Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal

Important: See here for discussion on Teletraan I's possible move. The discussion has gotten too long to leave on this page. See Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints for the reasons.

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Archives

 * Archive1
 * Archive2
 * Archive3
 * Archive4
 * Archive5
 * Archive6
 * Archive7
 * Archive8
 * Archive9
 * Archive10
 * Archive11

Unicron Triolgy Transformer designs
Who else thinks that Transformers Animated should feature the Unicron Trilogy Transformer cartoon graphics? Now THOSE were good looking transformers, not these new age transformers. Armada had the good graphic designs.
 * Sorry, this isn't a message board/forum. This page is for discussing Wiki policy. --FFN 08:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm.... Does anybody else feel that this wiki could do with a dedicated forum? It would certainly be more user friendly, searchable and archivable than the discussion pages. Drmick 10:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Walky, to clarify that (in case you missed his point,) Wikis can be set up with, like, talk pages that (in some manner I'm vague about) are friendlier for high-volume discussion. -Derik 13:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the original post is an example of the kind of discussion we'd be looking forward to, then no thanks. --ItsWalky 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A-damn-greed. --M Sipher 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. But hot damn, we need to put that fluffy marshmallowy Ironhide SOMEWHERE.  -hx 15:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC) (hey, guys!  i'm in an internet cafe on my honeymoon! - it's 7 AM here, before you start in with WHY AREN'T YOU FUCKING YOUR WIFE.)
 * WHY AREN'T YOU KILLING YOUR LONELY?! --FortMax 15:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's one of Sally's stuffed toys. She has a stuffed "Softimus Prime" too, which still looks less fat than the real thing. -Derik 16:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Section re-linking
While updating the characters featured in Spotlight: Cyclonus, I noticed that some used the anchor to the "IDW comics continuity" section for that character, while some didn't. So I thought, maybe it's a good idea to link IDW stuff to other other IDW stuff (if available). For example, On G1 Cyclonus's page, there is a "IDW comics continuity" section that describes his actions in IDW comics. Within that section, he has interacted with Ultra Magnus, Hound, etc, so I made the links for them anchor to Ultra Magnus and Hound. Detour didn't seem to like this, so I thought I'd post it here for a discussion. --MistaTee 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm generally in favor of linking to specific sections, where appropriate. For instance, toys in particular I always link as specifically as possible (such as here).  But I don't usually bother with fiction-sections, since I think it'd be a huge pain in the ass to do all the time.  Also, there's been no naming convention established for the various branches of fiction, so section-titles have been known to change according to personal taste.  Or maybe a character makes new appearances in different continuities, and what used to be general section-titles have to become more specific.  So there'll be a certain amount of windmill-tilting involved in maintaining the links you make.  All in all, if you feel like putting the effort into it, I say knock yourself out, but I don't see a need to do it, myself. - Jackpot 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are 6,578 articles on this wiki. Even if we assume an average of 10 links per page (and I think that's low balling it), that would mean somewhere around 65,000 individual links on this site would need to be updated from "X" to "X#The Relevant Subheading". That's a bottomless black hole of pain and despair. I think we should just trust visitors' scrolling abilities, and let them find the specific subheading on a page themselves. --Xaaron 21:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well like I said earlier, this is not high on the priority list, but I'll just fix as I see them, and I'm only gonna do the IDW links right now. One benefit I've come across while doing this is making the header "IDW comics continuity" consistent in caps, spelling, etc. If I notice anything else weird I usually fix too.  I've touched lot of pages throughout the site, but I tend to "specialize" in the comic section. MistaTee 23:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying, though, is that this isn't something that should "only" be done for IDW comics, or even "only" for the comic sections in general that you "specialize" in. This is a radically different idea for how links should be created and maintained on the site, and so should be accepted completely and done everywhere on every link, or not done at all. I strongly disapprove of the idea of you just doing this to IDW links and any other link you happen to come across. That's just so...random and incomplete. --Xaaron 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Xaaron said. If we do it for one, we have to do it for all. It'd ridiculous, pointless and more trouble than it's worth. Just because it's a section you happen to be editing doesn't mean you can dictate unique linking conventions for it. --Detour 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm I reading Hot Rod's article, and I see it mention his teammate Gizmo, and I click on that link-- and it snaps me down to the IDW fiction section... I'd get irritated. I didn't click on that link to see a representation of the exact same info I already read in Hot Rod's article (the events of their fateful mission,) I clicked on it to find out who the heck he was, which is up at the top of the article.

Especially in fiction section... I think a link to- "Along with Character X..." or "He fought character X..." while it would seem to make sense (from a contextual standpoint) to link to the equivalent of this 'spor' in their article... in actual use, you will very infrequently desire that functionality.

So basically, I think there's some really good reasons not to do it aside from the technical and logistical problems it would entail.

