is there support for changing the name again? --Steve-o 00:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As with the last correction, making a new graphic for the wiki's name is easy enough to do. I'm personally ambivalent about changing it though. A part of me yearns for complete accuracy, but the other part reminds that first part that we're not trying to be Teletraan I here, and as such I should be perfectly content with whatever we decide to call ourselves. Whatever the verdict, I stand ready with PSD in hand. Aurax 06:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has objected, I suggest that we go ahead with this name change. "Teletraan I" with a roman numeral and no hyphen.  Aurax can provide a new logo, assuming he's still reading.  :)  Suki, can you take care of this? --Steve-o 04:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Original toy prices?
A project I'd been working on for a long time has been assembling a list of the orignal retail prices for G1/G2 Transformers, since they varied pretty wildly back in the day, plus it's interesting to compare prices (especially after you adjust them for inflation). I think this would be GREAT info to put on the wiki... just where? I'm thinking on the actual character pages next to the relevant toys... chart, perhaps? --M Sipher 22:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Appearances listing
It would probably be useful to have a list of appearances on character pages, but some characters will have colossal lists. I've got some prototype appearance charts on my User Page, so check them out. - RolonBolon 20:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While I like the format (it's clear and easy to read), it would seem that to use these would require a whole new page just for "Appearances" for each character.... I'm not sure we're up for that....--G.B. Blackrock 21:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the major characters, sure. But post-1986 G1?  Most of Beast Wars/Machines?  The vast majority of Mini-Cons? - RolonBolon 21:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been fonderign this myself. This si awfully... comprehensive.  I was thinking more like a Major Appearances entry.  For instance, Nightscream's might read-
 * Nightscream first appeared in the Beast Machines episode Forbidden Fruit, he played a major part in the entire series after that. Major episodes are: Forbidden Fruit, Savage Noble and A Wolf in the Fold
 * Only better oganized than that. Just somethign to give an idea of the... range of the TFU across which a character has appeared, but less formalized than your appearances list.
 * Rav appears in the first two issues of the Wreckers comic book during Beast Machines. Prior to that his backstory ties him to the rebellion agains the Quintessons 9 million years ago.  Major episodes are: Wreckers #1 (activated by Nightscream) Wreckers #2 (dies)
 * -Derik 22:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While I'm certainly up for considering other formats, I really do think that the format should be formalized. It should easily stand out to anyone who's looking for "appearances."--G.B. Blackrock 03:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I should note that an easy way to find appearances, given proper documentation, is to click the "What links here" bit on the left menu. It's not the best solution, but at the moment, I find it vastly preferable to such a large and cumbersome menu system.  --ItsWalky 03:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I've updated the Appearance charts, making them considerably less cumbersome. Thoughts? - RolonBolon 06:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Franchise/line designations
Long post follows.

A number of questions have been raised recently about use of the franchise/line/continuity designations that we place after Transformer character article titles. Most recently M Sipher made a post about the issue on Category talk:Robot Masters. Some of these issues are raised in my proposed style guide which has gotten very little feedback. Within the last few days, a number of pages for Japanese Beast Wars characters were moved back and forth as part of this confusion. It's something that we need to come to a consensus on and begin enforcing.

It appears to me that this is the primary question:
 * Is the designation in a character's article title a FRANCHISE designation or a CONTINUITY designation (or more broadly, a continuity family designation)?

Currently the answer to that question is unclear. Some examples:
 * Japanese Beast Wars franchises are all lumped together under "BW", as if their different-franchises nature is meaningless.
 * BW and BM are given separate labels, as if their different-franchises nature is meaningful.
 * BW, BM, and TFU are labelled separately from G1, as if their same-continuity nature is meaningless.
 * Armada, Energon, and Cybertron are all labelled UT, as if their same-continuity nature is meaningful.
 * Characters who appear in the G1/Beast/TFU continuity are generally given a qualifier indicating the franchise in which they first appeared, but characters who appear in the Armada/Energon/Cybertron continuity are all given the UT qualifier.

This is all terribly inconsistant and confusing.

