Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki
Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki
m (→‎Templates for "In such and such continuity...": Fixing typos in his gleeful sarcasm)
Line 198: Line 198:
::::Fair enough. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Fair enough. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to try to write something which will make as many people as possible happy. Let me know what you think. [[User:JW|JW]] 15:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to try to write something which will make as many people as possible happy. Let me know what you think. [[User:JW|JW]] 15:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
So there's [[Talk:Wrecker#Plural?|some]] [[Talk:Female Autobots#Title|discussion]] about whether we should allow certain plural titles, such as for [[Wreckers]] and [[Female Autobots]]. I hold that any distinction will end up being completely arbitrary, and for consistency's sake we should stick to the rule. Some others disagree. Let's hammer this out. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 00:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:46, 19 August 2008

Naming: series suffixes

I really completely disagree with labelling a character with his series even if there's no other character with the name. If other character gets the name, it's not all that difficult to move the page. Why make it look ugly when it doesn't have to? Singularity 06:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I really completely disagree with you coming in and arbitrarily declaring a new naming system despite the fact that there was already a perfectly good one implemented across numerous pages already existing, myself. There's no reason to have to clean up behind people who can't spell "generations" and "timelines" without typoing when an abbreviated line description will do. And when another character gets named Hound, suddenly every single link to "Hound" has to be changed to "Hound_(G1)". Why is that a better idea than planning ahead to begin with?

Speaking for myself. LV

  • I completely agree with LV. It's better to plan ahead than have to go back and fix a billion goddamn links, ESPECIALLY since there's, you know a MOVIE COMING OUT NEXT YEAR WITH A BRAND NEW CONTINUITY and all. Hooper X 06:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Making it look ugly when it doesn't have to" sounds just like the new super-long unabbreviated tags you gave everyone, Singularity. Thanks a lot. --User:ItsWalky

So are we using (UT) or (Unicron Trilogy)? Also, what do we do about Blurr - both in Armada and Cybertron (arguably) as different characters? --User:Alexamar

Blurr's an interesting case. He actually has TWO bios. One that suggests he's a different character, and a separate one that only appears on the website which states outright he's the Armada guy. Both contradict his appearances on the television series. I would suggest merely noting this at the end of Blurr (UT)'s page. However, there ARE several names reused in the same continuity, like Silverbolt (BW), Barrage (G1), and Thunderblast (UT). When we stumble upon cases like these, an additional modifier should suffice, such as Silverbolt (BW) (Fuzor) or Thunderblast (UT) (Mini-Con). --User:ItsWalky

An encyclopedia is supposed to accommodate readers, not editors. A reader shouldn't be expected to know what the Hell "UT" means without looking it up, nor not snicker at "BM". If you were that enamored with the naming system, then perhaps you should've established it in a style guide to indicate some actual consensus; it doesn't really serve as a deterrent after the fact. Now there's some evidence of actual consensus, I'll back off on the naming issue. I'll suggest Silverbolt (BW Fuzor) and Thunderblast (UT Mini-Con), though. Singularity 19:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to say that Thunderblast should have (UT) and (Mini-Con) instead of (UT Mini-Con) - as Thunderblast is both a Mini-Con and part of the UT, instead of an isolated group of (UT Mini-Cons). Same for Silverbolt - (BW) (Fuzor) instead of (BW Fuzor). BW Fuzor excludes all of BW and the other Fuzors... dig? User:Alexamar

The following Cybertron names will need some way to be differentiated from other toys in the UT: Jolt, Armorhide, Brakedown Clocker and Override (aborted Magnus Mini-Cons), Spiral Backtrack and Oval (Street Speed Team, Cybertron and Armada), Downshift and Dirt Boss (UT and UT Mini-Con), Mirage (Armada & Energon), Wing Saber (Energon & Cybertron), Thundercracker (Armada & Cybertron), Swindle (Armada & Cybertron), Ransack (Armada & Cybertron), Buzzsaw, Thunderblast, Sideways, Crumplezone, Steamhammer, Payload, Thrust, Ramjet and Sunstorm.