(I actually had an interesting idea about how to encourage better section naming conventions passively, without being actively obnoxious about it. But it's not-yet-ready-for-primetime.) -Derik 01:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see the point of it being a monster to complete, and agree that if it's done for IDW, it should be done for every section (at least fictions) -- a large undertaking. I'll put a hold on doing it until I see some more positive opinions.  I didn't hit that many pages, maybe 30 or so where I did this.  I do think we need to be more careful/consistant about naming conventions though and would like to hear Derik's ideas.--MistaTee 01:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This conversation has seemed to spawn a drive to do away with ALL section-linking, which I think is uncalled for. In the case of toys, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to link directly to the toy in question. Whereas the fiction-links are about the character as a whole (including the intro), every toy-link is about one specific toy. I see no value in adding a step of effort for the reader. The argument that we would then need to immediately update every toy-link ever is ridiculous. It's okay to have a preferred style and an acceptable style. To my mind, a direct toy-link should be preferred, while a link to just the page is acceptable. - Jackpot 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Does your finger hurt too much from clicking the first link to click the second link in the table of contents? Besides, this is a character-based wiki. What if someone looks at the Universe listing and sees, say, Storm Cloud, and think "I wonder if he's a new character or a totally obscure guy I totally missed...." and clicks the link. Well he ends up at the far bottom of the article where the toy is listed and has to scroll all the way back up to find out anything about the character. I think section-linking should only be applied for specific references, like New Rodimus's mention on the Brave page, or the reference to Mirage's legs on Sunstreaker's Universe toy caption, because clearly in those cases you need that very specific reference. --Detour 20:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And in a list of specific toys in a specific toyline, those links clearly need that specific reference as well. The list of toys in a toyline isn't ABOUT the characters.  It's about the toys.  It's not a list OF characters.   Here's a question: Does your finger hurt too much from scrolling back up?  --ItsWalky 20:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's so useful, why has it only been done to the Classics and Universe articles then? If you were such a supporter of this you'd be implementing it on all the Toyline pages. --Detour 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also a proponent of every single page on the wiki being completed, and just because I don't spend my every waking moment doing such does not mean I am against the idea. Because I personally don't have time to do something is not a reason for me to delete the efforts of others who are doing the right thing.  You're ridiculous.  --ItsWalky 20:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * dont have time? guess its true since staring out the window for three days straight waiting for a package and doing four little comics a week is soooooooooooooooooooooo time consuming! especially with all of wiigii giving you ideas for the comics
 * Oh wow, I think Walky's e-mail buddy found the wiki.--RosicrucianTalk 04:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * TF has more than 700 episodes, 3 movies, 500+ comic books, thousands of toys, at least 5 novels probably over 100 short prose stories (often featuring dozens of characters that may appear nowhere else...)
 * In case you've missed it, in order to document TV series, comics, and characters, this wiki has over 6000 articles. Even though we often have 1 article for comics containing multiple stories or story-arcs that were told over many issues, or place truly minor characters in a sub-section of someone else's page instead of giving them their own.  The sheer scope involved is mind-boggling.  There is a fundamental upper limit to how much one person can make a dent into that.  The Optimus Prime (G1) article probably represents hundreds of man-hours of work-- and it's still nowhere near "completionist," both the Cartoon and comic sections are just rough overviews of about 2 pages each.
 * Each person does what they can, places their efforts where they feel they get the most return. One of the constant struggles we've had (and wikipedia has) is how much formatting we can, or should mandate.  You can require as much detailed-linking and anal-retentive cross-footing as you want... but either people are going to ignore it (and you have to decide whether to undo their not-up-to-snuff updates or mark them as 'in need of improvement,'- knowing the parts you're marking are the ones people least like to do and thus will languish incomplete,) or people are going to be so intimidated by the stack of prerequisites you places before them if they want to contribute... that they won't contribute at all.  "It's not worth my hassle."
 * Walky think linking to toy sections from articles about toyline is a good idea- but as an ideal, not a requirement. I think it's a terrible idea for functional reasons (when I click on a character list, I don't want to be akin to information about their fucking toys,) and practical ones- it's not gonna get done.  And if it is done, it'll be in a shoddy manner, like the links to Bumblebee (G1)#Classics that a) link to the wrong article.  b) don't distinguish WHICH Classics toy this link is supposed to refer to.  We both agree that the proposal is completely ridiculous- but he wants to aspire to it, and I think we'd do more damage (sloppy mis-linking in this case) in the aspiration than we would good.
 * ...but why am I explaining this to you? You're just here to troll David.  Okay, here; David Willis eats his own poop.  You satisfied?  Good, now go away. -Derik 05:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Detour, we haven't implemented it on every toy section page because we obviously haven't gotten around to doing it Have ya noticed all the work this wiki still needs to have done? I don't think it hurts to make this place more user-friendly. We place too much emphasis on how we can easily navigate this place. Believe it or not, the TF Wiki can be confusing for people who aren't familiar with wikis or who aren't regular visitors. And Walky is right - people who look at toyline pages are searching for the specific toy, not the character history. --FFN 20:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added toy section-links to Classics (2006), so why haven't I done more? Well, every time I've edited a toy section in any article, I have linked to specific toys; that just hasn't been as visible.  And I haven't gone on a link-changing crusade because this new method just builds on the old, it doesn't invalidate it.  I prefer section-links; that doesn't make the old article-links WRONG.  Change like this can happen slowly; it's okay.  But when you start undoing people's work in the name of a rule that never existed, THEN we sit up and take notice. - Jackpot 21:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm re-iterating my reasons stated above for why I think section-linking is a bad idea. If I'm on the Beast Wars Telemocha Series page and I click on Wolffang- it's because I'm curious why such a minor character was included in the anniversary line.  Directing me to the toy section means I'm more likely to miss "And he's a new character created for this," which is the info I was looking for.
 * I often click on dozens of links that look interesting as a surf, openign them in new tabs and then going through them when I have a chance. Having those tabs open in mi middle or articles is incredibly disorienting.  "I was reading the Hot Rod article, and I clicked on a link to a Transformer called 'Dealer,' who I'd never heard of before.  10 minutes later I'm getting around to going through my tabs-- and I'm in the middle of an IDW fiction section and I have no idea what character I'm reading ABOUT."
 * Yes, I agree, there are some circumstances where linkign to specific sections is appropriate, even beneficial... but I think those circumstances are very, very rare and should never be done as a matter or routine. -Derik 23:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And more tot he point in the very article we're discussing- there are two 'Bumblebee' links. The first links tot he 'Classics' section of his toys.  The Second (due to a fuck-up) links to the classics FICTION section.  Because the anchor was applied blindly and not checked.
 * The negligence involved aside-- if the point is to link to 'that toy' on the toy page-- you've failed. You've linked to his Classics Section, which includes multiple toys.  Both links should be directed to named anchors created using the  template.
 * And the "Well you just need to scroll down a little bit" argument doesn't cut it. By that logic we should jsut be linkign to the page with no sections at all. -Derik 23:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the "anchor" template existed, and I absolutely support it being used instead of toy-section-linking. Not only does it achieve the necessary specificity, but it also circumvents the problem of our ever-changing headers. - Jackpot 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Detour, when I look at Beast Wars (cartoon), I see a list of characters, and when I go to Beast Wars (toyline), I see a list of toys. If I'm on the toyline page, and I click on a link that sends me directly to a toy entry, I consider that expected.  If what I really wanted was character info, then scrolling up to find it is the price of having gotten there through a link about a toy.  But if I'm looking at a list of toys, and my click takes me to the top of a character article, I feel like the extra effort to find the toy is an unnecessary inconvenience that diligent editing could've avoided.  Especially considering that we have characters with entirely separate toy pages, which would then require another click.  In the grand scheme, these are small potatoes indeed, but any user-experience designer will tell you that every iota of effort you put on the user's shoulders will add up.
 * Now, that having been said, I think our principle point of disagreement is not over the existence of toy-links, but where they should be used. The extreme example of "x is a repaint of y" is something that I think we all agree calls for a toy-link.  But what about lists?  Stunticon, for example, has links to specific toys in its own Toys section, under the list of various incarnations of team members.  I don't know if you agree that those are appropriate, but if they are, then what's the real difference between that list and this one?
 * - Jackpot 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's a thought. What if we have a direct-subsection/anchor-link thing on top of linking to the top of the character page? So, when you say "toy X is a redeco of Y*", Y is a link to the character page, while * direct-links to the relevant subsection or anchor point of that page. --M Sipher 06:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean like "Bumblebee - (toy) " ? A double link?  (Though presumably with a more compact markup than that.) -Derik 06:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like that, though probably a top-justified one like the reference/footnote links. Maybe in a tiny gray box like the storylinks. I definitely think that when you say a toy is a redeco of a toy of a character who has a dozen or so toys to their name, usually under a single franchise name, a specific jump to THAT toy is damn well in order. --M Sipher 06:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is one circumstance when I think linking directly to a toy-section is a good idea-- "This mold got recolored into..." If I'm clicking on that link I'm probably curious what the recolors look like.  "Whut?  They recolored Landmine into Rhinox?  What does that look like?"   -Derik 07:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a decent compromise if we can't get consensus on toy-links. Thumbs-up from me. - Jackpot 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Section naming conventions
I see MistaTee asked for more information about an idea I had for encouraging better naming conventions used for headers... like 3 weeks ago, but I just noticed it so...