As a matter of taste, I personally like the idea of lumping the UT franchises together, but at the same time, I don't like the idea of putting G1, J-G1, BW, J-BW, BM, and TFU all under a single qualifying label, even if we had a name for that continuity in the first place. Partly because they exist in my mind as connected but still distinct entities, and partly because labelling them that way would eliminate the primary purpose for those labels being there in the first place: disambiguation.

I propose that we use franchise identifiers instead of continuity identifiers. For consistency's sake, this would suggest that we change all the UT titles to their appropriate franchise. Doing so would require a lot of work, but there are automated Wiki-editors (bots) which can do maintenance of that sort, so if that's the route we want to take, it would not require hand-editing hundreds of pages.

Despite the inconsistency, though, I would be willing (and would even prefer) to leave the UT franchises bunched together as UT. I'm not quite sure why I feel that way. I think it is because all the UT franchises happened one after the other with no breaks, and with complete knowledge within the fandom that they were all one entity, such that they felt to me more like a single meta-franchise of sorts. The G1/Beast/Universe continuity, on the other hand, has been cobbled together over many, many years by a variety of writers. It's not the (more or less) cohesive straight shot that the UT has been under Aaron Archer's creative control.

Again, this is an important organizational issue which has already led to a lot of confusion and wasted effort. I think we need to sort it out soon, and would like to see discussion of various solutions and their strengths/weaknesses. Thanks for your attention.

--Steve-o 03:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say I'm pretty much in complete agreement with you on this on all marks. I'd PREFER to keep the UT entries marked as such for the very same reason... we've never really HAD a multi-line series that felt so purposely self-contained as a single entity (the whole Galaxy Force carbunkle regardless). But, well, I think that in general, listing by sub-franchise of character origin appears to make the most sense. This will involve coming up with more tags we can all agree with, mind... (A) (E) (C) for the individual UT franchises? (HM) (MF) (V) (Z) (OC) for the Japanese G1 sub-franchises?
 * And yeah, I'm all for bringing back the (BWII) and (BWN) tags.


 * --M Sipher 03:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you feel the same if BWII/Neo had been dubbed into english?
 * Is this a 'different series' thing or a 'different continuities' thing? Because a single franchise can have multiple continuities.
 * (I frankly see the various BW series as rather tightly interwoven, despite there being (relatively) little crossover between the casts.) But at this point, the US BW series has had, in some version, appearances by Lio Convoy, Big Convoy, Heinrad, Magmatron, Shaow Panther/TPA crossing directly across lines in 1 continuity... (or is Shadow Panther considered (BW) because he was released for Japan's BW line?) and various nods back and forth.


 * I mean, I agree that cluping all 3 BW series together and making BM a serperate suffix is daft... but it seems to me the reason we started witht the suffixes was to avoid confusion with allt he name re-use- "Do you mean G1 Blurr or Armada Blurr?" And there's been very little name re-use within what we're calling (BW)  (Ironicly, it's that very standard from which TFU having its own designation follows logically- it's rife with name re-use and opportunities for confusion.) -Derik 05:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Is this a 'different series' thing or a 'different continuities' thing? Because a single franchise can have multiple continuities."
 * Have you considered, oh, reading the godsdamned text?
 * --M Sipher 05:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you considered- *ahme*
 * I was not expressing confusion over the nature of the proposed suffix change- I was questioning the reasoning behind it. I went back and revisited ouoriginal reasons for instituting a suffix system, and asked if you'd been different in BW2 and Neo had been dubbed into US continuity.  (Wondering if their semi-seperate continuity was the reason behind moving them.)
 * To re-iterate- we started w/ the suffixes because of confusion abotu name re-use. BW in its various incarnations has vvery little name re-use.
 * So yeah, I read the damn text. -Derik 06:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion, and apparently Siph's as well, is that continuity suffixes would introduce more problems than it would solve. For example, there is the question of what to call the G1/Beast/Universe continuity and what to do about the large number of duplicate names within it.  If we are going to say that the suffixes are based on continuity (families), then we can't leave the Beast stuff separate from G1.  Are you proposing a scheme that is based on neither continuities nor franchises?  I could potentially see room for something like that, based on "groups" of franchises that have some sort of commonality and little name reuse, but... that sounds like it will be clumsy.  Do you have something in mind?  --Steve-o 06:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Breaking (UT) into it's constituents and re-introducing the (BWII) and (BWN) tags seems the most logical thing to do here (as well as further seperating (J-G1)) if consistency is the goal; and I think it should be. I agree with Steve and Siph in that the continuity system would be awkward, at best, mainly because, unlike Unicron Trilogy, there's no term in the lexicon for the G1/Beast Wars/Beast Machines group.Shellspark 14:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if there aren't any major objections to making this switch, at least not in principle, but I'd still sort of like to hear a few more people chime in. Derik sort-of dissented, but seemed to be more raising discussion than actually *objecting* as such. Any further opinions?