Should we include things like Aaron Archer's nicknames for PX toys? Durge, Sprigger, Galaxy Shuttle, etc? User:Alexamar

Spiral/Backtrack/Oval and Wing Saber are the same characters across the series, there is absolutely no need to differentiate. Thundercracker may or may not be the same character, same with Sideways. Also, no, Aaron's nicknames for the toys are unofficial and therefore have no place in the wiki. User: M Sipher

Series Identifiers

Well, first off, we come up with an "official" Continuity Naming Schema (which will be pretty easy, let's do it now!), then we apply it as needed, with subsets as needed. (Silverbolt (BW) (Fuzor) vs. Silverbolt (BW) (Magnaboss)), etc. I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning Aaron's unofficial names in-passing as part of the overall article, as since they're Aaron's fan-canon, they're a noteworthy little footnote to the official product. Hooper X 06:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think "T" is probably not a good choice for Timelines. One-letter abbreviations are too unclear. I would say either TL or TFT (similar to TFU).
--Steve-o 23:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Japenese Names

Why the hate? X-Bob58

We'll stop hating them when you start spelling them right. "Japanese," you. --User:ItsWalky

Not to mention the fact that this is a English encyclopedia. Of course, in that case, the corrupted air should be killing you right now. Flee, X-Bob! Flee!Singularity 19:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

To that end, here's a question I've come up with during my spelling-fix rampage today: Are we a British-english wiki, or an American-english one? There are quite a few things that I would consider misspellings, but I realize (realise?) that across the pond it's the correct spelling. (And, as a sidenote, if I've corrected anything that was spelled correctly under Brit-english rules and changed it, apologies... I don't have comprehensive knowledge of everything we spell differently.) Aurax 05:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We're an American-English wiki, but I haven't been singling out those "mistakes" for fixing. Someone conceivably could, if they wanted to. I just don't value it as a high priority. --ItsWalky 05:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No it's not high priority, but I've got a bug in my bonnet about it right now. Work's been slow of late (and this is the type of thing I do for a profession). Aurax 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Animation Proofs

Should these be standard?

  • If you can get permission from the Bickmores to use their stuff (good luck!), I don't see why not. I wouldn't use it as the ONLY reference for characters, though, but combined with box art and comic scans (where applicable), I think it'll look nice. Send an email out and see what happens. Hooper X 06:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming: article types

There is a relatviely small number of "article types" that will encompass the majority of articles on this wiki. Currently, there is redundancy and a lack of naming cohesion. At some level, the actual article name isn't very important because people aren't going to be simply typing URLs into their browser to find an article -- they'll do a search. Still, I'd like the naming scheme to be simple and consistent. Following are some of these very common article types, and examples of my suggestions for their naming, if I have one:

  • Franchise - "Armada". No qualifier after the name.
  • Toyline - "Armada (toyline)". Toyline is one word.
  • Character - "Hot Shot (UT)". Put the character's continuity in parantheses. If more than one character with that name exists in its continuity, clarify as briefly as possible. It's not critical that these exceptions have a strict, consistent naming scheme.
  • Toy - ?? I think a parenthetical "toy" is non-ideal. I'm not sure why it bothers me, but part if is is the lack of extensibility. I almost think that the toys for a particular character should be subpages of the character page, especially since some characters have multiple toys. On the other hand, that could lead to confusion in cases where it's not clear whether a toy "is" a particular character or not. (T-Wrecks toy as a subpage of Grimlock? Tripedacus Agent toy as a subpage of the Ravage (G1) character page?)
    • I think that toy pages should be one of our lowest priorities when there are resources like out there. There is no point in duplicating's work when there is so much else for us to do here. Simply linking to the relevant toys on at the end of each character article we write is plenty, I think, for the forseeable future.
  • Comic series - "Armada (comic)". If more than one comic with the name exists, and one is significantly more well known the more well known one should get the (comic) entry. So, "Armada (comic)" is the Dreamwave comic and the Panini series would get a name something like "Armada (Panini)" or "Armada (Panini comic)".
  • Comic issue - "Warrior School". Name of the issue. No qualifiers needed unless the name conflicts with other article names.
  • Cartoon series - "Armada (cartoon)". Singularity moved a bunch of (cartoon) articles to (television series). I disagree with this for two reasons: First, "cartoon" is more brief. Second, "cartoon" can encompass things like an OVA or an animated movie that are not television series. This doesn't come up often, admittedly, but it allows things like the Robot Masters special and the Zone OVA to have acticle names that are parallel with the others.
  • Cartoon episode - "Fire on the Mountain". Name of the episode. No qualifiers needed unless the name conflicts with other article names.

If anybody has thoughts on any of this, please say so.

--Steve-o 23:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Templates for "In such and such continuity..."