There's this... thing under CSS 2.1. It allows you to apply styles, (and even add some content) based on some really specific conditions, such as the names of headers Basically my proposal is that if you get a header 'right,' an icon appears next the header. Like- "Marvel UK [icon]." (The icon in this case might be something denoting a comic book. In another instance a TV... or something.)

The idea is to encourage editors to get titles 'right' by training them to kook for the icon that's an indicator that "Yay, you've lived up to our best practices in naming conventions!" The icons themselves could be useful for scanning long fiction sections. "Okay, here's the cartoon stuff I wanted." But if they're not there... it doesn't negatively impact usability in any way. People with older browsers wouldn't see them- but they'd still reap the ephemeral benefits of their existence in that they would encourage a greater overall consistency in section naming conventions.

This is a test file where I was messing with the idea. Just paste the following text into your monaco or monobook file.

@import "http://www.emopanda.com/tmp/monaco-testbed2.css";

Uh, this is a test file so I've got other stuff going on too. Ignore that. As you can see, instead of icons after the header I've got text-bits before them. It's atest file.

But just for example, the (TV) flag is currently visible by any header ending in "cartoon," "cartoon continuity," "Cartoon continuity, "animated series," or "anime." All 5 are used, frequently, with no real 'leader' more common than the others.  Comics are worse.

This example uses end-matching because I wasn't interested in creating a list to match every cartoon series, let alone comic. But this system could be used to match full titles. So "Armada cartoon" would get the little (TV) icon after it, but "Armada anime" or "Armada animated series," or "Armada cartoon continuity" would not.

I feel like this would be a good approach to take because it's subtle, and unlike other initiatives it doesn't require a massive updating spree- I think that as you were editing articles it'd just become the natural thing to do to get the names 'right,' and as awareness of a clear standard emerges (instead of the many, many different markups we use now,) I think people would get used to seeing the section headers formatted that way and would use that formatting without any outside encouragement.

It degrades well, it doesn't place an unfair burden on editors, and even if we adopt this standard... there's really nothing stopping you from using a non-standard section name if that's what the bill calls for. Nothing breaks, the article isn't suddenly less usable... it's just a very gentle push towards conformity that (I think) would be pretty darn effective over time. -Derik 10:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These sort of changes should really be announced more prominently. I noticed some of our contributors have been changing the section headings lately without explaining themselves. I didn't know what was going on so I changed things back, only for somebody to tell me that's not very useful. What's not very useful? --FFN 11:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know the sections your referring to so I can't say. I do know we decided that the preferred section name for an animated series was "[series name] cartoon," about a year ago- but many other markups are still in use, and I don't know of any other naming standards we've adopted.
 * If the above proposal was adopted by the wiki, I assume we'd have a Help article detailing the correct naming standard in addition to the visual cues.
 * It's weird- for the longest time no one read or cared about the help or orientation articles, (since we were evolving the standards as we went, everyone knew them because they'd been there for their development) but I've begin to notice that as the wiki picks up new users... they actually read these things (incomplete patchwork though they be) and seem to demonstrate some awareness of what policies we have laid out vs. which ones we have not. (I suppose this is why a proper help/intro document is on Steve-o's wishlist for the move to the new server.) -Derik 12:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely like the idea of a little icon that appears for key terms like "cartoon" and "comic." ("Animated" should be right out, though, on account of the series by that name).  In terms of the here-and-now, I support making that happen.
 * Ultimately, I also support the idea of a standardized "We call this series THIS and that series THAT" nomenclature, but there's been some debate over how to approach that. As far as I can tell, there are two sides so far:  The formalist side (mine) that prefers detailed headers with universal application (such as "DW Generation 1 comics," which accurately describes a continuity and can function as-is in any article), versus the side that favors looser titles which depend on the continuity-note at the top of the page for context (such as "DW comic continuity," which lacks specific meaning on its own and can only be used in articles where the character stays in one continuity-family).  The latter approach seems more prevalent, in some part due to its main proponent in the debate above going on a header-changing spree.  There was no consensus before he did that, so if we want to establish a different standard for reals, I'm all for it.  I'd like to redirect people's attention to my own experiment in section-naming and organization.  For the record, I think the continuity-note as it stands is much too low in the visual hierarchy to serve the purpose of providing information that the headers (which are visually dominant) rely upon.  If, in our redesign, we end up making the continuity-family of an article a core visual element, I think that would change the equation.  But until then, I say the headers should be able to stand entirely on their own.
 * - Jackpot 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Jackpot's naming conventions, but whatever we decide on, let's be consistent going forth! Also, once we decide, it should go right into the style guide. --MistaTee 03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jackpot's conventions, and that's what I've been changing the section headers to in the articles I edit. Nobody seemed to notice or care until yesterday. —Interrobang 03:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, a reason just occurred to me why not to use icons for the words "cartoon" and "comic" and so forth: Some continuities transcend one medium.  The BW portion of Timelines, for instance, goes from comics to prose to even an animated short.  The G1 cartoon continuity, which can't really be labeled without the word "cartoon," includes some comics and manga.  For some reason, I'm a lot more okay with saying "cartoon continuity" and hoping it's understood that it's not limited to cartoons than I am with actually putting a little TV icon there.  I think it's because the wording is unavoidable, whereas an icon is us going out of our way to say, "THIS IS ABOUT CARTOONS!"  I would suggest some other graphical treatment to signify "correct," like a color change or a box appearing behind it or something.  Or, if we go with the more prescriptive approach of "correct is only a specific combination of words, like 'Generation 1 cartoon continuity'," then we can have ALL of the icons relevant to that continuity pop up.  That would actually provide BETTER information because it would immediately clarify that the word "cartoon" (or "comic" or whatever) in the title doesn't mean the story is confined to that medium. - Jackpot 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, Jackpot. The original discussion on Ricochet's page ended with FFN saying he agreed with you only if you would go back and make the countless changes yourself. You responded by complaining it wasn't consistent anyways. I took that as a challenge, and basically went back through every G1 character page to MAKE them consistent with a "well-defined pattern" as you put it. And hey, if the wiki decides we should go with a different set of naming conventions, I volunteer here and now to go back and undo all the modifications I did. But, at least now it IS consistent with itself for the most part.