In the absence of continued discussion on whether to make the change or not, we should move on to discussing the details of the change. I will create a new section below for such discussion, but want to see some more comments here too.

--Steve-o 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles
One feature of the main page is that we have a section designated specifically for showcasing one specific article that's of high quality. Pretty much every wiki, including certain prominent ones do the same thing; since it's a good way to find a complete, informative article. When I made a mock up of the front page, I added the most complete article I could find, Unicron, as the temporary featured article, but I'd like to actually have something really there, as rotating content for the featured article of the week (or whatever period of time).

I've made up a template that we can use for now, although it looks pretty hokey. I'd like to start having articles marked as being such.

Any thoughts? --Suki Brits 04:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A little while back, I had mentioned to Walky about changing our "poster boy" article from Sunstreaker to... someone, I can't remember who. It was someone who underwent a character-name change at some point in their career. It might be Bumblebee.


 * Any rate, I'd suggested that we try and complete him (whoever it was) for the purpose of being a "featured article". If we can get more big articles done for A-list characters or concepts, that would be the awesome.


 * And how about we get a nice picture of, oh, Vector Sigma or the Matrix as a "Featured Article" icon? Or Cybertron-the-planet?


 * --M Sipher 05:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You were thinking of using Hot Rod. --Monzo 05:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Franchise designations, part two
A few issues, and then my first round of ideas:

How should we treat the Japanese G1 franchises? All lumped under G1? JG1? Or a separate qualifier for each new "name" the toyline went through? If we do that, it would be slightly more consistent to distinguish the original series from 2010, but... That would go against the "US stuff first, Japanese stuff as exceptions" sort of policy that we've been defaulting to. My inclination is to go with the somewhat "normal" US mode of treating US G1 as a single entity, and then giving each Japanese line afterwards its own identity, ignoring the orig/2010 split.

Regardless of that decision: I propose that the appropriate suffix for a character page's title is the suffix for the series in which that character first appeared. Their level of prominance is not important (we can create redirects for that purpose in cases where confusion is likely). Just the name of their first series, chronologically in the real world of course, not based on any in-fiction timeline.

My preference is to use all capital letters in acronyms/initialisms, even when abbreviating "minor" words. So, as I've expressed before, I like RID better than RiD. Acronyms/initialisms with mixed case are atypical. They are almost always all-caps or all small letters (radar and laser as examples), with mixed case only when the people coining them are trying to be cute or kewl. Mixed case could occur, though, when jamming words together into a new word. I just think each word should get a capital.

I also dislike the idea of single-letter abbreviations on the grounds that they are too difficult to recognize. Hence I do not like "T" for Timelines or simply A, E, and C for the UT trilogy series. I think at least two letters are needed.

On the other hand, some series names are short enough that abbreviating them seems almost silly, as it partially obscures the terms' meaning for, in some cases, a saving of only three or four letters. Zone in particular probably doesn't need to be shortened. Armada and Energon are both rather short as well, but there is at least some precedent in the fandom for using shorthand such as AR/ARMM or EN for those lines. Victory is also short enough (and non-obviously shortenable enough) that it could possible go unshortened.

