MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-05T21:13:56Z

158.103.0.1:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Aligned Timeline ==

I'm going to try and take a stab at creating an Aligned timeline that unites everything we know about the franchise(s) so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Help Wanted ==

Hello one and all. I'm here representing a newly created Role-Playing forum that is based in the Transformers Universe. We're in the early stages yet, and are looking for people to help get the ball rolling. Since this site seems to lack a dedicated forum (where requests like these would usually be made) and I haven't seen any other way to effectively say my piece in front of a large audience, I thought that posting here was the best way to "advertise" us, as it were. I sincerely apologize if this was the wrong move on our part, or if I've breached protocol at all, but I can assure everyone that our intentions aren't malign. Those interested, please contact me using any of the ways that I have listed on my username page here on this site. I won't tempt fate by linking our website here directly =P

Once again, you all have my sincere greetings, and I hope to hear from you soon. Also, as a side note: the difference in quality between this page and the transformers wikia is amazing. [[User:Rathian Warrior|Rathian Warrior]] 23:50, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if you've crossed any lines, and frankly, you were polite enough about it that it's not a big deal, but you could always buy some ad space if you want to raise awareness of your forum. It's cheap! There's usually a link on every page around the banners, but if you didn't catch it, you can follow this link: [https://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=25311&type=4 Project Wonderful TFWiki Page]--[[User:McFly|McFly]] 16:13, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== "Fictional" and "real" categories ==
I think we need to come up with a consistent way to distinguish categories of things that are real and categories of things that have appeared in fiction. So far, we've skimmed the issue by using synonyms, such as [[:Category:Companies|companies]] and [[:Category:Businesses|businesses]], but that doesn't really work for things like [[:Category:Magazines|magazines]], which is already used for real magazines. Currently, we have [[:Category:Fictional books]], [[:Category:Fictional video games]] that consider the fictional entities "different". On the other hand, we have [[:Category:Real-world events by day]] and [[:Category:Real world films]]. We focus more on the fictional aspect of Transformers, so it makes sense to not point out the fictionality in categories, but "real world" sounds awkward to some. Which one should we use? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:26, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I thought I'd cheat and see how some of the other fictional Wikis deal with the problem. Three different approaches I saw:
:*[http://tardis.wikia.com/ Doctor Who wiki] has a [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Real_world "Real World" category] for real world stuff and in most cases the categories for real world things are at "Real world X".
:*[http://wookiepedia.org/ Wookiepedia] goes the parenthetical route, with "Books" and "Books (real-world)". Though they also have one or two like "Real world companies".
:*[http://stargate.wikia.com/ Stargate wiki] has "Books" versus "Stargate books" for real world books.
:I kinda like the parenthetical approach that Wookiepedia have taken. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'd favor pointing out the status of both categories, just to make absolutely clear what they are for. The words can be "Fictional" and "Real-world" (I notice both real-world categories use a different spelling. Whichever it's gonna be (if), only one spelling should be used). "Nonfictional" kinda works as an alternative, would "Real-world" be disliked. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:35, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::If we go that route, I think "real-world" should be used, since "real world" is a lot more easier to fix than the other parsing. I like the Wookiepedia approach, but I'm not sure that's enough to change how we already do categories. The idea to label both categories sounds nice, but "Fictional X" seems incongruous with unlabeled categories, such as "weapons", "technology", etc.; considering that our main focus is the fiction, I'm leaning towards only labeling the real stuff. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I think it would be advantageous to put a {{tl|disambig2}} at the top, so people could easily go from the fictional to the real world category too. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:30, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yeah, I think I put that on [[:Category:Films]] a while ago. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:57, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Speaking of this, I found we handle [[:Category:Films]] like [[:Category:Real people]], wouldn't this be some, um, confusing? It's just, somehow, reverse? (Except for the fictional films like ''Honoji'') According to the logic of how we handle [[:Category:Real people]], shouldn't we place films like ''40-Year-Old Virgin'' or ''Godzilla'' in the [[:Category:Real world films]]? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Godzilla doesn't go in "Real world films" because it's not a real world ''Transformers'' film. The Transformers is implied in that category name. Presumably we could have a "Real films" category for Godzilla, etc, but I'm not sure it's worth doing. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:53, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::We shouldn't use "fictional X" for two reasons. One, there things like [[As the Kitchen Sinks]] that are fictional even within the fictional Transformers universe. Second, the wiki is written in-universe by default and putting [[Big Steve's Used Cars]] in a "fictional businesses" category would kind of break that. Within Transformers fiction, "Big Steve's Used Cars" is not a fictional company, but "As the Kitchen Sinks" is a fictional TV show. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:47, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is not a fictional show. It depicts fictional events and fictional people, yes, but the show itself, as a piece of entertainment, is not fictional. I do get your point, as we actually have things like [[Frankenstein]] that are two layers of fiction removed from us. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, of course. I meant, in-universe, ''As the Kitchen Sinks'' is a work of fiction, whereas "Big Steve's Used Cars" is a real business that sells real used cars to real people. Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Wasn't ''Buck Rogers'' a fictional TV show? Anyway, it sounds like you got my point. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Or, judging by the fact categories like "Magazines" in used for magazines in our real life and "Companies" for companies in real life, why not just use "Film" for films (such as DOTM) in real life, while we move current contents in "Films" to "Films in ''Transformers'' fictions"? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::That seems like it would go counter to some of our existing naming schemes. e.g. if we split that out into films by franchise, you'd get "Films in Generation 1" rather than "Generation 1 films". Though admittedly the former title might have the advantage that it's clearer in meaning. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I think both are equally ambiguous in their meaning. If we still need to clarify the purpose of the categories, we can always spell it out in the category's introduction. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Transformers: " ==
We talked a bit about adding back "Transformers: " to the titles of articles [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive51#When_to_omit_.22Transformers.22_from_an_article_title|previously]], and the general sentiment was that people were for it or didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any input in this matter? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:34, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm okay with this change, but I do have three questions on execution. <br>1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled? <br>2.) If "Transformers(:)" is going to be added to every relevant page name, then what about all the extra words in the titles of Japanese stuff? <br>3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc? <br>[[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::#I think we've had two consistent rules about that: If the title is some kind of phrase, like "Transformers United", "The Transformers Collection", or "Transformers Animated", then we don't use the colon. If the title is some kind of obvious "title: subtitle" setup ("Transformers: Armada", "Transformers: Prime"), then we use the colon. There's some borderline examples, but I think we can figure them out one by one. Official sources will help with determining colon-status. The other rule seems to apply to only games: If the title has another subtitle, then the first colon is dropped (ex. [[Transformers Prime: Terrorcon Defense]]). I dunno why, but we can add back the colon, I suppose.
::#I guess we add them? We could argue it for ''Victory'', since it was released in English contexts as just "Transformers: Victory".
::#I think we're just going to continue the same in relation to those. The articles will still be sorted by their subtitles in categories. Storylinks I could go either way on, but I think the trend is to drop the main title. I've been doing that for the AAII storylinks to avoid excessively long links. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:49, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I don't see how "Transformers United" and "Transformers Animated" are any different from "Transformers: Prime". To me, all three could fall into either of your groups (phrase vs subtitle) and would prefer colons in all of those cases. Of your examples, only "The Transformers Collection" seems to really belong in the "phrase" group. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::"United" and "Animated" are adjectives that modify "Transformers" and have official sources that omit the colon. "Transformers Prime" doesn't make sense in that way. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:58, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I am not certain about those two "rules" for colons either. They're rather vague and bound to cause arguments and confusion. It needs to be made more obvious whether a colon should be used or not before "Transformers" can be added everywhere (a help page on the matter would also be handy in the future, me thinks).

::::I think that if we would put the cartoon at ''Transformers: Victory'', that would cause confusion with the manga, storypages, toyline and franchises, none of which were ever brought over and should thus not be named such. If moved, the ''Victory'' cartoon should best go to its Japanese name. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 15:28, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>shrug* The first rule is mostly there for Transformers Animated, which people will be resistant to moving to have a colon (plus, obvious cases like The Transformers Collection). The second rule I really don't care about and can be tossed (it mostly only concerns the movie series of video games and online games). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you suggesting there that Victory articles should be moved to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory"? I'd disagree with that, if so! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:25, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Why? We can't go around writing out the full names of Western franchises and stuff but not do so for the Japanese stuff. We already have "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" written out for the 1985 & 1986 Japanese franchises, so why not ''Victory''? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 07:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Victory (the cartoon) has been released in the West as "Transformers: Victory", to me that means that the official English name of the franchise ''is'' Transformers: Victory. Yes, we should give the full Japanese title at the beginning of the franchise page but there is no reason to move anything to that name. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:35, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::That was pretty much my reasoning too (also typing out the full name every time we wanted to link to it would be tedious). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Tying out "(franchise)" every time for everything is more tedious, but we still have it (for... some reason). Ditto long titles like [[The Story of Super Robot Lifeforms: The Transformers]] and [[Transformers Vault]]'s previous ridiculously long title.
:::::::::But I guess the general principle of "Transformers: " is acceptable to most. I'll start moving the noncontroversial pages (Western comics and cartoons with definite subtitles, etc.) if there's no opposition in the next few hours. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Is there a difference between [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|Transformers: Beast Wars: The Ascending]]? I must admit, the comma/colon distinction seems kinda arbitrary. Also, these page names seem kind of overlong and stupid, what's wrong with [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|The Ascending]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering|The Gathering]]? It's a Transformers wiki and those are Beast Wars series; prefixing everything we possibly can with "Transformers" is only going to clog up the search box and make editing just that bit more arduous. What were the arguments in favour of this again? --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 16:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::That's the formatting used in the indicia. Your complaint about the search box is silly; did you really think typing "Transformers" into it yielded anything useful 99% of the time?
:::::::::::Like it or not, "Transformers: " is the part of the name of many things, and the hoops we have to go through to maintain this silly system of dropping it from article titles has gotten ridiculous and inconsistent. Adding "Transformers: " to article titles, on the other hand, adds ''clarity'' and avoids pointless disambiguation. "The Transformers: Bumblebee" is preferable to "Bumblebee (comic)", "Transformers: Sector 7" to "Sector 7 (comic)", etc. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:44, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::I get that it's useful in some cases, but it just seems like applying the rule across the board means we're overcomplicating the issue. Occam's razor has a lot going for it, and for user-friendliness I'd go for brevity. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 17:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Also on an Occam's razor tip, "Bumblebee (comic)" conveys more information in fewer characters than "Transformers: Bumblebee". I really don't understand why the latter is preferable. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 14:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::There's something to say for either argument, but as it is, we have proven to be unable to keep to one consistent "Transformers"-as-part-of-the-title policy at least since TFA. And if trying to keep "Transformers" out of the deal doesn't work, we oughta give the alternative a chance. I don't think it necesarilly makes it harder to find anything, as the search box reacts to words even if they are not the first part of a page title. And I want to have the changes in clear perspective before I might suggest deleting a few redirects, so at least for now, searches won't be any harder and we have a consistent policy. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:49, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I gotta say, I'm hating how this is working in practice. Article titles seem long and ugly to me.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:46, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I feel the same, but it seems to be an necessary evil because "Transformers: ***" is a full title? duh. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 22:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::I fear the day someone decides to add full titles to disambiguation suffixes as well, e.g. "Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)", "Grindor (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)" etc.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 13:43, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::That would be silly, and I'm pretty sure most people would oppose it. Putting "Transformers:" in names is a change we'd already been drifting towards for a while with, for instance, the War for Cybertron articles all doing it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::On a related note, it's a pet peeve of mine when a writeup talks about a specific medium related to a franchise but links to the franchise as a whole instead, such as "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] toyline" or "in episode 6 of the [[Energon (franchise)|Energon]] cartoon...".--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Would the best solution there be something like "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] [[Cybertron (toyline)|toyline]]"? --[[Special:Contributions/77.99.176.103|77.99.176.103]] 03:32, 29 September 2011 (EDT) (oops, emvee not logged in)
::::::I think linking to the toyline page is sufficent. There's no need for an additional link to the corresponding umbrella franchise. The thought behind this is: "If Joe McRandom sees something that interests him and clicks a link, does he want the link to take him straight to the specific topic or to a more general overview?" I think link targets should always be as specific as necessary. If someone gets interested in a broader overview, he can always go one level up. After all, a link referring to G1 Optimus Prime leads to [[Optimus Prime (G1)]], not to [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)]], either. In the same fashion, toyline pages should deeplink to the specific toy entries on the respective characters' pages (or even their toy pages, if applicable). Like, if Joe McRandom is on the [[Transformers: Universe (2008 toyline)|Universe (2008 toyline)]] page, sees a "Prowl" toy listed under "Deluxe Class" and wants to read more about that toy, he wants the "Prowl" link to take him straight to [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Universe (2008)]], not to the [[Prowl (G1)|main character page]] where he then has to scroll down to "toys", see that G1 Prowl toys have their separate page, go ''there'', ''then'' scroll down to "Universe (2008)". (It currently links to [[Prowl (G1)/toys]], which is at least halfway there.) I will fix this wherever I see it, and implement it when doing writeups.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

===Suggestion to creating templates===

Do we need some kinds of templates when typing contents for convenience? For my experience in Terminator Wiki, we use templates like <nowiki>{{T3}} for ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' or {{TSCC}} for ''[[Terminator: The Sarah Connnor Chronicles]]''</nowiki>. What I'm suggesting is that after we make all franchise names into full title (and we don't use redirect links), it is some how trouble some when typing the title. So we can make some templates like:
<pre>
{{tf|Armada}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (franchise)|Transformers: Armada]]''

{{tf|Armada|toyline|Pokeformer}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Pokeformer]]''

{{jptf|bwn}} -> ''[[Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo]]''

</pre>

If there is any user who can created complex template, we could make

<pre>
{{tf|armada|t}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Transformers: Armada]]''

parameter 1:
2010 = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010 (toyline)
thm = Transformers: The Headmasters (toyline)
mf = Transformers: Super-God Masterforce (toyline)
v = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory
z = Transformers: Zone
roc = Transformers: Return of Convoy
oc = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Operation Combination
armada = Transformers Armada
bwn = Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo
mov = Movie
rotf = Revenge of the Fallen
tfa = Transformers Animated
...and (blah blah)

parameter 2:
*default* - franchise
t - toyline
ct - cartoon
co - comic
m - manga
f - film

And, if possible:
if parameter 3 = s (for example), it will become short title like ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Armada]]''

</pre>

--'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's something I've thought about as well. Considering there are a lot of exceptions to the regular naming system (parts of franchises that are called something different or franchises that lack the (franchise) identifier on the wiki because it's not necessary to disambiguate it), I don't think a template can be coded to put a link together. A full list system like our TFtoon templates have could maybe work though. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:08, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think with the number of franchises we have, it would end up being a hellishly big template and difficult to maintain for only a minor gain. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:03, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

==="Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" Transformers===
With the insertion of this phrase into the Victory page titles, should it also be inserted into the titles of The Headmasters, Super-God Masterforce, and Zone? now while the immediate answer would be "No", there are some places that do include this text above the "Toransufōmā" text in each of these series's logos. An example of this would the [[Transformers Tapestry]] (which even includes it in the Operation combination logo as well) and the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Columbia_Zone_DVD.jpg Columbia DVD of Zone]. Its inclusion in these places seems more than mere coincidence, so would we take this idea into consideration? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 14:33, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Um, that ''Zone'' DVD does not support your assertion. All of the ''actual'' media for those series (except for the Zone manga and story pages) do not include The "Fight!..." portion. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Technically the whole toyline in Japan from 1985 to 1992 was called "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" (as was written on the boxes), so at least the toyline pages for the series of those years would probably need the longer title than just "Transformers: ''X'' (toyline)" --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 16:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So you want to move the toyline pages to some made-up name? Pick one: 1) Merge all of the toyline pages to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)" 2) Leave the toyline pages as they are instead of stressing over naming things that technically don't exist. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::How is it "made up"? "Tatakae! Chō Robot Seimeitai" means "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" and is written above the "Toransufōmā" text on the packages of the 1985-1992 Japanese toys. I'm not proposing we merge all those toyline pages together, but rather something akin to the [[Transformers: Beast Wars (Japanese toyline)|Japanese Beast Wars toyline]] page, in which the individual toylines are kept separate even though they were all collectively the same-named toyline. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 17:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: The Headmasters" and its ilk are the imaginary names. Those articles for imaginary toylines are fine where they are. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==="Movie"===
There's still [[Movie (franchise)]], [[Movie (toyline)]] and more. Shouldn't that be "Transformers (2007 franchise)" and "Transformers (2007 toyline)", with the current [[Transformers (2007)]] becoming "Transformers (2007 movie)"?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Probably. I didn't move them, since I wanted to bring it up for discussion first. The film should be moved to just "Transformers (film)", though. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:"Movie (''media'')" should be moved to "Transformers (2007 ''media'')" while "Transformers (2007)" goes "Transformers (film)". --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:27, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::That push for lexical accuracy strikes me as creating more ambiguity than it resolves. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:06, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Jungaroo==
Someone made a lovely [[Jungaroo]] gobox, but there's no page for him. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 21:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think he's in any applicable fiction, but his [http://home.comcast.net/~BattleBeastSD/MGCKang.html bio card is online here]. Someone will have to translate it from Japanese first though. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:25, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Making the search suggestion work better ==

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I noticed sometimes when I type something in the search box, the search suggestions below it jump around and end up on a list which doesn't quite match what I typed. I think it's something to do with the speed I'm typing and the amount of time the server takes to respond to each request.

Anyway, I tweaked the javascript for grabbing the suggestions from the server so it would only trigger when I stopped typing. That seems to fix the problem for me, and as a bonus it's not nagging the server on every keypress. The downside is no instant feedback when I type, but I can live without that if it fixes the other thing.

If anyone else is having that problem and wants to have a go, just copy and paste the following into your [[Special:MyPage/monacobook.js|monacobook.js]] (caveat: only tested on Firefox and Chrome):
<pre><nowiki>
var ss_memory = null;
var ss_timeron = 0;
var ss_timer;

function DoActualSearch() {
ss_timeron=0;
var newdiv = document.getElementById("searchsuggest");
if (!newdiv) {
var newdiv = document.createElement("div");
newdiv.id = "searchsuggest";
var searchdiv = document.getElementById("searchBody");
searchdiv.appendChild(newdiv);
}
var x = document.getElementById("searchInput").value;
if (x == ss_memory) {
return;
}
ss_memory = x;
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'none';
if (x.length < 30 && x.length > 1 && x.value != "") {
sajax_do_call("wfAjaxSearchSuggest", [x], newdiv);
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'block';
}
}

function MySearchCall() {
if(ss_timeron) {
clearTimeout(ss_timer);
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
} else {
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
ss_timeron=1;
}
}

function myss_ajax_onload(){
var x = document.getElementById('searchInput');
x.onkeyup = function(){
MySearchCall();
};
}

hookEvent("load", myss_ajax_onload);
</nowiki></pre>
Unfortunately it won't fix the actual contents of the search suggestions, so you'll still get a bunch of All Hail Megatron issues when you type "Megatron", but that requires changes on the server. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hmm. I feel like adding <tt>ORDER BY `page_counter` DESC</tt> around line 20 of ''suggest.php'' might help w/ our search results, but it's hard to say for sure given how abstracted mediawiki database calls are, someone would have ot make the change then test it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::The thought I had was to do a query on article titles starting with the search term, and then if that gives back less than 8 entries, do a second search to fill the rest of the list with titles with the term anywhere in the title. The search suggest currently supports both options, but not at the same time. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

==Stuff==
: Firstly, our organization of information related to the junior franchises is terrible and I'd love to do something about it, but I need feedback. We currently have most Japanese and American Go-Bots as separate characters, except for the Japanese Go-Bots from the 1-2-3 line. Though there are requests for a separate Chopper page. Should those pages be split or not? And if so, what about the figures that came with some of the toys. Kid-Bot clearly isn't the "red driver" or "blue driver", but the dog and "Gas-Bot" both have fiction in only one of the two franchises, so is it worth separating them? Also, does the unpublished coloring book count as apocrypha or not, seeing as it was mostly approved? And the human characters within, do they count as cameos like Kelly in the Dreamwave comics or separate characters? And does anyone know what the Japanese name was by which the First Transformers were released? The Go-Bots fansite has an image of Dumpkun's box featuring what looks like a G1 logo, the First Transformers logo and "初めてトランスフォーマー" written on it.
: Secondly, many disambiguation pages still mention if there's a separate page for the toys of a character. Is this system still necessary now that we use subpages to separate such stuff under? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 17:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

::I think unpublished stuff is treated as apocrypha, isn't it? The character page coverage of unreleased Dreamwave issues is in notes, for instance. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:48, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::True, but we don't know if those were approved or know those weren't approved. The coloring book was approved, just not released. That makes it better comparable to Wreckers #$, which we do not consider apocrypha (though I wouldn't know if we'd do that if Wreckers #5 didn't partially canonize it). [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 11:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::Just weighing in on the toy page issue: I find it useful to have these called out on the disambig pages. Being able to go directly from the disambig page to the toy page of a character saves me at least one click (if I see the suite box in time) and often some scrolling (if I don't see it). However, I won't fight too hard on this if consensus is for the removal of this feature. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 07:47, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::Thinking some more about the Go-Bots stuff, as the Japanese version of Gas-Bot has no fiction, it probably doesn't need its own page - either link to Gas-Bot's page or just leave it unlinked in the appropriate toy sections. Same with the US version of the dog. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:30, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Facebook. ==

Is '''<nowiki>http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFwikinet/191252494230187</nowiki>''' us? Because it's the #1 link when you search for "TFWiki Facebook," and our group is nowhere to be seen. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

:I think our group is not showing up because you have to have a Facebook account to see it? When I go to the group's URL, I just get a page prompting me to log in to Facebook. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:47, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

::The link is this one: [http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/ http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/], which is the #3 on the search by "TFwiki site:facebook.com" on Google. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 19:51, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So the other one isn't ours, and we can't put a link on it pointing it to the group.
:::Annoying. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It's a "Community page", whatever that is. Clicking on the "Create a page" button on the top right of that page does bring up some sort of form which seems like it will do something. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:12, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Halloween ==

Presuming we're deco'ing our frontpage for Halloween... does anyone have any suggestions? Monsters, ghosts, gouls? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:Animated Blitzwing's random face looks sorta Jack O'Lanterny and could work as a replacement for the Autobot insignia on the site logo, assuming we can find a head-on image of it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:35, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

== Moving "(Timelines)" articles ==

I'm thinking that, as we don't bother with "(Timelines)" for SG, TransTech, and Animated characters, we should apply the same across the board and only use it if necessary.

*[[Astrotrain (Timelines)]] → Astrotrain (Cybertron)
*[[Cannonball (Timelines)]] → Cannonball (G1)
*[[Cop-Tur (Timelines)]] → Cop-Tur (G1)
*[[Halogen (Timelines)]] → Halogen (G1)
*[[Side Burn (Timelines)]] → Side Burn (G1)
*[[Sky-Byte (Timelines)]] → Sky-Byte (G2)
*[[Switchblade (Timelines)]] → Switchblade (BW)
*[[Thunderblast (Timelines)]] → Thunderblast (G1)
*[[Yoketron (Timelines)]] → Yoketron (G1)

The exceptions are the Descent into Evil characters, who don't really fit in any pre-existing franchise, and the Nexus Prime characters, who don't originate from a particular universe.
*[[Buzzclaw (Timelines)]]
*[[Dirge (Timelines)]]
*[[Flareup (Timelines)]]
*[[Landquake (Timelines)]]
*[[Ricochet (Timelines)]]
*[[Heatwave (Timelines)]]

Thoughts? Or does nobody really care that much? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 10:19, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:Since you asked, I'll pitch 2¢ into the conversation, since I know a little bit about it. I found out the hard way that wiki "doesn't bother with '(Timelines)' for Animated." And by hard way, I mean I was clobbered over the head without a hint of explanation for proposing that a Timelines-original Animated continuity character should be at "(Timelines)." But no hard feelings. I still think "franchise of origin" and not "continuity of origin" is best for disambiguations. For reasons that have been discussed previously on the subject. TransTech and SG are treated as a kind of sub-franchises of Timelines by the wiki, so I think they are an OK exception. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::The prose stories are identified as "Transformers Timelines presents a Transformers: (franchise) story". I would say that both franchises are equally valid to the stories, and the fact that non-Timelines stories (Around Cybertron, magazine comics, etc.) bleed together with Timelines stories makes the "(Timelines)" designation convoluted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, that's different. It sounds like you are calling their actual franchise of origin into question, not just their disambiguation. I don't have an opinion about their actual franchise of origin. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying that they're Timelines, but saying that they're better categorized under their other franchise. Like the Animated guys, it seems more instinctive to file [[Side Burn (Timelines)]] under "Side Burn (G1)" instead (not to mention that there's other Side Burn in Timelines: [[Side Burn (SG)]]).[[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:38, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
I'm hesitating, but let me think about the ramifications. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'd be fine with this. Though, one thing I'd like to propose is giving the Wings Universe characters their own disambiguation suffix. Like maybe "(Wings)" or something. I know it's a part of G1, but it's kinda like its own series within the over G1 continuity family like the Japanese G1 series are (which are also given their own suffixes such as "(Victory)", "(ROC)", "(BT)" etc.).

:Though, as for the Descent into Evil characters, maybe something like "(DIE)" or "(Descent)" or even just "(Descent into Evil)". Or, if not, keep them at "(Timelines)". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 11:51, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think the DIE guys are fine where they are (although you could argue moving [[Ricochet (Timelines)]] because of [[Ricochet (SG)]], but I don't really care). As for the Wings Universe guys getting their own disambiguation, eh... [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I am '''definitely absolutely''' against creating a (Wings) disambiguation when (G1) or (Timelines) work perfectly fine. We do NOT disambiguate by continuity except by absolute necessity within a franchise. Making up a (Wings) parenthetical just because incredibly confuses our disambiguation policy for no real reason. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::And what exactly keeps the Descent into Evil guys from being tagged G1? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Is the intermezzo period between G1 and BW considered G1 or BW?

:::It's all G1 characters... and IIRC the Insecticons were supposed ot be part of Insecticon plans which had been around for ages, so the characters weren't "BW-era only" characters...

:::I could support a G1 disambigif you talked me into it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:01, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::DIE fiction (Descent into Evil itself and [[Intimidation Game]]) has elements of both BW and G1; it doesn't have a certain franchise placement. Dirge (Timelines) and Ricochet (Timelines) also have namesakes firmly in G1. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:14, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::::BW is both BW and G1. And G1 has been back-incorporating BW elements since, like, 1995. The fact DIE has G1 and BW doesn't mean it's part of neither. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think that, by the nature of Timelines, it feels more natural to parse that specific set of characters by their continuity or parent-franchise of origin. Honestly, I think the Nexus components (''all'' of them) are really the best and only candidates for the Timelines parser.

::Also, I made a [http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Template:c quick template] that you guys could use here to simplify the coding for whenever you need to link a continuity-parsed name.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:37, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately I don't think that template would work as well here, because our articles are not consistently named by franchise. For instance [[Lightspeed (G1 Technobot)]], [[Flattop (Autobot)]] and [[Impactor]] are all (G1) characters but don't use (G1) in their title, so the template wouldn't work for linking to them. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I think that Timelines is a pretty clunky franchise for the purposes of this wiki, in that it covers multiple continuities. I think the proposal on the table makes sense.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Two spaces after a period in a sentence ==

I've noticed this for a while on the Wiki. In practice, it makes no difference as the software displays one space the same way it displays one. However, I've been wondering why people do it. Now I '''know: They''' were taught so in school. '''By teachers who were taught on friggin' ''typewriters''.''' So the "two spaces after a period" rule is a leftover from the typewriter days, where it was a necessity, but it's completely obsolete on computers. [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html Source]--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:The sentence spacing rules were, in fact, developed by typographers, but were not phased out via the magical introduction of the personal computer. The em-space rule exists for monospaced fonts, which were still fairly common for a great number of printers through the mid-1980s. If you would like to begin a tyrannical series of grammar-based wiki edits, I would begin by avoiding the use of prepositions at the start of sentences. I would also advise some respect for the proper use of colons and semi-colons, as typographical errors should not take priority over proper word selection and punctuation. Cheers! --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 14:20, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Are you referring to sentences beginning with prepositional phrases for the sake of emphasis (also known as an introductory modifiers)? That's totally valid. Or do you mean idiocies such as relative clauses that are separated from the preceding main clause by a period instead of a comma? The most glaring typographic blunders I encounter on the wiki typically go hand in hand with awkwardly worded sentences and clunky terminology, so I'm inclined to assume the same person(s) is/are responsible for all of those.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::I have bolded an example. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Aw, you altered your post. No fair! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:16, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::What'd I alter? I just moved it up. Anyway... I'd call that one "deliberate departure from proper grammar for the sake of dramatic emphasis". It's about as improper as using a period after ''every. Single. Word.'' If it's obvious from the context that it's done for emphasis, I'd call it acceptable as long as it's not used inflationary. I'm sure we have a few cases of "We know it's not proper grammar, but we want to stress a point here" on the wiki. (How did the saying go again? "Know the rules first before you break them"?)--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:28, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:....or you can just set the bot to convert " " to " ". Since we don't output monospace font, or anything.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Over the whole wiki, those extra spaces account for maybe 20kb of data, which I don't think is worth worrying about. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Typed text is typed text, and the double-space after a period is still correct. Shall we next be told that we're "wrong" for not having the wiki use the metric system, or for writing down dates with the month before the day instead of after it? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, and I bolded something too. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Due to habit, I'm gonna double-space until I die. I really don't think that needs to be considered a problem. Is that really a problem? An extra millimeter between sentences? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Nevermore ''is'' right about it being mostly obsolete, but for purely technical reasons: All double (triple, etc.) spaces are collapsed down to one for display in HTML. If you want the extra spaces to actually be viewable as extra blank space, you have to use <tt>&</tt><tt></tt><tt>nbsp;</tt>. So if you double-space here on the wiki, it only shows up when you edit the page. For whatever that's worth. (Not really taking sides, just presenting the info.) --[[Special:Contributions/67.252.49.31|67.252.49.31]] 06:08, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== More on the search box/"Transformers" everything ==

Typing "Energon" into the search box does not give me [[Energon (franchise)]], [[Energon (cartoon)]] or [[Energon (toyline)]] as top results. Same for "Cybertron". I assume this has to do with the recent "Transformers" prefixing for article titles. However, typing "Animated" into the seach box ''does'' give me franchise and toyline as top results, so it should be ''possible'' despite the prefixing.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:It's purely alphabetical, dude. ''Animated'' shows up before ''Arcee (Animated)'' because "An" precedes "Ar", whereas ''Arcee (Energon)'' comes up before ''Energon'' because "A" precedes "E". --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:13, 6 November 2011 (EST)
::There's an option in the search suggest tool to limit the results to stuff starting with the search query rather than with stuff with the term anywhere in their titles, however it's not something that can be configured through MediaWiki. There's a bit of discussion about it in the "Making the search suggestion work better" section up above. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:::If we wanted to do ''that'', when we shouldn't have prefixed "Transformers:" before hundreds of articles 3 weeks ago. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:06, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::We still have the titles without "Transformers: " as redirects though, so they'll still show up. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:23, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== Spam-dalism ==

Is that the neologism for it? Anyway, somehow the ReCaptcha is failing to stop the automated spam, and I'm guessing the IP's are all very different.

How old are the accounts when they do this? If they're fairly new, would it be possible to simply block IPs and new accounts from inserting new external links? If not (or if that's unworkable), would it be possible to flag such edits for review the way that wikipedia does to edits on contested pages?

Also, is there any chance these are at least coming from the same proxy? The fact that they're getting past ReCaptcha makes it seem like these are actual people doing this, unless ReCaptcha only activates on certain namespaces.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 14:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:I was using captcha with images on my phpBB installation on another site (Doctor Who related) until yesterday and getting a half dozen spammers a day signing up in despite of it. Yesterday I switched to a Question Answer challenge which asks the person registering to name the main character's time machine, and so far it has stopped the spammers dead.
:MediaWiki has [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha] which looks like it works in exactly the same way, and works with the ConfirmEdit extension we already have installed. If we can get that installed and set up, it might be more effective than the image-based system we use now. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::What would the questions be? It can't be too obvious or too obscure. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:31, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:::Not necessarily. The question I'm using on my Doctor Who site is obvious if you have any knowledge at all of the source material, but it seems to be working. We can always start with something easy and see how we go. Most likely all of the spammers are using bots anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::"What is the name of the red-and-blue semi Autobot?", "What's the name of the blue casette player Decepticon?", or "What is the name of the yellow semi Micromaster Autobot with a hydraulic crane?"[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 17:50, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::: "What is the fandom's usual reaction when a new franchise is announced?" :p [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:56, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::::<tt>If Dick has two apples and Jane has two apples, how many apples do they have? (3 letters.)</tt> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:09, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::Ah, but then it would be so easy for users to use only three exclamation marks, and forget the requisite four exclamation marks and a 1.
::No but yeah, a question helps a lot. Might even be worth doing for all IP edits and new accounts, not just those with external links.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:57, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::While we're on the subject, is it somehow possible to flag certain terms or words used by IP editors and auto-block them? *coughcoughobamacoughcough*[[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 16:31, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::...but we have an article on [[Barry Obama]].
:::Are you trying to whitewash the wiki? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:13, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::: It was just an academic question; after all, I'm sure that you've noticed our considerable problem with a certain IP editor lately. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:19, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::: Well yes... but I couldn't resist. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:43, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a temp ban on the whole ISP might get better results. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:51, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::sooo...who would you need to talk to about getting this set up, and what exactly do you want to restrict?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 19:45, 21 November 2011 (EST)
:::::The guy whose IP addresses are always located in England who keeps vandalizing articles with Obama-related nonsense. Doesn't look like even banning IP ranges stops him. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 11:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::...so, there's no way to stop this lunatic? [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 11:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:Options, in order of severity:
#Block all new uses of the word "Obama" to all anonymous editors.
#Block anonymous editors entirely.
#Destroy England.
:But really, that's a separate issue with probably a separate solution, since the guy is a some kind of being. To deal with the spamdalism, I think you guys should add a "name that Transformer-mon!" question, which should cut down heavily on automated edits, and if they still get through, look at blocking all uses of external links for anonymous or new editors. The use of the question for all IP edits is fairly standard, so it should be easy to implement, and you can look into harsher measures if the bots still make it through. However, I really think you guys should make an effort to get this setup, because the conversation keeps kind of drifting down and the vandalism keeps happening.[[Special:Contributions/98.223.102.157|98.223.102.157]] 02:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:: On another note... isn't it cute how he keps trying to badly pass himself off as me? I think someone has a bad case of hero-worship. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 10:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Please stop egging on vandals. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::: OK, on a more serious note, is anyone averse to just locking the wiki for a few days? Bulbapedia does it regularily and they don't have much of a vandalism problem. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 12:36, 23 November 2011 (EST)
Removing the "Undo" option for anons would help, at the very least. We need a regular tech person (or give abates access to the MediaWiki stuff, since he seems to know his way around). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:12, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::: What if we implemented a captcha system for anon edits? I mean, it wouldn't ''stop'' them, per se, but it would make persistent vandalism wars a hassle. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:16, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would not be opposed to that, or simple stock questions. ("Who is the leader of the Autobots?", "What is two plus three?", etc.) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:23, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:::: Rodimus Prime? :p
::::: But seriously, how did Mr. Obama Guy get past the rangeblock? Because that's rather worrysome in and of itself. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::::BT Internet has a lot of IP ranges. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:58, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Okay. Listen.<br>
1) CAPTCHA won't change crap. It ''might'' stop a small number of bot edits, but we have a large, active mod presence that basically polices this place around the clock, and any of those crappy ad pages can be eliminated in mere minutes, if not within seconds of their creation.<br>
2) There is basically '''''NOTHING''''' that can be done to ''stop'' someone who has decided that the best use of their time is constant, repeated, easily-reverted vandalism of a wiki. Well, okay there are a few options, but they're not ones any kind of wiki coding is gonna be part of. They'll find ways around bans, and all these automated things that are being suggested are basically shooting blind and wasting time. This is not remotely the first time someone has thought to do this. It won't be the last. But we've outlasted all those others. And that's all it takes. Again... that large active 24-hour admin presence that quickly and coolly reverts the vandalism ''without getting all butthurt''. That's what vandals want, to watch you get pissy and panicky and angry... ''and that's what you're giving them.'' So '''''shut up''''' and stop feeding that, then they'll eventually get bored and leave.<br>
3) I can perhaps get behind removing the "Undo" option for anons. I don't think though that it will really help much, since making an account takes what, a few seconds?<br>
--[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:38, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:Um. I don't want to offend anyone, but the Obama-guy thing ''really'' isn't related to this topic, although some of the solutions to the spamdalism thing might work to hinder him. The bigger issue is the guys spamming the wiki with links to knockoff viagra, sort of thing, and putting up a simple question system for anons and new editors would work to stop that almost completely, at least everywhere I've seen it in use.
:The mod presence, yeah, things eventually get cleaned up by the end of the day, but a simple, standard change like adding the question will prevent that from happening in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/99.39.88.159|99.39.88.159]] 22:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)
:Just to alleviate any concerns: In my experience, the question captcha does not prevent human edits except from the most severely uninformed editors, and it completely prevents the bot-spam, which at this point almost totally covers the RC when I happen to check it. Many other independent wikis, such as Halopedian, use the question captcha, so if you guys wanted a first-person POV on it, you could also ask them for their experiences. Basically, the captcha question should totally eliminate the bot-spam, with the only drawback being that it adds maybe a fraction of a second to anonymous human edits. So, given that, does anyone have any objections to adding the captcha question?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)--(same anon as throughout this topic)

== Spelling throughout the Wiki ==

I've found that, on multiple spots on the Wiki, there are UK English spellings of words. Now, I know that the Transformers Wiki is a country-spanning project, but I'd like a consensus on whether or not we should change incidences of UK spellings (like "practise" and "polarize") to their American English counterparts. A streamlined flow using only one dialect would, I believe, make the editing process much easier. However, I do not want a backlash from UK users. <br>
P.S.: Damn you, Webster! You and your new-world dictionary! [[User:TheMZone|TheMZone]] 18:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:[[Help:Style guide#National varieties of English|Here is the wiki's policy on the subject]] just so you know. I myself don't think it needs changing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

== Why are the IDW books in G1? ==

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.) {{unsigned|158.103.0.1}}
:Uggghhhhhh. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:Yeahhh, you not understanding the concept of Continuity Families particularly well.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 16:30, 1 December 2011 (EST)

::Other continuities within the G1 continuity family also eschew some of those classic aspects. In [[Action Blast 1]], for instance, the Autobots crash on present-day Earth and they don't hang around in stasis for millions of years. I don't think there's really a template of specific events that a G1 continuity has to stick to. That would hamper storytelling too much. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

:::Also, they share a lot of the same characters, body designs, and personalities. Granted, some of them are common across the multiverse, but things like Megatron becoming a gun and Optimus Prime as a flatnosed tractor-trailer are distinctly G1-ish. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:29, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::FYI: [[Talk:IDW Generation 1 continuity#New evidence that IDW is not G1|Previous discussion here]]. Yes, on the one hand, it is G1 because it uses the G1 cast of characters for the most part, and most of those pretty much have the same personality as their G1 bio card as on their G1 counterparts (with the significant exception of their gimmicks). On the other hand, [http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=143991#143991 an artist] has said it is not G1, so it isn't entirely crazy to say it isn't G1. The universe itself doesn't seem particularly G1. It is like a different universe populated with G1 guys. The Micromasters aren't Cybertronain (I think), so a whole class of G1 Transformers aren't Transformers which sounds like a different universe. In short, it mostly makes sense for the wiki to organize it under G1 so they don't have to duplicate character pages with characters with mostly the same intro paragraph. But don't take it too seriously, it isn't official or anything. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:54, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::: No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I mean is that there seems to be no CANON justification for why IDW is considered G1. Especially because it lacks the links of similar G1 works, it’s never been verified as such by the creators (as far as I know) and it’s “G1-ness” is tentative at best.

:::::IDW really doesn’t have as strong a link as or other G1 families. They all either were marketed as direct extensions to the original 80s ‘Toon and Comic adaptations (Gen 2 and Dreamwave ) established “next gen” sequels (Beast Era) Inserts into Gen 1 (Alternators and much of Japan’s stuff) Or add ons to particular points of the G1 timeline (Classics, Dreamwave) hell Timelines might count as a little bit of all of these. IDW really has no direct link.

:::::That leaves us to the creators, and when it’s referred as such by them they use the term "reboot” or the like. Hell Simon Furman, architect of a large section of G1, straight up called it an ‘Ultimate’ version in his CBR interview. And Don Fig doesn’t consider it G1 at all.

:::::Even then we look at why we call it G1 it causes all kinds of fallacies. Relying ion art style to tell families (as said in our very own article) leads to insanity, as characters change appearances across media ostensibly in eths same family all the time (for example WFC and Prime) likewise the “G1" aspects, such as personality, and looks, have been used both in the Transformers Film and Animated families, and yet we don’t consider them G1 despite both being just about the same kind of reboot on it IDW is. They incorporate a version of the Beast Ear into their timeline but assuming a connection with their main IDW addition, it’s just as differing as Aligned or Animated version of the Beast era would be.

:::::I’m not trying to rock the boat I se4riously would just like to know if there’s any official, canon, or Hasbro/Creator data that states IDW as a version of G1, because right now I’m not seeing it.

:::::Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be seen as the "young turk" coming into old pros territory and rocking the boat against guys who have been studying this since before I was born, but I just picked up a bunch of Simon Furman stuff from [[http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Marvelcomicscontinuity.jpg The old comics]] as well as the big two volume IDW packs and they just don't fit at all. They're as different from G1 as the Films, Animated or RID are. I don't think we should makes assumptions and leaps of logic just for convenience's sake, kind belies the purpose of a wiki, ya know?
::::::This is a ridiculous amount of navel-gazing to get past the point that IDW continuity is just G1 in new dressing and not a new franchise of its own. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::By that terminology ALL of Transformers media is Just "g1 in a new dressing" by the virtue of G1 starting the franchise.
::::::::That is not what I mean by "franchise". Please don't be obtuse. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 02:05, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::Considering new Generation 1 toys keep being made in the style of IDW design, that that firmly cements the stuff as being G1 in Hasbro's eyes. And the fact that they are constantly using Generation 1-style character aesthetics, personalizations and the freaking '''original font''' on the titles. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::The wiki's more confident about calling it G1 than even Hasbro, which calls the toys "Generations." Wiki organization is one thing, but we act more like it is a fact than it actually is. "Generation 1" doesn't really exist anymore. Hasbro is a little ashamed of it. Or at least doesn't want to pigeon-hole their toys and comics as being old-school. The [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] page as a "Generation 1" logo on top. That doesn't really reflect reality which is more hazy. Maybe "Generations" is the new "Generation 1" or something. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::To use your Simon Furman point against you, saying that IDW is not G1 is kind of like saying that Ultimate Marvel is not part of the Marvel Multiverse. It may be fairly different, but it is undeniably the same basic characters and situations. Also, I never have figured out why anyone really cares what the creative teams think, anything they say can be overruled by Hasbro at any time. Even after it has been published. Only Hasbro's opinion really matters.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:07, 2 December 2011 (EST)
Discussed ad nauseum years ago. Nothing new has been added to the conversation since. Not changing. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 05:13, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Aesthetics have already been disavowed as a valid ground for Continuity Pedigree, most notably with the Aligned Family. if Hasbro itself hasn’t recognized it as G1, hasn’t directly tied it to a previous G1 work, and if the writers and artists themselves don’t consider it G1, how is it legitimate to denote it as G1 based on our interpretation. Especially given such ethereal "evidence" as the looks of toys and ''fonts'' of all things.

:::::::::Hasbro has yet to give any word. And also the Marvel analogy wont work, because while Marvel has but ONE Multiverse composed of several individual universes. The TF Multiverse is a collection of Universal Streams, each roughly following the same vents with several different interpretations over key events. It's like comparing diffirent versions of the Bible as rather than like comparing the Bible against the Koran.

:::::::::M Sipher, would you do an FYI link? I've seen the discussion over on IDW Continuity’s Main page and the quibbles on the main Continuity Family but never any hard decree from an authority based on reasoning any more firm than convenience. I'm simply trying to hold IDW to the standards of the other G1 works on the wiki, all of which have '''in-canon''' links to versions of G1, or else are stated as such by the Companies.

