FANDOM


(Botcon 2007 Battle of the Boards)
(Improvement drives and new templates?)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
Just a few suggestions. Let's discuss. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 17:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 
Just a few suggestions. Let's discuss. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 17:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 
: I like the 'Bobba Fet, where?' template... do you have a thought on an equivalent sentiment/piccie for TF? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 
: I like the 'Bobba Fet, where?' template... do you have a thought on an equivalent sentiment/piccie for TF? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:: Something with Reflector, natch. Alternately, "Hot Rod, look! There's a hole in the <s>shuttle!</s> article!" [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
+
:: Something with Reflector, natch. Alternately, "Hot Rod, look! There's a hole in the <s>shuttle!</s> article!" Also, we probably need to work the various generations of TF in across the board. Use some RiD, some UT, some G1, etc. Mix it up. Have Vector Prime for the "upcoming events" template, maybe the Ratchet/Megatron monster for "this article is self-contradicting." (alternately, Galvatron vs. Megatron). [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
   
 
==A little more color?==
 
==A little more color?==

Revision as of 03:24, May 17, 2007

Archives

Improvement drives and new templates?

So some brief perusal of Wookieepedia showed me a few things they do that could really be co-opted here, both to make the site look better and be a litlte more functional.

EDIT: Example page was changed -- M Sipher, who is having problems with "loss of session data" on this motherfucker and it's really starting to piss him off.

I like the idea of an "improvement drive", taking a dedicated focus on certain areas... some sections really DO need work. I think some of the more confusing and semiforgotten eras of TF fiction or toylines should really get fleshed out and soon, like the RID show, Enegon cartoon (ugh), late-G1 characters, Omega Point, etc.

And then there's the templates they use. I like the use of images and quotes. Looking through their bigass template section [1], there are a lot we don't need, but a few might be good, like the image and argument templates, plus the aforementioned improvement drive template. And this one is just awesome.

Also, we should totally add an image of a Quint with death-face forward for the "marked for deletion" template.

Just a few suggestions. Let's discuss. --M Sipher 17:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the 'Bobba Fet, where?' template... do you have a thought on an equivalent sentiment/piccie for TF? -Derik 01:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Something with Reflector, natch. Alternately, "Hot Rod, look! There's a hole in the shuttle! article!" Also, we probably need to work the various generations of TF in across the board. Use some RiD, some UT, some G1, etc. Mix it up. Have Vector Prime for the "upcoming events" template, maybe the Ratchet/Megatron monster for "this article is self-contradicting." (alternately, Galvatron vs. Megatron). -hx 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A little more color?

Just an idle thought. Is there a way to tweak the colors of the picture thumbnail borders? Like, say, for a Decepticon character page, their pictures would be bordered with a pale purple, while the Autobots would have light red... and uh... blue for humans? Green for Quints and miscellaneous aliens? Black with white text for Unicron?
Yeah, it's functionally pointless and a lot of "going over old pages" work, but the graphic design part of me is screaming for a little more visual "oomph", and since TFs don't lend themselves well to the kind of "core data table" whatchamadoozie you find on most other character-centric wikis... --M Sipher 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We've started to hash this out, and I've constructed a mock-up of the idea. Also see the talk page, for M Sipher's proposal on colours. If you have any thoughts, please post them, as this is obviously a MASSIVE sweeping change to what the wiki will look like. --Suki Brits 02:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sitename

So, like, this is completely frivolous in the large scheme of things, but it's always sort of bothered me. I don't like the name of this wiki! I mean, even beyond us needing to get it spelled right when you type {{SITENAME}}, I just don't think it's a very apt one. Now, Teletraan I could answer just about anything on the cartoon, so long as it was pertinent to the plot, but it never struck me as a Repository of All Transformers Knowledge. There are at least two much better options.

  1. Vector Sigma -- It apparently knows everything, in addition to all manner of other qualities
  2. Underbase -- A dedicated Transformers knowledge database.

Now, of the two, I vastly prefer Underbase, firstly because scores of fan sites already use "Vector Sigma." (The same problem is present with "Teletraan I.") And secondly, it sets up all sorts of jokes about how too much knowledge about Transformers leads to madness or death. Ha ha ha.