With those principles in mind, I would suggest the following. I am not wedded to these. It's just my first inclination:

US/joint series:


 * G1
 * G2
 * BW
 * MW
 * BM
 * RID
 * ARM or AR
 * EN
 * CYB
 * TFU
 * TFT or TL
 * ALT

Japan-only series:


 * HM
 * MF
 * VIC or Victory
 * ZONE or Zone
 * BS (perhaps not obvious enough, but "Battlestars" is a little long)
 * OC (again not all that clear, but probably mainly because it's an obscure series; perhaps OpCom or OPCOM)
 * BW2
 * BWN
 * RM
 * BT and BTA (do these even have new characters?)
 * KP (?)

Please comment.

--Steve-o 02:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a lot to add to this. I'd perhaps go with (ZN) for Zone. I'd try and keep tags to three characters, preferably two, but three is okay. And BT/BTA... I think the only new character who would GET a series tag there is Zoom-Zoom, and he's only in BT. KP... there's the Autrooper. It feels kind of silly to have a new tag for all of ONE character, but, well, whaddayagonnado. --M Sipher 03:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally don't really see much need for changing the way things are now and adding so many additional suffixes. --KilMichaelMcC 04:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote we go with Steve-o's proposed system here - with (DB) for the Dinobots subline. It'll be more consistent. - RolonBolon 06:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm commenting. The reason we adopted suffixes was to keep things clear with name re-uses. G1, even counting Japan in, have damn few of them. Indeed- by the simply virtue Japan HAD a Generation Two, Headmasters-thru-Battlestars is INHERENTLY 'Generation 1,' and decidign to cut off the 'generational' suffix midway through the generation, merely because the title of the SERIES changes, is wildly inconsistent. More- it doesn't speak to the fundamental reason to rename-- confusion due to name reuse. And finally- it draws an artificial dividing line between the US and Japanese continuities. Every indication we've givvein in recent years is that the Japanese series 'happened' in some loose sense (though perhaps not exactly as portrayed onscreen- but then that's true of the American cartoon as well.)

Isn't Binaltech a G1 branch-continuity? If the Devil's Due Joe/TF stuff goes udner the (G1) character entries, then Binaltech belongs there too. Because it's japanese? Fine, why is ALTERNATORS a seperate suffix? We've now got 2 seperate sources tellign us it's the same basic story as BW, a G1 branch.

If Tigertrack can be retconned in as a (G1) character, so can Decepticharge.

I understand the intention here is to communicate character provenance, ambit, and range- but I think any system imposing that onto a single suffix, locking the entry intot heat inflexible model, will do vast disservice to some characters- especially the the more complicated one.

I agree that our current standard for character entries does not adequately communicate their series and continuity of origin, but I don't think the proposed suffixes are the right way to address that.

-Derik 04:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The solution I have proposed is a mess of new suffixes, I agree. I think of it as a neccessary evil for the sake of consistency. However, I understand and at least partially agree with your point about the G1 lines. I would vastly prefer a different solution, but I can't think of one, and nobody else -- including you -- has proposed one. If the suffixes are to be continuity (family) markers instead of franchise markers, then we need a name for the G1/Beast/TFU continuity.

Honestly, if somebody can come up with a decent one, I would be all for using that here. I would feel a little wary of appearing as if we are trying to impose "our" name for it on the rest of the fandom, but I think as long as we explain why we adopted a name for it, mainly as a convenience, there would probably not be much hostility over it. With a name for that continuity we can easily begin using a simple Whatever/RID/UT scheme to differentiate most name-reuse characters from each other. A lot of Beast Era characters will still need further clarification, however.

I suppose we could do the following, which is only a minor modification of the current "scheme", but at least has some sort of logic behind it:

G2, as a direct extension of G1 with no time gap, could theoretically be lumped in with it for this purpose, but that would probably cause more confusion than it is worth. Sticking MW in with Beast Era would probably also cause confusion, but is harder for me to justify not doing if the rationale for the scheme is "when was the character created?" However, I'm not opposed to splitting it off.
 * Suffixes, for the most part, represent the real-world period of time in which the character was established.
 * Characters that are retroactively implanted into old stories are granted the suffix of the story they were implanted into.
 * Thus:
 * Everything from 1984 until G2 counts as simply G1.
 * All Beast lines and Machine Wars are Beast Era.
 * RID is just RID.
 * Unicron Trilogy can stay as UT.