:99% of all IDW characters are G1 characters, based on their original G1 counterparts. The different origins of some characters (Arcee) are no different than varying origins between the original cartoon and Marvel Comics (Grimlock, Technobots). Compared to the Aurex universes, where only Optimus, Megatron and Starscream consistently fit the G1 character archetypes, whereas most other characters are clearly just name reuses (Red Alert, Cyclonus, Jetfire, etc). Even Malgus and Tyran, both clearly closer to the G1 continuity than Aurex, have clearly distinctive character differences. IDW Bumblebee is clearly a variation on the original G1 Bumblebee, whereas Movie 'Bee and Animated Bumblebee are approximate extrapolations, see also Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, and so on.
:IDW is a G1 universe that has expanded beyond the original G1 concepts, but not the characters themselves. Trying something new is not the same as abandoning the underlying foundation. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 11:47, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:I'm sure there are other examples, but Prowl, Sunstreaker, and Sideswipe have appeared in their Universe Classics series bodies while Starscream, Thundercracker and Skywarp have appeared in their Masterpiece bodies. All of those are undoubted G1 toys. Either IDW is G1 or those toys are being repurposed. All things considered it seems most parsimonious to classify IDW as a part of G1. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::Masterpiece is a franchise. Classics series is G1<sup>continuity family</sup> but it isn't G1<sup>franchise</sup>. Unfortunately, "G1" can mean different things. Just so everyone is on the same page, the wiki treats IDW as being part of the G1 ''[[franchise]]''. For example, on the [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] it has the G1 franchise logo. Is that what this discussion is about, or is the discussion about if IDW is part of the G1 continuity family? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 12:28, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::The original poster said continuity family. I do consider IDW a different franchise within the G1 continuity family. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:39, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, OK. Anyone else? Show of hands? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 14:04, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::But does the use of Character analogous to G1 interpretations define it as a G1 series? This really comes don to whether we define continuity families as being overlays of roughly similar events (as in Tvtropes Broad Strokes) or whether we are tying versions of characters as the archetype from which it is based. If you're taking side new altmodes and differences like Goldbug and Galvatron is being "based" on G1 to a degree enough to allot status within the family? At that point we might as well make a spectrum of "G1-ness" and start arbitrarily cutting everything. As it stands now our definitions of Families are based off there uniqueness of story and universe content, and IDW differs significantly from any other G1 work.
:::So does ''Hearts of Steel''. Shall we consider that a separate family as well? - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 13:11, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::As the line of books it was from was cancled de jure that cnat really be elaborated on. (Although it's G1 staus was controversial to start with, it being the TF equivilant to a What if or Elseworlds) But HoS was never devolved as an obstensive reboot, rather an Alt-universe portyal that gets put in G1 by the same stroke as the Sg-verse. (if we diidnt have it's Universal Stream number to go by). IDW on the contrary was billed as a reboot, the same way aligned is being done now. Couple that with the radical (and debatedly unparalleled ) story alterations and you have apples and oranges. Though really teh entire "G1 by default" mindset is pretty off-putting. Heck it might even work as a really big Mirco-Contunity. Pardoxial as that sounds.
:::I was under the impression that the character archetypes were a major part of what makes a continuity family. These problems really only arise with G1 because it is the only family that has had multiple continuations and reboots and additions for decades after its debut. The RID, Unicron Trilogy and Animated continuity families have been pretty well limited to their original period of release (not ''entirely'' so but with only a few minor exceptions). --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 18:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::I think this is really down to the fact that Continuity & Franchises is just too darn confusing. Not to mention that there can be disparate continuities within a franchise and different franchises can make up a continuity, all of which fit into the over-arching Continuity Family. Obviously there must be enough in common in order to include any new franchise into an existing Family, or to take the leap and create a new Continuity Family. Does new media have to have enough in common with the progenitor of a Continuity Family to be included? Or merely use aspects of the varying franchises of said Continuity Family? With G1 ''all'' of the supporting media has strayed from the originating cartoon, but kept enough characterizations, and broad timelines within the Family. RID, Animated, Aligned, etc have all maintained aspects of 'Transformers' but been significantly different from each other to establish there places as individual Continuity Families. Whereas IDW is disparate from these Families, and other than story lines (which have to change be definition) most closely fits G1. In order to argue IDW being a new Continuity Family you would have to prove that it is different enough from other existing Continuity Families & G1, which doesn't fit given the IDW timeline, characters and mythology, it is all based off of G1 franchises.[[User:Yuppie|Yuppie]] 19:04, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::::I just want to point out that the G1 cartoon ISN'T the "originating" source. That would be the TOYS. And the comic work came before the cartoon. So... yeah. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 19:15, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::That's right. Transformers is different than other fiction on TVTropes because the toys are the originating source and not storylines. Therefore the characters derived from the toys are the important thing. Even in things you would think so, like movies. If they came up with completely different fiction with the movie toylines cast, it would be the live action movie continuity family. So I think IDW is pretty clearly G1<sup>continuity family</sup>. What else but G1 would include Roller and the Combat Deck? Nothing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 00:04, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::::::: So the official definition is based off of the toylines? Okay, fine by me. I guess I'll edit that line somewhere on the main Family page. Would you also mind linking me to the IDW toyline page? Google brings up zippo.
::::::::Yes, yes, you're very clever and funny, ha ha. I'm so glad you're here to bring fresh new things to the table. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 05:09, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::: Is sarcasm warranted? I'm not here to pick fun, and I've been respectful, so why cant you do the same?
:::::::::IDW doesn't have a toyline. IDW is a derivative work based on the original G1 toyline, just like the Sunbow cartoon and the Marvel Comic. IDW is not in the same continuity as the cartoon or Marvel, but it is in the same Continuity Family -- perhaps that's causing some of the confusion here. When we say IDW is G1, that's like saying that Ultimate Marvel is part of the Marvel Multiverse, and NOT the DC Multiverse. IDW is part of the Generation 1 Continuity Family because the characters and concepts (NOT the STORIES, mind you, but the underlying CONCEPTS) come from the G1 background and toyline, instead of from the Unicron Trilogy, Movie, or Animated background and toylines.
:::::::::Nod if you understand now, oh Nameless One. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 18:18, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Okay then, but then why is something like "Wings" considered G1, when it's primary characters and concepts (The Elite Guard and Sentinel and Magnum/Magnus) draw from Animated? It's made as an insert into a form of G1, but I'm actually starting o question which takes precedence story or characters. From what I've read and from the list of G1 I've seen, they all cover a very similar story with detail changes (Unicron Trilogy covering the Mini-con Hunt, the Energon Wars and Cyber Key Search, The Film's Allspark history.) I'm saying that if ''those'' works can base themselves off a G1 characters concepts and ideas (again, drawing from the Tyran and Malgus Streams here) than why is IDW different? It can be argued that the Film and Animated storylines are just as different from G1 as IDW's is, and there charters are all clearly drawn from G1, in the absence of any official la word from Hasbro and knowing we have creators describing it as a reboot (similar terms being used for Animated and RID) why is it that they are considered separate. Is it ''because'' they have a toyline separate from the main G1 lines? Is it because of the fact that versions of them cover a wider dearth of material? Our article defines Continuity Families as "a group of distinct but closely-related individual continuities." We also set up a three step process for determining new continuities, noting that they should be “a) a fresh continuity, b) within a separate franchise, and c) significantly different in cast, theme, style, etc." IDW tests positive for a, is inconclusive for b (given its lack of a toyline) and due to the nature of c, is highly debatable. If we look at past examples continuities follow the same general structure and theme, even various permutations son the setting. Taking the origin 1984 Toyline/Cartoon/comic trifecta, we can see Dreamwave and the Beats Era serving as Sequels (leaving the original era to a vague "Camelot" level of detail as shown by the creators) while Kiss Players and Gen 2 expanded versions of the continuity. While there were inconsistences (dinobot origin, differing dates for the reformatting) they all followed roughly the same events, or modifications of those events from a central thesis (Wings, use of the Elite Guard, Heart of Steel’s age change or the Mirrorverse aspect of Shattered Glass. Not only does the IDW timeline differ from the G1 timelines enough to put it in the same breath as other confirmed continuity families. IDW's position can be seen as being akin to the initial RID reboot, while it obviously used G1 characters the (there being no others to use at the time) the storyline and aspects were utterly different (before Takara's retcon) a good way to do so would be to compare Megatron with the RID Megatron and the IDW Galvatron. Both are totally different characters, while the Tfwiki approach seems to be that they are effectively different iterations of the "same character." The Unicron Trilogy gets a shift because of the absence of Mini-cons, Energon Wars, and the different concepts of the Quintessons and Scorponok. The Animatedverse shows an entirely different Cybetronian social Order (which IDW also accomplishes, withe there casting of the war, the Tyrest accords, Megatron's origins, the "Protocols" etc.) If we were to create an ostensibly accurate definition of continuity families on a rubric of "distance" from each other, than it would not be that hard of a stretch to determine that we have an inherent fallacy between hat we let in and out of G1, as Franchises with equal relationship to G1 get casted in differing families. if the rubric lies within a different maxim (having separate toylines, character portrayals) than not only would we need to rewrite our definition of what constitutes a family, but we would also have to undergo a mass reassessment of the family set up as a whole. Currently the strongest (and only) reason for them being in G1 is that they look and act like there other G1 counterparts, which I, and others, find isn't valid enough grounds in the wake of all the other evidence. Otherwise, WFC would be G1.

==Beast Wars Neo Sausage is gone!==
The page was deleted for some reason. It was marked as vandalism, but as I'm sure some of you know it actually existed. -- [[User:Terrortron|Terrortron]] 22:47, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:As far as I know it didn't. Are you sure you're not thinking of [[Beast Wars II Sausage]]? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:13, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::Do you mean the page or the product? I'm not sure the page existed, but the product itself most certainly did: [http://movies.tfarchive.com/movies/Commercials/Japanese/bwneo3.mpg TV commercial for Beast Wars Neo Sausages] --[[User:Tigerpaw28|Tigerpaw28]] 00:55, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::We've never had a BWN Sausage page, no. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:16, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::::We had it briefly in January but it was just a vandal making [[Beast Wars Neo Sausage|a crappy page]]. Feel free to create it again if you have the info. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 01:26, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::Man, that advert makes it look like the most awesome thing ever. If I knew Japanese I would already be making a page for it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 19:33, 3 December 2011 (EST)

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-03T22:30:43Z

158.103.0.1:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Aligned Timeline ==

I'm going to try and take a stab at creating an Aligned timeline that unites everything we know about the franchise(s) so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Help Wanted ==

Hello one and all. I'm here representing a newly created Role-Playing forum that is based in the Transformers Universe. We're in the early stages yet, and are looking for people to help get the ball rolling. Since this site seems to lack a dedicated forum (where requests like these would usually be made) and I haven't seen any other way to effectively say my piece in front of a large audience, I thought that posting here was the best way to "advertise" us, as it were. I sincerely apologize if this was the wrong move on our part, or if I've breached protocol at all, but I can assure everyone that our intentions aren't malign. Those interested, please contact me using any of the ways that I have listed on my username page here on this site. I won't tempt fate by linking our website here directly =P

Once again, you all have my sincere greetings, and I hope to hear from you soon. Also, as a side note: the difference in quality between this page and the transformers wikia is amazing. [[User:Rathian Warrior|Rathian Warrior]] 23:50, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if you've crossed any lines, and frankly, you were polite enough about it that it's not a big deal, but you could always buy some ad space if you want to raise awareness of your forum. It's cheap! There's usually a link on every page around the banners, but if you didn't catch it, you can follow this link: [https://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=25311&type=4 Project Wonderful TFWiki Page]--[[User:McFly|McFly]] 16:13, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== "Fictional" and "real" categories ==
I think we need to come up with a consistent way to distinguish categories of things that are real and categories of things that have appeared in fiction. So far, we've skimmed the issue by using synonyms, such as [[:Category:Companies|companies]] and [[:Category:Businesses|businesses]], but that doesn't really work for things like [[:Category:Magazines|magazines]], which is already used for real magazines. Currently, we have [[:Category:Fictional books]], [[:Category:Fictional video games]] that consider the fictional entities "different". On the other hand, we have [[:Category:Real-world events by day]] and [[:Category:Real world films]]. We focus more on the fictional aspect of Transformers, so it makes sense to not point out the fictionality in categories, but "real world" sounds awkward to some. Which one should we use? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:26, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I thought I'd cheat and see how some of the other fictional Wikis deal with the problem. Three different approaches I saw:
:*[http://tardis.wikia.com/ Doctor Who wiki] has a [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Real_world "Real World" category] for real world stuff and in most cases the categories for real world things are at "Real world X".
:*[http://wookiepedia.org/ Wookiepedia] goes the parenthetical route, with "Books" and "Books (real-world)". Though they also have one or two like "Real world companies".
:*[http://stargate.wikia.com/ Stargate wiki] has "Books" versus "Stargate books" for real world books.
:I kinda like the parenthetical approach that Wookiepedia have taken. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'd favor pointing out the status of both categories, just to make absolutely clear what they are for. The words can be "Fictional" and "Real-world" (I notice both real-world categories use a different spelling. Whichever it's gonna be (if), only one spelling should be used). "Nonfictional" kinda works as an alternative, would "Real-world" be disliked. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:35, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::If we go that route, I think "real-world" should be used, since "real world" is a lot more easier to fix than the other parsing. I like the Wookiepedia approach, but I'm not sure that's enough to change how we already do categories. The idea to label both categories sounds nice, but "Fictional X" seems incongruous with unlabeled categories, such as "weapons", "technology", etc.; considering that our main focus is the fiction, I'm leaning towards only labeling the real stuff. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I think it would be advantageous to put a {{tl|disambig2}} at the top, so people could easily go from the fictional to the real world category too. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:30, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yeah, I think I put that on [[:Category:Films]] a while ago. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:57, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Speaking of this, I found we handle [[:Category:Films]] like [[:Category:Real people]], wouldn't this be some, um, confusing? It's just, somehow, reverse? (Except for the fictional films like ''Honoji'') According to the logic of how we handle [[:Category:Real people]], shouldn't we place films like ''40-Year-Old Virgin'' or ''Godzilla'' in the [[:Category:Real world films]]? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Godzilla doesn't go in "Real world films" because it's not a real world ''Transformers'' film. The Transformers is implied in that category name. Presumably we could have a "Real films" category for Godzilla, etc, but I'm not sure it's worth doing. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:53, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::We shouldn't use "fictional X" for two reasons. One, there things like [[As the Kitchen Sinks]] that are fictional even within the fictional Transformers universe. Second, the wiki is written in-universe by default and putting [[Big Steve's Used Cars]] in a "fictional businesses" category would kind of break that. Within Transformers fiction, "Big Steve's Used Cars" is not a fictional company, but "As the Kitchen Sinks" is a fictional TV show. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:47, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is not a fictional show. It depicts fictional events and fictional people, yes, but the show itself, as a piece of entertainment, is not fictional. I do get your point, as we actually have things like [[Frankenstein]] that are two layers of fiction removed from us. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, of course. I meant, in-universe, ''As the Kitchen Sinks'' is a work of fiction, whereas "Big Steve's Used Cars" is a real business that sells real used cars to real people. Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Wasn't ''Buck Rogers'' a fictional TV show? Anyway, it sounds like you got my point. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Or, judging by the fact categories like "Magazines" in used for magazines in our real life and "Companies" for companies in real life, why not just use "Film" for films (such as DOTM) in real life, while we move current contents in "Films" to "Films in ''Transformers'' fictions"? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::That seems like it would go counter to some of our existing naming schemes. e.g. if we split that out into films by franchise, you'd get "Films in Generation 1" rather than "Generation 1 films". Though admittedly the former title might have the advantage that it's clearer in meaning. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I think both are equally ambiguous in their meaning. If we still need to clarify the purpose of the categories, we can always spell it out in the category's introduction. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Transformers: " ==
We talked a bit about adding back "Transformers: " to the titles of articles [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive51#When_to_omit_.22Transformers.22_from_an_article_title|previously]], and the general sentiment was that people were for it or didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any input in this matter? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:34, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm okay with this change, but I do have three questions on execution. <br>1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled? <br>2.) If "Transformers(:)" is going to be added to every relevant page name, then what about all the extra words in the titles of Japanese stuff? <br>3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc? <br>[[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::#I think we've had two consistent rules about that: If the title is some kind of phrase, like "Transformers United", "The Transformers Collection", or "Transformers Animated", then we don't use the colon. If the title is some kind of obvious "title: subtitle" setup ("Transformers: Armada", "Transformers: Prime"), then we use the colon. There's some borderline examples, but I think we can figure them out one by one. Official sources will help with determining colon-status. The other rule seems to apply to only games: If the title has another subtitle, then the first colon is dropped (ex. [[Transformers Prime: Terrorcon Defense]]). I dunno why, but we can add back the colon, I suppose.
::#I guess we add them? We could argue it for ''Victory'', since it was released in English contexts as just "Transformers: Victory".
::#I think we're just going to continue the same in relation to those. The articles will still be sorted by their subtitles in categories. Storylinks I could go either way on, but I think the trend is to drop the main title. I've been doing that for the AAII storylinks to avoid excessively long links. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:49, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I don't see how "Transformers United" and "Transformers Animated" are any different from "Transformers: Prime". To me, all three could fall into either of your groups (phrase vs subtitle) and would prefer colons in all of those cases. Of your examples, only "The Transformers Collection" seems to really belong in the "phrase" group. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::"United" and "Animated" are adjectives that modify "Transformers" and have official sources that omit the colon. "Transformers Prime" doesn't make sense in that way. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:58, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I am not certain about those two "rules" for colons either. They're rather vague and bound to cause arguments and confusion. It needs to be made more obvious whether a colon should be used or not before "Transformers" can be added everywhere (a help page on the matter would also be handy in the future, me thinks).

::::I think that if we would put the cartoon at ''Transformers: Victory'', that would cause confusion with the manga, storypages, toyline and franchises, none of which were ever brought over and should thus not be named such. If moved, the ''Victory'' cartoon should best go to its Japanese name. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 15:28, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>shrug* The first rule is mostly there for Transformers Animated, which people will be resistant to moving to have a colon (plus, obvious cases like The Transformers Collection). The second rule I really don't care about and can be tossed (it mostly only concerns the movie series of video games and online games). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you suggesting there that Victory articles should be moved to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory"? I'd disagree with that, if so! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:25, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Why? We can't go around writing out the full names of Western franchises and stuff but not do so for the Japanese stuff. We already have "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" written out for the 1985 & 1986 Japanese franchises, so why not ''Victory''? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 07:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Victory (the cartoon) has been released in the West as "Transformers: Victory", to me that means that the official English name of the franchise ''is'' Transformers: Victory. Yes, we should give the full Japanese title at the beginning of the franchise page but there is no reason to move anything to that name. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:35, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::That was pretty much my reasoning too (also typing out the full name every time we wanted to link to it would be tedious). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Tying out "(franchise)" every time for everything is more tedious, but we still have it (for... some reason). Ditto long titles like [[The Story of Super Robot Lifeforms: The Transformers]] and [[Transformers Vault]]'s previous ridiculously long title.
:::::::::But I guess the general principle of "Transformers: " is acceptable to most. I'll start moving the noncontroversial pages (Western comics and cartoons with definite subtitles, etc.) if there's no opposition in the next few hours. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Is there a difference between [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|Transformers: Beast Wars: The Ascending]]? I must admit, the comma/colon distinction seems kinda arbitrary. Also, these page names seem kind of overlong and stupid, what's wrong with [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|The Ascending]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering|The Gathering]]? It's a Transformers wiki and those are Beast Wars series; prefixing everything we possibly can with "Transformers" is only going to clog up the search box and make editing just that bit more arduous. What were the arguments in favour of this again? --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 16:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::That's the formatting used in the indicia. Your complaint about the search box is silly; did you really think typing "Transformers" into it yielded anything useful 99% of the time?
:::::::::::Like it or not, "Transformers: " is the part of the name of many things, and the hoops we have to go through to maintain this silly system of dropping it from article titles has gotten ridiculous and inconsistent. Adding "Transformers: " to article titles, on the other hand, adds ''clarity'' and avoids pointless disambiguation. "The Transformers: Bumblebee" is preferable to "Bumblebee (comic)", "Transformers: Sector 7" to "Sector 7 (comic)", etc. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:44, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::I get that it's useful in some cases, but it just seems like applying the rule across the board means we're overcomplicating the issue. Occam's razor has a lot going for it, and for user-friendliness I'd go for brevity. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 17:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Also on an Occam's razor tip, "Bumblebee (comic)" conveys more information in fewer characters than "Transformers: Bumblebee". I really don't understand why the latter is preferable. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 14:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::There's something to say for either argument, but as it is, we have proven to be unable to keep to one consistent "Transformers"-as-part-of-the-title policy at least since TFA. And if trying to keep "Transformers" out of the deal doesn't work, we oughta give the alternative a chance. I don't think it necesarilly makes it harder to find anything, as the search box reacts to words even if they are not the first part of a page title. And I want to have the changes in clear perspective before I might suggest deleting a few redirects, so at least for now, searches won't be any harder and we have a consistent policy. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:49, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I gotta say, I'm hating how this is working in practice. Article titles seem long and ugly to me.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:46, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I feel the same, but it seems to be an necessary evil because "Transformers: ***" is a full title? duh. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 22:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::I fear the day someone decides to add full titles to disambiguation suffixes as well, e.g. "Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)", "Grindor (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)" etc.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 13:43, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::That would be silly, and I'm pretty sure most people would oppose it. Putting "Transformers:" in names is a change we'd already been drifting towards for a while with, for instance, the War for Cybertron articles all doing it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::On a related note, it's a pet peeve of mine when a writeup talks about a specific medium related to a franchise but links to the franchise as a whole instead, such as "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] toyline" or "in episode 6 of the [[Energon (franchise)|Energon]] cartoon...".--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Would the best solution there be something like "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] [[Cybertron (toyline)|toyline]]"? --[[Special:Contributions/77.99.176.103|77.99.176.103]] 03:32, 29 September 2011 (EDT) (oops, emvee not logged in)
::::::I think linking to the toyline page is sufficent. There's no need for an additional link to the corresponding umbrella franchise. The thought behind this is: "If Joe McRandom sees something that interests him and clicks a link, does he want the link to take him straight to the specific topic or to a more general overview?" I think link targets should always be as specific as necessary. If someone gets interested in a broader overview, he can always go one level up. After all, a link referring to G1 Optimus Prime leads to [[Optimus Prime (G1)]], not to [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)]], either. In the same fashion, toyline pages should deeplink to the specific toy entries on the respective characters' pages (or even their toy pages, if applicable). Like, if Joe McRandom is on the [[Transformers: Universe (2008 toyline)|Universe (2008 toyline)]] page, sees a "Prowl" toy listed under "Deluxe Class" and wants to read more about that toy, he wants the "Prowl" link to take him straight to [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Universe (2008)]], not to the [[Prowl (G1)|main character page]] where he then has to scroll down to "toys", see that G1 Prowl toys have their separate page, go ''there'', ''then'' scroll down to "Universe (2008)". (It currently links to [[Prowl (G1)/toys]], which is at least halfway there.) I will fix this wherever I see it, and implement it when doing writeups.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

===Suggestion to creating templates===

Do we need some kinds of templates when typing contents for convenience? For my experience in Terminator Wiki, we use templates like <nowiki>{{T3}} for ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' or {{TSCC}} for ''[[Terminator: The Sarah Connnor Chronicles]]''</nowiki>. What I'm suggesting is that after we make all franchise names into full title (and we don't use redirect links), it is some how trouble some when typing the title. So we can make some templates like:
<pre>
{{tf|Armada}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (franchise)|Transformers: Armada]]''

{{tf|Armada|toyline|Pokeformer}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Pokeformer]]''

{{jptf|bwn}} -> ''[[Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo]]''

</pre>

If there is any user who can created complex template, we could make

<pre>
{{tf|armada|t}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Transformers: Armada]]''

parameter 1:
2010 = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010 (toyline)
thm = Transformers: The Headmasters (toyline)
mf = Transformers: Super-God Masterforce (toyline)
v = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory
z = Transformers: Zone
roc = Transformers: Return of Convoy
oc = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Operation Combination
armada = Transformers Armada
bwn = Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo
mov = Movie
rotf = Revenge of the Fallen
tfa = Transformers Animated
...and (blah blah)

parameter 2:
*default* - franchise
t - toyline
ct - cartoon
co - comic
m - manga
f - film

And, if possible:
if parameter 3 = s (for example), it will become short title like ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Armada]]''

</pre>

--'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's something I've thought about as well. Considering there are a lot of exceptions to the regular naming system (parts of franchises that are called something different or franchises that lack the (franchise) identifier on the wiki because it's not necessary to disambiguate it), I don't think a template can be coded to put a link together. A full list system like our TFtoon templates have could maybe work though. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:08, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think with the number of franchises we have, it would end up being a hellishly big template and difficult to maintain for only a minor gain. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:03, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

==="Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" Transformers===
With the insertion of this phrase into the Victory page titles, should it also be inserted into the titles of The Headmasters, Super-God Masterforce, and Zone? now while the immediate answer would be "No", there are some places that do include this text above the "Toransufōmā" text in each of these series's logos. An example of this would the [[Transformers Tapestry]] (which even includes it in the Operation combination logo as well) and the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Columbia_Zone_DVD.jpg Columbia DVD of Zone]. Its inclusion in these places seems more than mere coincidence, so would we take this idea into consideration? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 14:33, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Um, that ''Zone'' DVD does not support your assertion. All of the ''actual'' media for those series (except for the Zone manga and story pages) do not include The "Fight!..." portion. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Technically the whole toyline in Japan from 1985 to 1992 was called "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" (as was written on the boxes), so at least the toyline pages for the series of those years would probably need the longer title than just "Transformers: ''X'' (toyline)" --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 16:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So you want to move the toyline pages to some made-up name? Pick one: 1) Merge all of the toyline pages to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)" 2) Leave the toyline pages as they are instead of stressing over naming things that technically don't exist. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::How is it "made up"? "Tatakae! Chō Robot Seimeitai" means "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" and is written above the "Toransufōmā" text on the packages of the 1985-1992 Japanese toys. I'm not proposing we merge all those toyline pages together, but rather something akin to the [[Transformers: Beast Wars (Japanese toyline)|Japanese Beast Wars toyline]] page, in which the individual toylines are kept separate even though they were all collectively the same-named toyline. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 17:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: The Headmasters" and its ilk are the imaginary names. Those articles for imaginary toylines are fine where they are. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==="Movie"===
There's still [[Movie (franchise)]], [[Movie (toyline)]] and more. Shouldn't that be "Transformers (2007 franchise)" and "Transformers (2007 toyline)", with the current [[Transformers (2007)]] becoming "Transformers (2007 movie)"?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Probably. I didn't move them, since I wanted to bring it up for discussion first. The film should be moved to just "Transformers (film)", though. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:"Movie (''media'')" should be moved to "Transformers (2007 ''media'')" while "Transformers (2007)" goes "Transformers (film)". --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:27, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::That push for lexical accuracy strikes me as creating more ambiguity than it resolves. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:06, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Jungaroo==
Someone made a lovely [[Jungaroo]] gobox, but there's no page for him. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 21:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think he's in any applicable fiction, but his [http://home.comcast.net/~BattleBeastSD/MGCKang.html bio card is online here]. Someone will have to translate it from Japanese first though. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:25, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Making the search suggestion work better ==

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I noticed sometimes when I type something in the search box, the search suggestions below it jump around and end up on a list which doesn't quite match what I typed. I think it's something to do with the speed I'm typing and the amount of time the server takes to respond to each request.

Anyway, I tweaked the javascript for grabbing the suggestions from the server so it would only trigger when I stopped typing. That seems to fix the problem for me, and as a bonus it's not nagging the server on every keypress. The downside is no instant feedback when I type, but I can live without that if it fixes the other thing.

If anyone else is having that problem and wants to have a go, just copy and paste the following into your [[Special:MyPage/monacobook.js|monacobook.js]] (caveat: only tested on Firefox and Chrome):
<pre><nowiki>
var ss_memory = null;
var ss_timeron = 0;
var ss_timer;

function DoActualSearch() {
ss_timeron=0;
var newdiv = document.getElementById("searchsuggest");
if (!newdiv) {
var newdiv = document.createElement("div");
newdiv.id = "searchsuggest";
var searchdiv = document.getElementById("searchBody");
searchdiv.appendChild(newdiv);
}
var x = document.getElementById("searchInput").value;
if (x == ss_memory) {
return;
}
ss_memory = x;
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'none';
if (x.length < 30 && x.length > 1 && x.value != "") {
sajax_do_call("wfAjaxSearchSuggest", [x], newdiv);
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'block';
}
}

function MySearchCall() {
if(ss_timeron) {
clearTimeout(ss_timer);
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
} else {
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
ss_timeron=1;
}
}

function myss_ajax_onload(){
var x = document.getElementById('searchInput');
x.onkeyup = function(){
MySearchCall();
};
}

hookEvent("load", myss_ajax_onload);
</nowiki></pre>
Unfortunately it won't fix the actual contents of the search suggestions, so you'll still get a bunch of All Hail Megatron issues when you type "Megatron", but that requires changes on the server. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hmm. I feel like adding <tt>ORDER BY `page_counter` DESC</tt> around line 20 of ''suggest.php'' might help w/ our search results, but it's hard to say for sure given how abstracted mediawiki database calls are, someone would have ot make the change then test it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::The thought I had was to do a query on article titles starting with the search term, and then if that gives back less than 8 entries, do a second search to fill the rest of the list with titles with the term anywhere in the title. The search suggest currently supports both options, but not at the same time. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

==Stuff==
: Firstly, our organization of information related to the junior franchises is terrible and I'd love to do something about it, but I need feedback. We currently have most Japanese and American Go-Bots as separate characters, except for the Japanese Go-Bots from the 1-2-3 line. Though there are requests for a separate Chopper page. Should those pages be split or not? And if so, what about the figures that came with some of the toys. Kid-Bot clearly isn't the "red driver" or "blue driver", but the dog and "Gas-Bot" both have fiction in only one of the two franchises, so is it worth separating them? Also, does the unpublished coloring book count as apocrypha or not, seeing as it was mostly approved? And the human characters within, do they count as cameos like Kelly in the Dreamwave comics or separate characters? And does anyone know what the Japanese name was by which the First Transformers were released? The Go-Bots fansite has an image of Dumpkun's box featuring what looks like a G1 logo, the First Transformers logo and "初めてトランスフォーマー" written on it.
: Secondly, many disambiguation pages still mention if there's a separate page for the toys of a character. Is this system still necessary now that we use subpages to separate such stuff under? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 17:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

::I think unpublished stuff is treated as apocrypha, isn't it? The character page coverage of unreleased Dreamwave issues is in notes, for instance. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:48, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::True, but we don't know if those were approved or know those weren't approved. The coloring book was approved, just not released. That makes it better comparable to Wreckers #$, which we do not consider apocrypha (though I wouldn't know if we'd do that if Wreckers #5 didn't partially canonize it). [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 11:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::Just weighing in on the toy page issue: I find it useful to have these called out on the disambig pages. Being able to go directly from the disambig page to the toy page of a character saves me at least one click (if I see the suite box in time) and often some scrolling (if I don't see it). However, I won't fight too hard on this if consensus is for the removal of this feature. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 07:47, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::Thinking some more about the Go-Bots stuff, as the Japanese version of Gas-Bot has no fiction, it probably doesn't need its own page - either link to Gas-Bot's page or just leave it unlinked in the appropriate toy sections. Same with the US version of the dog. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:30, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Facebook. ==

Is '''<nowiki>http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFwikinet/191252494230187</nowiki>''' us? Because it's the #1 link when you search for "TFWiki Facebook," and our group is nowhere to be seen. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

:I think our group is not showing up because you have to have a Facebook account to see it? When I go to the group's URL, I just get a page prompting me to log in to Facebook. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:47, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

::The link is this one: [http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/ http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/], which is the #3 on the search by "TFwiki site:facebook.com" on Google. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 19:51, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So the other one isn't ours, and we can't put a link on it pointing it to the group.
:::Annoying. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It's a "Community page", whatever that is. Clicking on the "Create a page" button on the top right of that page does bring up some sort of form which seems like it will do something. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:12, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Halloween ==

Presuming we're deco'ing our frontpage for Halloween... does anyone have any suggestions? Monsters, ghosts, gouls? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:Animated Blitzwing's random face looks sorta Jack O'Lanterny and could work as a replacement for the Autobot insignia on the site logo, assuming we can find a head-on image of it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:35, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

== Moving "(Timelines)" articles ==

I'm thinking that, as we don't bother with "(Timelines)" for SG, TransTech, and Animated characters, we should apply the same across the board and only use it if necessary.

*[[Astrotrain (Timelines)]] → Astrotrain (Cybertron)
*[[Cannonball (Timelines)]] → Cannonball (G1)
*[[Cop-Tur (Timelines)]] → Cop-Tur (G1)
*[[Halogen (Timelines)]] → Halogen (G1)
*[[Side Burn (Timelines)]] → Side Burn (G1)
*[[Sky-Byte (Timelines)]] → Sky-Byte (G2)
*[[Switchblade (Timelines)]] → Switchblade (BW)
*[[Thunderblast (Timelines)]] → Thunderblast (G1)
*[[Yoketron (Timelines)]] → Yoketron (G1)

The exceptions are the Descent into Evil characters, who don't really fit in any pre-existing franchise, and the Nexus Prime characters, who don't originate from a particular universe.
*[[Buzzclaw (Timelines)]]
*[[Dirge (Timelines)]]
*[[Flareup (Timelines)]]
*[[Landquake (Timelines)]]
*[[Ricochet (Timelines)]]
*[[Heatwave (Timelines)]]

Thoughts? Or does nobody really care that much? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 10:19, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:Since you asked, I'll pitch 2¢ into the conversation, since I know a little bit about it. I found out the hard way that wiki "doesn't bother with '(Timelines)' for Animated." And by hard way, I mean I was clobbered over the head without a hint of explanation for proposing that a Timelines-original Animated continuity character should be at "(Timelines)." But no hard feelings. I still think "franchise of origin" and not "continuity of origin" is best for disambiguations. For reasons that have been discussed previously on the subject. TransTech and SG are treated as a kind of sub-franchises of Timelines by the wiki, so I think they are an OK exception. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::The prose stories are identified as "Transformers Timelines presents a Transformers: (franchise) story". I would say that both franchises are equally valid to the stories, and the fact that non-Timelines stories (Around Cybertron, magazine comics, etc.) bleed together with Timelines stories makes the "(Timelines)" designation convoluted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, that's different. It sounds like you are calling their actual franchise of origin into question, not just their disambiguation. I don't have an opinion about their actual franchise of origin. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying that they're Timelines, but saying that they're better categorized under their other franchise. Like the Animated guys, it seems more instinctive to file [[Side Burn (Timelines)]] under "Side Burn (G1)" instead (not to mention that there's other Side Burn in Timelines: [[Side Burn (SG)]]).[[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:38, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
I'm hesitating, but let me think about the ramifications. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'd be fine with this. Though, one thing I'd like to propose is giving the Wings Universe characters their own disambiguation suffix. Like maybe "(Wings)" or something. I know it's a part of G1, but it's kinda like its own series within the over G1 continuity family like the Japanese G1 series are (which are also given their own suffixes such as "(Victory)", "(ROC)", "(BT)" etc.).

:Though, as for the Descent into Evil characters, maybe something like "(DIE)" or "(Descent)" or even just "(Descent into Evil)". Or, if not, keep them at "(Timelines)". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 11:51, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think the DIE guys are fine where they are (although you could argue moving [[Ricochet (Timelines)]] because of [[Ricochet (SG)]], but I don't really care). As for the Wings Universe guys getting their own disambiguation, eh... [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I am '''definitely absolutely''' against creating a (Wings) disambiguation when (G1) or (Timelines) work perfectly fine. We do NOT disambiguate by continuity except by absolute necessity within a franchise. Making up a (Wings) parenthetical just because incredibly confuses our disambiguation policy for no real reason. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::And what exactly keeps the Descent into Evil guys from being tagged G1? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Is the intermezzo period between G1 and BW considered G1 or BW?

:::It's all G1 characters... and IIRC the Insecticons were supposed ot be part of Insecticon plans which had been around for ages, so the characters weren't "BW-era only" characters...

:::I could support a G1 disambigif you talked me into it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:01, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::DIE fiction (Descent into Evil itself and [[Intimidation Game]]) has elements of both BW and G1; it doesn't have a certain franchise placement. Dirge (Timelines) and Ricochet (Timelines) also have namesakes firmly in G1. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:14, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::::BW is both BW and G1. And G1 has been back-incorporating BW elements since, like, 1995. The fact DIE has G1 and BW doesn't mean it's part of neither. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think that, by the nature of Timelines, it feels more natural to parse that specific set of characters by their continuity or parent-franchise of origin. Honestly, I think the Nexus components (''all'' of them) are really the best and only candidates for the Timelines parser.

::Also, I made a [http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Template:c quick template] that you guys could use here to simplify the coding for whenever you need to link a continuity-parsed name.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:37, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately I don't think that template would work as well here, because our articles are not consistently named by franchise. For instance [[Lightspeed (G1 Technobot)]], [[Flattop (Autobot)]] and [[Impactor]] are all (G1) characters but don't use (G1) in their title, so the template wouldn't work for linking to them. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I think that Timelines is a pretty clunky franchise for the purposes of this wiki, in that it covers multiple continuities. I think the proposal on the table makes sense.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Two spaces after a period in a sentence ==

I've noticed this for a while on the Wiki. In practice, it makes no difference as the software displays one space the same way it displays one. However, I've been wondering why people do it. Now I '''know: They''' were taught so in school. '''By teachers who were taught on friggin' ''typewriters''.''' So the "two spaces after a period" rule is a leftover from the typewriter days, where it was a necessity, but it's completely obsolete on computers. [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html Source]--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:The sentence spacing rules were, in fact, developed by typographers, but were not phased out via the magical introduction of the personal computer. The em-space rule exists for monospaced fonts, which were still fairly common for a great number of printers through the mid-1980s. If you would like to begin a tyrannical series of grammar-based wiki edits, I would begin by avoiding the use of prepositions at the start of sentences. I would also advise some respect for the proper use of colons and semi-colons, as typographical errors should not take priority over proper word selection and punctuation. Cheers! --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 14:20, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Are you referring to sentences beginning with prepositional phrases for the sake of emphasis (also known as an introductory modifiers)? That's totally valid. Or do you mean idiocies such as relative clauses that are separated from the preceding main clause by a period instead of a comma? The most glaring typographic blunders I encounter on the wiki typically go hand in hand with awkwardly worded sentences and clunky terminology, so I'm inclined to assume the same person(s) is/are responsible for all of those.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::I have bolded an example. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Aw, you altered your post. No fair! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:16, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::What'd I alter? I just moved it up. Anyway... I'd call that one "deliberate departure from proper grammar for the sake of dramatic emphasis". It's about as improper as using a period after ''every. Single. Word.'' If it's obvious from the context that it's done for emphasis, I'd call it acceptable as long as it's not used inflationary. I'm sure we have a few cases of "We know it's not proper grammar, but we want to stress a point here" on the wiki. (How did the saying go again? "Know the rules first before you break them"?)--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:28, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:....or you can just set the bot to convert " " to " ". Since we don't output monospace font, or anything.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Over the whole wiki, those extra spaces account for maybe 20kb of data, which I don't think is worth worrying about. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Typed text is typed text, and the double-space after a period is still correct. Shall we next be told that we're "wrong" for not having the wiki use the metric system, or for writing down dates with the month before the day instead of after it? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, and I bolded something too. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Due to habit, I'm gonna double-space until I die. I really don't think that needs to be considered a problem. Is that really a problem? An extra millimeter between sentences? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Nevermore ''is'' right about it being mostly obsolete, but for purely technical reasons: All double (triple, etc.) spaces are collapsed down to one for display in HTML. If you want the extra spaces to actually be viewable as extra blank space, you have to use <tt>&</tt><tt></tt><tt>nbsp;</tt>. So if you double-space here on the wiki, it only shows up when you edit the page. For whatever that's worth. (Not really taking sides, just presenting the info.) --[[Special:Contributions/67.252.49.31|67.252.49.31]] 06:08, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== More on the search box/"Transformers" everything ==

Typing "Energon" into the search box does not give me [[Energon (franchise)]], [[Energon (cartoon)]] or [[Energon (toyline)]] as top results. Same for "Cybertron". I assume this has to do with the recent "Transformers" prefixing for article titles. However, typing "Animated" into the seach box ''does'' give me franchise and toyline as top results, so it should be ''possible'' despite the prefixing.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:It's purely alphabetical, dude. ''Animated'' shows up before ''Arcee (Animated)'' because "An" precedes "Ar", whereas ''Arcee (Energon)'' comes up before ''Energon'' because "A" precedes "E". --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:13, 6 November 2011 (EST)
::There's an option in the search suggest tool to limit the results to stuff starting with the search query rather than with stuff with the term anywhere in their titles, however it's not something that can be configured through MediaWiki. There's a bit of discussion about it in the "Making the search suggestion work better" section up above. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:::If we wanted to do ''that'', when we shouldn't have prefixed "Transformers:" before hundreds of articles 3 weeks ago. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:06, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::We still have the titles without "Transformers: " as redirects though, so they'll still show up. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:23, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== Spam-dalism ==

Is that the neologism for it? Anyway, somehow the ReCaptcha is failing to stop the automated spam, and I'm guessing the IP's are all very different.

How old are the accounts when they do this? If they're fairly new, would it be possible to simply block IPs and new accounts from inserting new external links? If not (or if that's unworkable), would it be possible to flag such edits for review the way that wikipedia does to edits on contested pages?

Also, is there any chance these are at least coming from the same proxy? The fact that they're getting past ReCaptcha makes it seem like these are actual people doing this, unless ReCaptcha only activates on certain namespaces.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 14:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:I was using captcha with images on my phpBB installation on another site (Doctor Who related) until yesterday and getting a half dozen spammers a day signing up in despite of it. Yesterday I switched to a Question Answer challenge which asks the person registering to name the main character's time machine, and so far it has stopped the spammers dead.
:MediaWiki has [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha] which looks like it works in exactly the same way, and works with the ConfirmEdit extension we already have installed. If we can get that installed and set up, it might be more effective than the image-based system we use now. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::What would the questions be? It can't be too obvious or too obscure. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:31, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:::Not necessarily. The question I'm using on my Doctor Who site is obvious if you have any knowledge at all of the source material, but it seems to be working. We can always start with something easy and see how we go. Most likely all of the spammers are using bots anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::"What is the name of the red-and-blue semi Autobot?", "What's the name of the blue casette player Decepticon?", or "What is the name of the yellow semi Micromaster Autobot with a hydraulic crane?"[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 17:50, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::: "What is the fandom's usual reaction when a new franchise is announced?" :p [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:56, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::::<tt>If Dick has two apples and Jane has two apples, how many apples do they have? (3 letters.)</tt> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:09, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::Ah, but then it would be so easy for users to use only three exclamation marks, and forget the requisite four exclamation marks and a 1.
::No but yeah, a question helps a lot. Might even be worth doing for all IP edits and new accounts, not just those with external links.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:57, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::While we're on the subject, is it somehow possible to flag certain terms or words used by IP editors and auto-block them? *coughcoughobamacoughcough*[[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 16:31, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::...but we have an article on [[Barry Obama]].
:::Are you trying to whitewash the wiki? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:13, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::: It was just an academic question; after all, I'm sure that you've noticed our considerable problem with a certain IP editor lately. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:19, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::: Well yes... but I couldn't resist. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:43, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a temp ban on the whole ISP might get better results. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:51, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::sooo...who would you need to talk to about getting this set up, and what exactly do you want to restrict?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 19:45, 21 November 2011 (EST)
:::::The guy whose IP addresses are always located in England who keeps vandalizing articles with Obama-related nonsense. Doesn't look like even banning IP ranges stops him. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 11:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::...so, there's no way to stop this lunatic? [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 11:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:Options, in order of severity:
#Block all new uses of the word "Obama" to all anonymous editors.
#Block anonymous editors entirely.
#Destroy England.
:But really, that's a separate issue with probably a separate solution, since the guy is a some kind of being. To deal with the spamdalism, I think you guys should add a "name that Transformer-mon!" question, which should cut down heavily on automated edits, and if they still get through, look at blocking all uses of external links for anonymous or new editors. The use of the question for all IP edits is fairly standard, so it should be easy to implement, and you can look into harsher measures if the bots still make it through. However, I really think you guys should make an effort to get this setup, because the conversation keeps kind of drifting down and the vandalism keeps happening.[[Special:Contributions/98.223.102.157|98.223.102.157]] 02:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:: On another note... isn't it cute how he keps trying to badly pass himself off as me? I think someone has a bad case of hero-worship. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 10:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Please stop egging on vandals. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::: OK, on a more serious note, is anyone averse to just locking the wiki for a few days? Bulbapedia does it regularily and they don't have much of a vandalism problem. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 12:36, 23 November 2011 (EST)
Removing the "Undo" option for anons would help, at the very least. We need a regular tech person (or give abates access to the MediaWiki stuff, since he seems to know his way around). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:12, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::: What if we implemented a captcha system for anon edits? I mean, it wouldn't ''stop'' them, per se, but it would make persistent vandalism wars a hassle. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:16, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would not be opposed to that, or simple stock questions. ("Who is the leader of the Autobots?", "What is two plus three?", etc.) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:23, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:::: Rodimus Prime? :p
::::: But seriously, how did Mr. Obama Guy get past the rangeblock? Because that's rather worrysome in and of itself. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::::BT Internet has a lot of IP ranges. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:58, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Okay. Listen.<br>
1) CAPTCHA won't change crap. It ''might'' stop a small number of bot edits, but we have a large, active mod presence that basically polices this place around the clock, and any of those crappy ad pages can be eliminated in mere minutes, if not within seconds of their creation.<br>
2) There is basically '''''NOTHING''''' that can be done to ''stop'' someone who has decided that the best use of their time is constant, repeated, easily-reverted vandalism of a wiki. Well, okay there are a few options, but they're not ones any kind of wiki coding is gonna be part of. They'll find ways around bans, and all these automated things that are being suggested are basically shooting blind and wasting time. This is not remotely the first time someone has thought to do this. It won't be the last. But we've outlasted all those others. And that's all it takes. Again... that large active 24-hour admin presence that quickly and coolly reverts the vandalism ''without getting all butthurt''. That's what vandals want, to watch you get pissy and panicky and angry... ''and that's what you're giving them.'' So '''''shut up''''' and stop feeding that, then they'll eventually get bored and leave.<br>
3) I can perhaps get behind removing the "Undo" option for anons. I don't think though that it will really help much, since making an account takes what, a few seconds?<br>
--[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:38, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:Um. I don't want to offend anyone, but the Obama-guy thing ''really'' isn't related to this topic, although some of the solutions to the spamdalism thing might work to hinder him. The bigger issue is the guys spamming the wiki with links to knockoff viagra, sort of thing, and putting up a simple question system for anons and new editors would work to stop that almost completely, at least everywhere I've seen it in use.
:The mod presence, yeah, things eventually get cleaned up by the end of the day, but a simple, standard change like adding the question will prevent that from happening in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/99.39.88.159|99.39.88.159]] 22:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)
:Just to alleviate any concerns: In my experience, the question captcha does not prevent human edits except from the most severely uninformed editors, and it completely prevents the bot-spam, which at this point almost totally covers the RC when I happen to check it. Many other independent wikis, such as Halopedian, use the question captcha, so if you guys wanted a first-person POV on it, you could also ask them for their experiences. Basically, the captcha question should totally eliminate the bot-spam, with the only drawback being that it adds maybe a fraction of a second to anonymous human edits. So, given that, does anyone have any objections to adding the captcha question?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)--(same anon as throughout this topic)

== Spelling throughout the Wiki ==

I've found that, on multiple spots on the Wiki, there are UK English spellings of words. Now, I know that the Transformers Wiki is a country-spanning project, but I'd like a consensus on whether or not we should change incidences of UK spellings (like "practise" and "polarize") to their American English counterparts. A streamlined flow using only one dialect would, I believe, make the editing process much easier. However, I do not want a backlash from UK users. <br>
P.S.: Damn you, Webster! You and your new-world dictionary! [[User:TheMZone|TheMZone]] 18:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:[[Help:Style guide#National varieties of English|Here is the wiki's policy on the subject]] just so you know. I myself don't think it needs changing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

== Why are the IDW books in G1? ==

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.) {{unsigned|158.103.0.1}}
:Uggghhhhhh. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:Yeahhh, you not understanding the concept of Continuity Families particularly well.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 16:30, 1 December 2011 (EST)

::Other continuities within the G1 continuity family also eschew some of those classic aspects. In [[Action Blast 1]], for instance, the Autobots crash on present-day Earth and they don't hang around in stasis for millions of years. I don't think there's really a template of specific events that a G1 continuity has to stick to. That would hamper storytelling too much. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

:::Also, they share a lot of the same characters, body designs, and personalities. Granted, some of them are common across the multiverse, but things like Megatron becoming a gun and Optimus Prime as a flatnosed tractor-trailer are distinctly G1-ish. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:29, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::FYI: [[Talk:IDW Generation 1 continuity#New evidence that IDW is not G1|Previous discussion here]]. Yes, on the one hand, it is G1 because it uses the G1 cast of characters for the most part, and most of those pretty much have the same personality as their G1 bio card as on their G1 counterparts (with the significant exception of their gimmicks). On the other hand, [http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=143991#143991 an artist] has said it is not G1, so it isn't entirely crazy to say it isn't G1. The universe itself doesn't seem particularly G1. It is like a different universe populated with G1 guys. The Micromasters aren't Cybertronain (I think), so a whole class of G1 Transformers aren't Transformers which sounds like a different universe. In short, it mostly makes sense for the wiki to organize it under G1 so they don't have to duplicate character pages with characters with mostly the same intro paragraph. But don't take it too seriously, it isn't official or anything. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:54, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::: No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I mean is that there seems to be no CANON justification for why IDW is considered G1. Especially because it lacks the links of similar G1 works, it’s never been verified as such by the creators (as far as I know) and it’s “G1-ness” is tentative at best.

:::::IDW really doesn’t have as strong a link as or other G1 families. They all either were marketed as direct extensions to the original 80s ‘Toon and Comic adaptations (Gen 2 and Dreamwave ) established “next gen” sequels (Beast Era) Inserts into Gen 1 (Alternators and much of Japan’s stuff) Or add ons to particular points of the G1 timeline (Classics, Dreamwave) hell Timelines might count as a little bit of all of these. IDW really has no direct link.

:::::That leaves us to the creators, and when it’s referred as such by them they use the term "reboot” or the like. Hell Simon Furman, architect of a large section of G1, straight up called it an ‘Ultimate’ version in his CBR interview. And Don Fig doesn’t consider it G1 at all.

:::::Even then we look at why we call it G1 it causes all kinds of fallacies. Relying ion art style to tell families (as said in our very own article) leads to insanity, as characters change appearances across media ostensibly in eths same family all the time (for example WFC and Prime) likewise the “G1" aspects, such as personality, and looks, have been used both in the Transformers Film and Animated families, and yet we don’t consider them G1 despite both being just about the same kind of reboot on it IDW is. They incorporate a version of the Beast Ear into their timeline but assuming a connection with their main IDW addition, it’s just as differing as Aligned or Animated version of the Beast era would be.

:::::I’m not trying to rock the boat I se4riously would just like to know if there’s any official, canon, or Hasbro/Creator data that states IDW as a version of G1, because right now I’m not seeing it.