 * Anyway, I'm against overdescriptive headers, especially the "Generation 1" titles that have been discussed. I think they're repetitive, ugly, and unnecessary. Just look at the Jetfire (G1) page before I changed it on July 25th. "Jetfire (G1) is an Autobot in the Generation 1 series. He appeared in the Generation 1 Cartoon continuity, subheading Generation 1 cartoon". I know you don't think it's "prominent" enough, but I don't see why we even have a label at the top saying "this character is in the Generation 1 continuity" if we're going to go through and repeat it again and again and AGAIN with every single header.


 * Here's a different sort of example from recent edits. In Marvel Comics, there's G1 and G2 comics. G1 also spun of the UK future timelines. Now someone like Hot Rod, who appeared in the G1, G2, and UK future stories, would need all the above headings. Roadbuster, however, never appeared in Generation 2. So while his Headings and Subheadings might technically be "Marvel Comics continuity -> Generation 1 -> UK future timelines", I took out the middle "Generation 1" subheading, because there's no reason to distinguish between G1 and G2 stories when the character doesn't even HAVE both. It's the same thing within a heading as between them. There's no need to write out "Dreamwave / IDW Generation 1 comics" unless you actually have to distinguish the G1 comics from Evolutions or Armada or whatever.


 * I know you think "Dreamwave comics continuity" is gramatically incorrect or something, Jackpot, so what about using the company icons as a convention throughout the articles: instead of "*BLANK* comics continuity", we could have the Marvel logo or the IDW lightbulb heading each section. --Xaaron 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And, of course, I disagree. What you call "overdescriptive", I call "exact"; I prefer to spell out just what the sections entail. Either way, can you please at least stay the fuck away from the "X continuity" format unless it's to link two sections? The "continuity" in "Dreamwave comics continuity" is unnecessary, and I'm amused that you don't seem to think that it's "overdescriptive". Ditto for stuff like "American Rebirth episodes". —Interrobang 07:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think the "continuity" is really necessary, but when I first started "consistent-izing" headers, I think Walky changed a few of my "Dreamwave Comics" headers back into "Dreamwave comics continuity" headers when I tried to remove the word. I've written that part off as "not worth the argument".


 * And granted on the Hardhead stuff, at least -- I kinda got into a groove with the undo button. But the criss-crossing of the G1 cartoon stories really creates some confusion. For instance, on Ratbat you returned the Madman story to before the main text for the cartoon, because that's when it happened chronologically, but there's still Scramble City in the "Japanese" section which should -- chronologically -- be placed INSIDE the main cartoon text. Ditto for any Fight!! Super-Robot... Manga stories from other pages. This situation requires either more headers (season by season header breakdowns so that in-between stuff can be slipped in?) or less (one big block of "Cartoon Continuity" with Marvel US/UK style italicizing to distinguish?), but I'm not sure which. The current Ratbat page, at least, doesn't flow at all.


 * But really, the whole point of subheadings is that you don't have to BE so exact. By design, subheadings assume you read the heading above it in order to have the proper context. After all, under the heading of Toys, we have subheadings like Generation 1, Classics, and Titanium Series...not Generation 1 toys, Classics toys, Titanium series toys. For that matter, a truly "exact" set of headings would be "Hot Rod toys", and the subheadings "Hot Rod Generation 1 toys, Hot Rod Classics toys, and Hot Rod Titanium Series toys". Please tell me you can see how more exact is not better in that case. Well, just as we don't write "Hot Rod Fiction, Hot Rod Toys and Hot Rod Trivia" because the heading at the topic already tells you it's Hot Rod's page, why do we need to write "Generation 1" everywhere when it (usually) says at the top that the character exists in the Generation 1 continuity family? Again, the cartoon headings, granted...there may not BE a better label for the original series than "Generation 1 cartoon". But otherwise...?--Xaaron 08:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On Ratbat, I forgot all about Scramble City. One thing we could do is include a note saying that it took place before the Movie. Alternately, we can up "Japanese continuity" before "Generation 1 cartoon", because the guideline seems to be whether takes place first chronologically goes first, but then we'd have to note that The Headmaters takes place after Generation 1. Either way seems sensible if we're going to keep the "Japanese continuity" header. As things go, it's less a nightmare than Megatron (BW), where I had to put notes everywhere. Have I mentioned how much I hate Beast Wars spinoffs?


 * On section headings, well, we're at an impasse, until somebody else comes in an supports a side. Don't worry, I'll resist the temptation to mess with the headings till we can get a better consensus. (At least we agree that "continuity" isn't really necessary.) —Interrobang 19:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In my ideal sectioning schema, I only spell out "Generation 1" in the first header that uses the term. After that, I abbreviate it "G1".   Is this a compromise that everyone could live with? - Jackpot 17:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. It isn't the length of the heading that bothers me, it's the repeating of "Generation 1", "G1", or "That early stuff" at all. --Xaaron 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then we really are, as Interrobang says, at an impasse. Your company-logo idea doesn't address my concern for specificity, and my abbreviating idea doesn't satisfy your desire for absolute minimum wordage.  Unless somebody comes up with a new idea that we all somehow agree upon, I guess the only way to decide is through sheer weight of support in the community. - Jackpot 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can agree with the "G1", but something seems wrong with having "G1 comic continuity" and only having Marvel and classics under it. Dreamwave and IDW are definitely G1 comics also.  A better name perhaps is need?  Maybe "Original G1 comic continuity"? --MistaTee 20:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. Something feels wrong about calling it "Original," but I can't put my finger on what.  Maybe "G1 comics (1984)", like how we distinguish the two Universe franchises? - Jackpot 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought "Marvel (Generation 1) comics continuity" worked just fine, even if Classics wasn't published by Marvel. —Interrobang 20:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting Classics under a header that says "Marvel" has always bugged me, but I do think that allowances for that sort of thing have to be made if there is no alternative. Do you think that the alternatives MistaTee and I have come up with so far wouldn't work? - Jackpot 20:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Original" bugs me for some reason, too. "(1984)" and that sort of thing, I think, doesn't make it quickly apparent what continuity it is to the reader. But if you feel strongly about it, go ahead. —Interrobang 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I have the same concern about "(1984)", and I want to see how other people react to it. Thank you for the explanation. - Jackpot 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither "Original" nor "1984" makes sense to me. Classics takes place in the continuity established by Marvel Comics. It shouldn't matter that Classics itself is not published by Marvel Comics. It's the Marvel TF Universe: I don't see how the actual publisher of some supplemental stories is relevant. Removing "Marvel Comics" from the heading makes it even less clear what's going on, especially for newer people who started with Dreamwave or IDW comics and don't know that "Original" means "Marvel." On the flipside, I don't think anyone is ever going to be confused by the current set-up. No one is going to say, "Waitaminute -- Classics wan't published by Marvel Comics, so this can't be in the same continuity, can it?" --Xaaron 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll echo Xaaron's sentiment here. "Marvel Comics" works just fine. - Chris McFeely 21:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon sections
When did we start putting the japanese cartoon sections under the American cartoon sections? We agreed last year to seperate them for the sake of clarity (especially as the bloody G1 Prime article turned into a giant mish-mash of American and Japanese continuity intersecting because the continuity lines were not clearly defined). --FFN 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm... not. Jetfire's page has no other American continuity, so it's utterly pointless to give the cartoon and only the cartoon two section headings and split the Japanese stuff away. "Generation 1 cartoon continuity" is sensible for that page.