The only practical difference between this scheme and the current one is making all Beast Era characters have Beast Era suffixes. I would sort of prefer writing it out to abbreviating BE. And, obviously, a brief article explaining the scheme and the reasoning behind its exceptions would be placed prominantly to help people get accustomed to it and use it correctly.

Anybody have opinions on this one?

--Steve-o 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm leery of making up terms like this. I'm not wild about using "Beast Era" on the wiki either, in all honesty. Also, I don't much like using "G1" to include G2 and Machine Wars and Robot Masters et all, since, well, G1 as a line is everything predating that (or later stuff specifically marked as such). Personally, I think of that whole pre-Beast-Era non-RiD/UT umbrella-era as the "Great War"... and I really can't come up with a suitable term for the whole G1-through-TFU pseudo-timeline, partially because it's hard to come up with something that doesn't frankly sound pretentious or innacurate. Considering the vagueness of BW-and-beyond's ties to G1 fictionally...


 * This is why I prefer to stick with the toyline-based suffixes. Since the fictional ties are so damn fluid, I find the metaphorical solid rock of "This character was released first under this toyline (or, for nontoys, premiered in the fiction based on this toyline)" a far more preferable base. That's pretty damn clear-cut.


 * Yes, the toyline-based suffixes mean a lot of work, and yeah, I'd LIKE to have a more simple system... but with TFs being the way it is, that involves, basically, making stuff up. But come on. We're looking at far more work than this anyway.


 * --M Sipher 22:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll restate my objection to Sipher's classification system as said previously in the channel. I do not consider G1 to be "preBW + BW."  G1 is preBW by definition.  When something that's Beast Wars gets officially labelled Generation 1, I'll reconsider, but G1 to the fandom and to Hasbro = preBW.  But, yes.  We have no name for the entire G1/G2/MW/BW/BM/TFU/ALT/RM universe, and even if we did, the whole point of the (BW)s was because of all the name reuse.  And, heavens, no, I don't want 25 suffixes.  I'd rather be unconfusingly inconsistent. --ItsWalky 01:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sssssso why are there pages with "so-and-so is a character from the Beast Wars portion of the Generation 1 continuity"? Like Optimus Primal's? That's not MY idea. I'm AGAINST using "G1" as a giant catch-all for anything and everything pre-BW fictionally. I DON'T consider G2 to be "G1". I can see an argument for keeping the G1 tag for J-characters from Headmasters through Operation Combination, yes, and would be okay with that, or go with a (JG1) tag since there's enough name-doubling-up going on there. Not so much for major characters, but still. But I'm FOR the (BW2) and (BWN) tags, FOR keeping (G2) and (BM) and (RM) and (TFU) separate. The UT is one I can go either way on, leaning towards "separate".
 * Transformers fiction is far too fractured and/or fluid to really count on it as a filing system. I'd rather stick with what's much more concrete. --M Sipher 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ''If the suffixes are to be continuity (family) markers instead of franchise markers, then we need a name for the G1/Beast/TFU continuity.


 * There's a BW in the Unicron Trilogy too.
 * Bw, though concieved of as such on its original incarnation isn't just a 'continution of G1 continuity only.' It's 'TF's future.'  All roads leads to BW.  RiD was  UT had one in its past (and probably future.)
 * If Beast Wars can be THE FUTURE of the G1 'toon, the Dreamwave Comics, possibly the IDW comics... clearly it has flexibility. We gacve 3 dats for it!  180,000 BC, 70,000 BC and 3,000,000 BC.


 * My prediction? I give it four years until we have a comic AND am associated toyline (possibly store exclusive) about the 'little beast war' on Cybertron during Gen 1.  It's like chinatown, a niche era.  A time 40,000 years ago, when the energy pinch was so bad, but after the travelers who'd gone out amogn the stars brought back DNA for beast forms- a collapse into neo-feudalism, and back on to swords and chemical weapons.  The kind of slideback that occoured during the dark ages of europe.  This will be in G1, and this is where Tigatron is from.  BW is leaking all over the franchise.  THAT will need a different suffix.