:::::Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be seen as the "young turk" coming into old pros territory and rocking the boat against guys who have been studying this since before I was born, but I just picked up a bunch of Simon Furman stuff from [[http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Marvelcomicscontinuity.jpg The old comics]] as well as the big two volume IDW packs and they just don't fit at all. They're as different from G1 as the Films, Animated or RID are. I don't think we should makes assumptions and leaps of logic just for convenience's sake, kind belies the purpose of a wiki, ya know?
::::::This is a ridiculous amount of navel-gazing to get past the point that IDW continuity is just G1 in new dressing and not a new franchise of its own. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::By that terminology ALL of Transformers media is Just "g1 in a new dressing" by the virtue of G1 starting the franchise.
::::::::That is not what I mean by "franchise". Please don't be obtuse. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 02:05, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::Considering new Generation 1 toys keep being made in the style of IDW design, that that firmly cements the stuff as being G1 in Hasbro's eyes. And the fact that they are constantly using Generation 1-style character aesthetics, personalizations and the freaking '''original font''' on the titles. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::The wiki's more confident about calling it G1 than even Hasbro, which calls the toys "Generations." Wiki organization is one thing, but we act more like it is a fact than it actually is. "Generation 1" doesn't really exist anymore. Hasbro is a little ashamed of it. Or at least doesn't want to pigeon-hole their toys and comics as being old-school. The [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] page as a "Generation 1" logo on top. That doesn't really reflect reality which is more hazy. Maybe "Generations" is the new "Generation 1" or something. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::To use your Simon Furman point against you, saying that IDW is not G1 is kind of like saying that Ultimate Marvel is not part of the Marvel Multiverse. It may be fairly different, but it is undeniably the same basic characters and situations. Also, I never have figured out why anyone really cares what the creative teams think, anything they say can be overruled by Hasbro at any time. Even after it has been published. Only Hasbro's opinion really matters.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:07, 2 December 2011 (EST)
Discussed ad nauseum years ago. Nothing new has been added to the conversation since. Not changing. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 05:13, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Aesthetics have already been disavowed as a valid ground for Continuity Pedigree, most notably with the Aligned Family. if Hasbro itself hasn’t recognized it as G1, hasn’t directly tied it to a previous G1 work, and if the writers and artists themselves don’t consider it G1, how is it legitimate to denote it as G1 based on our interpretation. Especially given such ethereal "evidence" as the looks of toys and ''fonts'' of all things.

:::::::::Hasbro has yet to give any word. And also the Marvel analogy wont work, because while Marvel has but ONE Multiverse composed of several individual universes. The TF Multiverse is a collection of Universal Streams, each roughly following the same vents with several different interpretations over key events. It's like comparing diffirent versions of the Bible as rather than like comparing the Bible against the Koran.

:::::::::M Sipher, would you do an FYI link? I've seen the discussion over on IDW Continuity’s Main page and the quibbles on the main Continuity Family but never any hard decree from an authority based on reasoning any more firm than convenience. I'm simply trying to hold IDW to the standards of the other G1 works on the wiki, all of which have '''in-canon''' links to versions of G1, or else are stated as such by the Companies.

:99% of all IDW characters are G1 characters, based on their original G1 counterparts. The different origins of some characters (Arcee) are no different than varying origins between the original cartoon and Marvel Comics (Grimlock, Technobots). Compared to the Aurex universes, where only Optimus, Megatron and Starscream consistently fit the G1 character archetypes, whereas most other characters are clearly just name reuses (Red Alert, Cyclonus, Jetfire, etc). Even Malgus and Tyran, both clearly closer to the G1 continuity than Aurex, have clearly distinctive character differences. IDW Bumblebee is clearly a variation on the original G1 Bumblebee, whereas Movie 'Bee and Animated Bumblebee are approximate extrapolations, see also Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, and so on.
:IDW is a G1 universe that has expanded beyond the original G1 concepts, but not the characters themselves. Trying something new is not the same as abandoning the underlying foundation. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 11:47, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:I'm sure there are other examples, but Prowl, Sunstreaker, and Sideswipe have appeared in their Universe Classics series bodies while Starscream, Thundercracker and Skywarp have appeared in their Masterpiece bodies. All of those are undoubted G1 toys. Either IDW is G1 or those toys are being repurposed. All things considered it seems most parsimonious to classify IDW as a part of G1. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::Masterpiece is a franchise. Classics series is G1<sup>continuity family</sup> but it isn't G1<sup>franchise</sup>. Unfortunately, "G1" can mean different things. Just so everyone is on the same page, the wiki treats IDW as being part of the G1 ''[[franchise]]''. For example, on the [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] it has the G1 franchise logo. Is that what this discussion is about, or is the discussion about if IDW is part of the G1 continuity family? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 12:28, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::The original poster said continuity family. I do consider IDW a different franchise within the G1 continuity family. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:39, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, OK. Anyone else? Show of hands? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 14:04, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::But does the use of Character analogous to G1 interpretations define it as a G1 series? This really comes don to whether we define continuity families as being overlays of roughly similar events (as in Tvtropes Broad Strokes) or whether we are tying versions of characters as the archetype from which it is based. If you're taking side new altmodes and differences like Goldbug and Galvatron is being "based" on G1 to a degree enough to allot status within the family? At that point we might as well make a spectrum of "G1-ness" and start arbitrarily cutting everything. As it stands now our definitions of Families are based off there uniqueness of story and universe content, and IDW differs significantly from any other G1 work.
:::So does ''Hearts of Steel''. Shall we consider that a separate family as well? - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 13:11, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::As the line of books it was from was cancled de jure that cnat really be elaborated on. (Although it's G1 staus was controversial to start with, it being the TF equivilant to a What if or Elseworlds) But HoS was never devolved as an obstensive reboot, rather an Alt-universe portyal that gets put in G1 by the same stroke as the Sg-verse. (if we diidnt have it's Universal Stream number to go by). IDW on the contrary was billed as a reboot, the same way aligned is being done now. Couple that with the radical (and debatedly unparalleled ) story alterations and you have apples and oranges. Though really teh entire "G1 by default" mindset is pretty off-putting. Heck it might even work as a really big Mirco-Contunity. Pardoxial as that sounds.
:::I was under the impression that the character archetypes were a major part of what makes a continuity family. These problems really only arise with G1 because it is the only family that has had multiple continuations and reboots and additions for decades after its debut. The RID, Unicron Trilogy and Animated continuity families have been pretty well limited to their original period of release (not ''entirely'' so but with only a few minor exceptions). --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 18:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::I think this is really down to the fact that Continuity & Franchises is just too darn confusing. Not to mention that there can be disparate continuities within a franchise and different franchises can make up a continuity, all of which fit into the over-arching Continuity Family. Obviously there must be enough in common in order to include any new franchise into an existing Family, or to take the leap and create a new Continuity Family. Does new media have to have enough in common with the progenitor of a Continuity Family to be included? Or merely use aspects of the varying franchises of said Continuity Family? With G1 ''all'' of the supporting media has strayed from the originating cartoon, but kept enough characterizations, and broad timelines within the Family. RID, Animated, Aligned, etc have all maintained aspects of 'Transformers' but been significantly different from each other to establish there places as individual Continuity Families. Whereas IDW is disparate from these Families, and other than story lines (which have to change be definition) most closely fits G1. In order to argue IDW being a new Continuity Family you would have to prove that it is different enough from other existing Continuity Families & G1, which doesn't fit given the IDW timeline, characters and mythology, it is all based off of G1 franchises.[[User:Yuppie|Yuppie]] 19:04, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::::I just want to point out that the G1 cartoon ISN'T the "originating" source. That would be the TOYS. And the comic work came before the cartoon. So... yeah. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 19:15, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::That's right. Transformers is different than other fiction on TVTropes because the toys are the originating source and not storylines. Therefore the characters derived from the toys are the important thing. Even in things you would think so, like movies. If they came up with completely different fiction with the movie toylines cast, it would be the live action movie continuity family. So I think IDW is pretty clearly G1<sup>continuity family</sup>. What else but G1 would include Roller and the Combat Deck? Nothing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 00:04, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::::::: So the official definition is based off of the toylines? Okay, fine by me. I guess I'll edit that line somewhere on the main Family page. Would you also mind linking me to the IDW toyline page? Google brings up zippo.
::::::::Yes, yes, you're very clever and funny, ha ha. I'm so glad you're here to bring fresh new things to the table. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 05:09, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::: Is sarcasm warranted? I'm not here to pick fun, and I've been respectful, so why cant you do the same?

==Beast Wars Neo Sausage is gone!==
The page was deleted for some reason. It was marked as vandalism, but as I'm sure some of you know it actually existed. -- [[User:Terrortron|Terrortron]] 22:47, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:As far as I know it didn't. Are you sure you're not thinking of [[Beast Wars II Sausage]]? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:13, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::Do you mean the page or the product? I'm not sure the page existed, but the product itself most certainly did: [http://movies.tfarchive.com/movies/Commercials/Japanese/bwneo3.mpg TV commercial for Beast Wars Neo Sausages] --[[User:Tigerpaw28|Tigerpaw28]] 00:55, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::We've never had a BWN Sausage page, no. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:16, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::::We had it briefly in January but it was just a vandal making [[Beast Wars Neo Sausage|a crappy page]]. Feel free to create it again if you have the info. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 01:26, 3 December 2011 (EST)

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-03T09:02:43Z

158.103.0.1:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Aligned Timeline ==

I'm going to try and take a stab at creating an Aligned timeline that unites everything we know about the franchise(s) so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Help Wanted ==

Hello one and all. I'm here representing a newly created Role-Playing forum that is based in the Transformers Universe. We're in the early stages yet, and are looking for people to help get the ball rolling. Since this site seems to lack a dedicated forum (where requests like these would usually be made) and I haven't seen any other way to effectively say my piece in front of a large audience, I thought that posting here was the best way to "advertise" us, as it were. I sincerely apologize if this was the wrong move on our part, or if I've breached protocol at all, but I can assure everyone that our intentions aren't malign. Those interested, please contact me using any of the ways that I have listed on my username page here on this site. I won't tempt fate by linking our website here directly =P

Once again, you all have my sincere greetings, and I hope to hear from you soon. Also, as a side note: the difference in quality between this page and the transformers wikia is amazing. [[User:Rathian Warrior|Rathian Warrior]] 23:50, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if you've crossed any lines, and frankly, you were polite enough about it that it's not a big deal, but you could always buy some ad space if you want to raise awareness of your forum. It's cheap! There's usually a link on every page around the banners, but if you didn't catch it, you can follow this link: [https://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=25311&type=4 Project Wonderful TFWiki Page]--[[User:McFly|McFly]] 16:13, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== "Fictional" and "real" categories ==
I think we need to come up with a consistent way to distinguish categories of things that are real and categories of things that have appeared in fiction. So far, we've skimmed the issue by using synonyms, such as [[:Category:Companies|companies]] and [[:Category:Businesses|businesses]], but that doesn't really work for things like [[:Category:Magazines|magazines]], which is already used for real magazines. Currently, we have [[:Category:Fictional books]], [[:Category:Fictional video games]] that consider the fictional entities "different". On the other hand, we have [[:Category:Real-world events by day]] and [[:Category:Real world films]]. We focus more on the fictional aspect of Transformers, so it makes sense to not point out the fictionality in categories, but "real world" sounds awkward to some. Which one should we use? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:26, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I thought I'd cheat and see how some of the other fictional Wikis deal with the problem. Three different approaches I saw:
:*[http://tardis.wikia.com/ Doctor Who wiki] has a [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Real_world "Real World" category] for real world stuff and in most cases the categories for real world things are at "Real world X".
:*[http://wookiepedia.org/ Wookiepedia] goes the parenthetical route, with "Books" and "Books (real-world)". Though they also have one or two like "Real world companies".
:*[http://stargate.wikia.com/ Stargate wiki] has "Books" versus "Stargate books" for real world books.
:I kinda like the parenthetical approach that Wookiepedia have taken. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'd favor pointing out the status of both categories, just to make absolutely clear what they are for. The words can be "Fictional" and "Real-world" (I notice both real-world categories use a different spelling. Whichever it's gonna be (if), only one spelling should be used). "Nonfictional" kinda works as an alternative, would "Real-world" be disliked. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:35, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::If we go that route, I think "real-world" should be used, since "real world" is a lot more easier to fix than the other parsing. I like the Wookiepedia approach, but I'm not sure that's enough to change how we already do categories. The idea to label both categories sounds nice, but "Fictional X" seems incongruous with unlabeled categories, such as "weapons", "technology", etc.; considering that our main focus is the fiction, I'm leaning towards only labeling the real stuff. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I think it would be advantageous to put a {{tl|disambig2}} at the top, so people could easily go from the fictional to the real world category too. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:30, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yeah, I think I put that on [[:Category:Films]] a while ago. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:57, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Speaking of this, I found we handle [[:Category:Films]] like [[:Category:Real people]], wouldn't this be some, um, confusing? It's just, somehow, reverse? (Except for the fictional films like ''Honoji'') According to the logic of how we handle [[:Category:Real people]], shouldn't we place films like ''40-Year-Old Virgin'' or ''Godzilla'' in the [[:Category:Real world films]]? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Godzilla doesn't go in "Real world films" because it's not a real world ''Transformers'' film. The Transformers is implied in that category name. Presumably we could have a "Real films" category for Godzilla, etc, but I'm not sure it's worth doing. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:53, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::We shouldn't use "fictional X" for two reasons. One, there things like [[As the Kitchen Sinks]] that are fictional even within the fictional Transformers universe. Second, the wiki is written in-universe by default and putting [[Big Steve's Used Cars]] in a "fictional businesses" category would kind of break that. Within Transformers fiction, "Big Steve's Used Cars" is not a fictional company, but "As the Kitchen Sinks" is a fictional TV show. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:47, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is not a fictional show. It depicts fictional events and fictional people, yes, but the show itself, as a piece of entertainment, is not fictional. I do get your point, as we actually have things like [[Frankenstein]] that are two layers of fiction removed from us. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, of course. I meant, in-universe, ''As the Kitchen Sinks'' is a work of fiction, whereas "Big Steve's Used Cars" is a real business that sells real used cars to real people. Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Wasn't ''Buck Rogers'' a fictional TV show? Anyway, it sounds like you got my point. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Or, judging by the fact categories like "Magazines" in used for magazines in our real life and "Companies" for companies in real life, why not just use "Film" for films (such as DOTM) in real life, while we move current contents in "Films" to "Films in ''Transformers'' fictions"? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::That seems like it would go counter to some of our existing naming schemes. e.g. if we split that out into films by franchise, you'd get "Films in Generation 1" rather than "Generation 1 films". Though admittedly the former title might have the advantage that it's clearer in meaning. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I think both are equally ambiguous in their meaning. If we still need to clarify the purpose of the categories, we can always spell it out in the category's introduction. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Transformers: " ==
We talked a bit about adding back "Transformers: " to the titles of articles [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive51#When_to_omit_.22Transformers.22_from_an_article_title|previously]], and the general sentiment was that people were for it or didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any input in this matter? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:34, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm okay with this change, but I do have three questions on execution. <br>1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled? <br>2.) If "Transformers(:)" is going to be added to every relevant page name, then what about all the extra words in the titles of Japanese stuff? <br>3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc? <br>[[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::#I think we've had two consistent rules about that: If the title is some kind of phrase, like "Transformers United", "The Transformers Collection", or "Transformers Animated", then we don't use the colon. If the title is some kind of obvious "title: subtitle" setup ("Transformers: Armada", "Transformers: Prime"), then we use the colon. There's some borderline examples, but I think we can figure them out one by one. Official sources will help with determining colon-status. The other rule seems to apply to only games: If the title has another subtitle, then the first colon is dropped (ex. [[Transformers Prime: Terrorcon Defense]]). I dunno why, but we can add back the colon, I suppose.
::#I guess we add them? We could argue it for ''Victory'', since it was released in English contexts as just "Transformers: Victory".
::#I think we're just going to continue the same in relation to those. The articles will still be sorted by their subtitles in categories. Storylinks I could go either way on, but I think the trend is to drop the main title. I've been doing that for the AAII storylinks to avoid excessively long links. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:49, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I don't see how "Transformers United" and "Transformers Animated" are any different from "Transformers: Prime". To me, all three could fall into either of your groups (phrase vs subtitle) and would prefer colons in all of those cases. Of your examples, only "The Transformers Collection" seems to really belong in the "phrase" group. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::"United" and "Animated" are adjectives that modify "Transformers" and have official sources that omit the colon. "Transformers Prime" doesn't make sense in that way. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:58, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I am not certain about those two "rules" for colons either. They're rather vague and bound to cause arguments and confusion. It needs to be made more obvious whether a colon should be used or not before "Transformers" can be added everywhere (a help page on the matter would also be handy in the future, me thinks).

::::I think that if we would put the cartoon at ''Transformers: Victory'', that would cause confusion with the manga, storypages, toyline and franchises, none of which were ever brought over and should thus not be named such. If moved, the ''Victory'' cartoon should best go to its Japanese name. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 15:28, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>shrug* The first rule is mostly there for Transformers Animated, which people will be resistant to moving to have a colon (plus, obvious cases like The Transformers Collection). The second rule I really don't care about and can be tossed (it mostly only concerns the movie series of video games and online games). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you suggesting there that Victory articles should be moved to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory"? I'd disagree with that, if so! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:25, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Why? We can't go around writing out the full names of Western franchises and stuff but not do so for the Japanese stuff. We already have "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" written out for the 1985 & 1986 Japanese franchises, so why not ''Victory''? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 07:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Victory (the cartoon) has been released in the West as "Transformers: Victory", to me that means that the official English name of the franchise ''is'' Transformers: Victory. Yes, we should give the full Japanese title at the beginning of the franchise page but there is no reason to move anything to that name. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:35, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::That was pretty much my reasoning too (also typing out the full name every time we wanted to link to it would be tedious). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Tying out "(franchise)" every time for everything is more tedious, but we still have it (for... some reason). Ditto long titles like [[The Story of Super Robot Lifeforms: The Transformers]] and [[Transformers Vault]]'s previous ridiculously long title.
:::::::::But I guess the general principle of "Transformers: " is acceptable to most. I'll start moving the noncontroversial pages (Western comics and cartoons with definite subtitles, etc.) if there's no opposition in the next few hours. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Is there a difference between [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|Transformers: Beast Wars: The Ascending]]? I must admit, the comma/colon distinction seems kinda arbitrary. Also, these page names seem kind of overlong and stupid, what's wrong with [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|The Ascending]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering|The Gathering]]? It's a Transformers wiki and those are Beast Wars series; prefixing everything we possibly can with "Transformers" is only going to clog up the search box and make editing just that bit more arduous. What were the arguments in favour of this again? --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 16:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::That's the formatting used in the indicia. Your complaint about the search box is silly; did you really think typing "Transformers" into it yielded anything useful 99% of the time?
:::::::::::Like it or not, "Transformers: " is the part of the name of many things, and the hoops we have to go through to maintain this silly system of dropping it from article titles has gotten ridiculous and inconsistent. Adding "Transformers: " to article titles, on the other hand, adds ''clarity'' and avoids pointless disambiguation. "The Transformers: Bumblebee" is preferable to "Bumblebee (comic)", "Transformers: Sector 7" to "Sector 7 (comic)", etc. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:44, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::I get that it's useful in some cases, but it just seems like applying the rule across the board means we're overcomplicating the issue. Occam's razor has a lot going for it, and for user-friendliness I'd go for brevity. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 17:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Also on an Occam's razor tip, "Bumblebee (comic)" conveys more information in fewer characters than "Transformers: Bumblebee". I really don't understand why the latter is preferable. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 14:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::There's something to say for either argument, but as it is, we have proven to be unable to keep to one consistent "Transformers"-as-part-of-the-title policy at least since TFA. And if trying to keep "Transformers" out of the deal doesn't work, we oughta give the alternative a chance. I don't think it necesarilly makes it harder to find anything, as the search box reacts to words even if they are not the first part of a page title. And I want to have the changes in clear perspective before I might suggest deleting a few redirects, so at least for now, searches won't be any harder and we have a consistent policy. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:49, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I gotta say, I'm hating how this is working in practice. Article titles seem long and ugly to me.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:46, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I feel the same, but it seems to be an necessary evil because "Transformers: ***" is a full title? duh. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 22:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::I fear the day someone decides to add full titles to disambiguation suffixes as well, e.g. "Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)", "Grindor (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)" etc.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 13:43, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::That would be silly, and I'm pretty sure most people would oppose it. Putting "Transformers:" in names is a change we'd already been drifting towards for a while with, for instance, the War for Cybertron articles all doing it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::On a related note, it's a pet peeve of mine when a writeup talks about a specific medium related to a franchise but links to the franchise as a whole instead, such as "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] toyline" or "in episode 6 of the [[Energon (franchise)|Energon]] cartoon...".--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Would the best solution there be something like "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] [[Cybertron (toyline)|toyline]]"? --[[Special:Contributions/77.99.176.103|77.99.176.103]] 03:32, 29 September 2011 (EDT) (oops, emvee not logged in)
::::::I think linking to the toyline page is sufficent. There's no need for an additional link to the corresponding umbrella franchise. The thought behind this is: "If Joe McRandom sees something that interests him and clicks a link, does he want the link to take him straight to the specific topic or to a more general overview?" I think link targets should always be as specific as necessary. If someone gets interested in a broader overview, he can always go one level up. After all, a link referring to G1 Optimus Prime leads to [[Optimus Prime (G1)]], not to [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)]], either. In the same fashion, toyline pages should deeplink to the specific toy entries on the respective characters' pages (or even their toy pages, if applicable). Like, if Joe McRandom is on the [[Transformers: Universe (2008 toyline)|Universe (2008 toyline)]] page, sees a "Prowl" toy listed under "Deluxe Class" and wants to read more about that toy, he wants the "Prowl" link to take him straight to [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Universe (2008)]], not to the [[Prowl (G1)|main character page]] where he then has to scroll down to "toys", see that G1 Prowl toys have their separate page, go ''there'', ''then'' scroll down to "Universe (2008)". (It currently links to [[Prowl (G1)/toys]], which is at least halfway there.) I will fix this wherever I see it, and implement it when doing writeups.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

===Suggestion to creating templates===

Do we need some kinds of templates when typing contents for convenience? For my experience in Terminator Wiki, we use templates like <nowiki>{{T3}} for ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' or {{TSCC}} for ''[[Terminator: The Sarah Connnor Chronicles]]''</nowiki>. What I'm suggesting is that after we make all franchise names into full title (and we don't use redirect links), it is some how trouble some when typing the title. So we can make some templates like:
<pre>
{{tf|Armada}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (franchise)|Transformers: Armada]]''

{{tf|Armada|toyline|Pokeformer}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Pokeformer]]''

{{jptf|bwn}} -> ''[[Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo]]''

</pre>

If there is any user who can created complex template, we could make

<pre>
{{tf|armada|t}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Transformers: Armada]]''

parameter 1:
2010 = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010 (toyline)
thm = Transformers: The Headmasters (toyline)
mf = Transformers: Super-God Masterforce (toyline)
v = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory
z = Transformers: Zone
roc = Transformers: Return of Convoy
oc = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Operation Combination
armada = Transformers Armada
bwn = Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo
mov = Movie
rotf = Revenge of the Fallen
tfa = Transformers Animated
...and (blah blah)

parameter 2:
*default* - franchise
t - toyline
ct - cartoon
co - comic
m - manga
f - film

And, if possible:
if parameter 3 = s (for example), it will become short title like ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Armada]]''

</pre>

--'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's something I've thought about as well. Considering there are a lot of exceptions to the regular naming system (parts of franchises that are called something different or franchises that lack the (franchise) identifier on the wiki because it's not necessary to disambiguate it), I don't think a template can be coded to put a link together. A full list system like our TFtoon templates have could maybe work though. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:08, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think with the number of franchises we have, it would end up being a hellishly big template and difficult to maintain for only a minor gain. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:03, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

==="Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" Transformers===
With the insertion of this phrase into the Victory page titles, should it also be inserted into the titles of The Headmasters, Super-God Masterforce, and Zone? now while the immediate answer would be "No", there are some places that do include this text above the "Toransufōmā" text in each of these series's logos. An example of this would the [[Transformers Tapestry]] (which even includes it in the Operation combination logo as well) and the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Columbia_Zone_DVD.jpg Columbia DVD of Zone]. Its inclusion in these places seems more than mere coincidence, so would we take this idea into consideration? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 14:33, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Um, that ''Zone'' DVD does not support your assertion. All of the ''actual'' media for those series (except for the Zone manga and story pages) do not include The "Fight!..." portion. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Technically the whole toyline in Japan from 1985 to 1992 was called "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" (as was written on the boxes), so at least the toyline pages for the series of those years would probably need the longer title than just "Transformers: ''X'' (toyline)" --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 16:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So you want to move the toyline pages to some made-up name? Pick one: 1) Merge all of the toyline pages to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)" 2) Leave the toyline pages as they are instead of stressing over naming things that technically don't exist. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::How is it "made up"? "Tatakae! Chō Robot Seimeitai" means "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" and is written above the "Toransufōmā" text on the packages of the 1985-1992 Japanese toys. I'm not proposing we merge all those toyline pages together, but rather something akin to the [[Transformers: Beast Wars (Japanese toyline)|Japanese Beast Wars toyline]] page, in which the individual toylines are kept separate even though they were all collectively the same-named toyline. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 17:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: The Headmasters" and its ilk are the imaginary names. Those articles for imaginary toylines are fine where they are. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==="Movie"===
There's still [[Movie (franchise)]], [[Movie (toyline)]] and more. Shouldn't that be "Transformers (2007 franchise)" and "Transformers (2007 toyline)", with the current [[Transformers (2007)]] becoming "Transformers (2007 movie)"?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Probably. I didn't move them, since I wanted to bring it up for discussion first. The film should be moved to just "Transformers (film)", though. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:"Movie (''media'')" should be moved to "Transformers (2007 ''media'')" while "Transformers (2007)" goes "Transformers (film)". --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:27, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::That push for lexical accuracy strikes me as creating more ambiguity than it resolves. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:06, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Jungaroo==
Someone made a lovely [[Jungaroo]] gobox, but there's no page for him. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 21:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think he's in any applicable fiction, but his [http://home.comcast.net/~BattleBeastSD/MGCKang.html bio card is online here]. Someone will have to translate it from Japanese first though. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:25, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Making the search suggestion work better ==

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I noticed sometimes when I type something in the search box, the search suggestions below it jump around and end up on a list which doesn't quite match what I typed. I think it's something to do with the speed I'm typing and the amount of time the server takes to respond to each request.

Anyway, I tweaked the javascript for grabbing the suggestions from the server so it would only trigger when I stopped typing. That seems to fix the problem for me, and as a bonus it's not nagging the server on every keypress. The downside is no instant feedback when I type, but I can live without that if it fixes the other thing.

If anyone else is having that problem and wants to have a go, just copy and paste the following into your [[Special:MyPage/monacobook.js|monacobook.js]] (caveat: only tested on Firefox and Chrome):
<pre><nowiki>
var ss_memory = null;
var ss_timeron = 0;
var ss_timer;

function DoActualSearch() {
ss_timeron=0;
var newdiv = document.getElementById("searchsuggest");
if (!newdiv) {
var newdiv = document.createElement("div");
newdiv.id = "searchsuggest";
var searchdiv = document.getElementById("searchBody");
searchdiv.appendChild(newdiv);
}
var x = document.getElementById("searchInput").value;
if (x == ss_memory) {
return;
}
ss_memory = x;
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'none';
if (x.length < 30 && x.length > 1 && x.value != "") {
sajax_do_call("wfAjaxSearchSuggest", [x], newdiv);
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'block';
}
}

function MySearchCall() {
if(ss_timeron) {
clearTimeout(ss_timer);
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
} else {
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
ss_timeron=1;
}
}

function myss_ajax_onload(){
var x = document.getElementById('searchInput');
x.onkeyup = function(){
MySearchCall();
};
}

hookEvent("load", myss_ajax_onload);
</nowiki></pre>
Unfortunately it won't fix the actual contents of the search suggestions, so you'll still get a bunch of All Hail Megatron issues when you type "Megatron", but that requires changes on the server. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hmm. I feel like adding <tt>ORDER BY `page_counter` DESC</tt> around line 20 of ''suggest.php'' might help w/ our search results, but it's hard to say for sure given how abstracted mediawiki database calls are, someone would have ot make the change then test it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::The thought I had was to do a query on article titles starting with the search term, and then if that gives back less than 8 entries, do a second search to fill the rest of the list with titles with the term anywhere in the title. The search suggest currently supports both options, but not at the same time. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

==Stuff==
: Firstly, our organization of information related to the junior franchises is terrible and I'd love to do something about it, but I need feedback. We currently have most Japanese and American Go-Bots as separate characters, except for the Japanese Go-Bots from the 1-2-3 line. Though there are requests for a separate Chopper page. Should those pages be split or not? And if so, what about the figures that came with some of the toys. Kid-Bot clearly isn't the "red driver" or "blue driver", but the dog and "Gas-Bot" both have fiction in only one of the two franchises, so is it worth separating them? Also, does the unpublished coloring book count as apocrypha or not, seeing as it was mostly approved? And the human characters within, do they count as cameos like Kelly in the Dreamwave comics or separate characters? And does anyone know what the Japanese name was by which the First Transformers were released? The Go-Bots fansite has an image of Dumpkun's box featuring what looks like a G1 logo, the First Transformers logo and "初めてトランスフォーマー" written on it.
: Secondly, many disambiguation pages still mention if there's a separate page for the toys of a character. Is this system still necessary now that we use subpages to separate such stuff under? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 17:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

::I think unpublished stuff is treated as apocrypha, isn't it? The character page coverage of unreleased Dreamwave issues is in notes, for instance. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:48, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::True, but we don't know if those were approved or know those weren't approved. The coloring book was approved, just not released. That makes it better comparable to Wreckers #$, which we do not consider apocrypha (though I wouldn't know if we'd do that if Wreckers #5 didn't partially canonize it). [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 11:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::Just weighing in on the toy page issue: I find it useful to have these called out on the disambig pages. Being able to go directly from the disambig page to the toy page of a character saves me at least one click (if I see the suite box in time) and often some scrolling (if I don't see it). However, I won't fight too hard on this if consensus is for the removal of this feature. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 07:47, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::Thinking some more about the Go-Bots stuff, as the Japanese version of Gas-Bot has no fiction, it probably doesn't need its own page - either link to Gas-Bot's page or just leave it unlinked in the appropriate toy sections. Same with the US version of the dog. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:30, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Facebook. ==

Is '''<nowiki>http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFwikinet/191252494230187</nowiki>''' us? Because it's the #1 link when you search for "TFWiki Facebook," and our group is nowhere to be seen. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

:I think our group is not showing up because you have to have a Facebook account to see it? When I go to the group's URL, I just get a page prompting me to log in to Facebook. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:47, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

::The link is this one: [http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/ http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/], which is the #3 on the search by "TFwiki site:facebook.com" on Google. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 19:51, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So the other one isn't ours, and we can't put a link on it pointing it to the group.
:::Annoying. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It's a "Community page", whatever that is. Clicking on the "Create a page" button on the top right of that page does bring up some sort of form which seems like it will do something. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:12, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Halloween ==

Presuming we're deco'ing our frontpage for Halloween... does anyone have any suggestions? Monsters, ghosts, gouls? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:Animated Blitzwing's random face looks sorta Jack O'Lanterny and could work as a replacement for the Autobot insignia on the site logo, assuming we can find a head-on image of it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:35, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

== Moving "(Timelines)" articles ==

I'm thinking that, as we don't bother with "(Timelines)" for SG, TransTech, and Animated characters, we should apply the same across the board and only use it if necessary.

*[[Astrotrain (Timelines)]] → Astrotrain (Cybertron)
*[[Cannonball (Timelines)]] → Cannonball (G1)
*[[Cop-Tur (Timelines)]] → Cop-Tur (G1)
*[[Halogen (Timelines)]] → Halogen (G1)
*[[Side Burn (Timelines)]] → Side Burn (G1)
*[[Sky-Byte (Timelines)]] → Sky-Byte (G2)
*[[Switchblade (Timelines)]] → Switchblade (BW)
*[[Thunderblast (Timelines)]] → Thunderblast (G1)
*[[Yoketron (Timelines)]] → Yoketron (G1)

The exceptions are the Descent into Evil characters, who don't really fit in any pre-existing franchise, and the Nexus Prime characters, who don't originate from a particular universe.
*[[Buzzclaw (Timelines)]]
*[[Dirge (Timelines)]]
*[[Flareup (Timelines)]]
*[[Landquake (Timelines)]]
*[[Ricochet (Timelines)]]
*[[Heatwave (Timelines)]]

Thoughts? Or does nobody really care that much? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 10:19, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:Since you asked, I'll pitch 2¢ into the conversation, since I know a little bit about it. I found out the hard way that wiki "doesn't bother with '(Timelines)' for Animated." And by hard way, I mean I was clobbered over the head without a hint of explanation for proposing that a Timelines-original Animated continuity character should be at "(Timelines)." But no hard feelings. I still think "franchise of origin" and not "continuity of origin" is best for disambiguations. For reasons that have been discussed previously on the subject. TransTech and SG are treated as a kind of sub-franchises of Timelines by the wiki, so I think they are an OK exception. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::The prose stories are identified as "Transformers Timelines presents a Transformers: (franchise) story". I would say that both franchises are equally valid to the stories, and the fact that non-Timelines stories (Around Cybertron, magazine comics, etc.) bleed together with Timelines stories makes the "(Timelines)" designation convoluted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, that's different. It sounds like you are calling their actual franchise of origin into question, not just their disambiguation. I don't have an opinion about their actual franchise of origin. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying that they're Timelines, but saying that they're better categorized under their other franchise. Like the Animated guys, it seems more instinctive to file [[Side Burn (Timelines)]] under "Side Burn (G1)" instead (not to mention that there's other Side Burn in Timelines: [[Side Burn (SG)]]).[[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:38, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
I'm hesitating, but let me think about the ramifications. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'd be fine with this. Though, one thing I'd like to propose is giving the Wings Universe characters their own disambiguation suffix. Like maybe "(Wings)" or something. I know it's a part of G1, but it's kinda like its own series within the over G1 continuity family like the Japanese G1 series are (which are also given their own suffixes such as "(Victory)", "(ROC)", "(BT)" etc.).

:Though, as for the Descent into Evil characters, maybe something like "(DIE)" or "(Descent)" or even just "(Descent into Evil)". Or, if not, keep them at "(Timelines)". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 11:51, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think the DIE guys are fine where they are (although you could argue moving [[Ricochet (Timelines)]] because of [[Ricochet (SG)]], but I don't really care). As for the Wings Universe guys getting their own disambiguation, eh... [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I am '''definitely absolutely''' against creating a (Wings) disambiguation when (G1) or (Timelines) work perfectly fine. We do NOT disambiguate by continuity except by absolute necessity within a franchise. Making up a (Wings) parenthetical just because incredibly confuses our disambiguation policy for no real reason. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::And what exactly keeps the Descent into Evil guys from being tagged G1? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Is the intermezzo period between G1 and BW considered G1 or BW?

:::It's all G1 characters... and IIRC the Insecticons were supposed ot be part of Insecticon plans which had been around for ages, so the characters weren't "BW-era only" characters...

:::I could support a G1 disambigif you talked me into it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:01, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::DIE fiction (Descent into Evil itself and [[Intimidation Game]]) has elements of both BW and G1; it doesn't have a certain franchise placement. Dirge (Timelines) and Ricochet (Timelines) also have namesakes firmly in G1. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:14, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::::BW is both BW and G1. And G1 has been back-incorporating BW elements since, like, 1995. The fact DIE has G1 and BW doesn't mean it's part of neither. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think that, by the nature of Timelines, it feels more natural to parse that specific set of characters by their continuity or parent-franchise of origin. Honestly, I think the Nexus components (''all'' of them) are really the best and only candidates for the Timelines parser.

::Also, I made a [http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Template:c quick template] that you guys could use here to simplify the coding for whenever you need to link a continuity-parsed name.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:37, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately I don't think that template would work as well here, because our articles are not consistently named by franchise. For instance [[Lightspeed (G1 Technobot)]], [[Flattop (Autobot)]] and [[Impactor]] are all (G1) characters but don't use (G1) in their title, so the template wouldn't work for linking to them. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I think that Timelines is a pretty clunky franchise for the purposes of this wiki, in that it covers multiple continuities. I think the proposal on the table makes sense.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Two spaces after a period in a sentence ==

I've noticed this for a while on the Wiki. In practice, it makes no difference as the software displays one space the same way it displays one. However, I've been wondering why people do it. Now I '''know: They''' were taught so in school. '''By teachers who were taught on friggin' ''typewriters''.''' So the "two spaces after a period" rule is a leftover from the typewriter days, where it was a necessity, but it's completely obsolete on computers. [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html Source]--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:The sentence spacing rules were, in fact, developed by typographers, but were not phased out via the magical introduction of the personal computer. The em-space rule exists for monospaced fonts, which were still fairly common for a great number of printers through the mid-1980s. If you would like to begin a tyrannical series of grammar-based wiki edits, I would begin by avoiding the use of prepositions at the start of sentences. I would also advise some respect for the proper use of colons and semi-colons, as typographical errors should not take priority over proper word selection and punctuation. Cheers! --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 14:20, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Are you referring to sentences beginning with prepositional phrases for the sake of emphasis (also known as an introductory modifiers)? That's totally valid. Or do you mean idiocies such as relative clauses that are separated from the preceding main clause by a period instead of a comma? The most glaring typographic blunders I encounter on the wiki typically go hand in hand with awkwardly worded sentences and clunky terminology, so I'm inclined to assume the same person(s) is/are responsible for all of those.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::I have bolded an example. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Aw, you altered your post. No fair! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:16, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::What'd I alter? I just moved it up. Anyway... I'd call that one "deliberate departure from proper grammar for the sake of dramatic emphasis". It's about as improper as using a period after ''every. Single. Word.'' If it's obvious from the context that it's done for emphasis, I'd call it acceptable as long as it's not used inflationary. I'm sure we have a few cases of "We know it's not proper grammar, but we want to stress a point here" on the wiki. (How did the saying go again? "Know the rules first before you break them"?)--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:28, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:....or you can just set the bot to convert " " to " ". Since we don't output monospace font, or anything.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Over the whole wiki, those extra spaces account for maybe 20kb of data, which I don't think is worth worrying about. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Typed text is typed text, and the double-space after a period is still correct. Shall we next be told that we're "wrong" for not having the wiki use the metric system, or for writing down dates with the month before the day instead of after it? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, and I bolded something too. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Due to habit, I'm gonna double-space until I die. I really don't think that needs to be considered a problem. Is that really a problem? An extra millimeter between sentences? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Nevermore ''is'' right about it being mostly obsolete, but for purely technical reasons: All double (triple, etc.) spaces are collapsed down to one for display in HTML. If you want the extra spaces to actually be viewable as extra blank space, you have to use <tt>&</tt><tt></tt><tt>nbsp;</tt>. So if you double-space here on the wiki, it only shows up when you edit the page. For whatever that's worth. (Not really taking sides, just presenting the info.) --[[Special:Contributions/67.252.49.31|67.252.49.31]] 06:08, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== More on the search box/"Transformers" everything ==

Typing "Energon" into the search box does not give me [[Energon (franchise)]], [[Energon (cartoon)]] or [[Energon (toyline)]] as top results. Same for "Cybertron". I assume this has to do with the recent "Transformers" prefixing for article titles. However, typing "Animated" into the seach box ''does'' give me franchise and toyline as top results, so it should be ''possible'' despite the prefixing.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:It's purely alphabetical, dude. ''Animated'' shows up before ''Arcee (Animated)'' because "An" precedes "Ar", whereas ''Arcee (Energon)'' comes up before ''Energon'' because "A" precedes "E". --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:13, 6 November 2011 (EST)
::There's an option in the search suggest tool to limit the results to stuff starting with the search query rather than with stuff with the term anywhere in their titles, however it's not something that can be configured through MediaWiki. There's a bit of discussion about it in the "Making the search suggestion work better" section up above. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:::If we wanted to do ''that'', when we shouldn't have prefixed "Transformers:" before hundreds of articles 3 weeks ago. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:06, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::We still have the titles without "Transformers: " as redirects though, so they'll still show up. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:23, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== Spam-dalism ==

Is that the neologism for it? Anyway, somehow the ReCaptcha is failing to stop the automated spam, and I'm guessing the IP's are all very different.

How old are the accounts when they do this? If they're fairly new, would it be possible to simply block IPs and new accounts from inserting new external links? If not (or if that's unworkable), would it be possible to flag such edits for review the way that wikipedia does to edits on contested pages?

Also, is there any chance these are at least coming from the same proxy? The fact that they're getting past ReCaptcha makes it seem like these are actual people doing this, unless ReCaptcha only activates on certain namespaces.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 14:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:I was using captcha with images on my phpBB installation on another site (Doctor Who related) until yesterday and getting a half dozen spammers a day signing up in despite of it. Yesterday I switched to a Question Answer challenge which asks the person registering to name the main character's time machine, and so far it has stopped the spammers dead.
:MediaWiki has [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha] which looks like it works in exactly the same way, and works with the ConfirmEdit extension we already have installed. If we can get that installed and set up, it might be more effective than the image-based system we use now. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::What would the questions be? It can't be too obvious or too obscure. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:31, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:::Not necessarily. The question I'm using on my Doctor Who site is obvious if you have any knowledge at all of the source material, but it seems to be working. We can always start with something easy and see how we go. Most likely all of the spammers are using bots anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::"What is the name of the red-and-blue semi Autobot?", "What's the name of the blue casette player Decepticon?", or "What is the name of the yellow semi Micromaster Autobot with a hydraulic crane?"[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 17:50, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::: "What is the fandom's usual reaction when a new franchise is announced?" :p [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:56, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::::<tt>If Dick has two apples and Jane has two apples, how many apples do they have? (3 letters.)</tt> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:09, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::Ah, but then it would be so easy for users to use only three exclamation marks, and forget the requisite four exclamation marks and a 1.
::No but yeah, a question helps a lot. Might even be worth doing for all IP edits and new accounts, not just those with external links.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:57, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::While we're on the subject, is it somehow possible to flag certain terms or words used by IP editors and auto-block them? *coughcoughobamacoughcough*[[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 16:31, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::...but we have an article on [[Barry Obama]].
:::Are you trying to whitewash the wiki? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:13, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::: It was just an academic question; after all, I'm sure that you've noticed our considerable problem with a certain IP editor lately. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:19, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::: Well yes... but I couldn't resist. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:43, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a temp ban on the whole ISP might get better results. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:51, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::sooo...who would you need to talk to about getting this set up, and what exactly do you want to restrict?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 19:45, 21 November 2011 (EST)
:::::The guy whose IP addresses are always located in England who keeps vandalizing articles with Obama-related nonsense. Doesn't look like even banning IP ranges stops him. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 11:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::...so, there's no way to stop this lunatic? [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 11:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:Options, in order of severity:
#Block all new uses of the word "Obama" to all anonymous editors.
#Block anonymous editors entirely.
#Destroy England.
:But really, that's a separate issue with probably a separate solution, since the guy is a some kind of being. To deal with the spamdalism, I think you guys should add a "name that Transformer-mon!" question, which should cut down heavily on automated edits, and if they still get through, look at blocking all uses of external links for anonymous or new editors. The use of the question for all IP edits is fairly standard, so it should be easy to implement, and you can look into harsher measures if the bots still make it through. However, I really think you guys should make an effort to get this setup, because the conversation keeps kind of drifting down and the vandalism keeps happening.[[Special:Contributions/98.223.102.157|98.223.102.157]] 02:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:: On another note... isn't it cute how he keps trying to badly pass himself off as me? I think someone has a bad case of hero-worship. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 10:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Please stop egging on vandals. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::: OK, on a more serious note, is anyone averse to just locking the wiki for a few days? Bulbapedia does it regularily and they don't have much of a vandalism problem. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 12:36, 23 November 2011 (EST)
Removing the "Undo" option for anons would help, at the very least. We need a regular tech person (or give abates access to the MediaWiki stuff, since he seems to know his way around). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:12, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::: What if we implemented a captcha system for anon edits? I mean, it wouldn't ''stop'' them, per se, but it would make persistent vandalism wars a hassle. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:16, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would not be opposed to that, or simple stock questions. ("Who is the leader of the Autobots?", "What is two plus three?", etc.) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:23, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:::: Rodimus Prime? :p
::::: But seriously, how did Mr. Obama Guy get past the rangeblock? Because that's rather worrysome in and of itself. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::::BT Internet has a lot of IP ranges. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:58, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Okay. Listen.<br>
1) CAPTCHA won't change crap. It ''might'' stop a small number of bot edits, but we have a large, active mod presence that basically polices this place around the clock, and any of those crappy ad pages can be eliminated in mere minutes, if not within seconds of their creation.<br>
2) There is basically '''''NOTHING''''' that can be done to ''stop'' someone who has decided that the best use of their time is constant, repeated, easily-reverted vandalism of a wiki. Well, okay there are a few options, but they're not ones any kind of wiki coding is gonna be part of. They'll find ways around bans, and all these automated things that are being suggested are basically shooting blind and wasting time. This is not remotely the first time someone has thought to do this. It won't be the last. But we've outlasted all those others. And that's all it takes. Again... that large active 24-hour admin presence that quickly and coolly reverts the vandalism ''without getting all butthurt''. That's what vandals want, to watch you get pissy and panicky and angry... ''and that's what you're giving them.'' So '''''shut up''''' and stop feeding that, then they'll eventually get bored and leave.<br>
3) I can perhaps get behind removing the "Undo" option for anons. I don't think though that it will really help much, since making an account takes what, a few seconds?<br>
--[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:38, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:Um. I don't want to offend anyone, but the Obama-guy thing ''really'' isn't related to this topic, although some of the solutions to the spamdalism thing might work to hinder him. The bigger issue is the guys spamming the wiki with links to knockoff viagra, sort of thing, and putting up a simple question system for anons and new editors would work to stop that almost completely, at least everywhere I've seen it in use.
:The mod presence, yeah, things eventually get cleaned up by the end of the day, but a simple, standard change like adding the question will prevent that from happening in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/99.39.88.159|99.39.88.159]] 22:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)
:Just to alleviate any concerns: In my experience, the question captcha does not prevent human edits except from the most severely uninformed editors, and it completely prevents the bot-spam, which at this point almost totally covers the RC when I happen to check it. Many other independent wikis, such as Halopedian, use the question captcha, so if you guys wanted a first-person POV on it, you could also ask them for their experiences. Basically, the captcha question should totally eliminate the bot-spam, with the only drawback being that it adds maybe a fraction of a second to anonymous human edits. So, given that, does anyone have any objections to adding the captcha question?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)--(same anon as throughout this topic)

== Spelling throughout the Wiki ==

I've found that, on multiple spots on the Wiki, there are UK English spellings of words. Now, I know that the Transformers Wiki is a country-spanning project, but I'd like a consensus on whether or not we should change incidences of UK spellings (like "practise" and "polarize") to their American English counterparts. A streamlined flow using only one dialect would, I believe, make the editing process much easier. However, I do not want a backlash from UK users. <br>
P.S.: Damn you, Webster! You and your new-world dictionary! [[User:TheMZone|TheMZone]] 18:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:[[Help:Style guide#National varieties of English|Here is the wiki's policy on the subject]] just so you know. I myself don't think it needs changing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

== Why are the IDW books in G1? ==

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.) {{unsigned|158.103.0.1}}
:Uggghhhhhh. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:Yeahhh, you not understanding the concept of Continuity Families particularly well.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 16:30, 1 December 2011 (EST)

::Other continuities within the G1 continuity family also eschew some of those classic aspects. In [[Action Blast 1]], for instance, the Autobots crash on present-day Earth and they don't hang around in stasis for millions of years. I don't think there's really a template of specific events that a G1 continuity has to stick to. That would hamper storytelling too much. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

:::Also, they share a lot of the same characters, body designs, and personalities. Granted, some of them are common across the multiverse, but things like Megatron becoming a gun and Optimus Prime as a flatnosed tractor-trailer are distinctly G1-ish. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:29, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::FYI: [[Talk:IDW Generation 1 continuity#New evidence that IDW is not G1|Previous discussion here]]. Yes, on the one hand, it is G1 because it uses the G1 cast of characters for the most part, and most of those pretty much have the same personality as their G1 bio card as on their G1 counterparts (with the significant exception of their gimmicks). On the other hand, [http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=143991#143991 an artist] has said it is not G1, so it isn't entirely crazy to say it isn't G1. The universe itself doesn't seem particularly G1. It is like a different universe populated with G1 guys. The Micromasters aren't Cybertronain (I think), so a whole class of G1 Transformers aren't Transformers which sounds like a different universe. In short, it mostly makes sense for the wiki to organize it under G1 so they don't have to duplicate character pages with characters with mostly the same intro paragraph. But don't take it too seriously, it isn't official or anything. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:54, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::: No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I mean is that there seems to be no CANON justification for why IDW is considered G1. Especially because it lacks the links of similar G1 works, it’s never been verified as such by the creators (as far as I know) and it’s “G1-ness” is tentative at best.