Anyway, I mostly wanted to get that off my chest. --ItsWalky 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but. At this point, the Teletraaanagh-eleven name is pretty much associated with the wiki. Rebranding your product right after it's finally starting to get name recognition in the fandom seems like kind of a dumb idea.-hx 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Teletraan I is not the coolest possible name for this wiki, but I think Hooper_X is right that it's too late to change it. It's certainly an adequate name, and honestly it has much broader recognition than your other suggestions, which is probably a good thing. Pretty much anybody that knows anything about Transformers will recognize the name Teletraan I. Most of those same people will have never read or heard of the Underbase story and probably won't remember the name Vector Sigma either. The name we have is good enough. Also, I imagine getting the SITENAME variable changed is as simple a matter as leaving a note on Wikia:User:Angela's talk page. --Steve-o 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


"Sunbow universe"

I've noticed a number of pages that mention the "Sunbow universe" of the "Sunbow portion of the G1 continuity family" or pictures that state the source as anepisode of the "Sunbow cartoon". I remember a discussion about this awhile back, and I seem to remember that we decided against calling the the G1 cartoon the "sunbow" anything, as there was only one G1 cartoon that didn't already have another title, and there's about as much stuff in there that wasn't done by Sunbow anyway (most of it it Japanese fiction, but still...) --FortMax 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's usually me (since I prefer the exact terminology.) I haven't been doing it since we had that discussion I think, just had a brain-fart today. So, uh, yeah, you're right, we did decide that. -Derik 22:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Botcon 2007 Battle of the Boards

From Brian: "Faction Feud – The Battle of the Boards

This Transformer trivia game show pits different Transformers web sites against each other in the battle for all Transformers knowledge. Faction Feud was a huge hit at BotCon 2006, so don’t miss out on the chance to compete this year! There are eight slots available for this tournament so sing up ASAP! It will truly be a battle of wits! How to enter: email Christie@mastercollector.com with your web site’s URL and the 5 names and screen names of your 5-member team. Deadline to enter: June 1, 2007."

We need to do this. I'd like to volunteer, but I realize I haven't been the most active contributor to the wiki. I'll step aside if need be. I just want to see Team TFWiki happen.Chip 03:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we argue collaboratively about the answers before arriving at a consensus? -Derik 03:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Doubtful. But maybe we can find a way to work awful jokes into our answers. Chip 03:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I wish to hell I could get in on this one. Oh well. Maybe next year. -hx 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to go ahead and submit our entry. I volunteer, and I need 4 more players. Who's with me? Who will give up the power to transform to... wait, no. Chip 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can count on me / Though I know not UT. --Rotty 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You absolutely do NOT want me on your team, since I don't know crap, but if it's down to four people and nobody else will step up, I'll totally do it.
At the very least, I will totally get some pom pons going. --Suki Brits 01:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I am... willing. But there would be plenty of better choices than me. I guess the contest seemed pretty easy last year, so I could probably perform well, but Walky, Sipher, and LV would all be way better than I. --Steve-o 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Graham, Sipher, and I would also be way better than you if they use the same questions as last year. 'Cuz, y'know, we wrote them. --ItsWalky 03:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That's probably reason enough for you three to bow out, I guess. We'll get by.Chip 03:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah... sure, why not. I'll sign up. Someone will need to keep an eye on me near gametime so that I don't forget to show up, though. --Monzo 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Sweet. That makes 5, but I'll give it another day. If anyone else wants in, or someone on the team changes their mind, let us know.Chip 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah hell, I'll toss my hat in too. If necessary, I'm totally happy being a B-list sub in case someone who already volunteered or is just plain more knowledgeable than me bows out. - Jackpot 22:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've sent the e-mail! After a little bit of discussion, we ended up with me, Rotty, Steve-O, Monzo, Jackpot, and Blitz as our alternate. This is gonna be great. Chip 02:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Titles for characters with multiple names

I want to predicate this by admitting that at some level it doesn't matter at all because of the existence of article redirects.

In looking over the recent changes, I noticed the Wing Dagger article, and wondered why, if our rule for characters who got new bodies with new names is that we list them under the name they first appeared in-fiction with (such as Hot Rod and Overhaul (Cybertron), the Wing Dagger article is a redirect. Walky said it had been discussed at some point and decided to do "name of the first TOY". I found mention of this on Talk:Overhaul (Cybertron) where LV seems to basically settle on that after realizing that all the more sensible options lead to conclusions we seemed to have already violated.