 * As an aside, "American continuity" is a fucking stupid concept, because, unlike the Japanese, our continuity isn't cohesive (or at least somewhat), with everybody making their own spinoffs on the cartoons that contradict other spinoffs; see Beast Wars. —Interrobang 02:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant not clearly defining the Japanese fiction is seperate from the US fiction. If you are unhappy with this, then you should have taken it to the community talk page like everybody else does when they want to question or change policy. Otherwise those of us who were doing it in the manner you don't like don't know what the hell is going on. --FFN 07:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not, though. I didn't realize this was a matter of contention, but it seems to me that since the Japanese G1 series began with the dubbed American 'toon, the subsequent anime and manga belong in the same continuity, just as much as the various BW series belong together because they all stem from the same show.  The contradictions between the spinoffs and the differences in intended audiences haven't been barriers elsewhere. - Jackpot 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "I meant not clearly defining the Japanese fiction is seperate from the US fiction." But it isn't. Japanese continuity and the mass of Hasbro continuities (again, there isn't a cohesive American continuity) all use the Generation 1 cartoon as a springboard. —Interrobang 00:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest that if you want to remove our earlier format, then you create a small note paragraph about how the Japanese continuity branches off and insert it where appropriate, like you did for the Jetfire page. I can't be bothered going back to change all the pages we modified.
 * Off topic: What the hell happened to this page? There's a gigantic white space at the bottom covering part of the Yu Gi Oh topic in there. --FFN 08:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with this issue is that sometimes it makes sense to do it, and sometimes, it's sort of pointless. Optimus Prime's page, for instance, was terrible before the American and Japanese cartoon continuities were spaced out - the cartoon sliced up into separate sections for each season with two different names in each header, information from one Japanese part of the section being contradicted in the next American part... it's something that just, generally speaking, reads better when you break it apart. "This all happened in America, and the following things happened at different times during that" versus "This happened in America! And this bit happened in Japan! But it can't have happened in the same continutiy as THIS bit from America, which was followed by ANOTHER bit from Japan, which CAN happen!" But wiiiith... let's say, the Combaticons. They appeared in the cartoon, and then they appeared in The Headmasters - there's no complication or confusion, the appearances just flow into one another, and it's ultimately a bit pointless to give Japanese continuity a whole separate continuity header for something that doesn't matter like that It can just be slotted in as the next sub-header and we can all go on with our lives. Now, the thing is - and I think this is the root of the issue - a "Japanese continuity" section doesn't actually have to be a separate header to "Cartoon continuity" - it could be a whole sub-section under it. Mechanically speaking, this is perfect. It's an appropriate place to put it, keeping it and the continuity that it spring-boaded off of under the same section, but distinguishing it enough to make it easier to read instead of having to bounce back and forth between conutries. There is one simple, solitary reason I don't like that. Because I FUCKING HATE WITH AN UNEARTHLY PASSION THAT CANNOT BE NAMED OR EQUALLED the appearance of the resulting sub-headers - they're just ordinary-sized text, but bold. OBSERVE. Ugh ugh ugh UGHH. - Chris McFeely 10:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Continuity headers don't nest.
 * These talk pages? They nest.  You can do down-down-down several levels- and then hop back out and be on a different level of the hierarchy without any special header to declare it thus.  Here's the problem, as I see it