Many, many articles on this Wiki refer to characters or events that belong to a particular continuity or continuity family. Those articles really need to say what continuty they are relevant for. However, inserting language to this effect can be awkward. For consistency's sake, I feel as if the use of templates would be best here. Any article that refers to a specific continuity can simply call the appropriate template, something like: "This article refers to a character, event, or idea from the 'G1 comic' continuity. It may or may not be accurate for other continuities." At some level the qualifiers in the article name can do this job, but many articles won't have such a qualifier -- lead sulfide crystals for example.

Probably this would be best achieved with multiple templates, one per continuity, rather than a single template that accepts an argument. They could even be customized with toyline logos or somesuch. Meta-continuities or more generic continuity families would also need templates.

The drawback to this idea is that we will end up with a lot of templates. However, I think that is preferable to having scores of pages that begin with "In the Dreamwave Armada comic continuity..." or, worse yet, don't specify at all the range of their applicability.

--Steve-o 23:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Or one smart template. The Epnav template just takes a keyword like 'G1' and grabs all the relevant links and strings relating to it.
There hasn't been any talk on this in... 2 years, because I think a lot of people feel it's a low priority (and it is!) as well as... we want to be able to go custom when we want it.
That said- there are some articles where despite these kind of notices I find myself struggling to grock the 'range' the article applies to. Take for instance the Lilleth article; I created it and I left off the continuity note because I felt that it it was not exclusive to one continuity- Cybertronic wildlife seems to occur in all continuities, and it seems wrong to say that the Lilleth exists in just one, isolated continuity. I'm still not sure how to resolve that conflict.
Uh, secondarily, I think the top of our articles are... messy. We've got lots of 'notice' templates that are inconsistent sizes and don't play well with floats, plus disambigs, plus... random stuff like the franchise navigation templates which aren't placed consistently, etc. I'd like to explore a re-think and update on a lot of those universal templates we use-- especially the messagebox template- I hate that thing so much. Maybe create a consistent look-and-feel. -Derik 17:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
On the messagebox template (and notwithstanding... whatever the hell the Monaco changes will do to pages which use it or a derivative thereof; nor the fact that the margins are asymmetric, leaving more whitespace on the left than the right for no particular reason), how is that not a danger to the wiki? It's used on or via 3566 pages! That's over half the articles on the wiki - and it isn't even locked!!
Can't its' uses be accommodated in CSS? - SanityOrMadness 00:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, the new ad blocks are gonna break all the top-of-article notices, guaranteed. They don't even work with floated images. It'll be like you floated an image in the first line of an article. -Derik 00:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
...actually, i just had a thought. hrm... -Derik 01:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have investigated, and unfortunately I have to report that the messagebox templates at the top of the page do conflict with the in-page floatbox ads.
You see, the messageboxes are created using tables, and when the wiki adblock sees a table at the top of the page, it figures- "Gee, I can't float there, I'll cover up part of the table!" And it substitutes a much less monitizable banner above the the article. This is very sad for Wikia, because it means that many of our pages will not feature these highly-desirable page-destroying ads, they will instead features these much less desirable banner ads.
This is especially tragic because I have just (in response to some unrelated discussion whose details escape me at the moment) converted all our disambig templates into (identical-looking) tables, which means that any page which has a disambig tag will also not have the pushing-down adblocks. This is awful for Wikia, I feel terrible. However, tremendous amount of work and man-hours involves in executing the conversion, and I just don't think it would be practical to switch them back. -Derik 01:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I think we need to add some kind of a "Spoiler" template for articles about the current comic and television series.--G.B. Blackrock 16:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


"Cybertronic is an adjective, meaning "from Cybertron", generally used to describe a "futuristic" vehicle mode that is not a "real" Earth vehicle (or reasonable fascimile). Cybertron is a noun, meaning "an individual from the planet Cybertron", and Cybertronian is a noun and adjective, signifying a follower of the Liege Maximo. "

I've never heard anything about this before, where did they originate? --XBob

"Cybertron" was used in the Beast Wars episisode "The Spark." However, I don't think it was ever used again, and "Cybertronian" has been used in every occurance since. In light of that, I'm not sure why we're using "Cybertron" to describe a native of Cybertron. It's not only confusing, it's also really obscure. --ItsWalky 03:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Cybertron is also used in BW Rampage's tech spec. I can't think of any other uses, and the Beast Wars cartoon later used Cybertronian in "Go With The Flow." Cybertronic, for XBob and anyone else who doesn't know, was used multiple times in the G1 cartoon.--KilMichaelMcC 04:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