 * BW? It's a cluster of series set in the same era, in more of less the same location and political setting.


 * Why do you place Machine Wars in with BW? it has all G1 characters.  Because of the NAMING convention?  Newsflash: The Asphalt Wars and Software Wars were G1 conflicts.


 * Fundamentally, I go back on my old standard. "Suffixes are to keep renaming straight."  They work for that, for the most part, now.  Anythign you'd GAIN by further subdividing the suffixes so that the existing multiple-names-under-one-suffixes fell into seperate categories would be more-than-offselt by the LOSS of utility as the suffixes themselves lose their ability to communicate meaning because there are TOO MANY OF THEM.


 * The article names are there for NAMES. Not continuity.  The suffixes are just to seperate multiple occourances of a single name.  (And we add them by convention even to single-use names on the logic the name may be re-used some day.)


 * I appreciate tyhat you want to communciate a character's ambit- but this is a realyl crappy way to do it. It adversely affects what the article names do now,a nd I dont' think it would actually do the job you WANT it to worth two shits.


 * Work up a template for character ambit instead and make it standard for articles. 'cuz I agree we need it.  Maybe in the process of discussing that template we'll figure otu a better way to list things.  Because I AGREE the current system we have id difiirentiating the continuities is piss-poor.  Optimus Prime has like 80 different continuity notes to him, all given equal 'weight' in the article. -Derik 02:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The job we want it to do is denote the characters' series of origin so as to be an inarguable and largley-consistant classification based on fact, not arbitrary interpretation. And since people tend to think of characters in regards to their toy-series of origin rather than what fictional "timelines" they've inhabited, when name re-use comes up they will be more given to look them up that way. Most people don't think of Stampy as a "Beast Wars" character, they think "Beast Wars Neo". If you ask someone for the semi-truck Armorhide, people will call him "Cybertron" Armorhide, not "Unicron Trilogy Autobot" Armorhide.


 * That we're even having this discussion about what to call this gigantic miasmic swirling G1-through-TFU metaverse entity stands as testament, I believe, to what a bad idea using fiction as a basis for any marking system is. As the toys are the core of all this, it only makes sense to use them as the basis for articles.


 * And I'd like to have a system that cuts back on the double-parenthesis articles, like we have with the two UT Armorhides, for example. Escpecially since it doesn't seem like that second mark's "basis" has been wholly agreed upon. Yes, some instances are going to be inescapable, like with Riochet and Thunderblast. But let's look at, say, the individual G1 Seacon Decepticon Overbite versus the brainless G1 Seacon Decepticon drone from Masterforce who is also named Overbite. (And the three spies and their horse who is also a spy.) I would not want them both in a single article. Would not "Overbite (G1)" and "Overbite (MF)" or "Overbite (JG1)" be nice and simple?


 * YES, this will involve a fair few series tags. But frankly, that's the world we live in here in this wiki. Transformers is inherantly huge and frequently redundant, and is only going to get moreso on both counts. Large numbers of any classification is pretty much inescapable without just making things up, and that's not what this wiki is for.


 * --M Sipher 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So go define me Alpha Trion in terms of his toyline.
 * He's a BM character, right? That's when his toy was planned for.


 * The number of TF character who are NTO toys is edging up into the hundreds. What's Dropshot's continuity?
 * A TOP LEVEL DEFINITION SCHEME LIEK THIS CANNOT BE TERMINED BY TOYLINE WHEN A GOODLY CHUNK OF CHARACTERS LACK TOYS
 * The Diaclone characters who mark their first appearance in The War Within? What's their toyline?  How about the Decepticlone toy?  Is he Armada or Attactix?  Divided Front Megatron, is he TF/Joe or is he Titaniums?


 * Applying toyline-based logic to TF doesn't have few dozen entries that don't work well. It has, liek a HUNDRED or more.