 * ==Generation 1 cartoon==
 * Optimus Priem Blah blah blah...
 * ===Japanese Gumball comic===
 * Optimus Prime, Elita 1 hubba-hubba!
 * ==Generation 1 cartoon==
 * Which was followed by the episode that led into.
 * ...the above? Does not work.  You can't 'redo' the same header multiple times.  (I mean, you can, but it causes the page anchors ot break, as well as making the Table of Contents a giant mess.)
 * Within a certain continuity, we are telling a linear story of events that happened in chronological order, so the events pretty much have to be documented in the order they occurred- moving Scramble City to after The Return of Optimus Prime so you can do "All of Japanese continuity" in 1 block is structurally nice- but massively confusing to the reader.
 * The real problem here is that we want to burrow down a level when documenting scramble city, but to do that we need another header after Scramble City to hop 'back up' into American continuity- as so Optimus Prime's page (unlike anyone else's) is divided into seasons. That works great with things that actually take place between seasons- but we're still getting new things added to the G1 cartoon timeline- things that don't fit so neatly.
 * This thing people are trying to do with nested continuities- though a laudable goal- is something headers are fundamentally unsuited for.
 * And since when has Transformers continuity ever "nested" neatly? There's always weird loose-ends like Rebirth that prevent you from making Japan a "subset" of American continuity.  Treating Transformers continuities like Matryoshka dolls is plain stupid when they actually behave like yellow-and-green-makeblue-seal zipping together. -Derik 10:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to add another "root of the problem" declaration: The REAL root of the problem, in my estimation, is the way we often try to shoehorn everything together into an in-fiction chronological order when that doesn't actually exist.  Especially with the more recent Japanese fiction, we've got retcons on top of retcons and time-travel out the wazoo.  It's getting as bad as the BW spinoffs.  That's why I've always advocated arranging series in real-world chronological order.  I'll link again to my sectioning experiment because, well, it shows how that would play out.  And I'll also mention Beast Wars (event), which I constructed with the same principle in mind.  I even explain the logic in its notes and trivia:  Since the various spinoffs all spinter away and loop around and whatnot, it's best to lead off with the first series, the foundation of all the rest, in one solid chunk.  Then I put all the rest in the order in which they appeared, which gives the reader a much better sense of relevance and story-inspiration.  Interrobang brought up Megatron (BW), which we both agree is a mess.  I think the problems begin right at the start, where we lead off with an obscure Japanese toy-catalog, then pick our way through confliciting origin stories before arriving at the actual jumping-off point of all BW fiction, the cartoon.  Then afterwards we still have to cover an endless stream of modern, retconny fiction (like Robot Masters) before we even get to BM.  Reading through that leaves me more confused and unsure of how it all fits together than if it had been presented in real-world order, allowing me to see fictional backtracking for what it is.  In past debates, the principle defense of in-fiction chronology I've seen is, "It's disorienting to jump around in time as you read from series to series."  Well, I say the Megatron and Prime articles are exhibits A and B for how much MORE disorienting it is to rearrange a whole bunch of disparate, contradictory series into a supposed "real order" when they clearly do not work that way.
 * Edit: Oh, and to address specifically what Derik brought up, the Scramble City issue is resolved in my schema by focusing on the "one solid chunk" principle. If the seasons of the American 'toon together constitute a discrete "series" (which they do), then they should be presented under one header without interruption.  If Scramble City is then under a subsequent header, I don't think the jump backwards in time is so "massively confusing" that it outweighs the confusion brought on by breaking everything into littler pieces and reshuffling them.
 * - Jackpot 18:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! Deformers
Since there will be Yu-Gi-Oh! cards based off Transformers (known as Deformers), I was wondering about including them into the site. EHeroDarkNeos 20:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna go ahead and vote no, since they don't sound to me like actual Transformers. We don't have pages for the Gobots characters and whatnot, after all. Jeep! 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured we should include them as their concept is similar to the Real Gear robots. And yes, there are Gobots pages EHeroDarkNeos 20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought Yu-Gi-Oh! merchandise was produced by Bandai, and this is a Hasbro franchise. I wouldn't include it. (I do however think that Deformers would be an insult by a Geewunner for Animated, on an unrelated note.)Metal Gear NOIZE 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How would the CARDS be an insult to a Geewunner? Besides, the cards are made by KONAMI EHeroDarkNeos 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant that I envisioned that a Geewunner would reffer to Animated as Deformers, due to the art style. However, unless the Deformers in question are officialy involved in the Transformers brand in some way (Like a crossover), I wouldn't add it. G.I Joe characters have pages because of the crossovers that the comics have done, but until we see some sort of melding into each other's canon, I wouldn't have it.Metal Gear NOIZE 23:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are Gobots pages for those Gobots which have crossed over into or had cameos in Transformers fiction. We also have other pages for the Hudson Soft and Konami characters from DreamMix TV: World Fighters, but that's because they appeared in an officially licensed game that contained Transformers characters. Are you seeing the linkage here? These characters are listed because they were involved in actual official releases for the Transformers brand, and thus are appropriate for inclusion. Yu-Gi-Oh is right out.--RosicrucianTalk 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean but why don't you go here just to see what I'm talking about. EHeroDarkNeos 23:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As Hasbro is fond of clarifying, Transformer != transforming robot.--RosicrucianTalk 23:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. We don't have M.A.S.K. in here either.  These have nothing to do with Transformers.  --Thylacine 2000 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor is it really appropriate for, say, a Pokemon wiki to cover Digimon or Monster Rancher, in spite of any thematic similarities.--RosicrucianTalk 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know why we're even having this dicussion in the first place. These Deformers don't even remotely look like anything from Transformers. Besides, why would we include pages for them on this site? This is the "Transformers Wiki", not the "Anything-That-Transforms-in-Any-Fiction wiki". The point is, those are Yu-Gi-Oh! monsters, whcih have abosolutely no connection to any Transformers fiction. Just because they can transform, doesn't mean they're "Transformers". Sabrblade 00:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wave info?
Something we might want to start adding to toy entries... what "waves" the toys shipped in. Naturally, this will be easier for modern stuff. But I think it wouldn't be a bad idea at all to see "oh, Animated Jazz came out as part of Wave three, shipped through four and five". (I just made that 4/5 part up, but you get the idea). --M Sipher 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Teletraan logo
Is it just me or is TF wiki's Monaco layout screwy when viewed in IE? The Teletraan logo in the upperlefthand corner gets covered by the searchbox and navigation bar. But when I view this page in Firefox, it's perfect, all right. I can see the logo. Isn't anyone the least bit concerned? --Destron Commander 03:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's not wrong. Damnit- I REVIEWED the code in IE before we put it up.  Has Wikia changed their behavior again?  :p -75.168.120.209 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh- that was me. Not logged in on IE apparently. -Derik 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cite Your Sources" Template?
Pardon if I'm asking this in the wrong place or if I've overlooked something obvious, but...is there some sort of user message template that asks a user to cite sources for their news-type contributions? There are always some people who could stand to have the message burned into their scalps delivered to them.--Apcog 08:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, All we've got is a (rather skimpy) policy page underlining that we think being RIGHT as opposed to "how you vaguely remember" is important. -Derik 09:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose that'll do for now, but something more pithy in the form of a message box might be worth considering.--Apcog 12:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