Currently, Help:Article types and titles says, "Characters with multiple names (as in the case of alter-egos) should have their article listed under their most prominent name..." Leaving aside the issue that prominence is ambiguous for a few characters, this seems, to me, to be by far the best option. Our wiki has developed into something HIGHLY fiction/character centered. The toys are almost an afterthought. Basing something as seemingly fundamental as what to name a character's article on what name happened to be applied to their first toy is totally out of left field.

I admit that the first-toy rule would be unambiguous and solve nearly all the tricky cases (I sort of have a problem with Overhaul/Leobreaker, but not a huge problem). However, it still feels wrong to me. In principle, some canon source could state that a character who is extremely visible in some franchise was a new body for some random no-fiction toy character from the previous franchise, and we would end up listing them under their old and irrelevant name for perpetuity. It pains me to replace the phrase "most prominent name" with "name applied to their first toy". It's not a rule that has any logic or sense behind it. It's a kludge that happens to solve most of the practical problems but doesn't fit my idea of the "spirit" of the wiki.

I would appreciate hearing suggestions/comments from other editors.

--Steve-o 04:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. The fact of the matter is that TF fiction is a patchwork of ambiguities, contradictions, dangling threads, and irregularities. Oftentimes there just CAN'T be hard-and-fast rules; we have to bite the bullet and accept that the only logical option is to allow for subjectivity. In this specific case, the standard has to be "prominence." Sure, such a thing might lead to arguments and fights and what-have-you with no clear Law to arbitrate, but that's what we get for putting together a wiki on Transformers of all things. - Jackpot 18:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template for continuity organization?

Is there a page somewhere that lays out a standard for how the continuities are grouped? Like, one massive article filled with headers and subheads for every possible universe, which families they're under, and what order they should go in? Because I'm a little confused as to the specifics sometimes, such as in this discussion, but that died with no resolution. It seems like a good idea to have a template-page where we can hash out the details. - Jackpot 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Toy-photo policy?

What's our policy on toy photos, officialness- and copyright-wise? I imagine pics from Hasbro's site and publications are preferable, like how we only use Hasbro-approved art and never fanart. But what about shots from places like Toybin and TFU.info and Remy's photos and all the galleries of the various TF-news sites and so on? I've certainly seen such photos in articles, but I've also seen people discourage the use of specific sites' images (like TFU.info). What's the principle at work here? - Jackpot 21:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, my principle is "TFU.info's images look horrible and have depict toys which are sometimes fan-painted and have stickers all over the wrong places sideways." Also, I think as a general rule of thumb for the wiki, the background of a toy photo should be white. Not "you can see the unwhitebalanced panels of cascaded posterboard in the background," but actual white. But these are just my thoughts! --ItsWalky 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like our policy is 'official is always good, if Hasbro's stock photos aren't too off, but if you're usign another source, they'd better look good, and make sure you give them full credit with a link.' (Or at least that seems to be how we've handled it thus far...) -Derik 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I can agree to that. "Official toy photos are best, if they're the non-photoshop-retouched kind and the toy is transformed correctly and the paint apps are the same in the production version." If you can't get that, take your own. If you can't get that, steal! --ItsWalky 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we have a 'how to construct an Article' page? Not just format- but 'places you should really look for information, link to, etc'?-Derik 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the input. The one other time I've seen discussion on the matter (I don't recall which article it was in), someone was discouraging use of TFU.info pics because that site exists almost entirely to show photos. So swiping photos from there seems more like intellectual-property "damage" than if you take from, say, the more diversified Seibertron.com. Thoughts on that? - Jackpot 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I was part of that convo. And yes, Seibertron is my theftable-of-choice even though their pictures tend to have blacks a bit too sweet (Remy is second,) in that case IIRC I swiped from TFU because they had just the right angle I needed to highlight something. -Derik 22:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Archival time

I'm moving everything that hasn't seen a reply in two months into the archive. If you still want a topic raised on this page, don't hesitate to either start it again, or copy it back here. --Suki Brits 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.