'Cybertron' was used consistently throughout RiD. I think it's a useful term as long as you agree that there's an actual difference between Cybertronian and Cybertron. For instance: A Cybertron is actualyl fromt he planet Cybertron. A Cybertronian is OF the planet Cybertron, but not nevessarily a resident/native of it. Jhiaxus's G2 army was Cybertronian- many of them had never been to Cybertron. They were not 'Cybertrons.' It's a London/England thing. -Derik 10:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think saying youc an onyl use Cybertronian for a Liege-dude is silly. That's just Cubertronian (faction) v. Cybertronian (djective.) I mean,t hey used the term Cybertronian a LOT in the 'toon, INCLUDING the last line of the damn movie.-Derik 10:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Derik and Walky this is too picky. There's no reason there can't be two adjectives that mean the same thing. Both Cybertronic and Cybertronian are used the same way in cannon, so both should be perfectly acceptable. ZacWilliam 10:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

...I thought Cybertronic was what they SPOKE. And Indiana was the DOG'S name! -hx 18:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Naw, that was "Cybertronix." And I don't think that was ever used in-canon, but just what Bob and Larry said on ATT once. "Cybertronian" tends to be used for their language, most recently in the latest issue of the Fan Club comic. --ItsWalky 21:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Cybertronian even! Which Starscream alone among the core Decepticons, IIRC, can leave. Poor Starscream- his status as a scolar/scientist is the one thing no one remembered to port over to the Unicron trilogy. So he's jsut an arrogant warrior who thinks he's better. G1 screamer at least had some serious schooling to him. -Derik 22:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that these distinctions are... dumb. Cybertronian and Cybertronic are interchangable terms. Cybertron as referring to a Transformer is fine, but obscure, and probably better avoided for the sake of clarity. Cybertronian has much broader usage within the fandom and the canon than simply to refer to the G2 Decepticons, who honestly, I thought everybody just called "the G2 Decepticons". I am removing this section from the Style Guide for now, as most of the commenters seem to find it perplexing or unneccessary. If there are major objections (particularly from RolonBolon, who introduced it), please make them.

--Steve-o 20:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I think this page should be moved out of the article namespace into the Meta (Transformers Wiki:) namespace. -Derik 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The style guide really seems like a "help" page to me, so I'd prefer to keep it in the Help namespace. (It's not in the article namespace.) I'd forgotten the meta namespace even existed... turns out we do have a Copyrights page hiding in there. (Which I guess you found, judging from the policies page.) I almost wonder if the Community Portal should also be moved into Help just for simplicity... Basically, I don't like the idea of our meta stuff being split between two different namespaces (Transformers Wiki and Help). It is confusing and complicated. It should all be in the same place. And "Help" is simpler to remember and type, and more self-explanatory. --Steve-o 02:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we have some more input on this? I agree with Steve, for what it's worth. I'd be happy with a decision made either way, though, as long as we have some consensus. As of right now, our "main" guide pages are scattered between two different namespaces, with no apparent logic behind it. --Sntint 02:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It should be moved to Transformers Wiki:Style guide or Transformers Wiki:Manual of Style. It's a page about the Project's style guide, and the Transformers Wiki namespace is the Project namespace ([[Project:X]] is directly equivalent to [[Transformers Wiki:X]] - it wouldn't even give a (Redirected from...) message, cf Transformers Wiki:Community Portal vs. Project:Community Portal.
The Help namespace is for help with the interface/software, not project-specific stuff. - SanityOrMadness 16:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I vote Transformers Wiki:Manual of Style, since there seems to be a somewhat more 'instructive' element/tone to the documentation, moreso than just a guide. -Derik 16:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edits?

How does one mark an edit as minor? Is this browser-dependent? I see no "minor edit" checkbox or button when I make edits. 16:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It said something about moving so go ahead and do it then. If you move it its not my problem though.( 23:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

Only registered users can mark pages as minor edits. -- SFH 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Past Tension