+/- number in watchlist
What is the +/- number in the watchlist? example: 11:34 Talk:Universe (2008 franchise) (diff; hist). . (+290) . . SanityOrMadness&mdash;Starfield 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Number of characters added or deleted. (If I were feeling wittier right now, I'd make some sort of Furman joke.) - Jackpot 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Henkei?
Now do we list these to their respective character pages? I haven't seen them listed on here yet. After all they are different from the Hasbro classics releases and I think we should list them. So should we star listing them and if not, why not?Dead Metal 16:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They aren't ALL listed yet, but some are. See Bumblebee or Hot Rod for an example. --Sntint 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh OK, I'll go and add some myself then.Dead Metal 19:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tech spec numbers, again
I'd brought this up a long time back... and if we're going to move and revamp, now seems like a good time to bring it up. It might be a good idea to find some way of adding the Tech Spec numbers to the toy listings... it feels kinda odd to not have them, since they are "hard" numbers. Perhaps a "base stats" template can be worked up? One that incorporates the name, type, release year, ID numbers, accessory listings, and the tech specs all in one simple, non-elaborate graphic block? --M Sipher 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be for it. I created something similar at template:attacktix which wouldn't be hard to adapt.--RosicrucianTalk 00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say I care for the tech spec numbers either way, but I'm intrigued in the idea of inserting all of a toy's information into its unique visual area. Maybe something like a filecard, with the image of the toy on either side? —Interrobang 00:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd sooner keep the image separate if possible, for a few reasons... not the least of which being that the amount of info per toy varies wildly, not to mention the picture dimensions. --M Sipher 00:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Article structure: comic vs. cartoon
I'm not sure if there's a better place to bring this up, but the style guide uses this page as the archetypal example for all comic articles, so it seemed appropriate. I've noticed that the structure of the average cartoon article (again, linking to the style guide's example) has a more versatile "Notes" section, and I wonder if it would do us well to imitate it in the comic pages. For instance, I added an entry to the "Errors" section of The Gathering issue 4 that I really felt like putting under "Continuity errors," had it existed. Having seen cartoon articles fill out, I do think there's a substantive difference between art errors and continuity errors, between real-world references and Transformers references and mere miscellania... and why shouldn't comics have a "Quotes" section? - Jackpot 16:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I basically agree on all levels. --M Sipher 17:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. For the record, if we do get a general consensus on this, I'll say right now that I don't have the time or gumption to actually make this change.  But I figured I'd run it up the ol' flagpole. - Jackpot 17:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree but I think continuity errors should be separated out between those within a story (e.g. a character being shown in a location when the story has them elsewhere) and continuity errors between stories (as these are often contentious as to whether they're an error in the first place). Timrollpickering 17:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of the within-the-story errors like your example would end up covered under an "Art errors" section (which would replace "Animation errors"). In fact, comics should probably get an additional section for notable typos, inappropriate narration, etc.... I'd say "Writing errors," but that sounds too broad.  "Script errors," maybe?  I think that would leave "Continuity errors" free to cover the more nebulous story tangles. - Jackpot 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thinking about continuity, perhaps we should have a continuity-note at the top of comic articles (related to the "next/previous issue" box?) that indicates where the story fits into chronology if the series numbering isn't enough information. I'm considering specifically the Spotlight issues.  If I hadn't been keeping up to date this whole time, I'd probably be quite confused about it all, since even IDW's sub-numbering system falls short (and now they're abandoning it entirely).  I would welcome a resource that could tell me the "real order" of all the IDW issues.  Publication date is the most objective standard I can think of.  This could certainly apply to other series as well, like Marvel's Headmasters and G.I. Joe and the Transformers.  In fact, now I'm thinking of two continuity-notes: the publication-order one at that top (indicating what the previous- and next-published issues were, regardless of numbering), then a timeline-order one in the Notes ("This story takes place between X Story and Y Story") for in-universe chronology, to further clarify things like the Spotlight issues that are set in the past.  How do these ideas sound? - Jackpot 17:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What about stories that past and present events in them. The Shockwave Spotlight takes place mostly in the past, but ending is in the (then) present. Of course the IDW timeline page attempts to make sense of it all. --MistaTee 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The in-fiction continuity note could be as specific and multifaceted as necessary. A lot of pages already have them; this would just be a formalization of the process.  But I don't want to get sidetracked on that idea too much, since it's not key to what I'm really getting at:  Let's take the Headmasters cartoon.  I've never seen the show, so when Chris McFeely wrote summaries of all the episodes, I loved being able to just click-click-click from one to the next and read through the whole series.  That's one of the best things this wiki has to offer, as far as I'm concerned.  But if I tried to do the same for the IDW comics, the current navigation would skip right over the Spotlights, Megatron Origin, Avengers crossover, and whatever the hell other minis, spin-offs, and what-have-yous IDW will make in the future.  I see no reason why we shouldn't add a publication-date nav that can guide the reader through the entire run, unimpeded by IDW's numbering/titling madness. - Jackpot 01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page
Hey guys, I'm Scott. As you know, the ads everywhere on the site have gone away for logged in users. The trade-off is that the front page will be getting a 300x250 box in the upper right hand corner to go along with the banner. I don't want Wikia to go out of business (I love free wikis too much!), so I've been going around to a bunch of wikis to help with that process. The 300x250 ad just for the front page will be turned on at some point this week, so to keep the front page from breaking, I've designed this update for you guys. What do you think? Ads will still be gone for logged-in users -- that's not changing (logged-in people will only see the front page ads, and that's it). I've been suggesting to wiki admins that they encourage their users to log in whenever they can so they don't see the ads. It's even possible to make login mandatory if you want. Anyway, I hope the ads being gone is cool with you guys. I just want to make sure that the front page looks okay with the new format; if they get turned on with the current layout, the front page will look crappy and I don't want that. Let me know what I can do to help! —Scott ( talk ) 23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a slight improvement, but when I make edits and lay out a page, I'd like that layout to be seen by more than 5% of the site's viewers. And locking viewing to only registered people is likewise counter to our purposes.  Technically, we are putting this wiki together FOR those people who just come to browse.  It is anti-user friendly.  --ItsWalky 00:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear ya, man. It's the best compromise we could get out of the deal. Personally, I'm just happy that I don't have to see the ads. I'll be putting up a sitenotice on some of my wikis encouraging people to log in rather than use adblock. In the meantime, is it okay if I migrate the mock-up? I know the change is coming soon, and I really don't want to see the front page break. I hope that's cool with you guys. Peace. —Scott ( talk ) 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm... an unbroken main page... or wikia looking slightly more like a car on bricks in your front lawn...
 * *contemplates the relative benefits*
 * This could take awhile. -Derik 02:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The ads got turned on today for the front page, so I went ahead and moved some things so that the layout doesn't break. Ads are still gone for logged-in users on content pages. They only place you should see them if you're logged in is on the front page. I assume that layout is okay since no one objected to it on Monday, but of course feel free to do with it what you like. If you have any questions about the code, or if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. Thanks guys! —Scott ( talk ) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, there are objections. We just know that clearly, objections mean fuck-all, which is why we're doing that whole "leaving" thing, and Wikia can have a grand old time making their site more and more unreadable unimpeded by silly things like userbases. --M Sipher 17:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh, it looks to me like | something went wrong. Is it just me?--Inevitable Betrayal 17:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * *slow claps* And a jolly good job you did! Now the layout is broken in Safari and Firefox with or without adblock turned on.  You have image blocking texts- and then ads pop up and block the text AND the image!  That's like- a a fail so epic... it just might be a win!
 * But guess what it looks perfect it Internet Explorer! Yeah!  *air guitar*
 * Tell me, do you all naturally suck this badly, or does Wikia give its people special training? -Derik 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * user:FortMax changed it back, so I think people are seeing different things. Can you clear your cache and check it again? —Scott ( talk ) 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? the reversion was your clue that people were seeing different things?  Not two different screencaps of the broken layout? -Derik 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's like they WANT us to leave. --ItsWalky 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. Here are screenshots of the front page as they look in four major web browsers.