:::::IDW really doesn’t have as strong a link as or other G1 families. They all either were marketed as direct extensions to the original 80s ‘Toon and Comic adaptations (Gen 2 and Dreamwave ) established “next gen” sequels (Beast Era) Inserts into Gen 1 (Alternators and much of Japan’s stuff) Or add ons to particular points of the G1 timeline (Classics, Dreamwave) hell Timelines might count as a little bit of all of these. IDW really has no direct link.

:::::That leaves us to the creators, and when it’s referred as such by them they use the term "reboot” or the like. Hell Simon Furman, architect of a large section of G1, straight up called it an ‘Ultimate’ version in his CBR interview. And Don Fig doesn’t consider it G1 at all.

:::::Even then we look at why we call it G1 it causes all kinds of fallacies. Relying ion art style to tell families (as said in our very own article) leads to insanity, as characters change appearances across media ostensibly in eths same family all the time (for example WFC and Prime) likewise the “G1" aspects, such as personality, and looks, have been used both in the Transformers Film and Animated families, and yet we don’t consider them G1 despite both being just about the same kind of reboot on it IDW is. They incorporate a version of the Beast Ear into their timeline but assuming a connection with their main IDW addition, it’s just as differing as Aligned or Animated version of the Beast era would be.

:::::I’m not trying to rock the boat I se4riously would just like to know if there’s any official, canon, or Hasbro/Creator data that states IDW as a version of G1, because right now I’m not seeing it.

:::::Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be seen as the "young turk" coming into old pros territory and rocking the boat against guys who have been studying this since before I was born, but I just picked up a bunch of Simon Furman stuff from [[http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Marvelcomicscontinuity.jpg The old comics]] as well as the big two volume IDW packs and they just don't fit at all. They're as different from G1 as the Films, Animated or RID are. I don't think we should makes assumptions and leaps of logic just for convenience's sake, kind belies the purpose of a wiki, ya know?
::::::This is a ridiculous amount of navel-gazing to get past the point that IDW continuity is just G1 in new dressing and not a new franchise of its own. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::By that terminology ALL of Transformers media is Just "g1 in a new dressing" by the virtue of G1 starting the franchise.
::::::::That is not what I mean by "franchise". Please don't be obtuse. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 02:05, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::Considering new Generation 1 toys keep being made in the style of IDW design, that that firmly cements the stuff as being G1 in Hasbro's eyes. And the fact that they are constantly using Generation 1-style character aesthetics, personalizations and the freaking '''original font''' on the titles. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::The wiki's more confident about calling it G1 than even Hasbro, which calls the toys "Generations." Wiki organization is one thing, but we act more like it is a fact than it actually is. "Generation 1" doesn't really exist anymore. Hasbro is a little ashamed of it. Or at least doesn't want to pigeon-hole their toys and comics as being old-school. The [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] page as a "Generation 1" logo on top. That doesn't really reflect reality which is more hazy. Maybe "Generations" is the new "Generation 1" or something. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::To use your Simon Furman point against you, saying that IDW is not G1 is kind of like saying that Ultimate Marvel is not part of the Marvel Multiverse. It may be fairly different, but it is undeniably the same basic characters and situations. Also, I never have figured out why anyone really cares what the creative teams think, anything they say can be overruled by Hasbro at any time. Even after it has been published. Only Hasbro's opinion really matters.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:07, 2 December 2011 (EST)
Discussed ad nauseum years ago. Nothing new has been added to the conversation since. Not changing. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 05:13, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Aesthetics have already been disavowed as a valid ground for Continuity Pedigree, most notably with the Aligned Family. if Hasbro itself hasn’t recognized it as G1, hasn’t directly tied it to a previous G1 work, and if the writers and artists themselves don’t consider it G1, how is it legitimate to denote it as G1 based on our interpretation. Especially given such ethereal "evidence" as the looks of toys and ''fonts'' of all things.

:::::::::Hasbro has yet to give any word. And also the Marvel analogy wont work, because while Marvel has but ONE Multiverse composed of several individual universes. The TF Multiverse is a collection of Universal Streams, each roughly following the same vents with several different interpretations over key events. It's like comparing diffirent versions of the Bible as rather than like comparing the Bible against the Koran.

:::::::::M Sipher, would you do an FYI link? I've seen the discussion over on IDW Continuity’s Main page and the quibbles on the main Continuity Family but never any hard decree from an authority based on reasoning any more firm than convenience. I'm simply trying to hold IDW to the standards of the other G1 works on the wiki, all of which have '''in-canon''' links to versions of G1, or else are stated as such by the Companies.

:99% of all IDW characters are G1 characters, based on their original G1 counterparts. The different origins of some characters (Arcee) are no different than varying origins between the original cartoon and Marvel Comics (Grimlock, Technobots). Compared to the Aurex universes, where only Optimus, Megatron and Starscream consistently fit the G1 character archetypes, whereas most other characters are clearly just name reuses (Red Alert, Cyclonus, Jetfire, etc). Even Malgus and Tyran, both clearly closer to the G1 continuity than Aurex, have clearly distinctive character differences. IDW Bumblebee is clearly a variation on the original G1 Bumblebee, whereas Movie 'Bee and Animated Bumblebee are approximate extrapolations, see also Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, and so on.
:IDW is a G1 universe that has expanded beyond the original G1 concepts, but not the characters themselves. Trying something new is not the same as abandoning the underlying foundation. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 11:47, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:I'm sure there are other examples, but Prowl, Sunstreaker, and Sideswipe have appeared in their Universe Classics series bodies while Starscream, Thundercracker and Skywarp have appeared in their Masterpiece bodies. All of those are undoubted G1 toys. Either IDW is G1 or those toys are being repurposed. All things considered it seems most parsimonious to classify IDW as a part of G1. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::Masterpiece is a franchise. Classics series is G1<sup>continuity family</sup> but it isn't G1<sup>franchise</sup>. Unfortunately, "G1" can mean different things. Just so everyone is on the same page, the wiki treats IDW as being part of the G1 ''[[franchise]]''. For example, on the [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] it has the G1 franchise logo. Is that what this discussion is about, or is the discussion about if IDW is part of the G1 continuity family? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 12:28, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::The original poster said continuity family. I do consider IDW a different franchise within the G1 continuity family. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:39, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, OK. Anyone else? Show of hands? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 14:04, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::But does the use of Character analogous to G1 interpretations define it as a G1 series? This really comes don to whether we define continuity families as being overlays of roughly similar events (as in Tvtropes Broad Strokes) or whether we are tying versions of characters as the archetype from which it is based. If you're taking side new altmodes and differences like Goldbug and Galvatron is being "based" on G1 to a degree enough to allot status within the family? At that point we might as well make a spectrum of "G1-ness" and start arbitrarily cutting everything. As it stands now our definitions of Families are based off there uniqueness of story and universe content, and IDW differs significantly from any other G1 work.
:::So does ''Hearts of Steel''. Shall we consider that a separate family as well? - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 13:11, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::As the line of books it was from was cancled de jure that cnat really be elaborated on. (Although it's G1 staus was controversial to start with, it being the TF equivilant to a What if or Elseworlds) But HoS was never devolved as an obstensive reboot, rather an Alt-universe portyal that gets put in G1 by the same stroke as the Sg-verse. (if we diidnt have it's Universal Stream number to go by). IDW on the contrary was billed as a reboot, the same way aligned is being done now. Couple that with the radical (and debatedly unparalleled ) story alterations and you have apples and oranges. Though really teh entire "G1 by default" mindset is pretty off-putting. Heck it might even work as a really big Mirco-Contunity. Pardoxial as that sounds.
:::I was under the impression that the character archetypes were a major part of what makes a continuity family. These problems really only arise with G1 because it is the only family that has had multiple continuations and reboots and additions for decades after its debut. The RID, Unicron Trilogy and Animated continuity families have been pretty well limited to their original period of release (not ''entirely'' so but with only a few minor exceptions). --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 18:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::I think this is really down to the fact that Continuity & Franchises is just too darn confusing. Not to mention that there can be disparate continuities within a franchise and different franchises can make up a continuity, all of which fit into the over-arching Continuity Family. Obviously there must be enough in common in order to include any new franchise into an existing Family, or to take the leap and create a new Continuity Family. Does new media have to have enough in common with the progenitor of a Continuity Family to be included? Or merely use aspects of the varying franchises of said Continuity Family? With G1 ''all'' of the supporting media has strayed from the originating cartoon, but kept enough characterizations, and broad timelines within the Family. RID, Animated, Aligned, etc have all maintained aspects of 'Transformers' but been significantly different from each other to establish there places as individual Continuity Families. Whereas IDW is disparate from these Families, and other than story lines (which have to change be definition) most closely fits G1. In order to argue IDW being a new Continuity Family you would have to prove that it is different enough from other existing Continuity Families & G1, which doesn't fit given the IDW timeline, characters and mythology, it is all based off of G1 franchises.[[User:Yuppie|Yuppie]] 19:04, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::::I just want to point out that the G1 cartoon ISN'T the "originating" source. That would be the TOYS. And the comic work came before the cartoon. So... yeah. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 19:15, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::That's right. Transformers is different than other fiction on TVTropes because the toys are the originating source and not storylines. Therefore the characters derived from the toys are the important thing. Even in things you would think so, like movies. If they came up with completely different fiction with the movie toylines cast, it would be the live action movie continuity family. So I think IDW is pretty clearly G1<sup>continuity family</sup>. What else but G1 would include Roller and the Combat Deck? Nothing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 00:04, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::::::: So the official definition is based off of the toylines? Okay, fine by me. I guess I'll edit that line somewhere on the main Family page. Would you also mind linking me to the IDW toyline page? Google brings up zippo.
==Beast Wars Neo Sausage is gone!==
The page was deleted for some reason. It was marked as vandalism, but as I'm sure some of you know it actually existed. -- [[User:Terrortron|Terrortron]] 22:47, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:As far as I know it didn't. Are you sure you're not thinking of [[Beast Wars II Sausage]]? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:13, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::Do you mean the page or the product? I'm not sure the page existed, but the product itself most certainly did: [http://movies.tfarchive.com/movies/Commercials/Japanese/bwneo3.mpg TV commercial for Beast Wars Neo Sausages] --[[User:Tigerpaw28|Tigerpaw28]] 00:55, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::We've never had a BWN Sausage page, no. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:16, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::::We had it briefly in January but it was just a vandal making [[Beast Wars Neo Sausage|a crappy page]]. Feel free to create it again if you have the info. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 01:26, 3 December 2011 (EST)

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-02T22:34:32Z

158.103.0.1:

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-02T19:15:48Z

158.103.0.1:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Aligned Timeline ==

I'm going to try and take a stab at creating an Aligned timeline that unites everything we know about the franchise(s) so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Help Wanted ==

Hello one and all. I'm here representing a newly created Role-Playing forum that is based in the Transformers Universe. We're in the early stages yet, and are looking for people to help get the ball rolling. Since this site seems to lack a dedicated forum (where requests like these would usually be made) and I haven't seen any other way to effectively say my piece in front of a large audience, I thought that posting here was the best way to "advertise" us, as it were. I sincerely apologize if this was the wrong move on our part, or if I've breached protocol at all, but I can assure everyone that our intentions aren't malign. Those interested, please contact me using any of the ways that I have listed on my username page here on this site. I won't tempt fate by linking our website here directly =P

Once again, you all have my sincere greetings, and I hope to hear from you soon. Also, as a side note: the difference in quality between this page and the transformers wikia is amazing. [[User:Rathian Warrior|Rathian Warrior]] 23:50, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if you've crossed any lines, and frankly, you were polite enough about it that it's not a big deal, but you could always buy some ad space if you want to raise awareness of your forum. It's cheap! There's usually a link on every page around the banners, but if you didn't catch it, you can follow this link: [https://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=25311&type=4 Project Wonderful TFWiki Page]--[[User:McFly|McFly]] 16:13, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== "Fictional" and "real" categories ==
I think we need to come up with a consistent way to distinguish categories of things that are real and categories of things that have appeared in fiction. So far, we've skimmed the issue by using synonyms, such as [[:Category:Companies|companies]] and [[:Category:Businesses|businesses]], but that doesn't really work for things like [[:Category:Magazines|magazines]], which is already used for real magazines. Currently, we have [[:Category:Fictional books]], [[:Category:Fictional video games]] that consider the fictional entities "different". On the other hand, we have [[:Category:Real-world events by day]] and [[:Category:Real world films]]. We focus more on the fictional aspect of Transformers, so it makes sense to not point out the fictionality in categories, but "real world" sounds awkward to some. Which one should we use? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:26, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I thought I'd cheat and see how some of the other fictional Wikis deal with the problem. Three different approaches I saw:
:*[http://tardis.wikia.com/ Doctor Who wiki] has a [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Real_world "Real World" category] for real world stuff and in most cases the categories for real world things are at "Real world X".
:*[http://wookiepedia.org/ Wookiepedia] goes the parenthetical route, with "Books" and "Books (real-world)". Though they also have one or two like "Real world companies".
:*[http://stargate.wikia.com/ Stargate wiki] has "Books" versus "Stargate books" for real world books.
:I kinda like the parenthetical approach that Wookiepedia have taken. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'd favor pointing out the status of both categories, just to make absolutely clear what they are for. The words can be "Fictional" and "Real-world" (I notice both real-world categories use a different spelling. Whichever it's gonna be (if), only one spelling should be used). "Nonfictional" kinda works as an alternative, would "Real-world" be disliked. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:35, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::If we go that route, I think "real-world" should be used, since "real world" is a lot more easier to fix than the other parsing. I like the Wookiepedia approach, but I'm not sure that's enough to change how we already do categories. The idea to label both categories sounds nice, but "Fictional X" seems incongruous with unlabeled categories, such as "weapons", "technology", etc.; considering that our main focus is the fiction, I'm leaning towards only labeling the real stuff. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I think it would be advantageous to put a {{tl|disambig2}} at the top, so people could easily go from the fictional to the real world category too. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:30, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yeah, I think I put that on [[:Category:Films]] a while ago. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:57, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Speaking of this, I found we handle [[:Category:Films]] like [[:Category:Real people]], wouldn't this be some, um, confusing? It's just, somehow, reverse? (Except for the fictional films like ''Honoji'') According to the logic of how we handle [[:Category:Real people]], shouldn't we place films like ''40-Year-Old Virgin'' or ''Godzilla'' in the [[:Category:Real world films]]? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Godzilla doesn't go in "Real world films" because it's not a real world ''Transformers'' film. The Transformers is implied in that category name. Presumably we could have a "Real films" category for Godzilla, etc, but I'm not sure it's worth doing. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:53, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::We shouldn't use "fictional X" for two reasons. One, there things like [[As the Kitchen Sinks]] that are fictional even within the fictional Transformers universe. Second, the wiki is written in-universe by default and putting [[Big Steve's Used Cars]] in a "fictional businesses" category would kind of break that. Within Transformers fiction, "Big Steve's Used Cars" is not a fictional company, but "As the Kitchen Sinks" is a fictional TV show. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:47, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is not a fictional show. It depicts fictional events and fictional people, yes, but the show itself, as a piece of entertainment, is not fictional. I do get your point, as we actually have things like [[Frankenstein]] that are two layers of fiction removed from us. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, of course. I meant, in-universe, ''As the Kitchen Sinks'' is a work of fiction, whereas "Big Steve's Used Cars" is a real business that sells real used cars to real people. Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Wasn't ''Buck Rogers'' a fictional TV show? Anyway, it sounds like you got my point. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Or, judging by the fact categories like "Magazines" in used for magazines in our real life and "Companies" for companies in real life, why not just use "Film" for films (such as DOTM) in real life, while we move current contents in "Films" to "Films in ''Transformers'' fictions"? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::That seems like it would go counter to some of our existing naming schemes. e.g. if we split that out into films by franchise, you'd get "Films in Generation 1" rather than "Generation 1 films". Though admittedly the former title might have the advantage that it's clearer in meaning. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I think both are equally ambiguous in their meaning. If we still need to clarify the purpose of the categories, we can always spell it out in the category's introduction. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Transformers: " ==
We talked a bit about adding back "Transformers: " to the titles of articles [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive51#When_to_omit_.22Transformers.22_from_an_article_title|previously]], and the general sentiment was that people were for it or didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any input in this matter? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:34, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm okay with this change, but I do have three questions on execution. <br>1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled? <br>2.) If "Transformers(:)" is going to be added to every relevant page name, then what about all the extra words in the titles of Japanese stuff? <br>3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc? <br>[[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::#I think we've had two consistent rules about that: If the title is some kind of phrase, like "Transformers United", "The Transformers Collection", or "Transformers Animated", then we don't use the colon. If the title is some kind of obvious "title: subtitle" setup ("Transformers: Armada", "Transformers: Prime"), then we use the colon. There's some borderline examples, but I think we can figure them out one by one. Official sources will help with determining colon-status. The other rule seems to apply to only games: If the title has another subtitle, then the first colon is dropped (ex. [[Transformers Prime: Terrorcon Defense]]). I dunno why, but we can add back the colon, I suppose.
::#I guess we add them? We could argue it for ''Victory'', since it was released in English contexts as just "Transformers: Victory".
::#I think we're just going to continue the same in relation to those. The articles will still be sorted by their subtitles in categories. Storylinks I could go either way on, but I think the trend is to drop the main title. I've been doing that for the AAII storylinks to avoid excessively long links. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:49, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I don't see how "Transformers United" and "Transformers Animated" are any different from "Transformers: Prime". To me, all three could fall into either of your groups (phrase vs subtitle) and would prefer colons in all of those cases. Of your examples, only "The Transformers Collection" seems to really belong in the "phrase" group. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::"United" and "Animated" are adjectives that modify "Transformers" and have official sources that omit the colon. "Transformers Prime" doesn't make sense in that way. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:58, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I am not certain about those two "rules" for colons either. They're rather vague and bound to cause arguments and confusion. It needs to be made more obvious whether a colon should be used or not before "Transformers" can be added everywhere (a help page on the matter would also be handy in the future, me thinks).

::::I think that if we would put the cartoon at ''Transformers: Victory'', that would cause confusion with the manga, storypages, toyline and franchises, none of which were ever brought over and should thus not be named such. If moved, the ''Victory'' cartoon should best go to its Japanese name. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 15:28, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>shrug* The first rule is mostly there for Transformers Animated, which people will be resistant to moving to have a colon (plus, obvious cases like The Transformers Collection). The second rule I really don't care about and can be tossed (it mostly only concerns the movie series of video games and online games). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you suggesting there that Victory articles should be moved to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory"? I'd disagree with that, if so! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:25, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Why? We can't go around writing out the full names of Western franchises and stuff but not do so for the Japanese stuff. We already have "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" written out for the 1985 & 1986 Japanese franchises, so why not ''Victory''? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 07:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Victory (the cartoon) has been released in the West as "Transformers: Victory", to me that means that the official English name of the franchise ''is'' Transformers: Victory. Yes, we should give the full Japanese title at the beginning of the franchise page but there is no reason to move anything to that name. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:35, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::That was pretty much my reasoning too (also typing out the full name every time we wanted to link to it would be tedious). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Tying out "(franchise)" every time for everything is more tedious, but we still have it (for... some reason). Ditto long titles like [[The Story of Super Robot Lifeforms: The Transformers]] and [[Transformers Vault]]'s previous ridiculously long title.
:::::::::But I guess the general principle of "Transformers: " is acceptable to most. I'll start moving the noncontroversial pages (Western comics and cartoons with definite subtitles, etc.) if there's no opposition in the next few hours. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Is there a difference between [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|Transformers: Beast Wars: The Ascending]]? I must admit, the comma/colon distinction seems kinda arbitrary. Also, these page names seem kind of overlong and stupid, what's wrong with [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|The Ascending]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering|The Gathering]]? It's a Transformers wiki and those are Beast Wars series; prefixing everything we possibly can with "Transformers" is only going to clog up the search box and make editing just that bit more arduous. What were the arguments in favour of this again? --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 16:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::That's the formatting used in the indicia. Your complaint about the search box is silly; did you really think typing "Transformers" into it yielded anything useful 99% of the time?
:::::::::::Like it or not, "Transformers: " is the part of the name of many things, and the hoops we have to go through to maintain this silly system of dropping it from article titles has gotten ridiculous and inconsistent. Adding "Transformers: " to article titles, on the other hand, adds ''clarity'' and avoids pointless disambiguation. "The Transformers: Bumblebee" is preferable to "Bumblebee (comic)", "Transformers: Sector 7" to "Sector 7 (comic)", etc. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:44, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::I get that it's useful in some cases, but it just seems like applying the rule across the board means we're overcomplicating the issue. Occam's razor has a lot going for it, and for user-friendliness I'd go for brevity. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 17:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Also on an Occam's razor tip, "Bumblebee (comic)" conveys more information in fewer characters than "Transformers: Bumblebee". I really don't understand why the latter is preferable. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 14:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::There's something to say for either argument, but as it is, we have proven to be unable to keep to one consistent "Transformers"-as-part-of-the-title policy at least since TFA. And if trying to keep "Transformers" out of the deal doesn't work, we oughta give the alternative a chance. I don't think it necesarilly makes it harder to find anything, as the search box reacts to words even if they are not the first part of a page title. And I want to have the changes in clear perspective before I might suggest deleting a few redirects, so at least for now, searches won't be any harder and we have a consistent policy. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:49, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I gotta say, I'm hating how this is working in practice. Article titles seem long and ugly to me.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:46, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I feel the same, but it seems to be an necessary evil because "Transformers: ***" is a full title? duh. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 22:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::I fear the day someone decides to add full titles to disambiguation suffixes as well, e.g. "Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)", "Grindor (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)" etc.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 13:43, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::That would be silly, and I'm pretty sure most people would oppose it. Putting "Transformers:" in names is a change we'd already been drifting towards for a while with, for instance, the War for Cybertron articles all doing it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::On a related note, it's a pet peeve of mine when a writeup talks about a specific medium related to a franchise but links to the franchise as a whole instead, such as "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] toyline" or "in episode 6 of the [[Energon (franchise)|Energon]] cartoon...".--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Would the best solution there be something like "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] [[Cybertron (toyline)|toyline]]"? --[[Special:Contributions/77.99.176.103|77.99.176.103]] 03:32, 29 September 2011 (EDT) (oops, emvee not logged in)
::::::I think linking to the toyline page is sufficent. There's no need for an additional link to the corresponding umbrella franchise. The thought behind this is: "If Joe McRandom sees something that interests him and clicks a link, does he want the link to take him straight to the specific topic or to a more general overview?" I think link targets should always be as specific as necessary. If someone gets interested in a broader overview, he can always go one level up. After all, a link referring to G1 Optimus Prime leads to [[Optimus Prime (G1)]], not to [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)]], either. In the same fashion, toyline pages should deeplink to the specific toy entries on the respective characters' pages (or even their toy pages, if applicable). Like, if Joe McRandom is on the [[Transformers: Universe (2008 toyline)|Universe (2008 toyline)]] page, sees a "Prowl" toy listed under "Deluxe Class" and wants to read more about that toy, he wants the "Prowl" link to take him straight to [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Universe (2008)]], not to the [[Prowl (G1)|main character page]] where he then has to scroll down to "toys", see that G1 Prowl toys have their separate page, go ''there'', ''then'' scroll down to "Universe (2008)". (It currently links to [[Prowl (G1)/toys]], which is at least halfway there.) I will fix this wherever I see it, and implement it when doing writeups.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

===Suggestion to creating templates===

Do we need some kinds of templates when typing contents for convenience? For my experience in Terminator Wiki, we use templates like <nowiki>{{T3}} for ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' or {{TSCC}} for ''[[Terminator: The Sarah Connnor Chronicles]]''</nowiki>. What I'm suggesting is that after we make all franchise names into full title (and we don't use redirect links), it is some how trouble some when typing the title. So we can make some templates like:
<pre>
{{tf|Armada}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (franchise)|Transformers: Armada]]''

{{tf|Armada|toyline|Pokeformer}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Pokeformer]]''

{{jptf|bwn}} -> ''[[Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo]]''

</pre>

If there is any user who can created complex template, we could make

<pre>
{{tf|armada|t}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Transformers: Armada]]''

parameter 1:
2010 = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010 (toyline)
thm = Transformers: The Headmasters (toyline)
mf = Transformers: Super-God Masterforce (toyline)
v = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory
z = Transformers: Zone
roc = Transformers: Return of Convoy
oc = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Operation Combination
armada = Transformers Armada
bwn = Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo
mov = Movie
rotf = Revenge of the Fallen
tfa = Transformers Animated
...and (blah blah)

parameter 2:
*default* - franchise
t - toyline
ct - cartoon
co - comic
m - manga
f - film

And, if possible:
if parameter 3 = s (for example), it will become short title like ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Armada]]''

</pre>

--'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's something I've thought about as well. Considering there are a lot of exceptions to the regular naming system (parts of franchises that are called something different or franchises that lack the (franchise) identifier on the wiki because it's not necessary to disambiguate it), I don't think a template can be coded to put a link together. A full list system like our TFtoon templates have could maybe work though. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:08, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think with the number of franchises we have, it would end up being a hellishly big template and difficult to maintain for only a minor gain. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:03, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

==="Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" Transformers===
With the insertion of this phrase into the Victory page titles, should it also be inserted into the titles of The Headmasters, Super-God Masterforce, and Zone? now while the immediate answer would be "No", there are some places that do include this text above the "Toransufōmā" text in each of these series's logos. An example of this would the [[Transformers Tapestry]] (which even includes it in the Operation combination logo as well) and the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Columbia_Zone_DVD.jpg Columbia DVD of Zone]. Its inclusion in these places seems more than mere coincidence, so would we take this idea into consideration? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 14:33, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Um, that ''Zone'' DVD does not support your assertion. All of the ''actual'' media for those series (except for the Zone manga and story pages) do not include The "Fight!..." portion. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Technically the whole toyline in Japan from 1985 to 1992 was called "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" (as was written on the boxes), so at least the toyline pages for the series of those years would probably need the longer title than just "Transformers: ''X'' (toyline)" --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 16:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So you want to move the toyline pages to some made-up name? Pick one: 1) Merge all of the toyline pages to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)" 2) Leave the toyline pages as they are instead of stressing over naming things that technically don't exist. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::How is it "made up"? "Tatakae! Chō Robot Seimeitai" means "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" and is written above the "Toransufōmā" text on the packages of the 1985-1992 Japanese toys. I'm not proposing we merge all those toyline pages together, but rather something akin to the [[Transformers: Beast Wars (Japanese toyline)|Japanese Beast Wars toyline]] page, in which the individual toylines are kept separate even though they were all collectively the same-named toyline. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 17:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: The Headmasters" and its ilk are the imaginary names. Those articles for imaginary toylines are fine where they are. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==="Movie"===
There's still [[Movie (franchise)]], [[Movie (toyline)]] and more. Shouldn't that be "Transformers (2007 franchise)" and "Transformers (2007 toyline)", with the current [[Transformers (2007)]] becoming "Transformers (2007 movie)"?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Probably. I didn't move them, since I wanted to bring it up for discussion first. The film should be moved to just "Transformers (film)", though. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:"Movie (''media'')" should be moved to "Transformers (2007 ''media'')" while "Transformers (2007)" goes "Transformers (film)". --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:27, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::That push for lexical accuracy strikes me as creating more ambiguity than it resolves. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:06, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Jungaroo==
Someone made a lovely [[Jungaroo]] gobox, but there's no page for him. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 21:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think he's in any applicable fiction, but his [http://home.comcast.net/~BattleBeastSD/MGCKang.html bio card is online here]. Someone will have to translate it from Japanese first though. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:25, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Making the search suggestion work better ==

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I noticed sometimes when I type something in the search box, the search suggestions below it jump around and end up on a list which doesn't quite match what I typed. I think it's something to do with the speed I'm typing and the amount of time the server takes to respond to each request.

Anyway, I tweaked the javascript for grabbing the suggestions from the server so it would only trigger when I stopped typing. That seems to fix the problem for me, and as a bonus it's not nagging the server on every keypress. The downside is no instant feedback when I type, but I can live without that if it fixes the other thing.

If anyone else is having that problem and wants to have a go, just copy and paste the following into your [[Special:MyPage/monacobook.js|monacobook.js]] (caveat: only tested on Firefox and Chrome):
<pre><nowiki>
var ss_memory = null;
var ss_timeron = 0;
var ss_timer;

function DoActualSearch() {
ss_timeron=0;
var newdiv = document.getElementById("searchsuggest");
if (!newdiv) {
var newdiv = document.createElement("div");
newdiv.id = "searchsuggest";
var searchdiv = document.getElementById("searchBody");
searchdiv.appendChild(newdiv);
}
var x = document.getElementById("searchInput").value;
if (x == ss_memory) {
return;
}
ss_memory = x;
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'none';
if (x.length < 30 && x.length > 1 && x.value != "") {
sajax_do_call("wfAjaxSearchSuggest", [x], newdiv);
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'block';
}
}

function MySearchCall() {
if(ss_timeron) {
clearTimeout(ss_timer);
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
} else {
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
ss_timeron=1;
}
}

function myss_ajax_onload(){
var x = document.getElementById('searchInput');
x.onkeyup = function(){
MySearchCall();
};
}

hookEvent("load", myss_ajax_onload);
</nowiki></pre>
Unfortunately it won't fix the actual contents of the search suggestions, so you'll still get a bunch of All Hail Megatron issues when you type "Megatron", but that requires changes on the server. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hmm. I feel like adding <tt>ORDER BY `page_counter` DESC</tt> around line 20 of ''suggest.php'' might help w/ our search results, but it's hard to say for sure given how abstracted mediawiki database calls are, someone would have ot make the change then test it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::The thought I had was to do a query on article titles starting with the search term, and then if that gives back less than 8 entries, do a second search to fill the rest of the list with titles with the term anywhere in the title. The search suggest currently supports both options, but not at the same time. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

==Stuff==
: Firstly, our organization of information related to the junior franchises is terrible and I'd love to do something about it, but I need feedback. We currently have most Japanese and American Go-Bots as separate characters, except for the Japanese Go-Bots from the 1-2-3 line. Though there are requests for a separate Chopper page. Should those pages be split or not? And if so, what about the figures that came with some of the toys. Kid-Bot clearly isn't the "red driver" or "blue driver", but the dog and "Gas-Bot" both have fiction in only one of the two franchises, so is it worth separating them? Also, does the unpublished coloring book count as apocrypha or not, seeing as it was mostly approved? And the human characters within, do they count as cameos like Kelly in the Dreamwave comics or separate characters? And does anyone know what the Japanese name was by which the First Transformers were released? The Go-Bots fansite has an image of Dumpkun's box featuring what looks like a G1 logo, the First Transformers logo and "初めてトランスフォーマー" written on it.
: Secondly, many disambiguation pages still mention if there's a separate page for the toys of a character. Is this system still necessary now that we use subpages to separate such stuff under? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 17:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

::I think unpublished stuff is treated as apocrypha, isn't it? The character page coverage of unreleased Dreamwave issues is in notes, for instance. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:48, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::True, but we don't know if those were approved or know those weren't approved. The coloring book was approved, just not released. That makes it better comparable to Wreckers #$, which we do not consider apocrypha (though I wouldn't know if we'd do that if Wreckers #5 didn't partially canonize it). [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 11:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::Just weighing in on the toy page issue: I find it useful to have these called out on the disambig pages. Being able to go directly from the disambig page to the toy page of a character saves me at least one click (if I see the suite box in time) and often some scrolling (if I don't see it). However, I won't fight too hard on this if consensus is for the removal of this feature. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 07:47, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::Thinking some more about the Go-Bots stuff, as the Japanese version of Gas-Bot has no fiction, it probably doesn't need its own page - either link to Gas-Bot's page or just leave it unlinked in the appropriate toy sections. Same with the US version of the dog. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:30, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Facebook. ==

Is '''<nowiki>http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFwikinet/191252494230187</nowiki>''' us? Because it's the #1 link when you search for "TFWiki Facebook," and our group is nowhere to be seen. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

:I think our group is not showing up because you have to have a Facebook account to see it? When I go to the group's URL, I just get a page prompting me to log in to Facebook. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:47, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

::The link is this one: [http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/ http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/], which is the #3 on the search by "TFwiki site:facebook.com" on Google. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 19:51, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So the other one isn't ours, and we can't put a link on it pointing it to the group.
:::Annoying. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It's a "Community page", whatever that is. Clicking on the "Create a page" button on the top right of that page does bring up some sort of form which seems like it will do something. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:12, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Halloween ==

Presuming we're deco'ing our frontpage for Halloween... does anyone have any suggestions? Monsters, ghosts, gouls? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:Animated Blitzwing's random face looks sorta Jack O'Lanterny and could work as a replacement for the Autobot insignia on the site logo, assuming we can find a head-on image of it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:35, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

== Moving "(Timelines)" articles ==

I'm thinking that, as we don't bother with "(Timelines)" for SG, TransTech, and Animated characters, we should apply the same across the board and only use it if necessary.

*[[Astrotrain (Timelines)]] → Astrotrain (Cybertron)
*[[Cannonball (Timelines)]] → Cannonball (G1)
*[[Cop-Tur (Timelines)]] → Cop-Tur (G1)
*[[Halogen (Timelines)]] → Halogen (G1)
*[[Side Burn (Timelines)]] → Side Burn (G1)
*[[Sky-Byte (Timelines)]] → Sky-Byte (G2)
*[[Switchblade (Timelines)]] → Switchblade (BW)
*[[Thunderblast (Timelines)]] → Thunderblast (G1)
*[[Yoketron (Timelines)]] → Yoketron (G1)

The exceptions are the Descent into Evil characters, who don't really fit in any pre-existing franchise, and the Nexus Prime characters, who don't originate from a particular universe.
*[[Buzzclaw (Timelines)]]
*[[Dirge (Timelines)]]
*[[Flareup (Timelines)]]
*[[Landquake (Timelines)]]
*[[Ricochet (Timelines)]]
*[[Heatwave (Timelines)]]

Thoughts? Or does nobody really care that much? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 10:19, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:Since you asked, I'll pitch 2¢ into the conversation, since I know a little bit about it. I found out the hard way that wiki "doesn't bother with '(Timelines)' for Animated." And by hard way, I mean I was clobbered over the head without a hint of explanation for proposing that a Timelines-original Animated continuity character should be at "(Timelines)." But no hard feelings. I still think "franchise of origin" and not "continuity of origin" is best for disambiguations. For reasons that have been discussed previously on the subject. TransTech and SG are treated as a kind of sub-franchises of Timelines by the wiki, so I think they are an OK exception. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::The prose stories are identified as "Transformers Timelines presents a Transformers: (franchise) story". I would say that both franchises are equally valid to the stories, and the fact that non-Timelines stories (Around Cybertron, magazine comics, etc.) bleed together with Timelines stories makes the "(Timelines)" designation convoluted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, that's different. It sounds like you are calling their actual franchise of origin into question, not just their disambiguation. I don't have an opinion about their actual franchise of origin. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying that they're Timelines, but saying that they're better categorized under their other franchise. Like the Animated guys, it seems more instinctive to file [[Side Burn (Timelines)]] under "Side Burn (G1)" instead (not to mention that there's other Side Burn in Timelines: [[Side Burn (SG)]]).[[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:38, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
I'm hesitating, but let me think about the ramifications. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'd be fine with this. Though, one thing I'd like to propose is giving the Wings Universe characters their own disambiguation suffix. Like maybe "(Wings)" or something. I know it's a part of G1, but it's kinda like its own series within the over G1 continuity family like the Japanese G1 series are (which are also given their own suffixes such as "(Victory)", "(ROC)", "(BT)" etc.).

:Though, as for the Descent into Evil characters, maybe something like "(DIE)" or "(Descent)" or even just "(Descent into Evil)". Or, if not, keep them at "(Timelines)". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 11:51, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think the DIE guys are fine where they are (although you could argue moving [[Ricochet (Timelines)]] because of [[Ricochet (SG)]], but I don't really care). As for the Wings Universe guys getting their own disambiguation, eh... [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I am '''definitely absolutely''' against creating a (Wings) disambiguation when (G1) or (Timelines) work perfectly fine. We do NOT disambiguate by continuity except by absolute necessity within a franchise. Making up a (Wings) parenthetical just because incredibly confuses our disambiguation policy for no real reason. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::And what exactly keeps the Descent into Evil guys from being tagged G1? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Is the intermezzo period between G1 and BW considered G1 or BW?

:::It's all G1 characters... and IIRC the Insecticons were supposed ot be part of Insecticon plans which had been around for ages, so the characters weren't "BW-era only" characters...

:::I could support a G1 disambigif you talked me into it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:01, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::DIE fiction (Descent into Evil itself and [[Intimidation Game]]) has elements of both BW and G1; it doesn't have a certain franchise placement. Dirge (Timelines) and Ricochet (Timelines) also have namesakes firmly in G1. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:14, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::::BW is both BW and G1. And G1 has been back-incorporating BW elements since, like, 1995. The fact DIE has G1 and BW doesn't mean it's part of neither. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think that, by the nature of Timelines, it feels more natural to parse that specific set of characters by their continuity or parent-franchise of origin. Honestly, I think the Nexus components (''all'' of them) are really the best and only candidates for the Timelines parser.

::Also, I made a [http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Template:c quick template] that you guys could use here to simplify the coding for whenever you need to link a continuity-parsed name.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:37, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately I don't think that template would work as well here, because our articles are not consistently named by franchise. For instance [[Lightspeed (G1 Technobot)]], [[Flattop (Autobot)]] and [[Impactor]] are all (G1) characters but don't use (G1) in their title, so the template wouldn't work for linking to them. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I think that Timelines is a pretty clunky franchise for the purposes of this wiki, in that it covers multiple continuities. I think the proposal on the table makes sense.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Two spaces after a period in a sentence ==

I've noticed this for a while on the Wiki. In practice, it makes no difference as the software displays one space the same way it displays one. However, I've been wondering why people do it. Now I '''know: They''' were taught so in school. '''By teachers who were taught on friggin' ''typewriters''.''' So the "two spaces after a period" rule is a leftover from the typewriter days, where it was a necessity, but it's completely obsolete on computers. [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html Source]--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:The sentence spacing rules were, in fact, developed by typographers, but were not phased out via the magical introduction of the personal computer. The em-space rule exists for monospaced fonts, which were still fairly common for a great number of printers through the mid-1980s. If you would like to begin a tyrannical series of grammar-based wiki edits, I would begin by avoiding the use of prepositions at the start of sentences. I would also advise some respect for the proper use of colons and semi-colons, as typographical errors should not take priority over proper word selection and punctuation. Cheers! --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 14:20, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Are you referring to sentences beginning with prepositional phrases for the sake of emphasis (also known as an introductory modifiers)? That's totally valid. Or do you mean idiocies such as relative clauses that are separated from the preceding main clause by a period instead of a comma? The most glaring typographic blunders I encounter on the wiki typically go hand in hand with awkwardly worded sentences and clunky terminology, so I'm inclined to assume the same person(s) is/are responsible for all of those.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::I have bolded an example. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Aw, you altered your post. No fair! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:16, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::What'd I alter? I just moved it up. Anyway... I'd call that one "deliberate departure from proper grammar for the sake of dramatic emphasis". It's about as improper as using a period after ''every. Single. Word.'' If it's obvious from the context that it's done for emphasis, I'd call it acceptable as long as it's not used inflationary. I'm sure we have a few cases of "We know it's not proper grammar, but we want to stress a point here" on the wiki. (How did the saying go again? "Know the rules first before you break them"?)--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:28, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:....or you can just set the bot to convert " " to " ". Since we don't output monospace font, or anything.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Over the whole wiki, those extra spaces account for maybe 20kb of data, which I don't think is worth worrying about. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Typed text is typed text, and the double-space after a period is still correct. Shall we next be told that we're "wrong" for not having the wiki use the metric system, or for writing down dates with the month before the day instead of after it? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, and I bolded something too. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Due to habit, I'm gonna double-space until I die. I really don't think that needs to be considered a problem. Is that really a problem? An extra millimeter between sentences? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Nevermore ''is'' right about it being mostly obsolete, but for purely technical reasons: All double (triple, etc.) spaces are collapsed down to one for display in HTML. If you want the extra spaces to actually be viewable as extra blank space, you have to use <tt>&</tt><tt></tt><tt>nbsp;</tt>. So if you double-space here on the wiki, it only shows up when you edit the page. For whatever that's worth. (Not really taking sides, just presenting the info.) --[[Special:Contributions/67.252.49.31|67.252.49.31]] 06:08, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== More on the search box/"Transformers" everything ==

Typing "Energon" into the search box does not give me [[Energon (franchise)]], [[Energon (cartoon)]] or [[Energon (toyline)]] as top results. Same for "Cybertron". I assume this has to do with the recent "Transformers" prefixing for article titles. However, typing "Animated" into the seach box ''does'' give me franchise and toyline as top results, so it should be ''possible'' despite the prefixing.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:It's purely alphabetical, dude. ''Animated'' shows up before ''Arcee (Animated)'' because "An" precedes "Ar", whereas ''Arcee (Energon)'' comes up before ''Energon'' because "A" precedes "E". --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:13, 6 November 2011 (EST)
::There's an option in the search suggest tool to limit the results to stuff starting with the search query rather than with stuff with the term anywhere in their titles, however it's not something that can be configured through MediaWiki. There's a bit of discussion about it in the "Making the search suggestion work better" section up above. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:::If we wanted to do ''that'', when we shouldn't have prefixed "Transformers:" before hundreds of articles 3 weeks ago. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:06, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::We still have the titles without "Transformers: " as redirects though, so they'll still show up. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:23, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== Spam-dalism ==

Is that the neologism for it? Anyway, somehow the ReCaptcha is failing to stop the automated spam, and I'm guessing the IP's are all very different.

How old are the accounts when they do this? If they're fairly new, would it be possible to simply block IPs and new accounts from inserting new external links? If not (or if that's unworkable), would it be possible to flag such edits for review the way that wikipedia does to edits on contested pages?

Also, is there any chance these are at least coming from the same proxy? The fact that they're getting past ReCaptcha makes it seem like these are actual people doing this, unless ReCaptcha only activates on certain namespaces.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 14:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:I was using captcha with images on my phpBB installation on another site (Doctor Who related) until yesterday and getting a half dozen spammers a day signing up in despite of it. Yesterday I switched to a Question Answer challenge which asks the person registering to name the main character's time machine, and so far it has stopped the spammers dead.
:MediaWiki has [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha] which looks like it works in exactly the same way, and works with the ConfirmEdit extension we already have installed. If we can get that installed and set up, it might be more effective than the image-based system we use now. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::What would the questions be? It can't be too obvious or too obscure. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:31, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:::Not necessarily. The question I'm using on my Doctor Who site is obvious if you have any knowledge at all of the source material, but it seems to be working. We can always start with something easy and see how we go. Most likely all of the spammers are using bots anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::"What is the name of the red-and-blue semi Autobot?", "What's the name of the blue casette player Decepticon?", or "What is the name of the yellow semi Micromaster Autobot with a hydraulic crane?"[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 17:50, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::: "What is the fandom's usual reaction when a new franchise is announced?" :p [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:56, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::::<tt>If Dick has two apples and Jane has two apples, how many apples do they have? (3 letters.)</tt> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:09, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::Ah, but then it would be so easy for users to use only three exclamation marks, and forget the requisite four exclamation marks and a 1.
::No but yeah, a question helps a lot. Might even be worth doing for all IP edits and new accounts, not just those with external links.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:57, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::While we're on the subject, is it somehow possible to flag certain terms or words used by IP editors and auto-block them? *coughcoughobamacoughcough*[[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 16:31, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::...but we have an article on [[Barry Obama]].
:::Are you trying to whitewash the wiki? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:13, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::: It was just an academic question; after all, I'm sure that you've noticed our considerable problem with a certain IP editor lately. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:19, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::: Well yes... but I couldn't resist. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:43, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a temp ban on the whole ISP might get better results. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:51, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::sooo...who would you need to talk to about getting this set up, and what exactly do you want to restrict?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 19:45, 21 November 2011 (EST)
:::::The guy whose IP addresses are always located in England who keeps vandalizing articles with Obama-related nonsense. Doesn't look like even banning IP ranges stops him. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 11:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::...so, there's no way to stop this lunatic? [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 11:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:Options, in order of severity:
#Block all new uses of the word "Obama" to all anonymous editors.
#Block anonymous editors entirely.
#Destroy England.
:But really, that's a separate issue with probably a separate solution, since the guy is a some kind of being. To deal with the spamdalism, I think you guys should add a "name that Transformer-mon!" question, which should cut down heavily on automated edits, and if they still get through, look at blocking all uses of external links for anonymous or new editors. The use of the question for all IP edits is fairly standard, so it should be easy to implement, and you can look into harsher measures if the bots still make it through. However, I really think you guys should make an effort to get this setup, because the conversation keeps kind of drifting down and the vandalism keeps happening.[[Special:Contributions/98.223.102.157|98.223.102.157]] 02:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:: On another note... isn't it cute how he keps trying to badly pass himself off as me? I think someone has a bad case of hero-worship. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 10:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Please stop egging on vandals. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::: OK, on a more serious note, is anyone averse to just locking the wiki for a few days? Bulbapedia does it regularily and they don't have much of a vandalism problem. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 12:36, 23 November 2011 (EST)
Removing the "Undo" option for anons would help, at the very least. We need a regular tech person (or give abates access to the MediaWiki stuff, since he seems to know his way around). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:12, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::: What if we implemented a captcha system for anon edits? I mean, it wouldn't ''stop'' them, per se, but it would make persistent vandalism wars a hassle. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:16, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would not be opposed to that, or simple stock questions. ("Who is the leader of the Autobots?", "What is two plus three?", etc.) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:23, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:::: Rodimus Prime? :p
::::: But seriously, how did Mr. Obama Guy get past the rangeblock? Because that's rather worrysome in and of itself. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::::BT Internet has a lot of IP ranges. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:58, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Okay. Listen.<br>
1) CAPTCHA won't change crap. It ''might'' stop a small number of bot edits, but we have a large, active mod presence that basically polices this place around the clock, and any of those crappy ad pages can be eliminated in mere minutes, if not within seconds of their creation.<br>
2) There is basically '''''NOTHING''''' that can be done to ''stop'' someone who has decided that the best use of their time is constant, repeated, easily-reverted vandalism of a wiki. Well, okay there are a few options, but they're not ones any kind of wiki coding is gonna be part of. They'll find ways around bans, and all these automated things that are being suggested are basically shooting blind and wasting time. This is not remotely the first time someone has thought to do this. It won't be the last. But we've outlasted all those others. And that's all it takes. Again... that large active 24-hour admin presence that quickly and coolly reverts the vandalism ''without getting all butthurt''. That's what vandals want, to watch you get pissy and panicky and angry... ''and that's what you're giving them.'' So '''''shut up''''' and stop feeding that, then they'll eventually get bored and leave.<br>
3) I can perhaps get behind removing the "Undo" option for anons. I don't think though that it will really help much, since making an account takes what, a few seconds?<br>
--[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:38, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:Um. I don't want to offend anyone, but the Obama-guy thing ''really'' isn't related to this topic, although some of the solutions to the spamdalism thing might work to hinder him. The bigger issue is the guys spamming the wiki with links to knockoff viagra, sort of thing, and putting up a simple question system for anons and new editors would work to stop that almost completely, at least everywhere I've seen it in use.
:The mod presence, yeah, things eventually get cleaned up by the end of the day, but a simple, standard change like adding the question will prevent that from happening in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/99.39.88.159|99.39.88.159]] 22:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)
:Just to alleviate any concerns: In my experience, the question captcha does not prevent human edits except from the most severely uninformed editors, and it completely prevents the bot-spam, which at this point almost totally covers the RC when I happen to check it. Many other independent wikis, such as Halopedian, use the question captcha, so if you guys wanted a first-person POV on it, you could also ask them for their experiences. Basically, the captcha question should totally eliminate the bot-spam, with the only drawback being that it adds maybe a fraction of a second to anonymous human edits. So, given that, does anyone have any objections to adding the captcha question?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)--(same anon as throughout this topic)

== Spelling throughout the Wiki ==

I've found that, on multiple spots on the Wiki, there are UK English spellings of words. Now, I know that the Transformers Wiki is a country-spanning project, but I'd like a consensus on whether or not we should change incidences of UK spellings (like "practise" and "polarize") to their American English counterparts. A streamlined flow using only one dialect would, I believe, make the editing process much easier. However, I do not want a backlash from UK users. <br>
P.S.: Damn you, Webster! You and your new-world dictionary! [[User:TheMZone|TheMZone]] 18:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:[[Help:Style guide#National varieties of English|Here is the wiki's policy on the subject]] just so you know. I myself don't think it needs changing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

== Why are the IDW books in G1? ==

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.) {{unsigned|158.103.0.1}}
:Uggghhhhhh. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:Yeahhh, you not understanding the concept of Continuity Families particularly well.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 16:30, 1 December 2011 (EST)

::Other continuities within the G1 continuity family also eschew some of those classic aspects. In [[Action Blast 1]], for instance, the Autobots crash on present-day Earth and they don't hang around in stasis for millions of years. I don't think there's really a template of specific events that a G1 continuity has to stick to. That would hamper storytelling too much. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

:::Also, they share a lot of the same characters, body designs, and personalities. Granted, some of them are common across the multiverse, but things like Megatron becoming a gun and Optimus Prime as a flatnosed tractor-trailer are distinctly G1-ish. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:29, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::FYI: [[Talk:IDW Generation 1 continuity#New evidence that IDW is not G1|Previous discussion here]]. Yes, on the one hand, it is G1 because it uses the G1 cast of characters for the most part, and most of those pretty much have the same personality as their G1 bio card as on their G1 counterparts (with the significant exception of their gimmicks). On the other hand, [http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=143991#143991 an artist] has said it is not G1, so it isn't entirely crazy to say it isn't G1. The universe itself doesn't seem particularly G1. It is like a different universe populated with G1 guys. The Micromasters aren't Cybertronain (I think), so a whole class of G1 Transformers aren't Transformers which sounds like a different universe. In short, it mostly makes sense for the wiki to organize it under G1 so they don't have to duplicate character pages with characters with mostly the same intro paragraph. But don't take it too seriously, it isn't official or anything. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:54, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::: No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I mean is that there seems to be no CANON justification for why IDW is considered G1. Especially because it lacks the links of similar G1 works, it’s never been verified as such by the creators (as far as I know) and it’s “G1-ness” is tentative at best.