 * When is Megaplex from? MW?  All the other Neo-G1 reissues got grandfathered into G1, like they'd retroactively 'been there.'  Wouldn't that make this Megaplex's first toy?  Neither appearance holds weight as 'more signifigant.'


 * Besides, isn't this wiki character-first-toy-second?


 * I agree that there's a need to express information about where a character 'came from' and how widely they've traveled through TF fiction/toylines from that initial appearance- but I think your solution is frankly insufficient to the complexisty of the problem it seeks to address.


 * Some characters are very simple. Otheres very complicated.  Treat it like the disambig templates, and have multiple formats for expressing this information about a character depending on the COMPLEXITY.


 * Here's one solution. It's a bad one (I think it's almost untemplateable for one) but I think it presents all the information.  Instead of yelling at one another on oposite sides fo a poprosal that doesnt' work, lets' explore OTHER proposals.  Reject what doesnt' work, notw what does.  Do this 6 or 7 time, maybe we'll find a gestaly solution for elegantly presenting this kind of information. -Derik 04:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Defining Alpha Trion is easy. He's Generation One... since he was introduced in the fiction that was created for the original pre-G2 toy line and franchise that is now called "Generation 1". Which is how we've been marking fiction-first characters all this time. The Armada comic Dropshot would go under Armada because that's the franchise he was introduced in. Arcee is G1 because she was created for that franchise in our real-world timeframe, even though her only actual toy didn't come out until BM, just as Chromia is G1 despite her only toy being from Timelines. Megaplex WOULD be MW, because that is his real-world real-time franchise of origin. The e-Hobby guys are G1 because they're not part of some secondary franchise with a new name; they are marketed pretty much as if they had come out in 1984~1985 and such, with the original G1 packaging.


 * It's why Grimlock is marked as (G1) despite his having crossed into BW and TFU.


 * How many non-toy characters have crossed into different franchises? How many of them have survived beyond a single episode or comic issue, for that matter? Alpha Trion and Arcee not the rule, they're the exception. The overwhleming majority of fiction-created characters will likely never have toys, but they DO have series of origin that were created FOR a specific toy franchise.


 * NO system is goign to be simple. But really, you seem to be trying to make it more complicated than it has any reason to be by trying to add some kind of "fictional weight" to things, which is arbitrary at best. And I don't see how using the toy-franchises as a basis, the system that's pretty much ingrained into the fandom, "doesn't work". --M Sipher 05:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cuz I don't like it!
 * Is Optimus Primal (RiD) a seperate character from Primal (BW)?
 * I will go so far as to cede you JBW being a decent idea for a suffix, but I still don't approove of using individual series suffixes, because the 2 JBW series are to intertwined they're a) unnecessary b) create an artificial dividing line.
 * And I still approve of using 'Beast Era' in the initial italicised character summary- becaue the 5 BW-era series (JP count) all took place more-or-less simultaneously. BW2 and Neo (of they took place at all, and yes peopel debate this) took place between BW and BM.  Simultaneous overlapping storylines instead of sequential, with cross-references and cross-overs between them, and some backstory conenctions.  Not a LOT, but enough.
 * My question is- if They get dubbed over to the US, do those entries suffixes change? What about Lioconvoy, who looks like he's gonana have an entry (and probably an official US name) in the upcomng BW guidebook?
 * (That's not a challenge, I'm genuinely curious what we do when a japanese character becoems a full-blown US one. -Derik 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Stories category
On Category talk:Transformers The Movie, Walky asked what Category:Stories was supposed to be, exactly.

When I created the stories category, I commented somewhere, no idea where now, that I was dissatisfied with the name. My original intent for that category was "Things that appear or figure into stories that are not characters or locations." Hence the subcategories like "battles", "wildlife", and "objects". I almost called it just "Objects", but then realized that a lot of the things which would go into this category (like transwarp) are not actually objects. I've wanted to rename the category for a while, but simply don't have any ideas for it.

--Steve-o 21:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agh. I KNOW there's a suitable term for this kind of thing... but damned if I can think of it... --M Sipher 22:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)