You're certainly welcome to keep it this way, I was just trying to offer a better solution. No one else came up with another idea since Monday, so I implemented the neater layout. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but the front page ads are on and they're not going away for people who don't use AdBlock. Please let me know if I can help you guys come up with a better solution. Thanks, man. —Scott ( talk ) 18:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would that be firefox 3 you're running? Because it sure doesn't look like that in my browser.  (We've been having trouble with one of our coders who switched to firefox 3.  He's careful to periodically check his layouts and not just assume that layouts that look one way in his bleeding-edge just-released browser with a completely rewritten rendering engine will look that way for other users.) -Derik 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I notice that your revision also removed the TfWiki.net site title and rebranded the main title as Wikia's.
 * Was there a reason for that, along with removing the link to our site's discussion about whether or not to leave Wikia? (I mean, it was kinda important.  That's why it was on the front page.)  Scott? -Derik 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just the mock-up I came up with and linked to on Monday. Anyone was welcome to add to it at anytime all week. Nobody opposed it, so I used that version when the ads went live today. Please feel to adjust it accordingly :) —Scott ( talk ) 19:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's just retire that old "nobody opposed it" horse right now. Lots of people objected. An admin objected before you forged ahead. I don't know what operating procedure is for Wikia staff, but you're not doing much to dispel the notion that you folks are going to do what you want to our wiki whether we object or not.--RosicrucianTalk 19:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm sorry that your previous experiences with Wikia have not met your expectations. Speaking only for myself, please see above where I asked "is it okay if I migrate the mock-up?" at 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC). The only response was Derik's wish to "contemplate the relative benefits" for two days. I was certainly willing to work with you guys to meet the best outcome, so when there were no other suggestions, I figured you were okay with the mock-up. —Scott ( talk ) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can repeat that no one actively opposed the change as much as you want- but the fact you migrated a page that was broken in 2 of the 3 major web browsers remains. And when you migrated it, it was reverted not for being broken, but for being fugly (and for stripping out things we wanted in there that Wikia wasn't comfortable with, and conveniently were the only things to tossed when Wikia-guy was rewriting our layout.) Having now ENCOUNTERED opposition, you instead migrated it again, with changes, and repeatedly tried to claim the original layout hadn't been broken, and that other users were experiencing caching problems.
 * May I reiterate now how being screwed, ignored, lied to, and left with a broken site is typical of our interactions with Wikia? It is, possibly, unfair to hold you responsible for the actions of others, but we can damn well hold you responsible for actions you take that perpetuate that cycle. -Derik 19:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well here's the thing, Scott. We're pursuing other options. Danny knows this, and directed us on the steps we'd need to take. Sannse knows this, and has been helping us with the database dumps. The very same frontpage you templated off of had a link to our ongoing discussion on leaving Wikia. You had to see this link in order to make your mockup. So either there's a fundamental lack of observation coupled with Wikia staff not communicating with each other as to the current status of the Teletraan-I community... or other less savory assumptions must be made. I mean, I don't want to accuse here, but this whole affair has been, as I said, rather tone-deaf to the sentiments we've been expressing.--RosicrucianTalk 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to make accusations. He's still doing the Wikia-handbook "if I repeat my position enough times it will make me right" thing in defiance of reality.  It's not that I object to being lied to I'm pretty used to that but I object to being lied to badly.  To me, not even bothering to lie convincingly conveys a deep lack of respect the other parties involved.
 * Frankly between the condescending attitude, the 'ideological sanitization' of the frontpage, repeated falsehoods that he still wont' cop to, general technical negligence, and what is essentially (and I might be reading into this here, but I don't think I am) telling us that we will not be allowed to not have some version of his design for our main page... I'm pretty much ready to move for ban on the grounds of vandalization in defiance of community wishes, and a declared intent to recommit despite having had the those wishes made clear to him. -Derik 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Rosicrucian, yes, we are aware of the plans, including Scott (and as you can see, I'm still following the talk here). But that doesn't mean we aren't going to keep trying to work with you and make the ad changes here as smooth as we can. Whether contributors move or not, this wiki will still be here, and maybe some of you will choose to stay with it. But either way, we will keep trying to communicate, keep trying to work with the community, and keep trying to find ways to make this wiki work. I made Suki Brits and ItsWalky admins here when this wiki was almost non-existent. I'm proud of what they and the community have achieved since. I don't believe that's at an end -- sannse (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC) (who is logging off for the night now)


 * That is a very laudable (if unrealistically optimistic) viewpoint. -Derik 20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Firefox blues
Slurms, as I may have said above, I am having trouble with this page. The bottom fifth of the Community Portal talk page is unreadable to me for some reason, a big white blank covers the text :( Anybody know what's going on? I can't check this page on IE since it mysteriously doesn't load the entire thing.

Note: I may be unable to read this and any comments made afterwards. --FFN 11:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's Wikia's fault.
 * No, seriously. I'm having the same problem in Firefox 2.  (I've been using Safari to read community portal all night.)  I just switched back to Monobook- and the problem has gone away.
 * Since Firefox demonstrably can render a page that large- it's not a technical limitation in Firefox. Ergo, it's unique to Monaco.  Ergo- Wikia did it.
 * I have no idea what Wikia did- Firebug can't track down the cause- but Monaco is so poorly put together it could be almost anything. -Derik 12:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, i'm comming from the Central wikia forum. I have Firefox 3.0.1 and i can see all of this talk page with it.
 * The sole problem i've come across is showing in both browsers (Firefox and IE7). After the section name Section naming conventions, all following section have a big gap to the left as if something wasn't closed properly in there.
 * Could this solve the problem for some people ? — TulipVorlax 16:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this section is align right somehow. — TulipVorlax 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For some reason the big blank covering the bottom of the page is gone now. Hopefully its fixed for good. --FFN 17:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We applied a fix this morning, please let us know if you see any more blanks. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sucking less, it is appreciated! -Derik 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comic issue template
So, I made this template, uh, last year. An example of the template in action is at First Encounter!. I'd like to resurrect it, and I want to see what others think of using this instead of the current setup we have for the credits and stuff. Personally, I prefer the infobox approach, since it doesn't waste a section or whitespace on what amounts as very brief information, and is a pretty standard approach on almost all Wikis, but I dunno what you guys think. —Interrobang 21:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I rather like that. Much cleaner and neater than our current infobox setup.  My only request would be that the series link (Transformers: Armada in this case) be moved up top, to make it very visible and immediately obvious what the page is a part of.  The only obvious downside: the notion of converting several hundred comic book pages to a new format makes my wrists hurt. -- Repowers 18:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't have to be an immediate thing. Slow replacement is fine with me (I'm probably going to do most of them, anyway...). 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Should editor and editor-in-chief (for Marvel US, if nothing else) also be in there? Tribimat 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If they're credited inside a issue, yes. It's easy to add more fields as needed. —Interrobang 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, another new template after I implemented the comicinfo one on about 70 issues. As long as all the same info in the current one could be added.  Also, would it support 2 different navs, like for Marvel US and Marvel UK?  I also don't like the grays in the borders.  The blue link on the gray is especially ugly, but I'm sure that can be easily fixed. --MistaTee 20:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the second nav, as seen in All Fall Down. I don't care about the colors, so I just picked one at random; feel free to change them. —Interrobang 21:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...that actually looks rather nice. (and I am not a fan of infoboxes.) -Derik 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale issue renaming
Looks like a bit of this has gone on tonight without much (any?) community discussion. What gives? --MistaTee 07:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can a 'bot (not an Autobot) revert these changes? --MistaTee 18:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It might help if you explain exactly what changes you're talking about. --KilMichaelMcC 21:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So, we made the news.
link Does this mean the wiki is now Wikipedia worthy? --FortMax 02:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. I hadn't thought of it that way.  The writer of the piece emailed me the link this afternoon.  What a thing!  --ItsWalky 02:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The point about the google searcg thing penalising sites with copied content worries me. So should we drastically change our content here before moving? Hey, we still have the right to do with the content as we see fit as it's still our Wikia wiki. --FFN 07:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is which site is more prominent; who's getting linked to? I have no idea how to tip things in our favor, butI think it can be done. Chip 07:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)