Thanks for the official stylistic clarification, Robert. I'd previously written book/episode summaries in present tense, but seeing so many in past tense here, it appeared the standard was different. I should've stuck by my own, it seems.--Apcog 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no standard which has been discussed and agreed upon. We briefly discussed it somewhere in the last month or two, but I don't remember where that was, and it wasn't an "authoritative" discussion because it had too few people involved and no consensus was reached. I strongly prefer past tense for all fiction stuff. It makes no sense at all to me to write a character history in past tense but then write the summary of those same events in present tense in a different article. I also think, as I said before wherever that was, that present-tense summaries often, if not usually, sound unsophisticated, as if they were written by 10-year-olds. --Steve-o 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish I could give a clearly delineated reason for it, but episode and issue summaries in past tense sound really, really strange and off to me. It fits with the immediacy of watching the events unfold before you. The selectively edited nature of character histories doesn't need that.
Anyways, the Help edits I made reflect what seemed to be the most common standards used on the pages that are already up. I had no idea there was any debate over it. -- Repowers 06:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Rob on this one - there's just a really strange "sound" to a past tense summary of an issue or episode to me. It makes sense that our character articles should be written in past tense, since we write them "in-universe" as if they're about real characters (a la the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, for example), since when you write a biography about a real person, you write it in the past tense, because, naturally, it has already happened. But when it comes to single episodes or issues, we single them out by title in their very namespace, thereby openly acknowledging that they are individual pieces of fiction, rather than a piece of "real" history. And when you summarize a work of fiction, the present tense is... well, it's just the standard. The work exists in a sort of (to steal a term from Wikipedia) "perpetual present tense"; the work "comes alive" as you read it - as Rob says, the present tense conveys that immediacy as the events are unfolding in front of you. Well, that's my two cents, anyway. - Chris McFeely 23:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Chris has pretty much put his finger on it, Steve. The literary standard for summarizing a work of fiction is to put it in the present tense, since the timeframe of the events, within the context of that isolated work of fiction, never changes. (Naturally, any events that take place in the past relative to the story are described in past tense.) Past tense in character histories makes sense because we're not describing a single work of fiction--a single episode or issue--but an entire story which has already occurred in a character's "lifetime", as it were. Using present tense sounds unsophisticated to me when it's used within a narrative itself, unless it's obviously a stylistic choice. In those cases, present tense works for play-by-play commentary and stage directions, but sounds weird otherwise. Naturally, narrative or summaries switching haphazardly between past and present tense is Bad Form™.--Apcog 03:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna fourth this. --M Sipher 06:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty much my understanding of it as well. --ItsWalky 06:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no meaningful difference between "the story of this guy's life" and "the story of a few days in a bunch of people's lives". They are both stories. They both involve many characters. They are both written in-universe on this site, not as if they are mere stories, so they are equally "historical". They both "already happened" unless there is no more-recent story. The interconnected stories that make up a character's history are a single work of fiction, frequently by design and at the least by our interpretation of them.

I find such dissonance in the notion of mixing the tenses that if we declare story pages to be present tense I would recommend we switch all the character pages to match them. It's absurd that a paragraph about, say, Dinobot's soliloquy at the beginning of "Code of Hero" (a scene where a focus on one particular character is appropriate) couldn't be used, verbatim, in both his article and the episode's article. You guys are suggesting that one or the other won't feel right unless a few words and grammatical structures are changed first, even though both paragraphs serve exactly the same purpose: telling the reader about what happened in that room at that time.

I can find statements on several websites saying, essentially, "historical events should be written in past tense, fictional events in (literary) present tense". Except in a tiny minority of "meta" pages, our wiki treats all fictional events as true, historical events, regardless of which type of page they are described on. Character pages are biographies of people treated as real. Story pages are summaries of events treated as real. Regardless of which tense we choose, there is no justification for choosing both.

Anyway, that will be my last attempt to talk you into consistency. It looks as if I'm going to be heavily outvoted and I will, of course, go along with the consensus even if you are all poo-poo heads. --Steve-o 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Italics and Punctuation

So, which of the following rules should we adopt?

  1. Punctuation marks are printed in the same style or font of type as the word, letter, character, or symbol immediately preceding them. (Chicago Manual of Style, Fourteenth Edition.) E.g., "I was very excited! Weren't you?"
  2. All punctuation marks should appear in the same font — roman or italic — as the main or surrounding text, except for punctuation that belongs to a title or an exclamation in a different font. (Chicago Manual of Style, Fifteenth Edition.) E.g., "I was very excited! Weren't you?"