:::::IDW really doesn’t have as strong a link as or other G1 families. They all either were marketed as direct extensions to the original 80s ‘Toon and Comic adaptations (Gen 2 and Dreamwave ) established “next gen” sequels (Beast Era) Inserts into Gen 1 (Alternators and much of Japan’s stuff) Or add ons to particular points of the G1 timeline (Classics, Dreamwave) hell Timelines might count as a little bit of all of these. IDW really has no direct link.

:::::That leaves us to the creators, and when it’s referred as such by them they use the term "reboot” or the like. Hell Simon Furman, architect of a large section of G1, straight up called it an ‘Ultimate’ version in his CBR interview. And Don Fig doesn’t consider it G1 at all.

:::::Even then we look at why we call it G1 it causes all kinds of fallacies. Relying ion art style to tell families (as said in our very own article) leads to insanity, as characters change appearances across media ostensibly in eths same family all the time (for example WFC and Prime) likewise the “G1" aspects, such as personality, and looks, have been used both in the Transformers Film and Animated families, and yet we don’t consider them G1 despite both being just about the same kind of reboot on it IDW is. They incorporate a version of the Beast Ear into their timeline but assuming a connection with their main IDW addition, it’s just as differing as Aligned or Animated version of the Beast era would be.

:::::I’m not trying to rock the boat I se4riously would just like to know if there’s any official, canon, or Hasbro/Creator data that states IDW as a version of G1, because right now I’m not seeing it.

:::::Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be seen as the "young turk" coming into old pros territory and rocking the boat against guys who have been studying this since before I was born, but I just picked up a bunch of Simon Furman stuff from [[http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Marvelcomicscontinuity.jpg The old comics]] as well as the big two volume IDW packs and they just don't fit at all. They're as different from G1 as the Films, Animated or RID are. I don't think we should makes assumptions and leaps of logic just for convenience's sake, kind belies the purpose of a wiki, ya know?
::::::This is a ridiculous amount of navel-gazing to get past the point that IDW continuity is just G1 in new dressing and not a new franchise of its own. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::By that terminology ALL of Transformers media is Just "g1 in a new dressing" by the virtue of G1 starting the franchise.
::::::::That is not what I mean by "franchise". Please don't be obtuse. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 02:05, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::Considering new Generation 1 toys keep being made in the style of IDW design, that that firmly cements the stuff as being G1 in Hasbro's eyes. And the fact that they are constantly using Generation 1-style character aesthetics, personalizations and the freaking '''original font''' on the titles. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::The wiki's more confident about calling it G1 than even Hasbro, which calls the toys "Generations." Wiki organization is one thing, but we act more like it is a fact than it actually is. "Generation 1" doesn't really exist anymore. Hasbro is a little ashamed of it. Or at least doesn't want to pigeon-hole their toys and comics as being old-school. The [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] page as a "Generation 1" logo on top. That doesn't really reflect reality which is more hazy. Maybe "Generations" is the new "Generation 1" or something. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::To use your Simon Furman point against you, saying that IDW is not G1 is kind of like saying that Ultimate Marvel is not part of the Marvel Multiverse. It may be fairly different, but it is undeniably the same basic characters and situations. Also, I never have figured out why anyone really cares what the creative teams think, anything they say can be overruled by Hasbro at any time. Even after it has been published. Only Hasbro's opinion really matters.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:07, 2 December 2011 (EST)
Discussed ad nauseum years ago. Nothing new has been added to the conversation since. Not changing. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 05:13, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Aesthetics have already been disavowed as a valid ground for Continuity Pedigree, most notably with the Aligned Family. if Hasbro itself hasn’t recognized it as G1, hasn’t directly tied it to a previous G1 work, and if the writers and artists themselves don’t consider it G1, how is it legitimate to denote it as G1 based on our interpretation. Especially given such ethereal "evidence" as the looks of toys and ''fonts'' of all things.

:::::::::Hasbro has yet to give any word. And also the Marvel analogy wont work, because while Marvel has but ONE Multiverse composed of several individual universes. The TF Multiverse is a collection of Universal Streams, each roughly following the same vents with several different interpretations over key events. It's like comparing diffirent versions of the Bible as rather than like comparing the Bible against the Koran.

:::::::::M Sipher, would you do an FYI link? I've seen the discussion over on IDW Continuity’s Main page and the quibbles on the main Continuity Family but never any hard decree from an authority based on reasoning any more firm than convenience. I'm simply trying to hold IDW to the standards of the other G1 works on the wiki, all of which have '''in-canon''' links to versions of G1, or else are stated as such by the Companies.

:99% of all IDW characters are G1 characters, based on their original G1 counterparts. The different origins of some characters (Arcee) are no different than varying origins between the original cartoon and Marvel Comics (Grimlock, Technobots). Compared to the Aurex universes, where only Optimus, Megatron and Starscream consistently fit the G1 character archetypes, whereas most other characters are clearly just name reuses (Red Alert, Cyclonus, Jetfire, etc). Even Malgus and Tyran, both clearly closer to the G1 continuity than Aurex, have clearly distinctive character differences. IDW Bumblebee is clearly a variation on the original G1 Bumblebee, whereas Movie 'Bee and Animated Bumblebee are approximate extrapolations, see also Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, and so on.
:IDW is a G1 universe that has expanded beyond the original G1 concepts, but not the characters themselves. Trying something new is not the same as abandoning the underlying foundation. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 11:47, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:I'm sure there are other examples, but Prowl, Sunstreaker, and Sideswipe have appeared in their Universe Classics series bodies while Starscream, Thundercracker and Skywarp have appeared in their Masterpiece bodies. All of those are undoubted G1 toys. Either IDW is G1 or those toys are being repurposed. All things considered it seems most parsimonious to classify IDW as a part of G1. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::Masterpiece is a franchise. Classics series is G1<sup>continuity family</sup> but it isn't G1<sup>franchise</sup>. Unfortunately, "G1" can mean different things. Just so everyone is on the same page, the wiki treats IDW as being part of the G1 ''[[franchise]]''. For example, on the [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] it has the G1 franchise logo. Is that what this discussion is about, or is the discussion about if IDW is part of the G1 continuity family? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 12:28, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::The original poster said continuity family. I do consider IDW a different franchise within the G1 continuity family. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:39, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, OK. Anyone else? Show of hands? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 14:04, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::But does the use of Character analogous to G1 interpretations define it as a G1 series? This really comes don to whether we define continuity families as being overlays of roughly similar events (as in Tvtropes Broad Strokes) or whether we are tying versions of characters as the archetype from which it is based. If you're taking side new altmodes and differences like Goldbug and Galvatron is being "based" on G1 to a degree enough to allot status within the family? At that point we might as well make a spectrum of "G1-ness" and start arbitrarily cutting everything. As it stands now our definitions of Families are based off there uniqueness of story and universe content, and IDW differs significantly from any other G1 work.
:::So does ''Hearts of Steel''. Shall we consider that a separate family as well? - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 13:11, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::As the line of books it was from was cnacled de jure that cnat really be elaborated on. But HoS was never devlop[ed as an obstensive reboot, rather an Alt-universe portyal that gets put in G1 by teh same stroke as the Sg-verse. (if we diidnt nave it's Universal Stream numbe rot go by). IDw on teh contry was billed as a rebbopt, the same way aligned is being done now. Couple that with the radical 9and debatedly unparrelled ) story alterations and you have aplles and oranges. Though really teh entire "G1 by default" mindset is pretty off-putting. Heck it mighe ven works as a really big Mirco-Contunity. Pardoxial as thats ounds.

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-02T17:55:26Z

158.103.0.1:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Aligned Timeline ==

I'm going to try and take a stab at creating an Aligned timeline that unites everything we know about the franchise(s) so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Help Wanted ==

Hello one and all. I'm here representing a newly created Role-Playing forum that is based in the Transformers Universe. We're in the early stages yet, and are looking for people to help get the ball rolling. Since this site seems to lack a dedicated forum (where requests like these would usually be made) and I haven't seen any other way to effectively say my piece in front of a large audience, I thought that posting here was the best way to "advertise" us, as it were. I sincerely apologize if this was the wrong move on our part, or if I've breached protocol at all, but I can assure everyone that our intentions aren't malign. Those interested, please contact me using any of the ways that I have listed on my username page here on this site. I won't tempt fate by linking our website here directly =P

Once again, you all have my sincere greetings, and I hope to hear from you soon. Also, as a side note: the difference in quality between this page and the transformers wikia is amazing. [[User:Rathian Warrior|Rathian Warrior]] 23:50, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if you've crossed any lines, and frankly, you were polite enough about it that it's not a big deal, but you could always buy some ad space if you want to raise awareness of your forum. It's cheap! There's usually a link on every page around the banners, but if you didn't catch it, you can follow this link: [https://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=25311&type=4 Project Wonderful TFWiki Page]--[[User:McFly|McFly]] 16:13, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== "Fictional" and "real" categories ==
I think we need to come up with a consistent way to distinguish categories of things that are real and categories of things that have appeared in fiction. So far, we've skimmed the issue by using synonyms, such as [[:Category:Companies|companies]] and [[:Category:Businesses|businesses]], but that doesn't really work for things like [[:Category:Magazines|magazines]], which is already used for real magazines. Currently, we have [[:Category:Fictional books]], [[:Category:Fictional video games]] that consider the fictional entities "different". On the other hand, we have [[:Category:Real-world events by day]] and [[:Category:Real world films]]. We focus more on the fictional aspect of Transformers, so it makes sense to not point out the fictionality in categories, but "real world" sounds awkward to some. Which one should we use? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:26, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I thought I'd cheat and see how some of the other fictional Wikis deal with the problem. Three different approaches I saw:
:*[http://tardis.wikia.com/ Doctor Who wiki] has a [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Real_world "Real World" category] for real world stuff and in most cases the categories for real world things are at "Real world X".
:*[http://wookiepedia.org/ Wookiepedia] goes the parenthetical route, with "Books" and "Books (real-world)". Though they also have one or two like "Real world companies".
:*[http://stargate.wikia.com/ Stargate wiki] has "Books" versus "Stargate books" for real world books.
:I kinda like the parenthetical approach that Wookiepedia have taken. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'd favor pointing out the status of both categories, just to make absolutely clear what they are for. The words can be "Fictional" and "Real-world" (I notice both real-world categories use a different spelling. Whichever it's gonna be (if), only one spelling should be used). "Nonfictional" kinda works as an alternative, would "Real-world" be disliked. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:35, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::If we go that route, I think "real-world" should be used, since "real world" is a lot more easier to fix than the other parsing. I like the Wookiepedia approach, but I'm not sure that's enough to change how we already do categories. The idea to label both categories sounds nice, but "Fictional X" seems incongruous with unlabeled categories, such as "weapons", "technology", etc.; considering that our main focus is the fiction, I'm leaning towards only labeling the real stuff. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I think it would be advantageous to put a {{tl|disambig2}} at the top, so people could easily go from the fictional to the real world category too. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:30, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yeah, I think I put that on [[:Category:Films]] a while ago. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:57, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Speaking of this, I found we handle [[:Category:Films]] like [[:Category:Real people]], wouldn't this be some, um, confusing? It's just, somehow, reverse? (Except for the fictional films like ''Honoji'') According to the logic of how we handle [[:Category:Real people]], shouldn't we place films like ''40-Year-Old Virgin'' or ''Godzilla'' in the [[:Category:Real world films]]? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Godzilla doesn't go in "Real world films" because it's not a real world ''Transformers'' film. The Transformers is implied in that category name. Presumably we could have a "Real films" category for Godzilla, etc, but I'm not sure it's worth doing. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:53, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::We shouldn't use "fictional X" for two reasons. One, there things like [[As the Kitchen Sinks]] that are fictional even within the fictional Transformers universe. Second, the wiki is written in-universe by default and putting [[Big Steve's Used Cars]] in a "fictional businesses" category would kind of break that. Within Transformers fiction, "Big Steve's Used Cars" is not a fictional company, but "As the Kitchen Sinks" is a fictional TV show. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:47, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is not a fictional show. It depicts fictional events and fictional people, yes, but the show itself, as a piece of entertainment, is not fictional. I do get your point, as we actually have things like [[Frankenstein]] that are two layers of fiction removed from us. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, of course. I meant, in-universe, ''As the Kitchen Sinks'' is a work of fiction, whereas "Big Steve's Used Cars" is a real business that sells real used cars to real people. Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Wasn't ''Buck Rogers'' a fictional TV show? Anyway, it sounds like you got my point. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Or, judging by the fact categories like "Magazines" in used for magazines in our real life and "Companies" for companies in real life, why not just use "Film" for films (such as DOTM) in real life, while we move current contents in "Films" to "Films in ''Transformers'' fictions"? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::That seems like it would go counter to some of our existing naming schemes. e.g. if we split that out into films by franchise, you'd get "Films in Generation 1" rather than "Generation 1 films". Though admittedly the former title might have the advantage that it's clearer in meaning. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I think both are equally ambiguous in their meaning. If we still need to clarify the purpose of the categories, we can always spell it out in the category's introduction. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Transformers: " ==
We talked a bit about adding back "Transformers: " to the titles of articles [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive51#When_to_omit_.22Transformers.22_from_an_article_title|previously]], and the general sentiment was that people were for it or didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any input in this matter? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:34, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm okay with this change, but I do have three questions on execution. <br>1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled? <br>2.) If "Transformers(:)" is going to be added to every relevant page name, then what about all the extra words in the titles of Japanese stuff? <br>3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc? <br>[[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::#I think we've had two consistent rules about that: If the title is some kind of phrase, like "Transformers United", "The Transformers Collection", or "Transformers Animated", then we don't use the colon. If the title is some kind of obvious "title: subtitle" setup ("Transformers: Armada", "Transformers: Prime"), then we use the colon. There's some borderline examples, but I think we can figure them out one by one. Official sources will help with determining colon-status. The other rule seems to apply to only games: If the title has another subtitle, then the first colon is dropped (ex. [[Transformers Prime: Terrorcon Defense]]). I dunno why, but we can add back the colon, I suppose.
::#I guess we add them? We could argue it for ''Victory'', since it was released in English contexts as just "Transformers: Victory".
::#I think we're just going to continue the same in relation to those. The articles will still be sorted by their subtitles in categories. Storylinks I could go either way on, but I think the trend is to drop the main title. I've been doing that for the AAII storylinks to avoid excessively long links. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:49, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I don't see how "Transformers United" and "Transformers Animated" are any different from "Transformers: Prime". To me, all three could fall into either of your groups (phrase vs subtitle) and would prefer colons in all of those cases. Of your examples, only "The Transformers Collection" seems to really belong in the "phrase" group. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::"United" and "Animated" are adjectives that modify "Transformers" and have official sources that omit the colon. "Transformers Prime" doesn't make sense in that way. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:58, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I am not certain about those two "rules" for colons either. They're rather vague and bound to cause arguments and confusion. It needs to be made more obvious whether a colon should be used or not before "Transformers" can be added everywhere (a help page on the matter would also be handy in the future, me thinks).

::::I think that if we would put the cartoon at ''Transformers: Victory'', that would cause confusion with the manga, storypages, toyline and franchises, none of which were ever brought over and should thus not be named such. If moved, the ''Victory'' cartoon should best go to its Japanese name. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 15:28, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>shrug* The first rule is mostly there for Transformers Animated, which people will be resistant to moving to have a colon (plus, obvious cases like The Transformers Collection). The second rule I really don't care about and can be tossed (it mostly only concerns the movie series of video games and online games). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you suggesting there that Victory articles should be moved to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory"? I'd disagree with that, if so! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:25, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Why? We can't go around writing out the full names of Western franchises and stuff but not do so for the Japanese stuff. We already have "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" written out for the 1985 & 1986 Japanese franchises, so why not ''Victory''? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 07:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Victory (the cartoon) has been released in the West as "Transformers: Victory", to me that means that the official English name of the franchise ''is'' Transformers: Victory. Yes, we should give the full Japanese title at the beginning of the franchise page but there is no reason to move anything to that name. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:35, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::That was pretty much my reasoning too (also typing out the full name every time we wanted to link to it would be tedious). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Tying out "(franchise)" every time for everything is more tedious, but we still have it (for... some reason). Ditto long titles like [[The Story of Super Robot Lifeforms: The Transformers]] and [[Transformers Vault]]'s previous ridiculously long title.
:::::::::But I guess the general principle of "Transformers: " is acceptable to most. I'll start moving the noncontroversial pages (Western comics and cartoons with definite subtitles, etc.) if there's no opposition in the next few hours. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Is there a difference between [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|Transformers: Beast Wars: The Ascending]]? I must admit, the comma/colon distinction seems kinda arbitrary. Also, these page names seem kind of overlong and stupid, what's wrong with [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|The Ascending]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering|The Gathering]]? It's a Transformers wiki and those are Beast Wars series; prefixing everything we possibly can with "Transformers" is only going to clog up the search box and make editing just that bit more arduous. What were the arguments in favour of this again? --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 16:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::That's the formatting used in the indicia. Your complaint about the search box is silly; did you really think typing "Transformers" into it yielded anything useful 99% of the time?
:::::::::::Like it or not, "Transformers: " is the part of the name of many things, and the hoops we have to go through to maintain this silly system of dropping it from article titles has gotten ridiculous and inconsistent. Adding "Transformers: " to article titles, on the other hand, adds ''clarity'' and avoids pointless disambiguation. "The Transformers: Bumblebee" is preferable to "Bumblebee (comic)", "Transformers: Sector 7" to "Sector 7 (comic)", etc. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:44, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::I get that it's useful in some cases, but it just seems like applying the rule across the board means we're overcomplicating the issue. Occam's razor has a lot going for it, and for user-friendliness I'd go for brevity. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 17:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Also on an Occam's razor tip, "Bumblebee (comic)" conveys more information in fewer characters than "Transformers: Bumblebee". I really don't understand why the latter is preferable. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 14:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::There's something to say for either argument, but as it is, we have proven to be unable to keep to one consistent "Transformers"-as-part-of-the-title policy at least since TFA. And if trying to keep "Transformers" out of the deal doesn't work, we oughta give the alternative a chance. I don't think it necesarilly makes it harder to find anything, as the search box reacts to words even if they are not the first part of a page title. And I want to have the changes in clear perspective before I might suggest deleting a few redirects, so at least for now, searches won't be any harder and we have a consistent policy. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:49, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I gotta say, I'm hating how this is working in practice. Article titles seem long and ugly to me.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:46, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I feel the same, but it seems to be an necessary evil because "Transformers: ***" is a full title? duh. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 22:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::I fear the day someone decides to add full titles to disambiguation suffixes as well, e.g. "Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)", "Grindor (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)" etc.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 13:43, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::That would be silly, and I'm pretty sure most people would oppose it. Putting "Transformers:" in names is a change we'd already been drifting towards for a while with, for instance, the War for Cybertron articles all doing it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::On a related note, it's a pet peeve of mine when a writeup talks about a specific medium related to a franchise but links to the franchise as a whole instead, such as "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] toyline" or "in episode 6 of the [[Energon (franchise)|Energon]] cartoon...".--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Would the best solution there be something like "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] [[Cybertron (toyline)|toyline]]"? --[[Special:Contributions/77.99.176.103|77.99.176.103]] 03:32, 29 September 2011 (EDT) (oops, emvee not logged in)
::::::I think linking to the toyline page is sufficent. There's no need for an additional link to the corresponding umbrella franchise. The thought behind this is: "If Joe McRandom sees something that interests him and clicks a link, does he want the link to take him straight to the specific topic or to a more general overview?" I think link targets should always be as specific as necessary. If someone gets interested in a broader overview, he can always go one level up. After all, a link referring to G1 Optimus Prime leads to [[Optimus Prime (G1)]], not to [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)]], either. In the same fashion, toyline pages should deeplink to the specific toy entries on the respective characters' pages (or even their toy pages, if applicable). Like, if Joe McRandom is on the [[Transformers: Universe (2008 toyline)|Universe (2008 toyline)]] page, sees a "Prowl" toy listed under "Deluxe Class" and wants to read more about that toy, he wants the "Prowl" link to take him straight to [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Universe (2008)]], not to the [[Prowl (G1)|main character page]] where he then has to scroll down to "toys", see that G1 Prowl toys have their separate page, go ''there'', ''then'' scroll down to "Universe (2008)". (It currently links to [[Prowl (G1)/toys]], which is at least halfway there.) I will fix this wherever I see it, and implement it when doing writeups.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

===Suggestion to creating templates===

Do we need some kinds of templates when typing contents for convenience? For my experience in Terminator Wiki, we use templates like <nowiki>{{T3}} for ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' or {{TSCC}} for ''[[Terminator: The Sarah Connnor Chronicles]]''</nowiki>. What I'm suggesting is that after we make all franchise names into full title (and we don't use redirect links), it is some how trouble some when typing the title. So we can make some templates like:
<pre>
{{tf|Armada}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (franchise)|Transformers: Armada]]''

{{tf|Armada|toyline|Pokeformer}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Pokeformer]]''

{{jptf|bwn}} -> ''[[Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo]]''

</pre>

If there is any user who can created complex template, we could make

<pre>
{{tf|armada|t}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Transformers: Armada]]''

parameter 1:
2010 = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010 (toyline)
thm = Transformers: The Headmasters (toyline)
mf = Transformers: Super-God Masterforce (toyline)
v = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory
z = Transformers: Zone
roc = Transformers: Return of Convoy
oc = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Operation Combination
armada = Transformers Armada
bwn = Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo
mov = Movie
rotf = Revenge of the Fallen
tfa = Transformers Animated
...and (blah blah)

parameter 2:
*default* - franchise
t - toyline
ct - cartoon
co - comic
m - manga
f - film

And, if possible:
if parameter 3 = s (for example), it will become short title like ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Armada]]''

</pre>

--'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's something I've thought about as well. Considering there are a lot of exceptions to the regular naming system (parts of franchises that are called something different or franchises that lack the (franchise) identifier on the wiki because it's not necessary to disambiguate it), I don't think a template can be coded to put a link together. A full list system like our TFtoon templates have could maybe work though. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:08, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think with the number of franchises we have, it would end up being a hellishly big template and difficult to maintain for only a minor gain. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:03, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

==="Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" Transformers===
With the insertion of this phrase into the Victory page titles, should it also be inserted into the titles of The Headmasters, Super-God Masterforce, and Zone? now while the immediate answer would be "No", there are some places that do include this text above the "Toransufōmā" text in each of these series's logos. An example of this would the [[Transformers Tapestry]] (which even includes it in the Operation combination logo as well) and the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Columbia_Zone_DVD.jpg Columbia DVD of Zone]. Its inclusion in these places seems more than mere coincidence, so would we take this idea into consideration? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 14:33, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Um, that ''Zone'' DVD does not support your assertion. All of the ''actual'' media for those series (except for the Zone manga and story pages) do not include The "Fight!..." portion. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Technically the whole toyline in Japan from 1985 to 1992 was called "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" (as was written on the boxes), so at least the toyline pages for the series of those years would probably need the longer title than just "Transformers: ''X'' (toyline)" --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 16:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So you want to move the toyline pages to some made-up name? Pick one: 1) Merge all of the toyline pages to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)" 2) Leave the toyline pages as they are instead of stressing over naming things that technically don't exist. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::How is it "made up"? "Tatakae! Chō Robot Seimeitai" means "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" and is written above the "Toransufōmā" text on the packages of the 1985-1992 Japanese toys. I'm not proposing we merge all those toyline pages together, but rather something akin to the [[Transformers: Beast Wars (Japanese toyline)|Japanese Beast Wars toyline]] page, in which the individual toylines are kept separate even though they were all collectively the same-named toyline. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 17:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: The Headmasters" and its ilk are the imaginary names. Those articles for imaginary toylines are fine where they are. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==="Movie"===
There's still [[Movie (franchise)]], [[Movie (toyline)]] and more. Shouldn't that be "Transformers (2007 franchise)" and "Transformers (2007 toyline)", with the current [[Transformers (2007)]] becoming "Transformers (2007 movie)"?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Probably. I didn't move them, since I wanted to bring it up for discussion first. The film should be moved to just "Transformers (film)", though. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:"Movie (''media'')" should be moved to "Transformers (2007 ''media'')" while "Transformers (2007)" goes "Transformers (film)". --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:27, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::That push for lexical accuracy strikes me as creating more ambiguity than it resolves. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:06, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Jungaroo==
Someone made a lovely [[Jungaroo]] gobox, but there's no page for him. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 21:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think he's in any applicable fiction, but his [http://home.comcast.net/~BattleBeastSD/MGCKang.html bio card is online here]. Someone will have to translate it from Japanese first though. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:25, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Making the search suggestion work better ==

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I noticed sometimes when I type something in the search box, the search suggestions below it jump around and end up on a list which doesn't quite match what I typed. I think it's something to do with the speed I'm typing and the amount of time the server takes to respond to each request.

Anyway, I tweaked the javascript for grabbing the suggestions from the server so it would only trigger when I stopped typing. That seems to fix the problem for me, and as a bonus it's not nagging the server on every keypress. The downside is no instant feedback when I type, but I can live without that if it fixes the other thing.

If anyone else is having that problem and wants to have a go, just copy and paste the following into your [[Special:MyPage/monacobook.js|monacobook.js]] (caveat: only tested on Firefox and Chrome):
<pre><nowiki>
var ss_memory = null;
var ss_timeron = 0;
var ss_timer;

function DoActualSearch() {
ss_timeron=0;
var newdiv = document.getElementById("searchsuggest");
if (!newdiv) {
var newdiv = document.createElement("div");
newdiv.id = "searchsuggest";
var searchdiv = document.getElementById("searchBody");
searchdiv.appendChild(newdiv);
}
var x = document.getElementById("searchInput").value;
if (x == ss_memory) {
return;
}
ss_memory = x;
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'none';
if (x.length < 30 && x.length > 1 && x.value != "") {
sajax_do_call("wfAjaxSearchSuggest", [x], newdiv);
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'block';
}
}

function MySearchCall() {
if(ss_timeron) {
clearTimeout(ss_timer);
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
} else {
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
ss_timeron=1;
}
}

function myss_ajax_onload(){
var x = document.getElementById('searchInput');
x.onkeyup = function(){
MySearchCall();
};
}

hookEvent("load", myss_ajax_onload);
</nowiki></pre>
Unfortunately it won't fix the actual contents of the search suggestions, so you'll still get a bunch of All Hail Megatron issues when you type "Megatron", but that requires changes on the server. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hmm. I feel like adding <tt>ORDER BY `page_counter` DESC</tt> around line 20 of ''suggest.php'' might help w/ our search results, but it's hard to say for sure given how abstracted mediawiki database calls are, someone would have ot make the change then test it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::The thought I had was to do a query on article titles starting with the search term, and then if that gives back less than 8 entries, do a second search to fill the rest of the list with titles with the term anywhere in the title. The search suggest currently supports both options, but not at the same time. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

==Stuff==
: Firstly, our organization of information related to the junior franchises is terrible and I'd love to do something about it, but I need feedback. We currently have most Japanese and American Go-Bots as separate characters, except for the Japanese Go-Bots from the 1-2-3 line. Though there are requests for a separate Chopper page. Should those pages be split or not? And if so, what about the figures that came with some of the toys. Kid-Bot clearly isn't the "red driver" or "blue driver", but the dog and "Gas-Bot" both have fiction in only one of the two franchises, so is it worth separating them? Also, does the unpublished coloring book count as apocrypha or not, seeing as it was mostly approved? And the human characters within, do they count as cameos like Kelly in the Dreamwave comics or separate characters? And does anyone know what the Japanese name was by which the First Transformers were released? The Go-Bots fansite has an image of Dumpkun's box featuring what looks like a G1 logo, the First Transformers logo and "初めてトランスフォーマー" written on it.
: Secondly, many disambiguation pages still mention if there's a separate page for the toys of a character. Is this system still necessary now that we use subpages to separate such stuff under? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 17:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

::I think unpublished stuff is treated as apocrypha, isn't it? The character page coverage of unreleased Dreamwave issues is in notes, for instance. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:48, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::True, but we don't know if those were approved or know those weren't approved. The coloring book was approved, just not released. That makes it better comparable to Wreckers #$, which we do not consider apocrypha (though I wouldn't know if we'd do that if Wreckers #5 didn't partially canonize it). [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 11:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::Just weighing in on the toy page issue: I find it useful to have these called out on the disambig pages. Being able to go directly from the disambig page to the toy page of a character saves me at least one click (if I see the suite box in time) and often some scrolling (if I don't see it). However, I won't fight too hard on this if consensus is for the removal of this feature. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 07:47, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::Thinking some more about the Go-Bots stuff, as the Japanese version of Gas-Bot has no fiction, it probably doesn't need its own page - either link to Gas-Bot's page or just leave it unlinked in the appropriate toy sections. Same with the US version of the dog. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:30, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Facebook. ==

Is '''<nowiki>http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFwikinet/191252494230187</nowiki>''' us? Because it's the #1 link when you search for "TFWiki Facebook," and our group is nowhere to be seen. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

:I think our group is not showing up because you have to have a Facebook account to see it? When I go to the group's URL, I just get a page prompting me to log in to Facebook. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:47, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

::The link is this one: [http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/ http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/], which is the #3 on the search by "TFwiki site:facebook.com" on Google. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 19:51, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So the other one isn't ours, and we can't put a link on it pointing it to the group.
:::Annoying. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It's a "Community page", whatever that is. Clicking on the "Create a page" button on the top right of that page does bring up some sort of form which seems like it will do something. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:12, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Halloween ==

Presuming we're deco'ing our frontpage for Halloween... does anyone have any suggestions? Monsters, ghosts, gouls? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:Animated Blitzwing's random face looks sorta Jack O'Lanterny and could work as a replacement for the Autobot insignia on the site logo, assuming we can find a head-on image of it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:35, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

== Moving "(Timelines)" articles ==

I'm thinking that, as we don't bother with "(Timelines)" for SG, TransTech, and Animated characters, we should apply the same across the board and only use it if necessary.

*[[Astrotrain (Timelines)]] → Astrotrain (Cybertron)
*[[Cannonball (Timelines)]] → Cannonball (G1)
*[[Cop-Tur (Timelines)]] → Cop-Tur (G1)
*[[Halogen (Timelines)]] → Halogen (G1)
*[[Side Burn (Timelines)]] → Side Burn (G1)
*[[Sky-Byte (Timelines)]] → Sky-Byte (G2)
*[[Switchblade (Timelines)]] → Switchblade (BW)
*[[Thunderblast (Timelines)]] → Thunderblast (G1)
*[[Yoketron (Timelines)]] → Yoketron (G1)

The exceptions are the Descent into Evil characters, who don't really fit in any pre-existing franchise, and the Nexus Prime characters, who don't originate from a particular universe.
*[[Buzzclaw (Timelines)]]
*[[Dirge (Timelines)]]
*[[Flareup (Timelines)]]
*[[Landquake (Timelines)]]
*[[Ricochet (Timelines)]]
*[[Heatwave (Timelines)]]

Thoughts? Or does nobody really care that much? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 10:19, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:Since you asked, I'll pitch 2¢ into the conversation, since I know a little bit about it. I found out the hard way that wiki "doesn't bother with '(Timelines)' for Animated." And by hard way, I mean I was clobbered over the head without a hint of explanation for proposing that a Timelines-original Animated continuity character should be at "(Timelines)." But no hard feelings. I still think "franchise of origin" and not "continuity of origin" is best for disambiguations. For reasons that have been discussed previously on the subject. TransTech and SG are treated as a kind of sub-franchises of Timelines by the wiki, so I think they are an OK exception. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::The prose stories are identified as "Transformers Timelines presents a Transformers: (franchise) story". I would say that both franchises are equally valid to the stories, and the fact that non-Timelines stories (Around Cybertron, magazine comics, etc.) bleed together with Timelines stories makes the "(Timelines)" designation convoluted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, that's different. It sounds like you are calling their actual franchise of origin into question, not just their disambiguation. I don't have an opinion about their actual franchise of origin. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying that they're Timelines, but saying that they're better categorized under their other franchise. Like the Animated guys, it seems more instinctive to file [[Side Burn (Timelines)]] under "Side Burn (G1)" instead (not to mention that there's other Side Burn in Timelines: [[Side Burn (SG)]]).[[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:38, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
I'm hesitating, but let me think about the ramifications. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'd be fine with this. Though, one thing I'd like to propose is giving the Wings Universe characters their own disambiguation suffix. Like maybe "(Wings)" or something. I know it's a part of G1, but it's kinda like its own series within the over G1 continuity family like the Japanese G1 series are (which are also given their own suffixes such as "(Victory)", "(ROC)", "(BT)" etc.).

:Though, as for the Descent into Evil characters, maybe something like "(DIE)" or "(Descent)" or even just "(Descent into Evil)". Or, if not, keep them at "(Timelines)". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 11:51, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think the DIE guys are fine where they are (although you could argue moving [[Ricochet (Timelines)]] because of [[Ricochet (SG)]], but I don't really care). As for the Wings Universe guys getting their own disambiguation, eh... [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I am '''definitely absolutely''' against creating a (Wings) disambiguation when (G1) or (Timelines) work perfectly fine. We do NOT disambiguate by continuity except by absolute necessity within a franchise. Making up a (Wings) parenthetical just because incredibly confuses our disambiguation policy for no real reason. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::And what exactly keeps the Descent into Evil guys from being tagged G1? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Is the intermezzo period between G1 and BW considered G1 or BW?

:::It's all G1 characters... and IIRC the Insecticons were supposed ot be part of Insecticon plans which had been around for ages, so the characters weren't "BW-era only" characters...

:::I could support a G1 disambigif you talked me into it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:01, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::DIE fiction (Descent into Evil itself and [[Intimidation Game]]) has elements of both BW and G1; it doesn't have a certain franchise placement. Dirge (Timelines) and Ricochet (Timelines) also have namesakes firmly in G1. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:14, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::::BW is both BW and G1. And G1 has been back-incorporating BW elements since, like, 1995. The fact DIE has G1 and BW doesn't mean it's part of neither. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think that, by the nature of Timelines, it feels more natural to parse that specific set of characters by their continuity or parent-franchise of origin. Honestly, I think the Nexus components (''all'' of them) are really the best and only candidates for the Timelines parser.

::Also, I made a [http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Template:c quick template] that you guys could use here to simplify the coding for whenever you need to link a continuity-parsed name.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:37, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately I don't think that template would work as well here, because our articles are not consistently named by franchise. For instance [[Lightspeed (G1 Technobot)]], [[Flattop (Autobot)]] and [[Impactor]] are all (G1) characters but don't use (G1) in their title, so the template wouldn't work for linking to them. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I think that Timelines is a pretty clunky franchise for the purposes of this wiki, in that it covers multiple continuities. I think the proposal on the table makes sense.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Two spaces after a period in a sentence ==

I've noticed this for a while on the Wiki. In practice, it makes no difference as the software displays one space the same way it displays one. However, I've been wondering why people do it. Now I '''know: They''' were taught so in school. '''By teachers who were taught on friggin' ''typewriters''.''' So the "two spaces after a period" rule is a leftover from the typewriter days, where it was a necessity, but it's completely obsolete on computers. [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html Source]--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:The sentence spacing rules were, in fact, developed by typographers, but were not phased out via the magical introduction of the personal computer. The em-space rule exists for monospaced fonts, which were still fairly common for a great number of printers through the mid-1980s. If you would like to begin a tyrannical series of grammar-based wiki edits, I would begin by avoiding the use of prepositions at the start of sentences. I would also advise some respect for the proper use of colons and semi-colons, as typographical errors should not take priority over proper word selection and punctuation. Cheers! --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 14:20, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Are you referring to sentences beginning with prepositional phrases for the sake of emphasis (also known as an introductory modifiers)? That's totally valid. Or do you mean idiocies such as relative clauses that are separated from the preceding main clause by a period instead of a comma? The most glaring typographic blunders I encounter on the wiki typically go hand in hand with awkwardly worded sentences and clunky terminology, so I'm inclined to assume the same person(s) is/are responsible for all of those.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::I have bolded an example. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Aw, you altered your post. No fair! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:16, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::What'd I alter? I just moved it up. Anyway... I'd call that one "deliberate departure from proper grammar for the sake of dramatic emphasis". It's about as improper as using a period after ''every. Single. Word.'' If it's obvious from the context that it's done for emphasis, I'd call it acceptable as long as it's not used inflationary. I'm sure we have a few cases of "We know it's not proper grammar, but we want to stress a point here" on the wiki. (How did the saying go again? "Know the rules first before you break them"?)--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:28, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:....or you can just set the bot to convert " " to " ". Since we don't output monospace font, or anything.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Over the whole wiki, those extra spaces account for maybe 20kb of data, which I don't think is worth worrying about. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Typed text is typed text, and the double-space after a period is still correct. Shall we next be told that we're "wrong" for not having the wiki use the metric system, or for writing down dates with the month before the day instead of after it? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, and I bolded something too. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Due to habit, I'm gonna double-space until I die. I really don't think that needs to be considered a problem. Is that really a problem? An extra millimeter between sentences? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Nevermore ''is'' right about it being mostly obsolete, but for purely technical reasons: All double (triple, etc.) spaces are collapsed down to one for display in HTML. If you want the extra spaces to actually be viewable as extra blank space, you have to use <tt>&</tt><tt></tt><tt>nbsp;</tt>. So if you double-space here on the wiki, it only shows up when you edit the page. For whatever that's worth. (Not really taking sides, just presenting the info.) --[[Special:Contributions/67.252.49.31|67.252.49.31]] 06:08, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== More on the search box/"Transformers" everything ==

Typing "Energon" into the search box does not give me [[Energon (franchise)]], [[Energon (cartoon)]] or [[Energon (toyline)]] as top results. Same for "Cybertron". I assume this has to do with the recent "Transformers" prefixing for article titles. However, typing "Animated" into the seach box ''does'' give me franchise and toyline as top results, so it should be ''possible'' despite the prefixing.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:It's purely alphabetical, dude. ''Animated'' shows up before ''Arcee (Animated)'' because "An" precedes "Ar", whereas ''Arcee (Energon)'' comes up before ''Energon'' because "A" precedes "E". --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:13, 6 November 2011 (EST)
::There's an option in the search suggest tool to limit the results to stuff starting with the search query rather than with stuff with the term anywhere in their titles, however it's not something that can be configured through MediaWiki. There's a bit of discussion about it in the "Making the search suggestion work better" section up above. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:::If we wanted to do ''that'', when we shouldn't have prefixed "Transformers:" before hundreds of articles 3 weeks ago. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:06, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::We still have the titles without "Transformers: " as redirects though, so they'll still show up. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:23, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== Spam-dalism ==

Is that the neologism for it? Anyway, somehow the ReCaptcha is failing to stop the automated spam, and I'm guessing the IP's are all very different.

How old are the accounts when they do this? If they're fairly new, would it be possible to simply block IPs and new accounts from inserting new external links? If not (or if that's unworkable), would it be possible to flag such edits for review the way that wikipedia does to edits on contested pages?

Also, is there any chance these are at least coming from the same proxy? The fact that they're getting past ReCaptcha makes it seem like these are actual people doing this, unless ReCaptcha only activates on certain namespaces.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 14:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:I was using captcha with images on my phpBB installation on another site (Doctor Who related) until yesterday and getting a half dozen spammers a day signing up in despite of it. Yesterday I switched to a Question Answer challenge which asks the person registering to name the main character's time machine, and so far it has stopped the spammers dead.
:MediaWiki has [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha] which looks like it works in exactly the same way, and works with the ConfirmEdit extension we already have installed. If we can get that installed and set up, it might be more effective than the image-based system we use now. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::What would the questions be? It can't be too obvious or too obscure. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:31, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:::Not necessarily. The question I'm using on my Doctor Who site is obvious if you have any knowledge at all of the source material, but it seems to be working. We can always start with something easy and see how we go. Most likely all of the spammers are using bots anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::"What is the name of the red-and-blue semi Autobot?", "What's the name of the blue casette player Decepticon?", or "What is the name of the yellow semi Micromaster Autobot with a hydraulic crane?"[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 17:50, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::: "What is the fandom's usual reaction when a new franchise is announced?" :p [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:56, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::::<tt>If Dick has two apples and Jane has two apples, how many apples do they have? (3 letters.)</tt> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:09, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::Ah, but then it would be so easy for users to use only three exclamation marks, and forget the requisite four exclamation marks and a 1.
::No but yeah, a question helps a lot. Might even be worth doing for all IP edits and new accounts, not just those with external links.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:57, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::While we're on the subject, is it somehow possible to flag certain terms or words used by IP editors and auto-block them? *coughcoughobamacoughcough*[[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 16:31, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::...but we have an article on [[Barry Obama]].
:::Are you trying to whitewash the wiki? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:13, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::: It was just an academic question; after all, I'm sure that you've noticed our considerable problem with a certain IP editor lately. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:19, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::: Well yes... but I couldn't resist. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:43, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a temp ban on the whole ISP might get better results. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:51, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::sooo...who would you need to talk to about getting this set up, and what exactly do you want to restrict?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 19:45, 21 November 2011 (EST)
:::::The guy whose IP addresses are always located in England who keeps vandalizing articles with Obama-related nonsense. Doesn't look like even banning IP ranges stops him. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 11:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::...so, there's no way to stop this lunatic? [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 11:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:Options, in order of severity:
#Block all new uses of the word "Obama" to all anonymous editors.
#Block anonymous editors entirely.
#Destroy England.
:But really, that's a separate issue with probably a separate solution, since the guy is a some kind of being. To deal with the spamdalism, I think you guys should add a "name that Transformer-mon!" question, which should cut down heavily on automated edits, and if they still get through, look at blocking all uses of external links for anonymous or new editors. The use of the question for all IP edits is fairly standard, so it should be easy to implement, and you can look into harsher measures if the bots still make it through. However, I really think you guys should make an effort to get this setup, because the conversation keeps kind of drifting down and the vandalism keeps happening.[[Special:Contributions/98.223.102.157|98.223.102.157]] 02:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:: On another note... isn't it cute how he keps trying to badly pass himself off as me? I think someone has a bad case of hero-worship. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 10:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Please stop egging on vandals. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::: OK, on a more serious note, is anyone averse to just locking the wiki for a few days? Bulbapedia does it regularily and they don't have much of a vandalism problem. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 12:36, 23 November 2011 (EST)
Removing the "Undo" option for anons would help, at the very least. We need a regular tech person (or give abates access to the MediaWiki stuff, since he seems to know his way around). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:12, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::: What if we implemented a captcha system for anon edits? I mean, it wouldn't ''stop'' them, per se, but it would make persistent vandalism wars a hassle. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:16, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would not be opposed to that, or simple stock questions. ("Who is the leader of the Autobots?", "What is two plus three?", etc.) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:23, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:::: Rodimus Prime? :p
::::: But seriously, how did Mr. Obama Guy get past the rangeblock? Because that's rather worrysome in and of itself. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::::BT Internet has a lot of IP ranges. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:58, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Okay. Listen.<br>
1) CAPTCHA won't change crap. It ''might'' stop a small number of bot edits, but we have a large, active mod presence that basically polices this place around the clock, and any of those crappy ad pages can be eliminated in mere minutes, if not within seconds of their creation.<br>
2) There is basically '''''NOTHING''''' that can be done to ''stop'' someone who has decided that the best use of their time is constant, repeated, easily-reverted vandalism of a wiki. Well, okay there are a few options, but they're not ones any kind of wiki coding is gonna be part of. They'll find ways around bans, and all these automated things that are being suggested are basically shooting blind and wasting time. This is not remotely the first time someone has thought to do this. It won't be the last. But we've outlasted all those others. And that's all it takes. Again... that large active 24-hour admin presence that quickly and coolly reverts the vandalism ''without getting all butthurt''. That's what vandals want, to watch you get pissy and panicky and angry... ''and that's what you're giving them.'' So '''''shut up''''' and stop feeding that, then they'll eventually get bored and leave.<br>
3) I can perhaps get behind removing the "Undo" option for anons. I don't think though that it will really help much, since making an account takes what, a few seconds?<br>
--[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:38, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:Um. I don't want to offend anyone, but the Obama-guy thing ''really'' isn't related to this topic, although some of the solutions to the spamdalism thing might work to hinder him. The bigger issue is the guys spamming the wiki with links to knockoff viagra, sort of thing, and putting up a simple question system for anons and new editors would work to stop that almost completely, at least everywhere I've seen it in use.
:The mod presence, yeah, things eventually get cleaned up by the end of the day, but a simple, standard change like adding the question will prevent that from happening in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/99.39.88.159|99.39.88.159]] 22:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)
:Just to alleviate any concerns: In my experience, the question captcha does not prevent human edits except from the most severely uninformed editors, and it completely prevents the bot-spam, which at this point almost totally covers the RC when I happen to check it. Many other independent wikis, such as Halopedian, use the question captcha, so if you guys wanted a first-person POV on it, you could also ask them for their experiences. Basically, the captcha question should totally eliminate the bot-spam, with the only drawback being that it adds maybe a fraction of a second to anonymous human edits. So, given that, does anyone have any objections to adding the captcha question?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)--(same anon as throughout this topic)

== Spelling throughout the Wiki ==

I've found that, on multiple spots on the Wiki, there are UK English spellings of words. Now, I know that the Transformers Wiki is a country-spanning project, but I'd like a consensus on whether or not we should change incidences of UK spellings (like "practise" and "polarize") to their American English counterparts. A streamlined flow using only one dialect would, I believe, make the editing process much easier. However, I do not want a backlash from UK users. <br>
P.S.: Damn you, Webster! You and your new-world dictionary! [[User:TheMZone|TheMZone]] 18:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:[[Help:Style guide#National varieties of English|Here is the wiki's policy on the subject]] just so you know. I myself don't think it needs changing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

== Why are the IDW books in G1? ==

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.) {{unsigned|158.103.0.1}}
:Uggghhhhhh. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:Yeahhh, you not understanding the concept of Continuity Families particularly well.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 16:30, 1 December 2011 (EST)

::Other continuities within the G1 continuity family also eschew some of those classic aspects. In [[Action Blast 1]], for instance, the Autobots crash on present-day Earth and they don't hang around in stasis for millions of years. I don't think there's really a template of specific events that a G1 continuity has to stick to. That would hamper storytelling too much. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

:::Also, they share a lot of the same characters, body designs, and personalities. Granted, some of them are common across the multiverse, but things like Megatron becoming a gun and Optimus Prime as a flatnosed tractor-trailer are distinctly G1-ish. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:29, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::FYI: [[Talk:IDW Generation 1 continuity#New evidence that IDW is not G1|Previous discussion here]]. Yes, on the one hand, it is G1 because it uses the G1 cast of characters for the most part, and most of those pretty much have the same personality as their G1 bio card as on their G1 counterparts (with the significant exception of their gimmicks). On the other hand, [http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=143991#143991 an artist] has said it is not G1, so it isn't entirely crazy to say it isn't G1. The universe itself doesn't seem particularly G1. It is like a different universe populated with G1 guys. The Micromasters aren't Cybertronain (I think), so a whole class of G1 Transformers aren't Transformers which sounds like a different universe. In short, it mostly makes sense for the wiki to organize it under G1 so they don't have to duplicate character pages with characters with mostly the same intro paragraph. But don't take it too seriously, it isn't official or anything. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:54, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::: No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I mean is that there seems to be no CANON justification for why IDW is considered G1. Especially because it lacks the links of similar G1 works, it’s never been verified as such by the creators (as far as I know) and it’s “G1-ness” is tentative at best.