(Note the difference in how the exclamation mark is rendered in the examples.) I prefer option 1. Opinions? JW 15:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason to adopt either of them. This isn't a big enough deal that it needs to be encoded into our style guide. The one that looks best to be varies from case to case, mainly with what type of punctuation we're talking about. --Steve-o 03:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be reasonably comfortable with specifically saying, "Both are acceptable." I'm uncomfortable with us having no position whatsoever. JW 12:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think #1 looks vastly better with tall punctuation. I didn't mention anything because I didn't think it was important enough to lay down a rule. But then Interrobang bitched me out for my usage, so I guess we'd better decide this one way or t'other. - Jackpot 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the example brings up the usage in which this rule will actually be relevant to the Wiki. That is, when proper noun titles of things are italicized, not common words in sentences. We have a hell of a lot more comic book issue titles than we do italics-for-emphasis. What "looks best" depends on which of those examples we're talking about. --ItsWalky 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I was just getting annoyed by the inclusion of punctuation into italics for titles, which you probably didn't do. If not, sorry. I don't particularly care for cases like "excited!", but things like "Beast Machines," is stupid and defeats the point of the italics. —Interrobang 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I do that. Like I said, I default to whatever looks best to me. I think I can see your point - that it technically makes it seem like the comma is part of the "Beast Machines" title - but I honestly don't think it would cause any ACTUAL confusion. Exclamation points and question marks are iffier, since there ARE titles that properly end with them. But I suppose my response there is to construct the sentence in a way that avoids the issue. Meh. I'm comfortable with whatever rule people want to establish. - Jackpot 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
things like "Beast Machines," is stupid and defeats the point of the italics.
However, that's correct usage according to CMOS14, which is my preference. The logic behind that is to empower the renderer to correctly tuck the comma under the overhang of the preceding letter.
As I said, I'm content to pick CMOS14, CMOS15, or to explictly say "we have no rule". I prefer CMOS14. JW 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Italics are used for two different cases, emphasis and titles. In the rare cases we use italics are used for emphasis, the punctuation should match, as the punctuation is usually related to the emphasis. Plus, "l!" looks horrible. Punctuation after, but not part of, a title is not related to the title, and looks best in the main format; it also keeps confusion on what is and isn't part of the title.--FortMax 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
So CMoS15 for titles, and CMoS14 for everything else? That sounds good to me, and it looks like there's at least a halfhearted consensus so far. Anyone object to enshrining that in the style guide? - Jackpot 01:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
While I'm not rampantly enthusiastic, I can live with that. JW 02:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a mild objection to specifying this at all, either way. I especially have an objection to specifying it in a highly-prescriptivist way such as citing a specific edition of an arbitrary style manual. If the formatting of punctuation really needs to be addressed at all, I would want it to be discussed in terms of meaning and asthetics: "When bolding or italicizing a title, make sure to include or exclude punctuation appropriately to make it clear what is part of the title and what isn't; when bolding or italicizing for emphasis, do whatever looks best." But I would think that is common sense instruction hardly worth spelling out. --Steve-o 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"I have a mild objection to specifying this at all, either way." I don't think you've specified why you have an objection. You clearly don't object to the whole style guide, so . . . ?
"But I would think that is common sense instruction hardly worth spelling out." Given that we have editors on this wiki who disagree, and given that two different editions of CMOS disagree, there is evidently no "common sense" rule. JW 03:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve-o, I'm pretty sure he was bring up the manuls is because it was easier to type. Anything in the style guide would spell it out. --FortMax 04:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in the same boat as Steve-o. I can't say I see the point in specifying any of this in a style guide. It seems really, really, really pedantic... and most people are gonna goddamn ignore it anyway. --M Sipher 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is, I got bitched out for it, with no policy to fall back on. If we're going to have editors who want to hound others with edits as pedantic as this, then apparently it matters to establish this kind of thing. For what it's worth, the strongest emotion I've seen come out of this discussion is apathy, which I agree with more than anything. If this Talk page can be used from here on as evidence for the "seriously, un-bunch your damn panties" position, then we've accomplished as much as if we'd changed the style guide. - Jackpot 06:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I was half-joking. You know this, yes? —Interrobang 06:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
How much of a joke was it if you called it out in comments and spent the time to "correct" it? Clearly it matters to you enough to try to impose your own method and make people stop doing what you don't like. Which is what the style guide is ultimately for, so here we are. - Jackpot 07:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What he said, with a side order of "and Interrobang and I happen to disagree over the correct style, so . . . " JW 12:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. —Interrobang 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try to write something which will make as many people as possible happy. Let me know what you think. JW 15:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


So there's some discussion about whether we should allow certain plural titles, such as for Wreckers and Female Autobots. I hold that any distinction will end up being completely arbitrary, and for consistency's sake we should stick to the rule. Some others disagree. Let's hammer this out. - Jackpot 00:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)