:::::IDW really doesn’t have as strong a link as or other G1 families. They all either were marketed as direct extensions to the original 80s ‘Toon and Comic adaptations (Gen 2 and Dreamwave ) established “next gen” sequels (Beast Era) Inserts into Gen 1 (Alternators and much of Japan’s stuff) Or add ons to particular points of the G1 timeline (Classics, Dreamwave) hell Timelines might count as a little bit of all of these. IDW really has no direct link.

:::::That leaves us to the creators, and when it’s referred as such by them they use the term "reboot” or the like. Hell Simon Furman, architect of a large section of G1, straight up called it an ‘Ultimate’ version in his CBR interview. And Don Fig doesn’t consider it G1 at all.

:::::Even then we look at why we call it G1 it causes all kinds of fallacies. Relying ion art style to tell families (as said in our very own article) leads to insanity, as characters change appearances across media ostensibly in eths same family all the time (for example WFC and Prime) likewise the “G1" aspects, such as personality, and looks, have been used both in the Transformers Film and Animated families, and yet we don’t consider them G1 despite both being just about the same kind of reboot on it IDW is. They incorporate a version of the Beast Ear into their timeline but assuming a connection with their main IDW addition, it’s just as differing as Aligned or Animated version of the Beast era would be.

:::::I’m not trying to rock the boat I se4riously would just like to know if there’s any official, canon, or Hasbro/Creator data that states IDW as a version of G1, because right now I’m not seeing it.

:::::Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be seen as the "young turk" coming into old pros territory and rocking the boat against guys who have been studying this since before I was born, but I just picked up a bunch of Simon Furman stuff from [[http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Marvelcomicscontinuity.jpg The old comics]] as well as the big two volume IDW packs and they just don't fit at all. They're as different from G1 as the Films, Animated or RID are. I don't think we should makes assumptions and leaps of logic just for convenience's sake, kind belies the purpose of a wiki, ya know?
::::::This is a ridiculous amount of navel-gazing to get past the point that IDW continuity is just G1 in new dressing and not a new franchise of its own. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::By that terminology ALL of Transformers media is Just "g1 in a new dressing" by the virtue of G1 starting the franchise.
::::::::That is not what I mean by "franchise". Please don't be obtuse. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 02:05, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::Considering new Generation 1 toys keep being made in the style of IDW design, that that firmly cements the stuff as being G1 in Hasbro's eyes. And the fact that they are constantly using Generation 1-style character aesthetics, personalizations and the freaking '''original font''' on the titles. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::The wiki's more confident about calling it G1 than even Hasbro, which calls the toys "Generations." Wiki organization is one thing, but we act more like it is a fact than it actually is. "Generation 1" doesn't really exist anymore. Hasbro is a little ashamed of it. Or at least doesn't want to pigeon-hole their toys and comics as being old-school. The [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] page as a "Generation 1" logo on top. That doesn't really reflect reality which is more hazy. Maybe "Generations" is the new "Generation 1" or something. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::To use your Simon Furman point against you, saying that IDW is not G1 is kind of like saying that Ultimate Marvel is not part of the Marvel Multiverse. It may be fairly different, but it is undeniably the same basic characters and situations. Also, I never have figured out why anyone really cares what the creative teams think, anything they say can be overruled by Hasbro at any time. Even after it has been published. Only Hasbro's opinion really matters.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:07, 2 December 2011 (EST)
Discussed ad nauseum years ago. Nothing new has been added to the conversation since. Not changing. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 05:13, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Aesthetics have already been disavowed as a valid ground for Continuity Pedigree, most notably with the Aligned Family. if Hasbro itself hasn’t recognized it as G1, hasn’t directly tied it to a previous G1 work, and if the writers and artists themselves don’t consider it G1, how is it legitimate to denote it as G1 based on our interpretation. Especially given such ethereal "evidence" as the looks of toys and ''fonts'' of all things.

:::::::::Hasbro has yet to give any word. And also the Marvel analogy wont work, because while Marvel has but ONE Multiverse composed of several individual universes. The TF Multiverse is a collection of Universal Streams, each roughly following the same vents with several different interpretations over key events. It's like comparing diffirent versions of the Bible as rather than like comparing the Bible against the Koran.

:::::::::M Sipher, would you do an FYI link? I've seen the discussion over on IDW Continuity’s Main page and the quibbles on the main Continuity Family but never any hard decree from an authority based on reasoning any more firm than convenience. I'm simply trying to hold IDW to the standards of the other G1 works on the wiki, all of which have '''in-canon''' links to versions of G1, or else are stated as such by the Companies.

:99% of all IDW characters are G1 characters, based on their original G1 counterparts. The different origins of some characters (Arcee) are no different than varying origins between the original cartoon and Marvel Comics (Grimlock, Technobots). Compared to the Aurex universes, where only Optimus, Megatron and Starscream consistently fit the G1 character archetypes, whereas most other characters are clearly just name reuses (Red Alert, Cyclonus, Jetfire, etc). Even Malgus and Tyran, both clearly closer to the G1 continuity than Aurex, have clearly distinctive character differences. IDW Bumblebee is clearly a variation on the original G1 Bumblebee, whereas Movie 'Bee and Animated Bumblebee are approximate extrapolations, see also Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, and so on.
:IDW is a G1 universe that has expanded beyond the original G1 concepts, but not the characters themselves. Trying something new is not the same as abandoning the underlying foundation. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 11:47, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:I'm sure there are other examples, but Prowl, Sunstreaker, and Sideswipe have appeared in their Universe Classics series bodies while Starscream, Thundercracker and Skywarp have appeared in their Masterpiece bodies. All of those are undoubted G1 toys. Either IDW is G1 or those toys are being repurposed. All things considered it seems most parsimonious to classify IDW as a part of G1. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::Masterpiece is a franchise. Classics series is G1<sup>continuity family</sup> but it isn't G1<sup>franchise</sup>. Unfortunately, "G1" can mean different things. Just so everyone is on the same page, the wiki treats IDW as being part of the G1 ''[[franchise]]''. For example, on the [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] it has the G1 franchise logo. Is that what this discussion is about, or is the discussion about if IDW is part of the G1 continuity family? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 12:28, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::The original poster said continuity family. I do consider IDW a different franchise within the G1 continuity family. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:39, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::But does the use of Character analogous to G1 interpretations define it as a G1 series? This really comes don to whether we define continuity families as being overlays of roughly similar events (as in Tvtropes Broad Strokes) or whether we are tying versions of characters as the archetype from which it is based. If you're taking side new altmodes and differences like Goldbug and Galvatron is being "based" on G1 to a degree enough to allot status within the family? At that point we might as well make a spectrum of "G1-ness" and start arbitrarily cutting everything. As it stands now our definitions of Families are based off there uniqueness of story and universe content, and IDW differs significantly from any other G1 work.

Talk:Continuity

2011-12-02T16:51:39Z

158.103.0.1:

==featured?==

I was thinking... this and the continuity family article should either be featured articles... or even "right off the main page all the time" articles. I think the information they contain should be touted as important reading. Thoughts? --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 08:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:I think they are important enough to get some special emphasis, yes. They're very well written as is. My only suggestion is a small one (and I'm not entirely sure how best to implement it) but they're rather visually boring at the moment. I know they don't immediately lend them selves to it but if we could cook up some more pics to serve as visual aids that would liven things up immensly.--[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 12:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:I still feel like the articles are a bit of a mess, although I don't know that they could ever ''not'' be messy. I think the idea of linking to them more prominently is a good one, but... maybe not quite yet. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 15:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

::Well, a good image for the "multiverse" portion could be a photo of a bunch of the various TF medias. A Marvel comic, an IDW comic, a DW comic, an old G1 coloring book and storybook, a G1 cartoon videotape, the RID DVD cover, some UT fiction (storybook, maybe?), BW DVD cover... Legends... I'd do it except I don't have any of those of G1 storybooks anymore. (I DO have the "See & Read" videocassette, though...)<br>
::The "Unified Japanese continuities"... pity that flash timeline doesn't really screen-grab well. Hm. "Continuity soup" could certainly use a scan of a post- BW G1 story mentioning "sparks".... --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 22:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::: I have added a pic of Optimus Prime's spark from Primeval Dawn in Continuity Soup. [[User:Ronimus Prime|Ronimus Prime]] 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

==old discussion==
I dislike refering to RiD as a first-contact story, as in episode 3, the train station personel recognized Optimus Prime, and seemed ot have a fairly good grasp of him being the good guy to Preds' bad guy.
A perponderance of evidence within the cartoon would appear to indicate that RiD was not first-contact, but that there had been some previous period of public TF activity on Earth. (That activity being based on parts of the G1 cartoon.)

Also, the description of the Unicron Trilogy, though factually accurate, is muddled. I was glazing over while reading it.

:I've made some minor modifications to address your concerns. I at least partially agree with you about the RID thing -- the story told in the cartoon is clearly not the Transformers' first contact with humans in that timeline, as a big part of the story centers around TF contact with ancient humans. My original wording was a little clumsy.

:Also, I removed the mention of the manga that XBob put into the "prominant g1 continuities" list. If I'm mistaken about this, somebody should feel free to put it back in again, but I was under the impression that the manga wasn't, in general, in-continuity with the TV shows. I had already made mention of the manga's existence in the Japanese continuities section, and I think that is probably sufficient. Certainly among English-speakings fans at least, the G1 manga is not a "prominant" continuity.

:As a reminder to everyone using Talk pages, please sign your comments so other editors can tell who said what and when they said it. You can sign automatically by writing four tilde (~) characters in a row. There is even a "signature" button at the top of the edit area which will insert this automatically.

:--[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 05:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's good to know. Thanks.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

>>Also, I removed the mention of the manga that XBob put into the "prominant g1 continuities" list. If I'm mistaken about this, somebody should feel free to put it back in again, but I was under the impression that the manga wasn't, in general, in-continuity with the TV shows. I had already made mention of the manga's existence in the Japanese continuities section, and I think that is probably sufficient. Certainly among English-speakings fans at least, the G1 manga is not a "prominant" continuity.<<

IIRC The G1 Manga's plosts were so simple(Save the animals from the Destrons!!!) that theres hardly any chance for contradiction, same thing goes for 2010 and Headmasters. The masterforce, and the victory manga however do conterdict. And the Zone-Operation Combination mangas seem to be in contuity with the TV show If I'm not mistaken X-BoB58
: A note in the final paragraph (the one mentioning the manga) about how those fit into continuity would be appropriate, then. But you should also find out about the other, non-G1 manga if you want to include that, so readers aren't confused. But the in-continuity status of those is worth at least a brief mention. --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
:The Zone manga is a retelling of the first OVA episode. However, the character designs for Kain, Akira and the Destron Demon-Generals are all different. As well, Bruticus shows up (he wasn't in the OVA) and the homoerotic subtext between Akira and Kain doesn't seem present. Otherwise, the events happen more-or-less as animated.--[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 03:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The beastwars II and Neo Manga's arn't in continuity, and I don't think the UT mangas are either(withn the exception of linkage)

XBob, everything Takara or Hasbro publishes is "canon" in that it's "official." Transformers has no singular canon other than the recent notion of a unified multiverse. The phrase "aren't in canon" has basically no meaning pertaining to Transformers fiction. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Zac made [http://transformers.wikia.com/index.php?title=Continuities&curid=1519&diff=34284&oldid=34254 some edits] to the page, most of which I like, but I, personally, have a strong preference for the old opening sentence. I recognize that my opening was a little unusual-sounding, but it was direct and specific. So... rather than just reverting it I figured I'd see if anybody else cares? Did everyone, on reading my old opening, think "what the hell is he on about?" If so, I'll let it go. (Although I do think that at the least, the mention of comic books in the new one is unnecessary and just gets in the way.) --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 16:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
: I preferred your original opening statement, which was more clear, so I reverted. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure some will think the added image contains some mistakes (and some lacks, it's already several years old), but it still illustrate the subject quite well and give a rather good recap of the whole thing--[[User:GUIGUI|GUIGUI]] 02:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that ''Galaxy Force'' has been reconciled with the rest of the Japanese Unicron Trilogy, though the explanation didn't comefrom the cartoon proper. Is that correct?[[User:Chip|Chip]] 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I think you're referring to the DVD booklet that connected Unicron to Planet X and explained the ending images. [[User:Interrobang|Interrobang]] 06:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

== The impossible japanese continuity retcon ==

I don't read Japanese, but I can already feel just how auto-contradicting the G1 storyline retcon on the new TakaraTomy site is: http://www.takaratomy.co.jp/products/TF/table.html
Is it possible to not recognize it canon despite it being official?

What I want to know is where that image of Cerebros transforming into Fortress's head came from. I don't recall Fortress's head transforming into anything in the Headmasters show, and I know those aren't ''Rebirth'' models. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 23:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:It's from ''Headmasters'', alright, from the singular time that transformation happened, in the flashback episode to when the Headmasters were learning to transform. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 23:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

*Yeah, that timeline is a bit of a clusterfuck. Trying to shoehorn Car Robot in there is especially painful. Though, this sort of "official yet non-sensical timeline" thing isn't exclusive to Transformers. Shigeru Miyamoto once belted out a Zelda timeline which has been ignored by just about everyone because it made absolutely no sense. --[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 23:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:The Zelda time line is not ignored. A lot of people consider each game happens in the same universe in the same continuity. It's just the correct order that has never been clearly figured out. But that's beside the point. So back to the it, using that Zelda/Shigy case is not really a good argument to rule out that new retcon.

:T'would seem to me that the only real problem is the random insertion of Car Robots - everything else that has been retroactively inserted into the G1 timeline (Robot Masters, Binaltech, Kiss Players) has managed to fit itself in there through the use of enough fiddly stuff to work fairly well. Binaltech, but the end of it's own story, has been diverged off as an alternate universe, while Robot Masters allowed itself to work through time travel, and as insane as Kiss Players is, they kept their ducks in a row, and by the end of the story everything was in a position to allow 2010 to occur unmolested (heh). It even managed to explain Daniel's lack of aging between the movie and 2010. Well, I'm assuming Prime, er, died again. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::Except the new movie is in there too; or does the red color mean something different? (And I like the entry for the launch of Voyager, heh)[[User:EricMarrs|EricMarrs]] 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
:: The red colors are just signifying that those two white trails are part of the same line. The red is the hyphen at the linebreak, so to speak. I think it's safe to say that Car Robots is part of J-G1 while RiD is not part of US-G1. Sort of like how, for most of Galaxy Force, it was not considered part of the UT over there, but Cybertron definitely was over here. (Of course, that's not the case anymore. See the same page.) There are plenty of US materials that contradict the Japanese G1 timeline. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 02:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

T6heir timeline places the Voyager prome launch witht he golden disk in 1977. Does it say which specific Voyager? (1 or 2?)

IIRC, I did a comparison once and the design of the satellite we saw,though similar to 1 and 2, matches neither, so it was probably meant to be a fictional subsequent launch, but if Japan SAYS it's Voyager 2, I'm willing to accept that.

Can someone who reads Japanese tell me? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

==Hoping to avoid controversy==
Hi there. [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]] here, after a long absence followed by some very minor edits in recent weeks. Some of you may recall many months ago I made some petulant, uncalled-for comments on relevant IDW and Movie pages about my (unpopular) opinions regarding the continuity status of these neo-G1 universes. Anyway, it all got rather heated, I got temporarily banned when I stood up for myself and some people got astonishingly hostile, blah blah blah. Anyway, regardless of the subsequent unpleasantness, I acknowledge (as I did at the time) that my inital actions were in the wrong and I'd like to leave it at that, please.

To briefly recap my opinion (divorced from the acrimony); I felt/still feel that the IDWverse and the MoiveVerse should be granted equal footing, continuity-wise, as being either both part of the G1 continuity family, or both outside of it. My reasoning is that the IDWverse is significantly different enough from all other iterations of G1 while the MovieVerse is significantly similar enough to G1, especially when compared to RID and the Unicron Trilogy. I'm willing to cop that the MovieVerse is slightly more "un-G1" than IDW, but solely on the basis of including several non-classic characters, as I think that their respective premises are equally different from traditional G1 and that the drastic aesthetic differences are essentially superficial and not a significant factor.

Anyway, I want to stress that I'm NOT trying to lobby for a change in Teletraan 1's categorisation (although I'd be delighted if it were to happen), and that I have NOT made any unilateral changes to this effect. All I'm saying here so far is context for the paragraph I've added to THIS article.

So, I recently noticed that in my absence someone else (and please, don't even suggest that it was me) has added bits here and there that are at least somewhat sympathetic to my point of view, such as the prhase "loosely based on Generation 1" at the head of the [[IDW]] page, or the "Quibbles" section in the [[Continuity family]] article. So, given the nature of THIS article and its acknowledgement of the highly subjective, [[personal canon]] nature of TF continuity, and especially the subsection "Continuity Soup", I thought this would be an appropriate place to include an invective-free comment on the specific subjectivity of continuity subcategorisation. I promise that I'm not trying to be controversial or have a dig at anyone, and I hope that the section will not be seen as warranting deletion.

Thanks for listening. [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]].

:Not too surprisingly considering I disagreed with you before, I think your changes were a little too much, but I definitely agree with you in principle that these things should be addressed explicitly. I was the one who added the "quibbles" section to [[continuity family]], largely influenced by your previous statements on other talk pages. I've just made revisions to this article that tone down some of what you wrote, but I think (I hope!) that I have treated your viewpoint fairly. I mainly wanted to remove words and phrases that sounded a bit like editorializing to my ears. Feel free to make more changes. I imagine that in a couple rounds we can get the article into a shape we are both happy with. I would, however, prefer to keep most of the "categorization" talk in the families article instead of here. The other article is basically entirely about categorizing continuities, so, it's more relevant there. Hence, my revision of this article truncates the discussion and says "see the other article". I am okay with the idea of the IDW and movie quibbles over there being expanded a little bit. I am, however, still baffled by your continuing insistence that the altmode changes in IDW, which I consider completely trivial (ex: Thundercracker is a contemporary fighter jet instead of one that was contemporary 25 years ago), are meaningful, especially in light of your statement that you ''don't'' think the G1/Movie aesthetic rift is important. That seems really contradictory to me. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 05:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
<div class="thumb tright"><div class="thumbinner">http://www.emopanda.com/tmp/excluded_middle.png<div class="thumbcaption">Steve</div></div></div>
::I bet he's more hung up on there being no Ark/Mt. St. Hillary 4 million years ago.
::I believe you, Steve-o, have been at least mutedly interested in ''discussing'' whether the Movie should be in the G1 continuity family— if only to explore the argument to its logical conclusion.
::(It's not really an argument that Movie == G1 as it is an argument that our system of Continuity Families is inadequate. ...at least as I see it. Pacci might feel different.)
::I have translated the core argument against the existing Family model from messy ''English'' to ''Steve-o'' through the use of a nice, unambiguous chart. (right.) It's the Linnean thing, discuss. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 10:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

:::If we're talking about my own personal thoughts on how close things are, I consider IDW to be unambiguously a G1 continuity, while the movie is outside G1, but a lot closer to G1 than the UT or RID is. Early on, I wasn't sure whether I would think of the movie as G1 or not, but eventually found the differences from G1 to be too large for me to think of them as the same thing. I understand what you're trying to do with your chart, but really it is committing falacies too because the continuum needs to be N-dimensional, not linear. There are many, many different axes along which we can move to find new universes. What is the origin of the TF race? How and when do they interact with Earth? What characters exist? Is there a Unicron? What factions are there? What subgroups/gimmicks do the TFs develop? Do they have sparks? What is energon like, if it exists at all? And on and on...--[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Assuming there is an objective way to quantify those N-dimensional criteria, then you could presumably reduce them down to a weighted geneology; "How 'G1y' is this continuity? How 'Armaday,'" and whichever 'ethnicity' was preeminent would be the category it was sorted into. So not a continuum-- but a sorted noisy set with individual population curves where the values off to the side aren't 'how close is it to the continuity on my left' (because putting continuity families in a line is silly) but rather 'those continuities whose bond to this family are so weak they're close to snapping over to another.'
::::(That's still a lousy system because it only functions assuming you have a full set of all possible Continuity Families. And some, like Megazarak's Universe, don't seem to fit into ''any'' of them.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Also, silly boy-- all Transformers have Sparks because Primus exists in all universes! ^_^
:::::You know, except for the Challenge of the GoBots universe, which appears to have Gobotron but no Cybertron... and maybe the Go-go-go-go-bots world...
:::::I admit I have problems with a multiverse that declares that all universes are wild ahistoric variations on a theme-- so the same two characters (Prime and Megatron) are genetically related in one universe but not another-- but at the same time ''also'' insists that there's a common unvarying history. So you can have 'wild unchecked flights of fancy and imagination-- up to a point.' You can never do a world where Unicron is a god of creation and Primus of destruction, or where Unicron is a trickster space-lemur that teaches the Junkions how to hunt the wild Buffalodumps of Goo, or where the 'allspark' is a fiction made up by the theocratic ruling body to keep Cybertron a 'demon haunted world' and Transformers are naturally occuring processes of levers and gears with no sparks, or stories where the Allspark dimension is real but a naturally-occurring phenomena with no Unicron or Primus, or stories about the [[Lords of Chaos]], or stories about the very first Transformers where they're all My Little Ponies. You can never tell a story where the good guys ''win'', and if they think they have they're just ignorant.
:::::It doesn't seem like ''much'' of a constraint... but when you remove one ball the manatees don't want to play any more. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Anyway, I totally agree that the "family" system is imperfect because it creates undefined categories that are supposed to span then entire multiverse with no overlaps or holes, and that is not a job that is possible. However, I think the system is "good enough" as long as we don't think of it as being The Truth and recognize it just as a way of helping to keep most stuff organized. (As has been previously discussed (and stated in "quibbles"), even if one were to convince me that Movie should fall under the G1 umbrella, I would still advocate splitting them for practical purposes of wikification.) --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh, totally. This is a problem ''all'' hierarchical categorization schemes have. But in the end we use them because they're ''useful'', and trying to address a large flat set ''without'' an imposed system is totally unmanageable. Ultimately the concern is 'does this system meet our needs in most cases,' which it does.
::::But it's still healthy to talk about its shortcomings once in awhile to see if any new solutions come up. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:[Please note that Steve-o's post immediately prior to this one appeared just as I was submitting ''this'', so my (loooong) comments below don't touch on that post specifically]
:Hi fellas, thanks for weighing in. Particularly nice to be able to have a discussion without people hurling personal insults at me. ;-)
:I'm pretty happy with your changes, Steve-o, and yes, I do think your toning down of my edit still fairly represents my view. Which is good! I agree that the Quibbles section (which I'm delighted and more than a little surprised that you originated) on the other page is a more appropriate place to discuss this further, and the link to it is good. I'm also pleased that you are amenable to slight expansion of the Quibbles section, as that is precisely what I plan to do (as soon as I get around to it). I hope we can both be pleased with the result.
:As to my position on altmode aesthetics, well, I think it's likely that we're ultimately going to just have to agree to disagree on that one, but my reasoning is more or less this: All macro and micro continuities of G1, including pre-IDW neo-G1 (most prominently Dreamwave) consistently depict the characters with the likenesses of the toys (with the obvious minor exceptions of differences in animation models for characters like Ironhide, Jetfire etc.) and their '80s vintage altmodes. While the different continuities have presented various different origins for G1, they've all involved them being on a ship which was buried etc. etc. and when they woke up in the mid-'80s they had those specific altmodes. The IDWverse, however, presents us with such a radically different war/universe premise, timeline etc. that it requires more up-to-date vehicles. Which is fine. But by not being directly based on the G1 toyline so much as the characterisations which were later developed for it by ancillary media, I view it as being a further step removed, as thus being "less" G1. So, yes, I acknowledge that the altmode question in isolation ''is'' a somewhat superficial issue, but it is a pervasive and immediately apparent one. Any other incarnation of G1 you can look at it out of context and (depending on being able to recognise the artist, obviously) not be able to immediately delcare which sub-continuity we're looking at (e.g. many IDW covers use traditional altmode-model pinup art). However, one glance at IDWverse Megs or Starscream and it's instantly obvious that they're the IDWverse versions. Just like you can immediately distinguish Machine Wars or Movie iterations of the same two characters.
:As to your comment about my assessment of the "aesthetic rift" with the MovieVerse as compared to the IDWverse, I think you've slightly misunderstood me, but perhaps that's my fault for not being clear enough. What I meant to say is that I think ''part'' of the reason many people are more prepared to situate the MovieVerse further away from "core" G1 than the IDWverse is an overreaction (on their parts) to how drastically different the movie characters whole aesthetic looks. I mean, you show me IDW Ratchet and although he's clearly not classic animated/comic Ratchet, he's still immediately recognisable, whereas I think you'd agree that without being told even the most ardent Transformers fan wouldn't have recognised Movie Ratchet from a bag of chips.
:So, essentially I'd argue that although the aesthetics of the Movie designs are extreme compared to Core G1, I think they are themselves only marginally more "important" than the aethetic differences between the IDWverse and G1, i.e. in both cases they create a significant dissociative effect that mitigates against identifying them as "true" G1, or at least being ''as'' G1 as, for example, Dreamwave. Which, is naturally, very ironic, since I think the writing of the IDW comics kicks the crap out of Dreamwave's but we're talking about continuity deliniation here, not measuring quality.
:Ultimately, of course, I think issues of alterations to the basic premise of all traditional G1s (again, Ark, hibernation, 1980s wakeup call) are far more important, but you asked me about my altmode obsession, so that's why I've focused on that here. As far as storytelling is concerned, I still tout the opinion that the IDWverse and the MovieVerse present new spins on G1 concepts and characters that are ''vaguely'' equal in their degree of difference from vintage G1 (if one doesn't let the more extreme visual dissonance of the Movie sway you), at least to the extent that they are both deserving of being equally in OR out of the larger G1 continuity umbrella. At this point, I really don't have a strong opinion which, just that both should be one or the other.
:Obviously it's all a matter of personal taste. I think you put it quite nicely yourself where you wrote "What ratio of character rehashes to original characters is required to count as part of the old family instead of the start of a new one? " Obviously there are no hard answers, but I would hope that maybe this might generate some wider discussion as to this question.
:Whew! That was... long. Hope you got through it with your sanity intact!
:Cheers, [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]]
:P.S. Thanks for the graphic Derik, but I'm afraid I dropped maths for art way back in High School and have never looked back! ;-) Would you care to do a "graphs for dummies" version, please?
::This is Derik you're talking about. He's ''already'' making graphs for the dummies.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:::...I made it for steve-o, what are you implying? ;)
:::And simpler, um... "Any given continuity is a shade somewhere along that color spectrum (from red to blue,) but our system of categorization says that they are ''either'' red ''or'' blue, and does not recognize that there can be values in between. Thus you could have two shades of purple ''right'' next to one another, but one would be considered G1 and the other Armada because they're on opposite sides of the imaginary defining border, and our syste would recognize no kinship/relationship/closeness between them."
::::See, I totally didn't understand the graph at all, but once you ''said'' it, I totally got it. - (Chris McFeely, not signed in, and contributing nothing of worth.)
:::::Charts with specialized terminology are less likely to be misunderstood, but also less likely to be understood ''at all''. Ironic, don'cha think? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I could throw my support behind a handy pie chart that says the movie is 33% G1, 45% things that blow up real good, and 22% raspberry cream.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
<div class="thumb tright"><div class="thumbinner">http://www.emopanda.com/tmp/movie_chart.png</div></div>
:<nowiki>*shrug*</nowiki> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Mmm, pie... Yes, that pretty much sums it up for me. Shades of purple. I'd argue that the IDWverse and the MovieVerse are not at exactly the same point in the spectrum (I assume '''Armada'' being the francise selected to represent the opposite end of the spectrum to G1 was an arbitrary choice?), but that they are reeeealy close in therer level of similarity to, yet removal from, G1. Especially when compared to anything else that is or is not Geewunniee.
:::But yes, I agree with your general proposition that our continuity family system here is too black and white (err, red and blue) to happily deal with the differing shades of purple. HOWEVER, I would ''still'' argue that, as I just said, IDW and Movie continuities are both so similar in terms of their shade of purple when compared to anything else in the spectrum that they really should be considered either both included in or excluded from the same umbrella. I don't strongly care which it is, I just think it's really semantic to place them on opposite sides of the "is/is not G1" divide.
:::Cheers, [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]]

===On Continuity families===
I propose that above the currently existing term 'continuity family' we recognize a 'continuity order' which encloses multiple like-grouped families. (G1, Movie, Animated are probably members of the same Order.) This mechanism would allow us to ''recognize'' that some characters are closely related (G1 and Animated Grimlock for example) while still documenting them separately.

Our current system holds that Animated Grimlock has no more relationship to G1 Grimlock than RiD Grimlock does, which seems... disingenuous. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:I think just saying that Animated and Movie bear a close resemblance to G1 covers all that, doesn't it? [[User:JW|JW]] 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Homage characters can appear in ''completely'' unrelated continuities, such as Unicron Trilogy Wing Saber and Shockblast. The Animated Dinobots and Constructicons are just another example of that. It's more like the Animated Constructicons bearing no more relationship to G1 than the Unicron Trilogy Constructicons.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
: Especially considering how many G1 homages ther eare in Energon alone... including a t-rex Grimlock and ptero Swoop... --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

=="Subset"==
I would like to officially register my discontent with the word "subset" as it's used in this page.

I'm sure the original author was thinking of the mathematical sense of the word, but most readers aren't going to read it that way. Saying that the American cartoon is a subset of the Japanese cartoon makes it sound like Japan produced this cartoon all on their own, then some Americans came along, cherry-picked out some of the cartoon and aired it in the States (presumably "ruining" the "original intent" in the process.) Given how common the mistaken "Transformers all came from Japan" notion is, I really think a different wording is preferable. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

:I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure offhand how to remove that possible connotation without making the explanation muddier. Do you have something in mind? --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 04:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Question wasn't directed at me, but I would think that it should simply look like this...

*Cartoons (American) - Three complete seasons of varying length, and a 3-episode "fourth season". Probably the best-known of all continuities.
*Cartoons (Japanese) - Includes the first three seasons of the American cartoons as well as three additional TV series, two OVAs and a [[manga]] series.

--[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 05:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:That sounds perfect. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 13:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

== List of continuities? ==

...do we have a list? I'm working on a thing where it'd be quasi-useful. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:Not really... how exhaustive do you want it to be? The closest I can think of is Jackpot's attempt to make a complete list of section headings ([[User:Jackpot/Sandbox/Sections]]). --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

==Other universes==
Do these universes warrant a mention in the Continuity/Continuity Family articles?

The universe that houses [[Defensor (OTFCC)]], [[Megazarak (Universe)|Megazarak]], [[Ultra Trion]], [[Optimus Prime (Balancing Act)]], etc. All of these characters are listed as hailing from the Universe franchise, but they all really come from the same universe. Any chance of allowing there to be a page devoted to this universe? It seems like a much less formal Shattered Glass situation.

Also, the Tonka GobBots: their universe is shown in the beginning of [[Withered Hope]], and GoBots are the stars of that story. Is the GoBots universe worth a mention since it appears in official TF fiction?

And last and least, the universe with [[Optimus Prime (Worlds Collide)]]: worth a note? --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 10:41, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

== Menonia and alternate dimensions ==

Do the "alternate dimensions" that are shown in [[Madman's Paradise]] count as continuities? I'm not entirely sure what science fiction generally means by "alternate dimensions." Are [[Menonia]] in another dimension that is still within the G1 cartoon universe? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:41, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
:Menonia is not in any way, shape, or form a "continuity." How exactly an "other dimension" from the G1 cartoon universe fits into the multiverse structure, I'm not really sure, but a continuity? No. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 23:27, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Fiction section ==

{{quote
|...based on my notes on [[Talk:Omniverse]] regards what I'd like to see in a Multiverse article. A fiction section involving plot points that directly involve the multiversal concept seem entirely appropriate.
|Jeysie on [[Talk:Multiverse]]}}
Maybe that stuff about dimension-hopping and whatnot should go into the [[multiverse]] article instead. Considering that the fiction sections of both articles are pretty much about the same kind of thing. [[User:Item42|Item42]] 10:38, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

== Confusion ==

I am somewhat confused. I know Transformers Prime and War for Cybertron are in the same continuity, but not the same universe. Could someone please explain the difference to me, because they sound like the same thing. Is it like the G1 Cartoon and the G1 Comic, or something along those lines?[[Special:Contributions/166.109.0.45|166.109.0.45]] 11:57, 11 February 2011 (EST)
: We're not entirely sure yet. We've asked Hasbro, and they tell us things will make sense later as the show continues, though I'm not sure how that can be the case. We're right there with you in your confusion. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 12:13, 11 February 2011 (EST)
::I use the analogy of the G1 comics, cartoon and ''Beast Wars'' for ''Exodus'', WFC and ''Prime'' myself. The former three were based on Bob Budiansky's concepts and bios, while the new three clearly link to the story bible Hasbro uses for the Hall of Fame bios, where Orion Pax and Megatron led a class rebellion, Jazz was Optimus's best friend, Energon is the emanation of Primus and Dark Energon is Unicron's, the lost art of space bridge technology, Mini-Cons as terminology for all small Transformers, Shockwave waiting to betray Megatron when the time is right, a loose incorporation of the first movie's events with Bumblebee being rendered mute by Megatron and the AllSpark's jettisoning onto Earth, and the identities and history of the Thirteen.
::Perhaps we could do with this out-of-universe information in the article, discussing how divergences can be formed because writers use outdated sources (eg the movieverse's novelists and comic writers using older screenplay drafts) or ignore it (as in the case of Sunbow's Shockwave). [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 12:16, 11 February 2011 (EST)
::: Yeah The best we can see right now they're alternate stories springing from the same story bible. Alternate but similar universes. Hasbro still insists that they are more the same and conected than we can see right now and that we will learn more in the future... Whether that's true or not, who can tell yet. For right now I'd personally assume they were seperate realities within the same [[Continuity family]] (read that page if you don't know the term.) Hasbro says they may be more, but you'll have to wait and see with the rest of us.--[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 13:48, 11 February 2011 (EST)

==New Chart==

I'm proposing that the chart we have up front be replaced with this slightly more accurate and cohesive chart.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1729/timelinea1jo5.jpg
{{unsigned|158.103.0.1|01:19, 2 December 2011 (EST)}}
:That's impressive, but bits of it are not in English, there's no key to say what the different coloured lines mean. It looks like it was originally posted [http://z4.invisionfree.com/forum_da_ATB/index.php?showtopic=3002&st=0 here], so we would also have to get that dude's permission. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:32, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::It's also inaccurate and badly formatted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: A Modification then? That would not only fix the errors, but it would make in a derived work, the chart itself is simply the most Comprehensive one on the TF Multiverse so far seen.

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-02T16:44:44Z

158.103.0.1:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Aligned Timeline ==

I'm going to try and take a stab at creating an Aligned timeline that unites everything we know about the franchise(s) so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Help Wanted ==

Hello one and all. I'm here representing a newly created Role-Playing forum that is based in the Transformers Universe. We're in the early stages yet, and are looking for people to help get the ball rolling. Since this site seems to lack a dedicated forum (where requests like these would usually be made) and I haven't seen any other way to effectively say my piece in front of a large audience, I thought that posting here was the best way to "advertise" us, as it were. I sincerely apologize if this was the wrong move on our part, or if I've breached protocol at all, but I can assure everyone that our intentions aren't malign. Those interested, please contact me using any of the ways that I have listed on my username page here on this site. I won't tempt fate by linking our website here directly =P

Once again, you all have my sincere greetings, and I hope to hear from you soon. Also, as a side note: the difference in quality between this page and the transformers wikia is amazing. [[User:Rathian Warrior|Rathian Warrior]] 23:50, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if you've crossed any lines, and frankly, you were polite enough about it that it's not a big deal, but you could always buy some ad space if you want to raise awareness of your forum. It's cheap! There's usually a link on every page around the banners, but if you didn't catch it, you can follow this link: [https://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=25311&type=4 Project Wonderful TFWiki Page]--[[User:McFly|McFly]] 16:13, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== "Fictional" and "real" categories ==
I think we need to come up with a consistent way to distinguish categories of things that are real and categories of things that have appeared in fiction. So far, we've skimmed the issue by using synonyms, such as [[:Category:Companies|companies]] and [[:Category:Businesses|businesses]], but that doesn't really work for things like [[:Category:Magazines|magazines]], which is already used for real magazines. Currently, we have [[:Category:Fictional books]], [[:Category:Fictional video games]] that consider the fictional entities "different". On the other hand, we have [[:Category:Real-world events by day]] and [[:Category:Real world films]]. We focus more on the fictional aspect of Transformers, so it makes sense to not point out the fictionality in categories, but "real world" sounds awkward to some. Which one should we use? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:26, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I thought I'd cheat and see how some of the other fictional Wikis deal with the problem. Three different approaches I saw:
:*[http://tardis.wikia.com/ Doctor Who wiki] has a [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Real_world "Real World" category] for real world stuff and in most cases the categories for real world things are at "Real world X".
:*[http://wookiepedia.org/ Wookiepedia] goes the parenthetical route, with "Books" and "Books (real-world)". Though they also have one or two like "Real world companies".
:*[http://stargate.wikia.com/ Stargate wiki] has "Books" versus "Stargate books" for real world books.
:I kinda like the parenthetical approach that Wookiepedia have taken. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'd favor pointing out the status of both categories, just to make absolutely clear what they are for. The words can be "Fictional" and "Real-world" (I notice both real-world categories use a different spelling. Whichever it's gonna be (if), only one spelling should be used). "Nonfictional" kinda works as an alternative, would "Real-world" be disliked. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:35, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::If we go that route, I think "real-world" should be used, since "real world" is a lot more easier to fix than the other parsing. I like the Wookiepedia approach, but I'm not sure that's enough to change how we already do categories. The idea to label both categories sounds nice, but "Fictional X" seems incongruous with unlabeled categories, such as "weapons", "technology", etc.; considering that our main focus is the fiction, I'm leaning towards only labeling the real stuff. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I think it would be advantageous to put a {{tl|disambig2}} at the top, so people could easily go from the fictional to the real world category too. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:30, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yeah, I think I put that on [[:Category:Films]] a while ago. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:57, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Speaking of this, I found we handle [[:Category:Films]] like [[:Category:Real people]], wouldn't this be some, um, confusing? It's just, somehow, reverse? (Except for the fictional films like ''Honoji'') According to the logic of how we handle [[:Category:Real people]], shouldn't we place films like ''40-Year-Old Virgin'' or ''Godzilla'' in the [[:Category:Real world films]]? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Godzilla doesn't go in "Real world films" because it's not a real world ''Transformers'' film. The Transformers is implied in that category name. Presumably we could have a "Real films" category for Godzilla, etc, but I'm not sure it's worth doing. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:53, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::We shouldn't use "fictional X" for two reasons. One, there things like [[As the Kitchen Sinks]] that are fictional even within the fictional Transformers universe. Second, the wiki is written in-universe by default and putting [[Big Steve's Used Cars]] in a "fictional businesses" category would kind of break that. Within Transformers fiction, "Big Steve's Used Cars" is not a fictional company, but "As the Kitchen Sinks" is a fictional TV show. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:47, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is not a fictional show. It depicts fictional events and fictional people, yes, but the show itself, as a piece of entertainment, is not fictional. I do get your point, as we actually have things like [[Frankenstein]] that are two layers of fiction removed from us. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, of course. I meant, in-universe, ''As the Kitchen Sinks'' is a work of fiction, whereas "Big Steve's Used Cars" is a real business that sells real used cars to real people. Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Wasn't ''Buck Rogers'' a fictional TV show? Anyway, it sounds like you got my point. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Or, judging by the fact categories like "Magazines" in used for magazines in our real life and "Companies" for companies in real life, why not just use "Film" for films (such as DOTM) in real life, while we move current contents in "Films" to "Films in ''Transformers'' fictions"? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::That seems like it would go counter to some of our existing naming schemes. e.g. if we split that out into films by franchise, you'd get "Films in Generation 1" rather than "Generation 1 films". Though admittedly the former title might have the advantage that it's clearer in meaning. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I think both are equally ambiguous in their meaning. If we still need to clarify the purpose of the categories, we can always spell it out in the category's introduction. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Transformers: " ==
We talked a bit about adding back "Transformers: " to the titles of articles [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive51#When_to_omit_.22Transformers.22_from_an_article_title|previously]], and the general sentiment was that people were for it or didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any input in this matter? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:34, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm okay with this change, but I do have three questions on execution. <br>1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled? <br>2.) If "Transformers(:)" is going to be added to every relevant page name, then what about all the extra words in the titles of Japanese stuff? <br>3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc? <br>[[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::#I think we've had two consistent rules about that: If the title is some kind of phrase, like "Transformers United", "The Transformers Collection", or "Transformers Animated", then we don't use the colon. If the title is some kind of obvious "title: subtitle" setup ("Transformers: Armada", "Transformers: Prime"), then we use the colon. There's some borderline examples, but I think we can figure them out one by one. Official sources will help with determining colon-status. The other rule seems to apply to only games: If the title has another subtitle, then the first colon is dropped (ex. [[Transformers Prime: Terrorcon Defense]]). I dunno why, but we can add back the colon, I suppose.
::#I guess we add them? We could argue it for ''Victory'', since it was released in English contexts as just "Transformers: Victory".
::#I think we're just going to continue the same in relation to those. The articles will still be sorted by their subtitles in categories. Storylinks I could go either way on, but I think the trend is to drop the main title. I've been doing that for the AAII storylinks to avoid excessively long links. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:49, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I don't see how "Transformers United" and "Transformers Animated" are any different from "Transformers: Prime". To me, all three could fall into either of your groups (phrase vs subtitle) and would prefer colons in all of those cases. Of your examples, only "The Transformers Collection" seems to really belong in the "phrase" group. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::"United" and "Animated" are adjectives that modify "Transformers" and have official sources that omit the colon. "Transformers Prime" doesn't make sense in that way. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:58, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I am not certain about those two "rules" for colons either. They're rather vague and bound to cause arguments and confusion. It needs to be made more obvious whether a colon should be used or not before "Transformers" can be added everywhere (a help page on the matter would also be handy in the future, me thinks).

::::I think that if we would put the cartoon at ''Transformers: Victory'', that would cause confusion with the manga, storypages, toyline and franchises, none of which were ever brought over and should thus not be named such. If moved, the ''Victory'' cartoon should best go to its Japanese name. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 15:28, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>shrug* The first rule is mostly there for Transformers Animated, which people will be resistant to moving to have a colon (plus, obvious cases like The Transformers Collection). The second rule I really don't care about and can be tossed (it mostly only concerns the movie series of video games and online games). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you suggesting there that Victory articles should be moved to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory"? I'd disagree with that, if so! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:25, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Why? We can't go around writing out the full names of Western franchises and stuff but not do so for the Japanese stuff. We already have "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" written out for the 1985 & 1986 Japanese franchises, so why not ''Victory''? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 07:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Victory (the cartoon) has been released in the West as "Transformers: Victory", to me that means that the official English name of the franchise ''is'' Transformers: Victory. Yes, we should give the full Japanese title at the beginning of the franchise page but there is no reason to move anything to that name. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:35, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::That was pretty much my reasoning too (also typing out the full name every time we wanted to link to it would be tedious). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Tying out "(franchise)" every time for everything is more tedious, but we still have it (for... some reason). Ditto long titles like [[The Story of Super Robot Lifeforms: The Transformers]] and [[Transformers Vault]]'s previous ridiculously long title.
:::::::::But I guess the general principle of "Transformers: " is acceptable to most. I'll start moving the noncontroversial pages (Western comics and cartoons with definite subtitles, etc.) if there's no opposition in the next few hours. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Is there a difference between [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|Transformers: Beast Wars: The Ascending]]? I must admit, the comma/colon distinction seems kinda arbitrary. Also, these page names seem kind of overlong and stupid, what's wrong with [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|The Ascending]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering|The Gathering]]? It's a Transformers wiki and those are Beast Wars series; prefixing everything we possibly can with "Transformers" is only going to clog up the search box and make editing just that bit more arduous. What were the arguments in favour of this again? --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 16:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::That's the formatting used in the indicia. Your complaint about the search box is silly; did you really think typing "Transformers" into it yielded anything useful 99% of the time?
:::::::::::Like it or not, "Transformers: " is the part of the name of many things, and the hoops we have to go through to maintain this silly system of dropping it from article titles has gotten ridiculous and inconsistent. Adding "Transformers: " to article titles, on the other hand, adds ''clarity'' and avoids pointless disambiguation. "The Transformers: Bumblebee" is preferable to "Bumblebee (comic)", "Transformers: Sector 7" to "Sector 7 (comic)", etc. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:44, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::I get that it's useful in some cases, but it just seems like applying the rule across the board means we're overcomplicating the issue. Occam's razor has a lot going for it, and for user-friendliness I'd go for brevity. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 17:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Also on an Occam's razor tip, "Bumblebee (comic)" conveys more information in fewer characters than "Transformers: Bumblebee". I really don't understand why the latter is preferable. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 14:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::There's something to say for either argument, but as it is, we have proven to be unable to keep to one consistent "Transformers"-as-part-of-the-title policy at least since TFA. And if trying to keep "Transformers" out of the deal doesn't work, we oughta give the alternative a chance. I don't think it necesarilly makes it harder to find anything, as the search box reacts to words even if they are not the first part of a page title. And I want to have the changes in clear perspective before I might suggest deleting a few redirects, so at least for now, searches won't be any harder and we have a consistent policy. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:49, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I gotta say, I'm hating how this is working in practice. Article titles seem long and ugly to me.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:46, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I feel the same, but it seems to be an necessary evil because "Transformers: ***" is a full title? duh. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 22:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::I fear the day someone decides to add full titles to disambiguation suffixes as well, e.g. "Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)", "Grindor (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)" etc.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 13:43, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::That would be silly, and I'm pretty sure most people would oppose it. Putting "Transformers:" in names is a change we'd already been drifting towards for a while with, for instance, the War for Cybertron articles all doing it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::On a related note, it's a pet peeve of mine when a writeup talks about a specific medium related to a franchise but links to the franchise as a whole instead, such as "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] toyline" or "in episode 6 of the [[Energon (franchise)|Energon]] cartoon...".--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Would the best solution there be something like "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] [[Cybertron (toyline)|toyline]]"? --[[Special:Contributions/77.99.176.103|77.99.176.103]] 03:32, 29 September 2011 (EDT) (oops, emvee not logged in)
::::::I think linking to the toyline page is sufficent. There's no need for an additional link to the corresponding umbrella franchise. The thought behind this is: "If Joe McRandom sees something that interests him and clicks a link, does he want the link to take him straight to the specific topic or to a more general overview?" I think link targets should always be as specific as necessary. If someone gets interested in a broader overview, he can always go one level up. After all, a link referring to G1 Optimus Prime leads to [[Optimus Prime (G1)]], not to [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)]], either. In the same fashion, toyline pages should deeplink to the specific toy entries on the respective characters' pages (or even their toy pages, if applicable). Like, if Joe McRandom is on the [[Transformers: Universe (2008 toyline)|Universe (2008 toyline)]] page, sees a "Prowl" toy listed under "Deluxe Class" and wants to read more about that toy, he wants the "Prowl" link to take him straight to [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Universe (2008)]], not to the [[Prowl (G1)|main character page]] where he then has to scroll down to "toys", see that G1 Prowl toys have their separate page, go ''there'', ''then'' scroll down to "Universe (2008)". (It currently links to [[Prowl (G1)/toys]], which is at least halfway there.) I will fix this wherever I see it, and implement it when doing writeups.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

===Suggestion to creating templates===

Do we need some kinds of templates when typing contents for convenience? For my experience in Terminator Wiki, we use templates like <nowiki>{{T3}} for ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' or {{TSCC}} for ''[[Terminator: The Sarah Connnor Chronicles]]''</nowiki>. What I'm suggesting is that after we make all franchise names into full title (and we don't use redirect links), it is some how trouble some when typing the title. So we can make some templates like:
<pre>
{{tf|Armada}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (franchise)|Transformers: Armada]]''

{{tf|Armada|toyline|Pokeformer}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Pokeformer]]''

{{jptf|bwn}} -> ''[[Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo]]''

</pre>

If there is any user who can created complex template, we could make

<pre>
{{tf|armada|t}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Transformers: Armada]]''

parameter 1:
2010 = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010 (toyline)
thm = Transformers: The Headmasters (toyline)
mf = Transformers: Super-God Masterforce (toyline)
v = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory
z = Transformers: Zone
roc = Transformers: Return of Convoy
oc = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Operation Combination
armada = Transformers Armada
bwn = Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo
mov = Movie
rotf = Revenge of the Fallen
tfa = Transformers Animated
...and (blah blah)

parameter 2:
*default* - franchise
t - toyline
ct - cartoon
co - comic
m - manga
f - film

And, if possible:
if parameter 3 = s (for example), it will become short title like ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Armada]]''

</pre>

--'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's something I've thought about as well. Considering there are a lot of exceptions to the regular naming system (parts of franchises that are called something different or franchises that lack the (franchise) identifier on the wiki because it's not necessary to disambiguate it), I don't think a template can be coded to put a link together. A full list system like our TFtoon templates have could maybe work though. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:08, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think with the number of franchises we have, it would end up being a hellishly big template and difficult to maintain for only a minor gain. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:03, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

==="Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" Transformers===
With the insertion of this phrase into the Victory page titles, should it also be inserted into the titles of The Headmasters, Super-God Masterforce, and Zone? now while the immediate answer would be "No", there are some places that do include this text above the "Toransufōmā" text in each of these series's logos. An example of this would the [[Transformers Tapestry]] (which even includes it in the Operation combination logo as well) and the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Columbia_Zone_DVD.jpg Columbia DVD of Zone]. Its inclusion in these places seems more than mere coincidence, so would we take this idea into consideration? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 14:33, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Um, that ''Zone'' DVD does not support your assertion. All of the ''actual'' media for those series (except for the Zone manga and story pages) do not include The "Fight!..." portion. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Technically the whole toyline in Japan from 1985 to 1992 was called "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" (as was written on the boxes), so at least the toyline pages for the series of those years would probably need the longer title than just "Transformers: ''X'' (toyline)" --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 16:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So you want to move the toyline pages to some made-up name? Pick one: 1) Merge all of the toyline pages to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)" 2) Leave the toyline pages as they are instead of stressing over naming things that technically don't exist. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::How is it "made up"? "Tatakae! Chō Robot Seimeitai" means "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" and is written above the "Toransufōmā" text on the packages of the 1985-1992 Japanese toys. I'm not proposing we merge all those toyline pages together, but rather something akin to the [[Transformers: Beast Wars (Japanese toyline)|Japanese Beast Wars toyline]] page, in which the individual toylines are kept separate even though they were all collectively the same-named toyline. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 17:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: The Headmasters" and its ilk are the imaginary names. Those articles for imaginary toylines are fine where they are. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==="Movie"===
There's still [[Movie (franchise)]], [[Movie (toyline)]] and more. Shouldn't that be "Transformers (2007 franchise)" and "Transformers (2007 toyline)", with the current [[Transformers (2007)]] becoming "Transformers (2007 movie)"?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Probably. I didn't move them, since I wanted to bring it up for discussion first. The film should be moved to just "Transformers (film)", though. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:"Movie (''media'')" should be moved to "Transformers (2007 ''media'')" while "Transformers (2007)" goes "Transformers (film)". --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:27, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::That push for lexical accuracy strikes me as creating more ambiguity than it resolves. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:06, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Jungaroo==
Someone made a lovely [[Jungaroo]] gobox, but there's no page for him. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 21:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think he's in any applicable fiction, but his [http://home.comcast.net/~BattleBeastSD/MGCKang.html bio card is online here]. Someone will have to translate it from Japanese first though. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:25, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Making the search suggestion work better ==

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I noticed sometimes when I type something in the search box, the search suggestions below it jump around and end up on a list which doesn't quite match what I typed. I think it's something to do with the speed I'm typing and the amount of time the server takes to respond to each request.

Anyway, I tweaked the javascript for grabbing the suggestions from the server so it would only trigger when I stopped typing. That seems to fix the problem for me, and as a bonus it's not nagging the server on every keypress. The downside is no instant feedback when I type, but I can live without that if it fixes the other thing.

If anyone else is having that problem and wants to have a go, just copy and paste the following into your [[Special:MyPage/monacobook.js|monacobook.js]] (caveat: only tested on Firefox and Chrome):
<pre><nowiki>
var ss_memory = null;
var ss_timeron = 0;
var ss_timer;

function DoActualSearch() {
ss_timeron=0;
var newdiv = document.getElementById("searchsuggest");
if (!newdiv) {
var newdiv = document.createElement("div");
newdiv.id = "searchsuggest";
var searchdiv = document.getElementById("searchBody");
searchdiv.appendChild(newdiv);
}
var x = document.getElementById("searchInput").value;
if (x == ss_memory) {
return;
}
ss_memory = x;
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'none';
if (x.length < 30 && x.length > 1 && x.value != "") {
sajax_do_call("wfAjaxSearchSuggest", [x], newdiv);
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'block';
}
}

function MySearchCall() {
if(ss_timeron) {
clearTimeout(ss_timer);
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
} else {
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
ss_timeron=1;
}
}

function myss_ajax_onload(){
var x = document.getElementById('searchInput');
x.onkeyup = function(){
MySearchCall();
};
}

hookEvent("load", myss_ajax_onload);
</nowiki></pre>
Unfortunately it won't fix the actual contents of the search suggestions, so you'll still get a bunch of All Hail Megatron issues when you type "Megatron", but that requires changes on the server. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hmm. I feel like adding <tt>ORDER BY `page_counter` DESC</tt> around line 20 of ''suggest.php'' might help w/ our search results, but it's hard to say for sure given how abstracted mediawiki database calls are, someone would have ot make the change then test it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::The thought I had was to do a query on article titles starting with the search term, and then if that gives back less than 8 entries, do a second search to fill the rest of the list with titles with the term anywhere in the title. The search suggest currently supports both options, but not at the same time. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

==Stuff==
: Firstly, our organization of information related to the junior franchises is terrible and I'd love to do something about it, but I need feedback. We currently have most Japanese and American Go-Bots as separate characters, except for the Japanese Go-Bots from the 1-2-3 line. Though there are requests for a separate Chopper page. Should those pages be split or not? And if so, what about the figures that came with some of the toys. Kid-Bot clearly isn't the "red driver" or "blue driver", but the dog and "Gas-Bot" both have fiction in only one of the two franchises, so is it worth separating them? Also, does the unpublished coloring book count as apocrypha or not, seeing as it was mostly approved? And the human characters within, do they count as cameos like Kelly in the Dreamwave comics or separate characters? And does anyone know what the Japanese name was by which the First Transformers were released? The Go-Bots fansite has an image of Dumpkun's box featuring what looks like a G1 logo, the First Transformers logo and "初めてトランスフォーマー" written on it.
: Secondly, many disambiguation pages still mention if there's a separate page for the toys of a character. Is this system still necessary now that we use subpages to separate such stuff under? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 17:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

::I think unpublished stuff is treated as apocrypha, isn't it? The character page coverage of unreleased Dreamwave issues is in notes, for instance. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:48, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::True, but we don't know if those were approved or know those weren't approved. The coloring book was approved, just not released. That makes it better comparable to Wreckers #$, which we do not consider apocrypha (though I wouldn't know if we'd do that if Wreckers #5 didn't partially canonize it). [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 11:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::Just weighing in on the toy page issue: I find it useful to have these called out on the disambig pages. Being able to go directly from the disambig page to the toy page of a character saves me at least one click (if I see the suite box in time) and often some scrolling (if I don't see it). However, I won't fight too hard on this if consensus is for the removal of this feature. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 07:47, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::Thinking some more about the Go-Bots stuff, as the Japanese version of Gas-Bot has no fiction, it probably doesn't need its own page - either link to Gas-Bot's page or just leave it unlinked in the appropriate toy sections. Same with the US version of the dog. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:30, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Facebook. ==

Is '''<nowiki>http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFwikinet/191252494230187</nowiki>''' us? Because it's the #1 link when you search for "TFWiki Facebook," and our group is nowhere to be seen. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

:I think our group is not showing up because you have to have a Facebook account to see it? When I go to the group's URL, I just get a page prompting me to log in to Facebook. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:47, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

::The link is this one: [http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/ http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/], which is the #3 on the search by "TFwiki site:facebook.com" on Google. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 19:51, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So the other one isn't ours, and we can't put a link on it pointing it to the group.
:::Annoying. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It's a "Community page", whatever that is. Clicking on the "Create a page" button on the top right of that page does bring up some sort of form which seems like it will do something. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:12, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Halloween ==

Presuming we're deco'ing our frontpage for Halloween... does anyone have any suggestions? Monsters, ghosts, gouls? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:Animated Blitzwing's random face looks sorta Jack O'Lanterny and could work as a replacement for the Autobot insignia on the site logo, assuming we can find a head-on image of it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:35, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

== Moving "(Timelines)" articles ==

I'm thinking that, as we don't bother with "(Timelines)" for SG, TransTech, and Animated characters, we should apply the same across the board and only use it if necessary.

*[[Astrotrain (Timelines)]] → Astrotrain (Cybertron)
*[[Cannonball (Timelines)]] → Cannonball (G1)
*[[Cop-Tur (Timelines)]] → Cop-Tur (G1)
*[[Halogen (Timelines)]] → Halogen (G1)
*[[Side Burn (Timelines)]] → Side Burn (G1)
*[[Sky-Byte (Timelines)]] → Sky-Byte (G2)
*[[Switchblade (Timelines)]] → Switchblade (BW)
*[[Thunderblast (Timelines)]] → Thunderblast (G1)
*[[Yoketron (Timelines)]] → Yoketron (G1)

The exceptions are the Descent into Evil characters, who don't really fit in any pre-existing franchise, and the Nexus Prime characters, who don't originate from a particular universe.
*[[Buzzclaw (Timelines)]]
*[[Dirge (Timelines)]]
*[[Flareup (Timelines)]]
*[[Landquake (Timelines)]]
*[[Ricochet (Timelines)]]
*[[Heatwave (Timelines)]]

Thoughts? Or does nobody really care that much? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 10:19, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:Since you asked, I'll pitch 2¢ into the conversation, since I know a little bit about it. I found out the hard way that wiki "doesn't bother with '(Timelines)' for Animated." And by hard way, I mean I was clobbered over the head without a hint of explanation for proposing that a Timelines-original Animated continuity character should be at "(Timelines)." But no hard feelings. I still think "franchise of origin" and not "continuity of origin" is best for disambiguations. For reasons that have been discussed previously on the subject. TransTech and SG are treated as a kind of sub-franchises of Timelines by the wiki, so I think they are an OK exception. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::The prose stories are identified as "Transformers Timelines presents a Transformers: (franchise) story". I would say that both franchises are equally valid to the stories, and the fact that non-Timelines stories (Around Cybertron, magazine comics, etc.) bleed together with Timelines stories makes the "(Timelines)" designation convoluted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, that's different. It sounds like you are calling their actual franchise of origin into question, not just their disambiguation. I don't have an opinion about their actual franchise of origin. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying that they're Timelines, but saying that they're better categorized under their other franchise. Like the Animated guys, it seems more instinctive to file [[Side Burn (Timelines)]] under "Side Burn (G1)" instead (not to mention that there's other Side Burn in Timelines: [[Side Burn (SG)]]).[[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:38, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
I'm hesitating, but let me think about the ramifications. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'd be fine with this. Though, one thing I'd like to propose is giving the Wings Universe characters their own disambiguation suffix. Like maybe "(Wings)" or something. I know it's a part of G1, but it's kinda like its own series within the over G1 continuity family like the Japanese G1 series are (which are also given their own suffixes such as "(Victory)", "(ROC)", "(BT)" etc.).

:Though, as for the Descent into Evil characters, maybe something like "(DIE)" or "(Descent)" or even just "(Descent into Evil)". Or, if not, keep them at "(Timelines)". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 11:51, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think the DIE guys are fine where they are (although you could argue moving [[Ricochet (Timelines)]] because of [[Ricochet (SG)]], but I don't really care). As for the Wings Universe guys getting their own disambiguation, eh... [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I am '''definitely absolutely''' against creating a (Wings) disambiguation when (G1) or (Timelines) work perfectly fine. We do NOT disambiguate by continuity except by absolute necessity within a franchise. Making up a (Wings) parenthetical just because incredibly confuses our disambiguation policy for no real reason. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::And what exactly keeps the Descent into Evil guys from being tagged G1? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Is the intermezzo period between G1 and BW considered G1 or BW?

:::It's all G1 characters... and IIRC the Insecticons were supposed ot be part of Insecticon plans which had been around for ages, so the characters weren't "BW-era only" characters...

:::I could support a G1 disambigif you talked me into it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:01, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::DIE fiction (Descent into Evil itself and [[Intimidation Game]]) has elements of both BW and G1; it doesn't have a certain franchise placement. Dirge (Timelines) and Ricochet (Timelines) also have namesakes firmly in G1. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:14, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::::BW is both BW and G1. And G1 has been back-incorporating BW elements since, like, 1995. The fact DIE has G1 and BW doesn't mean it's part of neither. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think that, by the nature of Timelines, it feels more natural to parse that specific set of characters by their continuity or parent-franchise of origin. Honestly, I think the Nexus components (''all'' of them) are really the best and only candidates for the Timelines parser.

::Also, I made a [http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Template:c quick template] that you guys could use here to simplify the coding for whenever you need to link a continuity-parsed name.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:37, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately I don't think that template would work as well here, because our articles are not consistently named by franchise. For instance [[Lightspeed (G1 Technobot)]], [[Flattop (Autobot)]] and [[Impactor]] are all (G1) characters but don't use (G1) in their title, so the template wouldn't work for linking to them. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I think that Timelines is a pretty clunky franchise for the purposes of this wiki, in that it covers multiple continuities. I think the proposal on the table makes sense.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Two spaces after a period in a sentence ==

I've noticed this for a while on the Wiki. In practice, it makes no difference as the software displays one space the same way it displays one. However, I've been wondering why people do it. Now I '''know: They''' were taught so in school. '''By teachers who were taught on friggin' ''typewriters''.''' So the "two spaces after a period" rule is a leftover from the typewriter days, where it was a necessity, but it's completely obsolete on computers. [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html Source]--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:The sentence spacing rules were, in fact, developed by typographers, but were not phased out via the magical introduction of the personal computer. The em-space rule exists for monospaced fonts, which were still fairly common for a great number of printers through the mid-1980s. If you would like to begin a tyrannical series of grammar-based wiki edits, I would begin by avoiding the use of prepositions at the start of sentences. I would also advise some respect for the proper use of colons and semi-colons, as typographical errors should not take priority over proper word selection and punctuation. Cheers! --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 14:20, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Are you referring to sentences beginning with prepositional phrases for the sake of emphasis (also known as an introductory modifiers)? That's totally valid. Or do you mean idiocies such as relative clauses that are separated from the preceding main clause by a period instead of a comma? The most glaring typographic blunders I encounter on the wiki typically go hand in hand with awkwardly worded sentences and clunky terminology, so I'm inclined to assume the same person(s) is/are responsible for all of those.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::I have bolded an example. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Aw, you altered your post. No fair! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:16, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::What'd I alter? I just moved it up. Anyway... I'd call that one "deliberate departure from proper grammar for the sake of dramatic emphasis". It's about as improper as using a period after ''every. Single. Word.'' If it's obvious from the context that it's done for emphasis, I'd call it acceptable as long as it's not used inflationary. I'm sure we have a few cases of "We know it's not proper grammar, but we want to stress a point here" on the wiki. (How did the saying go again? "Know the rules first before you break them"?)--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:28, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:....or you can just set the bot to convert " " to " ". Since we don't output monospace font, or anything.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Over the whole wiki, those extra spaces account for maybe 20kb of data, which I don't think is worth worrying about. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Typed text is typed text, and the double-space after a period is still correct. Shall we next be told that we're "wrong" for not having the wiki use the metric system, or for writing down dates with the month before the day instead of after it? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, and I bolded something too. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Due to habit, I'm gonna double-space until I die. I really don't think that needs to be considered a problem. Is that really a problem? An extra millimeter between sentences? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Nevermore ''is'' right about it being mostly obsolete, but for purely technical reasons: All double (triple, etc.) spaces are collapsed down to one for display in HTML. If you want the extra spaces to actually be viewable as extra blank space, you have to use <tt>&</tt><tt></tt><tt>nbsp;</tt>. So if you double-space here on the wiki, it only shows up when you edit the page. For whatever that's worth. (Not really taking sides, just presenting the info.) --[[Special:Contributions/67.252.49.31|67.252.49.31]] 06:08, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== More on the search box/"Transformers" everything ==

Typing "Energon" into the search box does not give me [[Energon (franchise)]], [[Energon (cartoon)]] or [[Energon (toyline)]] as top results. Same for "Cybertron". I assume this has to do with the recent "Transformers" prefixing for article titles. However, typing "Animated" into the seach box ''does'' give me franchise and toyline as top results, so it should be ''possible'' despite the prefixing.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:It's purely alphabetical, dude. ''Animated'' shows up before ''Arcee (Animated)'' because "An" precedes "Ar", whereas ''Arcee (Energon)'' comes up before ''Energon'' because "A" precedes "E". --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:13, 6 November 2011 (EST)
::There's an option in the search suggest tool to limit the results to stuff starting with the search query rather than with stuff with the term anywhere in their titles, however it's not something that can be configured through MediaWiki. There's a bit of discussion about it in the "Making the search suggestion work better" section up above. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:::If we wanted to do ''that'', when we shouldn't have prefixed "Transformers:" before hundreds of articles 3 weeks ago. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:06, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::We still have the titles without "Transformers: " as redirects though, so they'll still show up. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:23, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== Spam-dalism ==

Is that the neologism for it? Anyway, somehow the ReCaptcha is failing to stop the automated spam, and I'm guessing the IP's are all very different.

How old are the accounts when they do this? If they're fairly new, would it be possible to simply block IPs and new accounts from inserting new external links? If not (or if that's unworkable), would it be possible to flag such edits for review the way that wikipedia does to edits on contested pages?

Also, is there any chance these are at least coming from the same proxy? The fact that they're getting past ReCaptcha makes it seem like these are actual people doing this, unless ReCaptcha only activates on certain namespaces.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 14:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:I was using captcha with images on my phpBB installation on another site (Doctor Who related) until yesterday and getting a half dozen spammers a day signing up in despite of it. Yesterday I switched to a Question Answer challenge which asks the person registering to name the main character's time machine, and so far it has stopped the spammers dead.
:MediaWiki has [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha] which looks like it works in exactly the same way, and works with the ConfirmEdit extension we already have installed. If we can get that installed and set up, it might be more effective than the image-based system we use now. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::What would the questions be? It can't be too obvious or too obscure. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:31, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:::Not necessarily. The question I'm using on my Doctor Who site is obvious if you have any knowledge at all of the source material, but it seems to be working. We can always start with something easy and see how we go. Most likely all of the spammers are using bots anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::"What is the name of the red-and-blue semi Autobot?", "What's the name of the blue casette player Decepticon?", or "What is the name of the yellow semi Micromaster Autobot with a hydraulic crane?"[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 17:50, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::: "What is the fandom's usual reaction when a new franchise is announced?" :p [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:56, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::::<tt>If Dick has two apples and Jane has two apples, how many apples do they have? (3 letters.)</tt> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:09, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::Ah, but then it would be so easy for users to use only three exclamation marks, and forget the requisite four exclamation marks and a 1.
::No but yeah, a question helps a lot. Might even be worth doing for all IP edits and new accounts, not just those with external links.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:57, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::While we're on the subject, is it somehow possible to flag certain terms or words used by IP editors and auto-block them? *coughcoughobamacoughcough*[[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 16:31, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::...but we have an article on [[Barry Obama]].
:::Are you trying to whitewash the wiki? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:13, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::: It was just an academic question; after all, I'm sure that you've noticed our considerable problem with a certain IP editor lately. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:19, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::: Well yes... but I couldn't resist. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:43, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a temp ban on the whole ISP might get better results. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:51, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::sooo...who would you need to talk to about getting this set up, and what exactly do you want to restrict?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 19:45, 21 November 2011 (EST)
:::::The guy whose IP addresses are always located in England who keeps vandalizing articles with Obama-related nonsense. Doesn't look like even banning IP ranges stops him. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 11:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::...so, there's no way to stop this lunatic? [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 11:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:Options, in order of severity:
#Block all new uses of the word "Obama" to all anonymous editors.
#Block anonymous editors entirely.
#Destroy England.
:But really, that's a separate issue with probably a separate solution, since the guy is a some kind of being. To deal with the spamdalism, I think you guys should add a "name that Transformer-mon!" question, which should cut down heavily on automated edits, and if they still get through, look at blocking all uses of external links for anonymous or new editors. The use of the question for all IP edits is fairly standard, so it should be easy to implement, and you can look into harsher measures if the bots still make it through. However, I really think you guys should make an effort to get this setup, because the conversation keeps kind of drifting down and the vandalism keeps happening.[[Special:Contributions/98.223.102.157|98.223.102.157]] 02:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:: On another note... isn't it cute how he keps trying to badly pass himself off as me? I think someone has a bad case of hero-worship. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 10:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Please stop egging on vandals. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::: OK, on a more serious note, is anyone averse to just locking the wiki for a few days? Bulbapedia does it regularily and they don't have much of a vandalism problem. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 12:36, 23 November 2011 (EST)
Removing the "Undo" option for anons would help, at the very least. We need a regular tech person (or give abates access to the MediaWiki stuff, since he seems to know his way around). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:12, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::: What if we implemented a captcha system for anon edits? I mean, it wouldn't ''stop'' them, per se, but it would make persistent vandalism wars a hassle. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:16, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would not be opposed to that, or simple stock questions. ("Who is the leader of the Autobots?", "What is two plus three?", etc.) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:23, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:::: Rodimus Prime? :p
::::: But seriously, how did Mr. Obama Guy get past the rangeblock? Because that's rather worrysome in and of itself. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::::BT Internet has a lot of IP ranges. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:58, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Okay. Listen.<br>
1) CAPTCHA won't change crap. It ''might'' stop a small number of bot edits, but we have a large, active mod presence that basically polices this place around the clock, and any of those crappy ad pages can be eliminated in mere minutes, if not within seconds of their creation.<br>
2) There is basically '''''NOTHING''''' that can be done to ''stop'' someone who has decided that the best use of their time is constant, repeated, easily-reverted vandalism of a wiki. Well, okay there are a few options, but they're not ones any kind of wiki coding is gonna be part of. They'll find ways around bans, and all these automated things that are being suggested are basically shooting blind and wasting time. This is not remotely the first time someone has thought to do this. It won't be the last. But we've outlasted all those others. And that's all it takes. Again... that large active 24-hour admin presence that quickly and coolly reverts the vandalism ''without getting all butthurt''. That's what vandals want, to watch you get pissy and panicky and angry... ''and that's what you're giving them.'' So '''''shut up''''' and stop feeding that, then they'll eventually get bored and leave.<br>
3) I can perhaps get behind removing the "Undo" option for anons. I don't think though that it will really help much, since making an account takes what, a few seconds?<br>
--[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:38, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:Um. I don't want to offend anyone, but the Obama-guy thing ''really'' isn't related to this topic, although some of the solutions to the spamdalism thing might work to hinder him. The bigger issue is the guys spamming the wiki with links to knockoff viagra, sort of thing, and putting up a simple question system for anons and new editors would work to stop that almost completely, at least everywhere I've seen it in use.
:The mod presence, yeah, things eventually get cleaned up by the end of the day, but a simple, standard change like adding the question will prevent that from happening in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/99.39.88.159|99.39.88.159]] 22:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)
:Just to alleviate any concerns: In my experience, the question captcha does not prevent human edits except from the most severely uninformed editors, and it completely prevents the bot-spam, which at this point almost totally covers the RC when I happen to check it. Many other independent wikis, such as Halopedian, use the question captcha, so if you guys wanted a first-person POV on it, you could also ask them for their experiences. Basically, the captcha question should totally eliminate the bot-spam, with the only drawback being that it adds maybe a fraction of a second to anonymous human edits. So, given that, does anyone have any objections to adding the captcha question?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)--(same anon as throughout this topic)

== Spelling throughout the Wiki ==

I've found that, on multiple spots on the Wiki, there are UK English spellings of words. Now, I know that the Transformers Wiki is a country-spanning project, but I'd like a consensus on whether or not we should change incidences of UK spellings (like "practise" and "polarize") to their American English counterparts. A streamlined flow using only one dialect would, I believe, make the editing process much easier. However, I do not want a backlash from UK users. <br>
P.S.: Damn you, Webster! You and your new-world dictionary! [[User:TheMZone|TheMZone]] 18:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:[[Help:Style guide#National varieties of English|Here is the wiki's policy on the subject]] just so you know. I myself don't think it needs changing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

== Why are the IDW books in G1? ==

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.) {{unsigned|158.103.0.1}}
:Uggghhhhhh. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:Yeahhh, you not understanding the concept of Continuity Families particularly well.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 16:30, 1 December 2011 (EST)

::Other continuities within the G1 continuity family also eschew some of those classic aspects. In [[Action Blast 1]], for instance, the Autobots crash on present-day Earth and they don't hang around in stasis for millions of years. I don't think there's really a template of specific events that a G1 continuity has to stick to. That would hamper storytelling too much. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

:::Also, they share a lot of the same characters, body designs, and personalities. Granted, some of them are common across the multiverse, but things like Megatron becoming a gun and Optimus Prime as a flatnosed tractor-trailer are distinctly G1-ish. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:29, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::FYI: [[Talk:IDW Generation 1 continuity#New evidence that IDW is not G1|Previous discussion here]]. Yes, on the one hand, it is G1 because it uses the G1 cast of characters for the most part, and most of those pretty much have the same personality as their G1 bio card as on their G1 counterparts (with the significant exception of their gimmicks). On the other hand, [http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=143991#143991 an artist] has said it is not G1, so it isn't entirely crazy to say it isn't G1. The universe itself doesn't seem particularly G1. It is like a different universe populated with G1 guys. The Micromasters aren't Cybertronain (I think), so a whole class of G1 Transformers aren't Transformers which sounds like a different universe. In short, it mostly makes sense for the wiki to organize it under G1 so they don't have to duplicate character pages with characters with mostly the same intro paragraph. But don't take it too seriously, it isn't official or anything. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:54, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::: No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I mean is that there seems to be no CANON justification for why IDW is considered G1. Especially because it lacks the links of similar G1 works, it’s never been verified as such by the creators (as far as I know) and it’s “G1-ness” is tentative at best.

:::::IDW really doesn’t have as strong a link as or other G1 families. They all either were marketed as direct extensions to the original 80s ‘Toon and Comic adaptations (Gen 2 and Dreamwave ) established “next gen” sequels (Beast Era) Inserts into Gen 1 (Alternators and much of Japan’s stuff) Or add ons to particular points of the G1 timeline (Classics, Dreamwave) hell Timelines might count as a little bit of all of these. IDW really has no direct link.

:::::That leaves us to the creators, and when it’s referred as such by them they use the term "reboot” or the like. Hell Simon Furman, architect of a large section of G1, straight up called it an ‘Ultimate’ version in his CBR interview. And Don Fig doesn’t consider it G1 at all.

:::::Even then we look at why we call it G1 it causes all kinds of fallacies. Relying ion art style to tell families (as said in our very own article) leads to insanity, as characters change appearances across media ostensibly in eths same family all the time (for example WFC and Prime) likewise the “G1" aspects, such as personality, and looks, have been used both in the Transformers Film and Animated families, and yet we don’t consider them G1 despite both being just about the same kind of reboot on it IDW is. They incorporate a version of the Beast Ear into their timeline but assuming a connection with their main IDW addition, it’s just as differing as Aligned or Animated version of the Beast era would be.

:::::I’m not trying to rock the boat I se4riously would just like to know if there’s any official, canon, or Hasbro/Creator data that states IDW as a version of G1, because right now I’m not seeing it.

:::::Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be seen as the "young turk" coming into old pros territory and rocking the boat against guys who have been studying this since before I was born, but I just picked up a bunch of Simon Furman stuff from [[http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Marvelcomicscontinuity.jpg The old comics]] as well as the big two volume IDW packs and they just don't fit at all. They're as different from G1 as the Films, Animated or RID are. I don't think we should makes assumptions and leaps of logic just for convenience's sake, kind belies the purpose of a wiki, ya know?
::::::This is a ridiculous amount of navel-gazing to get past the point that IDW continuity is just G1 in new dressing and not a new franchise of its own. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::By that terminology ALL of Transformers media is Just "g1 in a new dressing" by the virtue of G1 starting the franchise.
::::::::Considering new Generation 1 toys keep being made in the style of IDW design, that that firmly cements the stuff as being G1 in Hasbro's eyes. And the fact that they are constantly using Generation 1-style character aesthetics, personalizations and the freaking '''original font''' on the titles. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::The wiki's more confident about calling it G1 than even Hasbro, which calls the toys "Generations." Wiki organization is one thing, but we act more like it is a fact than it actually is. "Generation 1" doesn't really exist anymore. Hasbro is a little ashamed of it. Or at least doesn't want to pigeon-hole their toys and comics as being old-school. The [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] page as a "Generation 1" logo on top. That doesn't really reflect reality which is more hazy. Maybe "Generations" is the new "Generation 1" or something. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::To use your Simon Furman point against you, saying that IDW is not G1 is kind of like saying that Ultimate Marvel is not part of the Marvel Multiverse. It may be fairly different, but it is undeniably the same basic characters and situations. Also, I never have figured out why anyone really cares what the creative teams think, anything they say can be overruled by Hasbro at any time. Even after it has been published. Only Hasbro's opinion really matters.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:07, 2 December 2011 (EST)
Discussed ad nauseum years ago. Nothing new has been added to the conversation since. Not changing. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 05:13, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Aesthetics have already been disavowed as a valid ground for Continuity Pedigree, most notably with the Aligned Family. if Hasbro itself hasn’t recognized it as G1, hasn’t directly tied it to a previous G1 work, and if the writers and artists themselves don’t consider it G1, how is it legitimate to denote it as G1 based on our interpretation. Especially given such ethereal "evidence" as the looks of toys and ''fonts'' of all things.

:::::::::Hasbro has yet to give any word. And also the Marvel analogy wont work, because while Marvel has but ONE Multiverse composed of several individual universes. The TF Multiverse is a collection of Universal Streams, each roughly following the same vents with several different interpretations over key events. It's like comparing diffirent versions of the Bible as rather than like comparing the Bible against the Koran.

:::::::::M Sipher, would you do an FYI link? I've seen the discussion over on IDW Continuity’s Main page and the quibbles on the main Continuity Family but never any hard decree from an authority based on reasoning any more firm than convenience. I'm simply trying to hold IDW to the standards of the other G1 works on the wiki, all of which have '''in-canon''' links to versions of G1, or else are stated as such by the Companies.

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-02T16:32:37Z

158.103.0.1:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Aligned Timeline ==

I'm going to try and take a stab at creating an Aligned timeline that unites everything we know about the franchise(s) so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Help Wanted ==

Hello one and all. I'm here representing a newly created Role-Playing forum that is based in the Transformers Universe. We're in the early stages yet, and are looking for people to help get the ball rolling. Since this site seems to lack a dedicated forum (where requests like these would usually be made) and I haven't seen any other way to effectively say my piece in front of a large audience, I thought that posting here was the best way to "advertise" us, as it were. I sincerely apologize if this was the wrong move on our part, or if I've breached protocol at all, but I can assure everyone that our intentions aren't malign. Those interested, please contact me using any of the ways that I have listed on my username page here on this site. I won't tempt fate by linking our website here directly =P

Once again, you all have my sincere greetings, and I hope to hear from you soon. Also, as a side note: the difference in quality between this page and the transformers wikia is amazing. [[User:Rathian Warrior|Rathian Warrior]] 23:50, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if you've crossed any lines, and frankly, you were polite enough about it that it's not a big deal, but you could always buy some ad space if you want to raise awareness of your forum. It's cheap! There's usually a link on every page around the banners, but if you didn't catch it, you can follow this link: [https://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=25311&type=4 Project Wonderful TFWiki Page]--[[User:McFly|McFly]] 16:13, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== "Fictional" and "real" categories ==
I think we need to come up with a consistent way to distinguish categories of things that are real and categories of things that have appeared in fiction. So far, we've skimmed the issue by using synonyms, such as [[:Category:Companies|companies]] and [[:Category:Businesses|businesses]], but that doesn't really work for things like [[:Category:Magazines|magazines]], which is already used for real magazines. Currently, we have [[:Category:Fictional books]], [[:Category:Fictional video games]] that consider the fictional entities "different". On the other hand, we have [[:Category:Real-world events by day]] and [[:Category:Real world films]]. We focus more on the fictional aspect of Transformers, so it makes sense to not point out the fictionality in categories, but "real world" sounds awkward to some. Which one should we use? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:26, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I thought I'd cheat and see how some of the other fictional Wikis deal with the problem. Three different approaches I saw:
:*[http://tardis.wikia.com/ Doctor Who wiki] has a [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Real_world "Real World" category] for real world stuff and in most cases the categories for real world things are at "Real world X".
:*[http://wookiepedia.org/ Wookiepedia] goes the parenthetical route, with "Books" and "Books (real-world)". Though they also have one or two like "Real world companies".
:*[http://stargate.wikia.com/ Stargate wiki] has "Books" versus "Stargate books" for real world books.
:I kinda like the parenthetical approach that Wookiepedia have taken. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'd favor pointing out the status of both categories, just to make absolutely clear what they are for. The words can be "Fictional" and "Real-world" (I notice both real-world categories use a different spelling. Whichever it's gonna be (if), only one spelling should be used). "Nonfictional" kinda works as an alternative, would "Real-world" be disliked. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:35, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::If we go that route, I think "real-world" should be used, since "real world" is a lot more easier to fix than the other parsing. I like the Wookiepedia approach, but I'm not sure that's enough to change how we already do categories. The idea to label both categories sounds nice, but "Fictional X" seems incongruous with unlabeled categories, such as "weapons", "technology", etc.; considering that our main focus is the fiction, I'm leaning towards only labeling the real stuff. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I think it would be advantageous to put a {{tl|disambig2}} at the top, so people could easily go from the fictional to the real world category too. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:30, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yeah, I think I put that on [[:Category:Films]] a while ago. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:57, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Speaking of this, I found we handle [[:Category:Films]] like [[:Category:Real people]], wouldn't this be some, um, confusing? It's just, somehow, reverse? (Except for the fictional films like ''Honoji'') According to the logic of how we handle [[:Category:Real people]], shouldn't we place films like ''40-Year-Old Virgin'' or ''Godzilla'' in the [[:Category:Real world films]]? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Godzilla doesn't go in "Real world films" because it's not a real world ''Transformers'' film. The Transformers is implied in that category name. Presumably we could have a "Real films" category for Godzilla, etc, but I'm not sure it's worth doing. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:53, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::We shouldn't use "fictional X" for two reasons. One, there things like [[As the Kitchen Sinks]] that are fictional even within the fictional Transformers universe. Second, the wiki is written in-universe by default and putting [[Big Steve's Used Cars]] in a "fictional businesses" category would kind of break that. Within Transformers fiction, "Big Steve's Used Cars" is not a fictional company, but "As the Kitchen Sinks" is a fictional TV show. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:47, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is not a fictional show. It depicts fictional events and fictional people, yes, but the show itself, as a piece of entertainment, is not fictional. I do get your point, as we actually have things like [[Frankenstein]] that are two layers of fiction removed from us. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, of course. I meant, in-universe, ''As the Kitchen Sinks'' is a work of fiction, whereas "Big Steve's Used Cars" is a real business that sells real used cars to real people. Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Wasn't ''Buck Rogers'' a fictional TV show? Anyway, it sounds like you got my point. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Or, judging by the fact categories like "Magazines" in used for magazines in our real life and "Companies" for companies in real life, why not just use "Film" for films (such as DOTM) in real life, while we move current contents in "Films" to "Films in ''Transformers'' fictions"? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::That seems like it would go counter to some of our existing naming schemes. e.g. if we split that out into films by franchise, you'd get "Films in Generation 1" rather than "Generation 1 films". Though admittedly the former title might have the advantage that it's clearer in meaning. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I think both are equally ambiguous in their meaning. If we still need to clarify the purpose of the categories, we can always spell it out in the category's introduction. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Transformers: " ==
We talked a bit about adding back "Transformers: " to the titles of articles [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive51#When_to_omit_.22Transformers.22_from_an_article_title|previously]], and the general sentiment was that people were for it or didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any input in this matter? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:34, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm okay with this change, but I do have three questions on execution. <br>1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled? <br>2.) If "Transformers(:)" is going to be added to every relevant page name, then what about all the extra words in the titles of Japanese stuff? <br>3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc? <br>[[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::#I think we've had two consistent rules about that: If the title is some kind of phrase, like "Transformers United", "The Transformers Collection", or "Transformers Animated", then we don't use the colon. If the title is some kind of obvious "title: subtitle" setup ("Transformers: Armada", "Transformers: Prime"), then we use the colon. There's some borderline examples, but I think we can figure them out one by one. Official sources will help with determining colon-status. The other rule seems to apply to only games: If the title has another subtitle, then the first colon is dropped (ex. [[Transformers Prime: Terrorcon Defense]]). I dunno why, but we can add back the colon, I suppose.
::#I guess we add them? We could argue it for ''Victory'', since it was released in English contexts as just "Transformers: Victory".
::#I think we're just going to continue the same in relation to those. The articles will still be sorted by their subtitles in categories. Storylinks I could go either way on, but I think the trend is to drop the main title. I've been doing that for the AAII storylinks to avoid excessively long links. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:49, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I don't see how "Transformers United" and "Transformers Animated" are any different from "Transformers: Prime". To me, all three could fall into either of your groups (phrase vs subtitle) and would prefer colons in all of those cases. Of your examples, only "The Transformers Collection" seems to really belong in the "phrase" group. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::"United" and "Animated" are adjectives that modify "Transformers" and have official sources that omit the colon. "Transformers Prime" doesn't make sense in that way. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:58, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I am not certain about those two "rules" for colons either. They're rather vague and bound to cause arguments and confusion. It needs to be made more obvious whether a colon should be used or not before "Transformers" can be added everywhere (a help page on the matter would also be handy in the future, me thinks).

::::I think that if we would put the cartoon at ''Transformers: Victory'', that would cause confusion with the manga, storypages, toyline and franchises, none of which were ever brought over and should thus not be named such. If moved, the ''Victory'' cartoon should best go to its Japanese name. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 15:28, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>shrug* The first rule is mostly there for Transformers Animated, which people will be resistant to moving to have a colon (plus, obvious cases like The Transformers Collection). The second rule I really don't care about and can be tossed (it mostly only concerns the movie series of video games and online games). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you suggesting there that Victory articles should be moved to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory"? I'd disagree with that, if so! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:25, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Why? We can't go around writing out the full names of Western franchises and stuff but not do so for the Japanese stuff. We already have "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" written out for the 1985 & 1986 Japanese franchises, so why not ''Victory''? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 07:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Victory (the cartoon) has been released in the West as "Transformers: Victory", to me that means that the official English name of the franchise ''is'' Transformers: Victory. Yes, we should give the full Japanese title at the beginning of the franchise page but there is no reason to move anything to that name. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:35, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::That was pretty much my reasoning too (also typing out the full name every time we wanted to link to it would be tedious). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Tying out "(franchise)" every time for everything is more tedious, but we still have it (for... some reason). Ditto long titles like [[The Story of Super Robot Lifeforms: The Transformers]] and [[Transformers Vault]]'s previous ridiculously long title.
:::::::::But I guess the general principle of "Transformers: " is acceptable to most. I'll start moving the noncontroversial pages (Western comics and cartoons with definite subtitles, etc.) if there's no opposition in the next few hours. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Is there a difference between [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|Transformers: Beast Wars: The Ascending]]? I must admit, the comma/colon distinction seems kinda arbitrary. Also, these page names seem kind of overlong and stupid, what's wrong with [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|The Ascending]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering|The Gathering]]? It's a Transformers wiki and those are Beast Wars series; prefixing everything we possibly can with "Transformers" is only going to clog up the search box and make editing just that bit more arduous. What were the arguments in favour of this again? --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 16:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::That's the formatting used in the indicia. Your complaint about the search box is silly; did you really think typing "Transformers" into it yielded anything useful 99% of the time?
:::::::::::Like it or not, "Transformers: " is the part of the name of many things, and the hoops we have to go through to maintain this silly system of dropping it from article titles has gotten ridiculous and inconsistent. Adding "Transformers: " to article titles, on the other hand, adds ''clarity'' and avoids pointless disambiguation. "The Transformers: Bumblebee" is preferable to "Bumblebee (comic)", "Transformers: Sector 7" to "Sector 7 (comic)", etc. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:44, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::I get that it's useful in some cases, but it just seems like applying the rule across the board means we're overcomplicating the issue. Occam's razor has a lot going for it, and for user-friendliness I'd go for brevity. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 17:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Also on an Occam's razor tip, "Bumblebee (comic)" conveys more information in fewer characters than "Transformers: Bumblebee". I really don't understand why the latter is preferable. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 14:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::There's something to say for either argument, but as it is, we have proven to be unable to keep to one consistent "Transformers"-as-part-of-the-title policy at least since TFA. And if trying to keep "Transformers" out of the deal doesn't work, we oughta give the alternative a chance. I don't think it necesarilly makes it harder to find anything, as the search box reacts to words even if they are not the first part of a page title. And I want to have the changes in clear perspective before I might suggest deleting a few redirects, so at least for now, searches won't be any harder and we have a consistent policy. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:49, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I gotta say, I'm hating how this is working in practice. Article titles seem long and ugly to me.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:46, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I feel the same, but it seems to be an necessary evil because "Transformers: ***" is a full title? duh. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 22:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::I fear the day someone decides to add full titles to disambiguation suffixes as well, e.g. "Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)", "Grindor (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)" etc.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 13:43, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::That would be silly, and I'm pretty sure most people would oppose it. Putting "Transformers:" in names is a change we'd already been drifting towards for a while with, for instance, the War for Cybertron articles all doing it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::On a related note, it's a pet peeve of mine when a writeup talks about a specific medium related to a franchise but links to the franchise as a whole instead, such as "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] toyline" or "in episode 6 of the [[Energon (franchise)|Energon]] cartoon...".--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Would the best solution there be something like "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] [[Cybertron (toyline)|toyline]]"? --[[Special:Contributions/77.99.176.103|77.99.176.103]] 03:32, 29 September 2011 (EDT) (oops, emvee not logged in)
::::::I think linking to the toyline page is sufficent. There's no need for an additional link to the corresponding umbrella franchise. The thought behind this is: "If Joe McRandom sees something that interests him and clicks a link, does he want the link to take him straight to the specific topic or to a more general overview?" I think link targets should always be as specific as necessary. If someone gets interested in a broader overview, he can always go one level up. After all, a link referring to G1 Optimus Prime leads to [[Optimus Prime (G1)]], not to [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)]], either. In the same fashion, toyline pages should deeplink to the specific toy entries on the respective characters' pages (or even their toy pages, if applicable). Like, if Joe McRandom is on the [[Transformers: Universe (2008 toyline)|Universe (2008 toyline)]] page, sees a "Prowl" toy listed under "Deluxe Class" and wants to read more about that toy, he wants the "Prowl" link to take him straight to [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Universe (2008)]], not to the [[Prowl (G1)|main character page]] where he then has to scroll down to "toys", see that G1 Prowl toys have their separate page, go ''there'', ''then'' scroll down to "Universe (2008)". (It currently links to [[Prowl (G1)/toys]], which is at least halfway there.) I will fix this wherever I see it, and implement it when doing writeups.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

===Suggestion to creating templates===

Do we need some kinds of templates when typing contents for convenience? For my experience in Terminator Wiki, we use templates like <nowiki>{{T3}} for ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' or {{TSCC}} for ''[[Terminator: The Sarah Connnor Chronicles]]''</nowiki>. What I'm suggesting is that after we make all franchise names into full title (and we don't use redirect links), it is some how trouble some when typing the title. So we can make some templates like:
<pre>
{{tf|Armada}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (franchise)|Transformers: Armada]]''

{{tf|Armada|toyline|Pokeformer}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Pokeformer]]''

{{jptf|bwn}} -> ''[[Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo]]''

</pre>

If there is any user who can created complex template, we could make

<pre>
{{tf|armada|t}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Transformers: Armada]]''

parameter 1:
2010 = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010 (toyline)
thm = Transformers: The Headmasters (toyline)
mf = Transformers: Super-God Masterforce (toyline)
v = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory
z = Transformers: Zone
roc = Transformers: Return of Convoy
oc = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Operation Combination
armada = Transformers Armada
bwn = Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo
mov = Movie
rotf = Revenge of the Fallen
tfa = Transformers Animated
...and (blah blah)

parameter 2:
*default* - franchise
t - toyline
ct - cartoon
co - comic
m - manga
f - film

And, if possible:
if parameter 3 = s (for example), it will become short title like ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Armada]]''

</pre>

--'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's something I've thought about as well. Considering there are a lot of exceptions to the regular naming system (parts of franchises that are called something different or franchises that lack the (franchise) identifier on the wiki because it's not necessary to disambiguate it), I don't think a template can be coded to put a link together. A full list system like our TFtoon templates have could maybe work though. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:08, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think with the number of franchises we have, it would end up being a hellishly big template and difficult to maintain for only a minor gain. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:03, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

==="Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" Transformers===
With the insertion of this phrase into the Victory page titles, should it also be inserted into the titles of The Headmasters, Super-God Masterforce, and Zone? now while the immediate answer would be "No", there are some places that do include this text above the "Toransufōmā" text in each of these series's logos. An example of this would the [[Transformers Tapestry]] (which even includes it in the Operation combination logo as well) and the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Columbia_Zone_DVD.jpg Columbia DVD of Zone]. Its inclusion in these places seems more than mere coincidence, so would we take this idea into consideration? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 14:33, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Um, that ''Zone'' DVD does not support your assertion. All of the ''actual'' media for those series (except for the Zone manga and story pages) do not include The "Fight!..." portion. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Technically the whole toyline in Japan from 1985 to 1992 was called "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" (as was written on the boxes), so at least the toyline pages for the series of those years would probably need the longer title than just "Transformers: ''X'' (toyline)" --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 16:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So you want to move the toyline pages to some made-up name? Pick one: 1) Merge all of the toyline pages to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)" 2) Leave the toyline pages as they are instead of stressing over naming things that technically don't exist. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::How is it "made up"? "Tatakae! Chō Robot Seimeitai" means "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" and is written above the "Toransufōmā" text on the packages of the 1985-1992 Japanese toys. I'm not proposing we merge all those toyline pages together, but rather something akin to the [[Transformers: Beast Wars (Japanese toyline)|Japanese Beast Wars toyline]] page, in which the individual toylines are kept separate even though they were all collectively the same-named toyline. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 17:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: The Headmasters" and its ilk are the imaginary names. Those articles for imaginary toylines are fine where they are. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==="Movie"===
There's still [[Movie (franchise)]], [[Movie (toyline)]] and more. Shouldn't that be "Transformers (2007 franchise)" and "Transformers (2007 toyline)", with the current [[Transformers (2007)]] becoming "Transformers (2007 movie)"?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Probably. I didn't move them, since I wanted to bring it up for discussion first. The film should be moved to just "Transformers (film)", though. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:"Movie (''media'')" should be moved to "Transformers (2007 ''media'')" while "Transformers (2007)" goes "Transformers (film)". --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:27, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::That push for lexical accuracy strikes me as creating more ambiguity than it resolves. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:06, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Jungaroo==
Someone made a lovely [[Jungaroo]] gobox, but there's no page for him. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 21:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think he's in any applicable fiction, but his [http://home.comcast.net/~BattleBeastSD/MGCKang.html bio card is online here]. Someone will have to translate it from Japanese first though. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:25, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Making the search suggestion work better ==

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I noticed sometimes when I type something in the search box, the search suggestions below it jump around and end up on a list which doesn't quite match what I typed. I think it's something to do with the speed I'm typing and the amount of time the server takes to respond to each request.

Anyway, I tweaked the javascript for grabbing the suggestions from the server so it would only trigger when I stopped typing. That seems to fix the problem for me, and as a bonus it's not nagging the server on every keypress. The downside is no instant feedback when I type, but I can live without that if it fixes the other thing.

If anyone else is having that problem and wants to have a go, just copy and paste the following into your [[Special:MyPage/monacobook.js|monacobook.js]] (caveat: only tested on Firefox and Chrome):
<pre><nowiki>
var ss_memory = null;
var ss_timeron = 0;
var ss_timer;

function DoActualSearch() {
ss_timeron=0;
var newdiv = document.getElementById("searchsuggest");
if (!newdiv) {
var newdiv = document.createElement("div");
newdiv.id = "searchsuggest";
var searchdiv = document.getElementById("searchBody");
searchdiv.appendChild(newdiv);
}
var x = document.getElementById("searchInput").value;
if (x == ss_memory) {
return;
}
ss_memory = x;
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'none';
if (x.length < 30 && x.length > 1 && x.value != "") {
sajax_do_call("wfAjaxSearchSuggest", [x], newdiv);
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'block';
}
}

function MySearchCall() {
if(ss_timeron) {
clearTimeout(ss_timer);
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
} else {
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
ss_timeron=1;
}
}

function myss_ajax_onload(){
var x = document.getElementById('searchInput');
x.onkeyup = function(){
MySearchCall();
};
}

hookEvent("load", myss_ajax_onload);
</nowiki></pre>
Unfortunately it won't fix the actual contents of the search suggestions, so you'll still get a bunch of All Hail Megatron issues when you type "Megatron", but that requires changes on the server. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hmm. I feel like adding <tt>ORDER BY `page_counter` DESC</tt> around line 20 of ''suggest.php'' might help w/ our search results, but it's hard to say for sure given how abstracted mediawiki database calls are, someone would have ot make the change then test it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::The thought I had was to do a query on article titles starting with the search term, and then if that gives back less than 8 entries, do a second search to fill the rest of the list with titles with the term anywhere in the title. The search suggest currently supports both options, but not at the same time. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

==Stuff==
: Firstly, our organization of information related to the junior franchises is terrible and I'd love to do something about it, but I need feedback. We currently have most Japanese and American Go-Bots as separate characters, except for the Japanese Go-Bots from the 1-2-3 line. Though there are requests for a separate Chopper page. Should those pages be split or not? And if so, what about the figures that came with some of the toys. Kid-Bot clearly isn't the "red driver" or "blue driver", but the dog and "Gas-Bot" both have fiction in only one of the two franchises, so is it worth separating them? Also, does the unpublished coloring book count as apocrypha or not, seeing as it was mostly approved? And the human characters within, do they count as cameos like Kelly in the Dreamwave comics or separate characters? And does anyone know what the Japanese name was by which the First Transformers were released? The Go-Bots fansite has an image of Dumpkun's box featuring what looks like a G1 logo, the First Transformers logo and "初めてトランスフォーマー" written on it.
: Secondly, many disambiguation pages still mention if there's a separate page for the toys of a character. Is this system still necessary now that we use subpages to separate such stuff under? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 17:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

::I think unpublished stuff is treated as apocrypha, isn't it? The character page coverage of unreleased Dreamwave issues is in notes, for instance. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:48, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::True, but we don't know if those were approved or know those weren't approved. The coloring book was approved, just not released. That makes it better comparable to Wreckers #$, which we do not consider apocrypha (though I wouldn't know if we'd do that if Wreckers #5 didn't partially canonize it). [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 11:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::Just weighing in on the toy page issue: I find it useful to have these called out on the disambig pages. Being able to go directly from the disambig page to the toy page of a character saves me at least one click (if I see the suite box in time) and often some scrolling (if I don't see it). However, I won't fight too hard on this if consensus is for the removal of this feature. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 07:47, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::Thinking some more about the Go-Bots stuff, as the Japanese version of Gas-Bot has no fiction, it probably doesn't need its own page - either link to Gas-Bot's page or just leave it unlinked in the appropriate toy sections. Same with the US version of the dog. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:30, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Facebook. ==

Is '''<nowiki>http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFwikinet/191252494230187</nowiki>''' us? Because it's the #1 link when you search for "TFWiki Facebook," and our group is nowhere to be seen. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

:I think our group is not showing up because you have to have a Facebook account to see it? When I go to the group's URL, I just get a page prompting me to log in to Facebook. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:47, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

::The link is this one: [http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/ http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/], which is the #3 on the search by "TFwiki site:facebook.com" on Google. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 19:51, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So the other one isn't ours, and we can't put a link on it pointing it to the group.
:::Annoying. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It's a "Community page", whatever that is. Clicking on the "Create a page" button on the top right of that page does bring up some sort of form which seems like it will do something. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:12, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Halloween ==

Presuming we're deco'ing our frontpage for Halloween... does anyone have any suggestions? Monsters, ghosts, gouls? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:Animated Blitzwing's random face looks sorta Jack O'Lanterny and could work as a replacement for the Autobot insignia on the site logo, assuming we can find a head-on image of it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:35, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

== Moving "(Timelines)" articles ==

I'm thinking that, as we don't bother with "(Timelines)" for SG, TransTech, and Animated characters, we should apply the same across the board and only use it if necessary.

*[[Astrotrain (Timelines)]] → Astrotrain (Cybertron)
*[[Cannonball (Timelines)]] → Cannonball (G1)
*[[Cop-Tur (Timelines)]] → Cop-Tur (G1)
*[[Halogen (Timelines)]] → Halogen (G1)
*[[Side Burn (Timelines)]] → Side Burn (G1)
*[[Sky-Byte (Timelines)]] → Sky-Byte (G2)
*[[Switchblade (Timelines)]] → Switchblade (BW)
*[[Thunderblast (Timelines)]] → Thunderblast (G1)
*[[Yoketron (Timelines)]] → Yoketron (G1)

The exceptions are the Descent into Evil characters, who don't really fit in any pre-existing franchise, and the Nexus Prime characters, who don't originate from a particular universe.
*[[Buzzclaw (Timelines)]]
*[[Dirge (Timelines)]]
*[[Flareup (Timelines)]]
*[[Landquake (Timelines)]]
*[[Ricochet (Timelines)]]
*[[Heatwave (Timelines)]]

Thoughts? Or does nobody really care that much? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 10:19, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:Since you asked, I'll pitch 2¢ into the conversation, since I know a little bit about it. I found out the hard way that wiki "doesn't bother with '(Timelines)' for Animated." And by hard way, I mean I was clobbered over the head without a hint of explanation for proposing that a Timelines-original Animated continuity character should be at "(Timelines)." But no hard feelings. I still think "franchise of origin" and not "continuity of origin" is best for disambiguations. For reasons that have been discussed previously on the subject. TransTech and SG are treated as a kind of sub-franchises of Timelines by the wiki, so I think they are an OK exception. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::The prose stories are identified as "Transformers Timelines presents a Transformers: (franchise) story". I would say that both franchises are equally valid to the stories, and the fact that non-Timelines stories (Around Cybertron, magazine comics, etc.) bleed together with Timelines stories makes the "(Timelines)" designation convoluted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, that's different. It sounds like you are calling their actual franchise of origin into question, not just their disambiguation. I don't have an opinion about their actual franchise of origin. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying that they're Timelines, but saying that they're better categorized under their other franchise. Like the Animated guys, it seems more instinctive to file [[Side Burn (Timelines)]] under "Side Burn (G1)" instead (not to mention that there's other Side Burn in Timelines: [[Side Burn (SG)]]).[[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:38, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
I'm hesitating, but let me think about the ramifications. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'd be fine with this. Though, one thing I'd like to propose is giving the Wings Universe characters their own disambiguation suffix. Like maybe "(Wings)" or something. I know it's a part of G1, but it's kinda like its own series within the over G1 continuity family like the Japanese G1 series are (which are also given their own suffixes such as "(Victory)", "(ROC)", "(BT)" etc.).

:Though, as for the Descent into Evil characters, maybe something like "(DIE)" or "(Descent)" or even just "(Descent into Evil)". Or, if not, keep them at "(Timelines)". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 11:51, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think the DIE guys are fine where they are (although you could argue moving [[Ricochet (Timelines)]] because of [[Ricochet (SG)]], but I don't really care). As for the Wings Universe guys getting their own disambiguation, eh... [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I am '''definitely absolutely''' against creating a (Wings) disambiguation when (G1) or (Timelines) work perfectly fine. We do NOT disambiguate by continuity except by absolute necessity within a franchise. Making up a (Wings) parenthetical just because incredibly confuses our disambiguation policy for no real reason. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::And what exactly keeps the Descent into Evil guys from being tagged G1? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Is the intermezzo period between G1 and BW considered G1 or BW?

:::It's all G1 characters... and IIRC the Insecticons were supposed ot be part of Insecticon plans which had been around for ages, so the characters weren't "BW-era only" characters...

:::I could support a G1 disambigif you talked me into it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:01, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::DIE fiction (Descent into Evil itself and [[Intimidation Game]]) has elements of both BW and G1; it doesn't have a certain franchise placement. Dirge (Timelines) and Ricochet (Timelines) also have namesakes firmly in G1. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:14, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::::BW is both BW and G1. And G1 has been back-incorporating BW elements since, like, 1995. The fact DIE has G1 and BW doesn't mean it's part of neither. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think that, by the nature of Timelines, it feels more natural to parse that specific set of characters by their continuity or parent-franchise of origin. Honestly, I think the Nexus components (''all'' of them) are really the best and only candidates for the Timelines parser.

::Also, I made a [http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Template:c quick template] that you guys could use here to simplify the coding for whenever you need to link a continuity-parsed name.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:37, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately I don't think that template would work as well here, because our articles are not consistently named by franchise. For instance [[Lightspeed (G1 Technobot)]], [[Flattop (Autobot)]] and [[Impactor]] are all (G1) characters but don't use (G1) in their title, so the template wouldn't work for linking to them. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I think that Timelines is a pretty clunky franchise for the purposes of this wiki, in that it covers multiple continuities. I think the proposal on the table makes sense.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Two spaces after a period in a sentence ==

I've noticed this for a while on the Wiki. In practice, it makes no difference as the software displays one space the same way it displays one. However, I've been wondering why people do it. Now I '''know: They''' were taught so in school. '''By teachers who were taught on friggin' ''typewriters''.''' So the "two spaces after a period" rule is a leftover from the typewriter days, where it was a necessity, but it's completely obsolete on computers. [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html Source]--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:The sentence spacing rules were, in fact, developed by typographers, but were not phased out via the magical introduction of the personal computer. The em-space rule exists for monospaced fonts, which were still fairly common for a great number of printers through the mid-1980s. If you would like to begin a tyrannical series of grammar-based wiki edits, I would begin by avoiding the use of prepositions at the start of sentences. I would also advise some respect for the proper use of colons and semi-colons, as typographical errors should not take priority over proper word selection and punctuation. Cheers! --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 14:20, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Are you referring to sentences beginning with prepositional phrases for the sake of emphasis (also known as an introductory modifiers)? That's totally valid. Or do you mean idiocies such as relative clauses that are separated from the preceding main clause by a period instead of a comma? The most glaring typographic blunders I encounter on the wiki typically go hand in hand with awkwardly worded sentences and clunky terminology, so I'm inclined to assume the same person(s) is/are responsible for all of those.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::I have bolded an example. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Aw, you altered your post. No fair! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:16, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::What'd I alter? I just moved it up. Anyway... I'd call that one "deliberate departure from proper grammar for the sake of dramatic emphasis". It's about as improper as using a period after ''every. Single. Word.'' If it's obvious from the context that it's done for emphasis, I'd call it acceptable as long as it's not used inflationary. I'm sure we have a few cases of "We know it's not proper grammar, but we want to stress a point here" on the wiki. (How did the saying go again? "Know the rules first before you break them"?)--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:28, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:....or you can just set the bot to convert " " to " ". Since we don't output monospace font, or anything.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Over the whole wiki, those extra spaces account for maybe 20kb of data, which I don't think is worth worrying about. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Typed text is typed text, and the double-space after a period is still correct. Shall we next be told that we're "wrong" for not having the wiki use the metric system, or for writing down dates with the month before the day instead of after it? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, and I bolded something too. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Due to habit, I'm gonna double-space until I die. I really don't think that needs to be considered a problem. Is that really a problem? An extra millimeter between sentences? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Nevermore ''is'' right about it being mostly obsolete, but for purely technical reasons: All double (triple, etc.) spaces are collapsed down to one for display in HTML. If you want the extra spaces to actually be viewable as extra blank space, you have to use <tt>&</tt><tt></tt><tt>nbsp;</tt>. So if you double-space here on the wiki, it only shows up when you edit the page. For whatever that's worth. (Not really taking sides, just presenting the info.) --[[Special:Contributions/67.252.49.31|67.252.49.31]] 06:08, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== More on the search box/"Transformers" everything ==

Typing "Energon" into the search box does not give me [[Energon (franchise)]], [[Energon (cartoon)]] or [[Energon (toyline)]] as top results. Same for "Cybertron". I assume this has to do with the recent "Transformers" prefixing for article titles. However, typing "Animated" into the seach box ''does'' give me franchise and toyline as top results, so it should be ''possible'' despite the prefixing.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:It's purely alphabetical, dude. ''Animated'' shows up before ''Arcee (Animated)'' because "An" precedes "Ar", whereas ''Arcee (Energon)'' comes up before ''Energon'' because "A" precedes "E". --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:13, 6 November 2011 (EST)
::There's an option in the search suggest tool to limit the results to stuff starting with the search query rather than with stuff with the term anywhere in their titles, however it's not something that can be configured through MediaWiki. There's a bit of discussion about it in the "Making the search suggestion work better" section up above. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:::If we wanted to do ''that'', when we shouldn't have prefixed "Transformers:" before hundreds of articles 3 weeks ago. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:06, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::We still have the titles without "Transformers: " as redirects though, so they'll still show up. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:23, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== Spam-dalism ==

Is that the neologism for it? Anyway, somehow the ReCaptcha is failing to stop the automated spam, and I'm guessing the IP's are all very different.

How old are the accounts when they do this? If they're fairly new, would it be possible to simply block IPs and new accounts from inserting new external links? If not (or if that's unworkable), would it be possible to flag such edits for review the way that wikipedia does to edits on contested pages?

Also, is there any chance these are at least coming from the same proxy? The fact that they're getting past ReCaptcha makes it seem like these are actual people doing this, unless ReCaptcha only activates on certain namespaces.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 14:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:I was using captcha with images on my phpBB installation on another site (Doctor Who related) until yesterday and getting a half dozen spammers a day signing up in despite of it. Yesterday I switched to a Question Answer challenge which asks the person registering to name the main character's time machine, and so far it has stopped the spammers dead.
:MediaWiki has [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha] which looks like it works in exactly the same way, and works with the ConfirmEdit extension we already have installed. If we can get that installed and set up, it might be more effective than the image-based system we use now. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::What would the questions be? It can't be too obvious or too obscure. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:31, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:::Not necessarily. The question I'm using on my Doctor Who site is obvious if you have any knowledge at all of the source material, but it seems to be working. We can always start with something easy and see how we go. Most likely all of the spammers are using bots anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::"What is the name of the red-and-blue semi Autobot?", "What's the name of the blue casette player Decepticon?", or "What is the name of the yellow semi Micromaster Autobot with a hydraulic crane?"[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 17:50, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::: "What is the fandom's usual reaction when a new franchise is announced?" :p [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:56, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::::<tt>If Dick has two apples and Jane has two apples, how many apples do they have? (3 letters.)</tt> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:09, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::Ah, but then it would be so easy for users to use only three exclamation marks, and forget the requisite four exclamation marks and a 1.
::No but yeah, a question helps a lot. Might even be worth doing for all IP edits and new accounts, not just those with external links.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:57, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::While we're on the subject, is it somehow possible to flag certain terms or words used by IP editors and auto-block them? *coughcoughobamacoughcough*[[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 16:31, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::...but we have an article on [[Barry Obama]].
:::Are you trying to whitewash the wiki? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:13, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::: It was just an academic question; after all, I'm sure that you've noticed our considerable problem with a certain IP editor lately. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:19, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::: Well yes... but I couldn't resist. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:43, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a temp ban on the whole ISP might get better results. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:51, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::sooo...who would you need to talk to about getting this set up, and what exactly do you want to restrict?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 19:45, 21 November 2011 (EST)
:::::The guy whose IP addresses are always located in England who keeps vandalizing articles with Obama-related nonsense. Doesn't look like even banning IP ranges stops him. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 11:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::...so, there's no way to stop this lunatic? [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 11:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:Options, in order of severity:
#Block all new uses of the word "Obama" to all anonymous editors.
#Block anonymous editors entirely.
#Destroy England.
:But really, that's a separate issue with probably a separate solution, since the guy is a some kind of being. To deal with the spamdalism, I think you guys should add a "name that Transformer-mon!" question, which should cut down heavily on automated edits, and if they still get through, look at blocking all uses of external links for anonymous or new editors. The use of the question for all IP edits is fairly standard, so it should be easy to implement, and you can look into harsher measures if the bots still make it through. However, I really think you guys should make an effort to get this setup, because the conversation keeps kind of drifting down and the vandalism keeps happening.[[Special:Contributions/98.223.102.157|98.223.102.157]] 02:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:: On another note... isn't it cute how he keps trying to badly pass himself off as me? I think someone has a bad case of hero-worship. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 10:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Please stop egging on vandals. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::: OK, on a more serious note, is anyone averse to just locking the wiki for a few days? Bulbapedia does it regularily and they don't have much of a vandalism problem. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 12:36, 23 November 2011 (EST)
Removing the "Undo" option for anons would help, at the very least. We need a regular tech person (or give abates access to the MediaWiki stuff, since he seems to know his way around). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:12, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::: What if we implemented a captcha system for anon edits? I mean, it wouldn't ''stop'' them, per se, but it would make persistent vandalism wars a hassle. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:16, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would not be opposed to that, or simple stock questions. ("Who is the leader of the Autobots?", "What is two plus three?", etc.) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:23, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:::: Rodimus Prime? :p
::::: But seriously, how did Mr. Obama Guy get past the rangeblock? Because that's rather worrysome in and of itself. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::::BT Internet has a lot of IP ranges. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:58, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Okay. Listen.<br>
1) CAPTCHA won't change crap. It ''might'' stop a small number of bot edits, but we have a large, active mod presence that basically polices this place around the clock, and any of those crappy ad pages can be eliminated in mere minutes, if not within seconds of their creation.<br>
2) There is basically '''''NOTHING''''' that can be done to ''stop'' someone who has decided that the best use of their time is constant, repeated, easily-reverted vandalism of a wiki. Well, okay there are a few options, but they're not ones any kind of wiki coding is gonna be part of. They'll find ways around bans, and all these automated things that are being suggested are basically shooting blind and wasting time. This is not remotely the first time someone has thought to do this. It won't be the last. But we've outlasted all those others. And that's all it takes. Again... that large active 24-hour admin presence that quickly and coolly reverts the vandalism ''without getting all butthurt''. That's what vandals want, to watch you get pissy and panicky and angry... ''and that's what you're giving them.'' So '''''shut up''''' and stop feeding that, then they'll eventually get bored and leave.<br>
3) I can perhaps get behind removing the "Undo" option for anons. I don't think though that it will really help much, since making an account takes what, a few seconds?<br>
--[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:38, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:Um. I don't want to offend anyone, but the Obama-guy thing ''really'' isn't related to this topic, although some of the solutions to the spamdalism thing might work to hinder him. The bigger issue is the guys spamming the wiki with links to knockoff viagra, sort of thing, and putting up a simple question system for anons and new editors would work to stop that almost completely, at least everywhere I've seen it in use.
:The mod presence, yeah, things eventually get cleaned up by the end of the day, but a simple, standard change like adding the question will prevent that from happening in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/99.39.88.159|99.39.88.159]] 22:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)
:Just to alleviate any concerns: In my experience, the question captcha does not prevent human edits except from the most severely uninformed editors, and it completely prevents the bot-spam, which at this point almost totally covers the RC when I happen to check it. Many other independent wikis, such as Halopedian, use the question captcha, so if you guys wanted a first-person POV on it, you could also ask them for their experiences. Basically, the captcha question should totally eliminate the bot-spam, with the only drawback being that it adds maybe a fraction of a second to anonymous human edits. So, given that, does anyone have any objections to adding the captcha question?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)--(same anon as throughout this topic)

== Spelling throughout the Wiki ==

I've found that, on multiple spots on the Wiki, there are UK English spellings of words. Now, I know that the Transformers Wiki is a country-spanning project, but I'd like a consensus on whether or not we should change incidences of UK spellings (like "practise" and "polarize") to their American English counterparts. A streamlined flow using only one dialect would, I believe, make the editing process much easier. However, I do not want a backlash from UK users. <br>
P.S.: Damn you, Webster! You and your new-world dictionary! [[User:TheMZone|TheMZone]] 18:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:[[Help:Style guide#National varieties of English|Here is the wiki's policy on the subject]] just so you know. I myself don't think it needs changing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

== Why are the IDW books in G1? ==

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.) {{unsigned|158.103.0.1}}
:Uggghhhhhh. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:Yeahhh, you not understanding the concept of Continuity Families particularly well.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 16:30, 1 December 2011 (EST)

::Other continuities within the G1 continuity family also eschew some of those classic aspects. In [[Action Blast 1]], for instance, the Autobots crash on present-day Earth and they don't hang around in stasis for millions of years. I don't think there's really a template of specific events that a G1 continuity has to stick to. That would hamper storytelling too much. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

:::Also, they share a lot of the same characters, body designs, and personalities. Granted, some of them are common across the multiverse, but things like Megatron becoming a gun and Optimus Prime as a flatnosed tractor-trailer are distinctly G1-ish. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:29, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::FYI: [[Talk:IDW Generation 1 continuity#New evidence that IDW is not G1|Previous discussion here]]. Yes, on the one hand, it is G1 because it uses the G1 cast of characters for the most part, and most of those pretty much have the same personality as their G1 bio card as on their G1 counterparts (with the significant exception of their gimmicks). On the other hand, [http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=143991#143991 an artist] has said it is not G1, so it isn't entirely crazy to say it isn't G1. The universe itself doesn't seem particularly G1. It is like a different universe populated with G1 guys. The Micromasters aren't Cybertronain (I think), so a whole class of G1 Transformers aren't Transformers which sounds like a different universe. In short, it mostly makes sense for the wiki to organize it under G1 so they don't have to duplicate character pages with characters with mostly the same intro paragraph. But don't take it too seriously, it isn't official or anything. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:54, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::: No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I mean is that there seems to be no CANON justification for why IDW is considered G1. Especially because it lacks the links of similar G1 works, it’s never been verified as such by the creators (as far as I know) and it’s “G1-ness” is tentative at best.

:::::IDW really doesn’t have as strong a link as or other G1 families. They all either were marketed as direct extensions to the original 80s ‘Toon and Comic adaptations (Gen 2 and Dreamwave ) established “next gen” sequels (Beast Era) Inserts into Gen 1 (Alternators and much of Japan’s stuff) Or add ons to particular points of the G1 timeline (Classics, Dreamwave) hell Timelines might count as a little bit of all of these. IDW really has no direct link.

:::::That leaves us to the creators, and when it’s referred as such by them they use the term "reboot” or the like. Hell Simon Furman, architect of a large section of G1, straight up called it an ‘Ultimate’ version in his CBR interview. And Don Fig doesn’t consider it G1 at all.

:::::Even then we look at why we call it G1 it causes all kinds of fallacies. Relying ion art style to tell families (as said in our very own article) leads to insanity, as characters change appearances across media ostensibly in eths same family all the time (for example WFC and Prime) likewise the “G1" aspects, such as personality, and looks, have been used both in the Transformers Film and Animated families, and yet we don’t consider them G1 despite both being just about the same kind of reboot on it IDW is. They incorporate a version of the Beast Ear into their timeline but assuming a connection with their main IDW addition, it’s just as differing as Aligned or Animated version of the Beast era would be.

:::::I’m not trying to rock the boat I se4riously would just like to know if there’s any official, canon, or Hasbro/Creator data that states IDW as a version of G1, because right now I’m not seeing it.

:::::Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be seen as the "young turk" coming into old pros territory and rocking the boat against guys who have been studying this since before I was born, but I just picked up a bunch of Simon Furman stuff from [[http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Marvelcomicscontinuity.jpg The old comics]] as well as the big two volume IDW packs and they just don't fit at all. They're as different from G1 as the Films, Animated or RID are. I don't think we should makes assumptions and leaps of logic just for convenience's sake, kind belies the purpose of a wiki, ya know?
::::::This is a ridiculous amount of navel-gazing to get past the point that IDW continuity is just G1 in new dressing and not a new franchise of its own. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::By that terminology ALL of Transformers media is Just "g1 in a new dressing" by the virtue of G1 starting the franchise.
::::::::Considering new Generation 1 toys keep being made in the style of IDW design, that that firmly cements the stuff as being G1 in Hasbro's eyes. And the fact that they are constantly using Generation 1-style character aesthetics, personalizations and the freaking '''original font''' on the titles. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::The wiki's more confident about calling it G1 than even Hasbro, which calls the toys "Generations." Wiki organization is one thing, but we act more like it is a fact than it actually is. "Generation 1" doesn't really exist anymore. Hasbro is a little ashamed of it. Or at least doesn't want to pigeon-hole their toys and comics as being old-school. The [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] page as a "Generation 1" logo on top. That doesn't really reflect reality which is more hazy. Maybe "Generations" is the new "Generation 1" or something. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::To use your Simon Furman point against you, saying that IDW is not G1 is kind of like saying that Ultimate Marvel is not part of the Marvel Multiverse. It may be fairly different, but it is undeniably the same basic characters and situations. Also, I never have figured out why anyone really cares what the creative teams think, anything they say can be overruled by Hasbro at any time. Even after it has been published. Only Hasbro's opinion really matters.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:07, 2 December 2011 (EST)
Discussed ad nauseum years ago. Nothing new has been added to the conversation since. Not changing. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 05:13, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Aesthetics have already been disavowed as a valid ground for Continuity Pedigree, most notably with the Aligned Family. if Hasbro itself hasn’t recognized it as G1, hasn’t directly tied it to a previous G1 work, and if the writers and artists themselves don’t consider it G1, how is it legitimate to denote it as G1 based on our interpretation. Especially given such ethereal "evidence" as the looks of toys and ''fonts'' of all things.

Hasbro has yet to give any word. And also the Marvel analogy wont work, because while Marvel has but ONE Multiverse. The TF Multiverse is a collection of Universal Streams, each roughly following the same vents with several different interpretations over key events. It's like comparing diffirent versions of the Bible as rather than like comparing the Bible against the Koran.

M Sipher would you do an FYI link? I've seen the discussion over on IDW Continuity’s Main page and the quibbles on the main Continuity Family but never any hard decree from an authority based on reasoning any more firm than convenience. I'm simply trying to hold IDW to the standards of the other G1 works on the wiki, all of which have '''in-canon''' links to versions of G1, or else are stated as such by the Companies.

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-02T07:19:36Z

158.103.0.1:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Aligned Timeline ==

I'm going to try and take a stab at creating an Aligned timeline that unites everything we know about the franchise(s) so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Help Wanted ==

Hello one and all. I'm here representing a newly created Role-Playing forum that is based in the Transformers Universe. We're in the early stages yet, and are looking for people to help get the ball rolling. Since this site seems to lack a dedicated forum (where requests like these would usually be made) and I haven't seen any other way to effectively say my piece in front of a large audience, I thought that posting here was the best way to "advertise" us, as it were. I sincerely apologize if this was the wrong move on our part, or if I've breached protocol at all, but I can assure everyone that our intentions aren't malign. Those interested, please contact me using any of the ways that I have listed on my username page here on this site. I won't tempt fate by linking our website here directly =P

Once again, you all have my sincere greetings, and I hope to hear from you soon. Also, as a side note: the difference in quality between this page and the transformers wikia is amazing. [[User:Rathian Warrior|Rathian Warrior]] 23:50, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if you've crossed any lines, and frankly, you were polite enough about it that it's not a big deal, but you could always buy some ad space if you want to raise awareness of your forum. It's cheap! There's usually a link on every page around the banners, but if you didn't catch it, you can follow this link: [https://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=25311&type=4 Project Wonderful TFWiki Page]--[[User:McFly|McFly]] 16:13, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== "Fictional" and "real" categories ==
I think we need to come up with a consistent way to distinguish categories of things that are real and categories of things that have appeared in fiction. So far, we've skimmed the issue by using synonyms, such as [[:Category:Companies|companies]] and [[:Category:Businesses|businesses]], but that doesn't really work for things like [[:Category:Magazines|magazines]], which is already used for real magazines. Currently, we have [[:Category:Fictional books]], [[:Category:Fictional video games]] that consider the fictional entities "different". On the other hand, we have [[:Category:Real-world events by day]] and [[:Category:Real world films]]. We focus more on the fictional aspect of Transformers, so it makes sense to not point out the fictionality in categories, but "real world" sounds awkward to some. Which one should we use? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:26, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I thought I'd cheat and see how some of the other fictional Wikis deal with the problem. Three different approaches I saw:
:*[http://tardis.wikia.com/ Doctor Who wiki] has a [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Real_world "Real World" category] for real world stuff and in most cases the categories for real world things are at "Real world X".
:*[http://wookiepedia.org/ Wookiepedia] goes the parenthetical route, with "Books" and "Books (real-world)". Though they also have one or two like "Real world companies".
:*[http://stargate.wikia.com/ Stargate wiki] has "Books" versus "Stargate books" for real world books.
:I kinda like the parenthetical approach that Wookiepedia have taken. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'd favor pointing out the status of both categories, just to make absolutely clear what they are for. The words can be "Fictional" and "Real-world" (I notice both real-world categories use a different spelling. Whichever it's gonna be (if), only one spelling should be used). "Nonfictional" kinda works as an alternative, would "Real-world" be disliked. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:35, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::If we go that route, I think "real-world" should be used, since "real world" is a lot more easier to fix than the other parsing. I like the Wookiepedia approach, but I'm not sure that's enough to change how we already do categories. The idea to label both categories sounds nice, but "Fictional X" seems incongruous with unlabeled categories, such as "weapons", "technology", etc.; considering that our main focus is the fiction, I'm leaning towards only labeling the real stuff. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I think it would be advantageous to put a {{tl|disambig2}} at the top, so people could easily go from the fictional to the real world category too. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:30, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yeah, I think I put that on [[:Category:Films]] a while ago. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:57, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Speaking of this, I found we handle [[:Category:Films]] like [[:Category:Real people]], wouldn't this be some, um, confusing? It's just, somehow, reverse? (Except for the fictional films like ''Honoji'') According to the logic of how we handle [[:Category:Real people]], shouldn't we place films like ''40-Year-Old Virgin'' or ''Godzilla'' in the [[:Category:Real world films]]? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Godzilla doesn't go in "Real world films" because it's not a real world ''Transformers'' film. The Transformers is implied in that category name. Presumably we could have a "Real films" category for Godzilla, etc, but I'm not sure it's worth doing. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:53, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::We shouldn't use "fictional X" for two reasons. One, there things like [[As the Kitchen Sinks]] that are fictional even within the fictional Transformers universe. Second, the wiki is written in-universe by default and putting [[Big Steve's Used Cars]] in a "fictional businesses" category would kind of break that. Within Transformers fiction, "Big Steve's Used Cars" is not a fictional company, but "As the Kitchen Sinks" is a fictional TV show. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:47, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is not a fictional show. It depicts fictional events and fictional people, yes, but the show itself, as a piece of entertainment, is not fictional. I do get your point, as we actually have things like [[Frankenstein]] that are two layers of fiction removed from us. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, of course. I meant, in-universe, ''As the Kitchen Sinks'' is a work of fiction, whereas "Big Steve's Used Cars" is a real business that sells real used cars to real people. Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Wasn't ''Buck Rogers'' a fictional TV show? Anyway, it sounds like you got my point. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Or, judging by the fact categories like "Magazines" in used for magazines in our real life and "Companies" for companies in real life, why not just use "Film" for films (such as DOTM) in real life, while we move current contents in "Films" to "Films in ''Transformers'' fictions"? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::That seems like it would go counter to some of our existing naming schemes. e.g. if we split that out into films by franchise, you'd get "Films in Generation 1" rather than "Generation 1 films". Though admittedly the former title might have the advantage that it's clearer in meaning. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I think both are equally ambiguous in their meaning. If we still need to clarify the purpose of the categories, we can always spell it out in the category's introduction. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Transformers: " ==
We talked a bit about adding back "Transformers: " to the titles of articles [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive51#When_to_omit_.22Transformers.22_from_an_article_title|previously]], and the general sentiment was that people were for it or didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any input in this matter? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:34, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm okay with this change, but I do have three questions on execution. <br>1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled? <br>2.) If "Transformers(:)" is going to be added to every relevant page name, then what about all the extra words in the titles of Japanese stuff? <br>3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc? <br>[[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::#I think we've had two consistent rules about that: If the title is some kind of phrase, like "Transformers United", "The Transformers Collection", or "Transformers Animated", then we don't use the colon. If the title is some kind of obvious "title: subtitle" setup ("Transformers: Armada", "Transformers: Prime"), then we use the colon. There's some borderline examples, but I think we can figure them out one by one. Official sources will help with determining colon-status. The other rule seems to apply to only games: If the title has another subtitle, then the first colon is dropped (ex. [[Transformers Prime: Terrorcon Defense]]). I dunno why, but we can add back the colon, I suppose.
::#I guess we add them? We could argue it for ''Victory'', since it was released in English contexts as just "Transformers: Victory".
::#I think we're just going to continue the same in relation to those. The articles will still be sorted by their subtitles in categories. Storylinks I could go either way on, but I think the trend is to drop the main title. I've been doing that for the AAII storylinks to avoid excessively long links. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:49, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I don't see how "Transformers United" and "Transformers Animated" are any different from "Transformers: Prime". To me, all three could fall into either of your groups (phrase vs subtitle) and would prefer colons in all of those cases. Of your examples, only "The Transformers Collection" seems to really belong in the "phrase" group. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::"United" and "Animated" are adjectives that modify "Transformers" and have official sources that omit the colon. "Transformers Prime" doesn't make sense in that way. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:58, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I am not certain about those two "rules" for colons either. They're rather vague and bound to cause arguments and confusion. It needs to be made more obvious whether a colon should be used or not before "Transformers" can be added everywhere (a help page on the matter would also be handy in the future, me thinks).

::::I think that if we would put the cartoon at ''Transformers: Victory'', that would cause confusion with the manga, storypages, toyline and franchises, none of which were ever brought over and should thus not be named such. If moved, the ''Victory'' cartoon should best go to its Japanese name. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 15:28, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>shrug* The first rule is mostly there for Transformers Animated, which people will be resistant to moving to have a colon (plus, obvious cases like The Transformers Collection). The second rule I really don't care about and can be tossed (it mostly only concerns the movie series of video games and online games). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you suggesting there that Victory articles should be moved to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory"? I'd disagree with that, if so! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:25, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Why? We can't go around writing out the full names of Western franchises and stuff but not do so for the Japanese stuff. We already have "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" written out for the 1985 & 1986 Japanese franchises, so why not ''Victory''? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 07:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Victory (the cartoon) has been released in the West as "Transformers: Victory", to me that means that the official English name of the franchise ''is'' Transformers: Victory. Yes, we should give the full Japanese title at the beginning of the franchise page but there is no reason to move anything to that name. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:35, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::That was pretty much my reasoning too (also typing out the full name every time we wanted to link to it would be tedious). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Tying out "(franchise)" every time for everything is more tedious, but we still have it (for... some reason). Ditto long titles like [[The Story of Super Robot Lifeforms: The Transformers]] and [[Transformers Vault]]'s previous ridiculously long title.
:::::::::But I guess the general principle of "Transformers: " is acceptable to most. I'll start moving the noncontroversial pages (Western comics and cartoons with definite subtitles, etc.) if there's no opposition in the next few hours. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Is there a difference between [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|Transformers: Beast Wars: The Ascending]]? I must admit, the comma/colon distinction seems kinda arbitrary. Also, these page names seem kind of overlong and stupid, what's wrong with [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|The Ascending]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering|The Gathering]]? It's a Transformers wiki and those are Beast Wars series; prefixing everything we possibly can with "Transformers" is only going to clog up the search box and make editing just that bit more arduous. What were the arguments in favour of this again? --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 16:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::That's the formatting used in the indicia. Your complaint about the search box is silly; did you really think typing "Transformers" into it yielded anything useful 99% of the time?
:::::::::::Like it or not, "Transformers: " is the part of the name of many things, and the hoops we have to go through to maintain this silly system of dropping it from article titles has gotten ridiculous and inconsistent. Adding "Transformers: " to article titles, on the other hand, adds ''clarity'' and avoids pointless disambiguation. "The Transformers: Bumblebee" is preferable to "Bumblebee (comic)", "Transformers: Sector 7" to "Sector 7 (comic)", etc. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:44, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::I get that it's useful in some cases, but it just seems like applying the rule across the board means we're overcomplicating the issue. Occam's razor has a lot going for it, and for user-friendliness I'd go for brevity. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 17:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Also on an Occam's razor tip, "Bumblebee (comic)" conveys more information in fewer characters than "Transformers: Bumblebee". I really don't understand why the latter is preferable. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 14:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::There's something to say for either argument, but as it is, we have proven to be unable to keep to one consistent "Transformers"-as-part-of-the-title policy at least since TFA. And if trying to keep "Transformers" out of the deal doesn't work, we oughta give the alternative a chance. I don't think it necesarilly makes it harder to find anything, as the search box reacts to words even if they are not the first part of a page title. And I want to have the changes in clear perspective before I might suggest deleting a few redirects, so at least for now, searches won't be any harder and we have a consistent policy. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:49, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I gotta say, I'm hating how this is working in practice. Article titles seem long and ugly to me.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:46, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I feel the same, but it seems to be an necessary evil because "Transformers: ***" is a full title? duh. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 22:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::I fear the day someone decides to add full titles to disambiguation suffixes as well, e.g. "Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)", "Grindor (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)" etc.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 13:43, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::That would be silly, and I'm pretty sure most people would oppose it. Putting "Transformers:" in names is a change we'd already been drifting towards for a while with, for instance, the War for Cybertron articles all doing it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::On a related note, it's a pet peeve of mine when a writeup talks about a specific medium related to a franchise but links to the franchise as a whole instead, such as "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] toyline" or "in episode 6 of the [[Energon (franchise)|Energon]] cartoon...".--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Would the best solution there be something like "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] [[Cybertron (toyline)|toyline]]"? --[[Special:Contributions/77.99.176.103|77.99.176.103]] 03:32, 29 September 2011 (EDT) (oops, emvee not logged in)
::::::I think linking to the toyline page is sufficent. There's no need for an additional link to the corresponding umbrella franchise. The thought behind this is: "If Joe McRandom sees something that interests him and clicks a link, does he want the link to take him straight to the specific topic or to a more general overview?" I think link targets should always be as specific as necessary. If someone gets interested in a broader overview, he can always go one level up. After all, a link referring to G1 Optimus Prime leads to [[Optimus Prime (G1)]], not to [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)]], either. In the same fashion, toyline pages should deeplink to the specific toy entries on the respective characters' pages (or even their toy pages, if applicable). Like, if Joe McRandom is on the [[Transformers: Universe (2008 toyline)|Universe (2008 toyline)]] page, sees a "Prowl" toy listed under "Deluxe Class" and wants to read more about that toy, he wants the "Prowl" link to take him straight to [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Universe (2008)]], not to the [[Prowl (G1)|main character page]] where he then has to scroll down to "toys", see that G1 Prowl toys have their separate page, go ''there'', ''then'' scroll down to "Universe (2008)". (It currently links to [[Prowl (G1)/toys]], which is at least halfway there.) I will fix this wherever I see it, and implement it when doing writeups.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

===Suggestion to creating templates===

Do we need some kinds of templates when typing contents for convenience? For my experience in Terminator Wiki, we use templates like <nowiki>{{T3}} for ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' or {{TSCC}} for ''[[Terminator: The Sarah Connnor Chronicles]]''</nowiki>. What I'm suggesting is that after we make all franchise names into full title (and we don't use redirect links), it is some how trouble some when typing the title. So we can make some templates like:
<pre>
{{tf|Armada}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (franchise)|Transformers: Armada]]''

{{tf|Armada|toyline|Pokeformer}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Pokeformer]]''

{{jptf|bwn}} -> ''[[Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo]]''

</pre>

If there is any user who can created complex template, we could make

<pre>
{{tf|armada|t}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Transformers: Armada]]''

parameter 1:
2010 = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010 (toyline)
thm = Transformers: The Headmasters (toyline)
mf = Transformers: Super-God Masterforce (toyline)
v = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory
z = Transformers: Zone
roc = Transformers: Return of Convoy
oc = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Operation Combination
armada = Transformers Armada
bwn = Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo
mov = Movie
rotf = Revenge of the Fallen
tfa = Transformers Animated
...and (blah blah)

parameter 2:
*default* - franchise
t - toyline
ct - cartoon
co - comic
m - manga
f - film

And, if possible:
if parameter 3 = s (for example), it will become short title like ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Armada]]''

</pre>

--'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's something I've thought about as well. Considering there are a lot of exceptions to the regular naming system (parts of franchises that are called something different or franchises that lack the (franchise) identifier on the wiki because it's not necessary to disambiguate it), I don't think a template can be coded to put a link together. A full list system like our TFtoon templates have could maybe work though. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:08, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think with the number of franchises we have, it would end up being a hellishly big template and difficult to maintain for only a minor gain. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:03, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

==="Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" Transformers===
With the insertion of this phrase into the Victory page titles, should it also be inserted into the titles of The Headmasters, Super-God Masterforce, and Zone? now while the immediate answer would be "No", there are some places that do include this text above the "Toransufōmā" text in each of these series's logos. An example of this would the [[Transformers Tapestry]] (which even includes it in the Operation combination logo as well) and the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Columbia_Zone_DVD.jpg Columbia DVD of Zone]. Its inclusion in these places seems more than mere coincidence, so would we take this idea into consideration? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 14:33, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Um, that ''Zone'' DVD does not support your assertion. All of the ''actual'' media for those series (except for the Zone manga and story pages) do not include The "Fight!..." portion. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Technically the whole toyline in Japan from 1985 to 1992 was called "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" (as was written on the boxes), so at least the toyline pages for the series of those years would probably need the longer title than just "Transformers: ''X'' (toyline)" --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 16:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So you want to move the toyline pages to some made-up name? Pick one: 1) Merge all of the toyline pages to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)" 2) Leave the toyline pages as they are instead of stressing over naming things that technically don't exist. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::How is it "made up"? "Tatakae! Chō Robot Seimeitai" means "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" and is written above the "Toransufōmā" text on the packages of the 1985-1992 Japanese toys. I'm not proposing we merge all those toyline pages together, but rather something akin to the [[Transformers: Beast Wars (Japanese toyline)|Japanese Beast Wars toyline]] page, in which the individual toylines are kept separate even though they were all collectively the same-named toyline. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 17:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: The Headmasters" and its ilk are the imaginary names. Those articles for imaginary toylines are fine where they are. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==="Movie"===
There's still [[Movie (franchise)]], [[Movie (toyline)]] and more. Shouldn't that be "Transformers (2007 franchise)" and "Transformers (2007 toyline)", with the current [[Transformers (2007)]] becoming "Transformers (2007 movie)"?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Probably. I didn't move them, since I wanted to bring it up for discussion first. The film should be moved to just "Transformers (film)", though. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:"Movie (''media'')" should be moved to "Transformers (2007 ''media'')" while "Transformers (2007)" goes "Transformers (film)". --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:27, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::That push for lexical accuracy strikes me as creating more ambiguity than it resolves. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:06, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Jungaroo==
Someone made a lovely [[Jungaroo]] gobox, but there's no page for him. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 21:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think he's in any applicable fiction, but his [http://home.comcast.net/~BattleBeastSD/MGCKang.html bio card is online here]. Someone will have to translate it from Japanese first though. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:25, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Making the search suggestion work better ==

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I noticed sometimes when I type something in the search box, the search suggestions below it jump around and end up on a list which doesn't quite match what I typed. I think it's something to do with the speed I'm typing and the amount of time the server takes to respond to each request.

Anyway, I tweaked the javascript for grabbing the suggestions from the server so it would only trigger when I stopped typing. That seems to fix the problem for me, and as a bonus it's not nagging the server on every keypress. The downside is no instant feedback when I type, but I can live without that if it fixes the other thing.

If anyone else is having that problem and wants to have a go, just copy and paste the following into your [[Special:MyPage/monacobook.js|monacobook.js]] (caveat: only tested on Firefox and Chrome):
<pre><nowiki>
var ss_memory = null;
var ss_timeron = 0;
var ss_timer;

function DoActualSearch() {
ss_timeron=0;
var newdiv = document.getElementById("searchsuggest");
if (!newdiv) {
var newdiv = document.createElement("div");
newdiv.id = "searchsuggest";
var searchdiv = document.getElementById("searchBody");
searchdiv.appendChild(newdiv);
}
var x = document.getElementById("searchInput").value;
if (x == ss_memory) {
return;
}
ss_memory = x;
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'none';
if (x.length < 30 && x.length > 1 && x.value != "") {
sajax_do_call("wfAjaxSearchSuggest", [x], newdiv);
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'block';
}
}

function MySearchCall() {
if(ss_timeron) {
clearTimeout(ss_timer);
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
} else {
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
ss_timeron=1;
}
}

function myss_ajax_onload(){
var x = document.getElementById('searchInput');
x.onkeyup = function(){
MySearchCall();
};
}

hookEvent("load", myss_ajax_onload);
</nowiki></pre>
Unfortunately it won't fix the actual contents of the search suggestions, so you'll still get a bunch of All Hail Megatron issues when you type "Megatron", but that requires changes on the server. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hmm. I feel like adding <tt>ORDER BY `page_counter` DESC</tt> around line 20 of ''suggest.php'' might help w/ our search results, but it's hard to say for sure given how abstracted mediawiki database calls are, someone would have ot make the change then test it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::The thought I had was to do a query on article titles starting with the search term, and then if that gives back less than 8 entries, do a second search to fill the rest of the list with titles with the term anywhere in the title. The search suggest currently supports both options, but not at the same time. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

==Stuff==
: Firstly, our organization of information related to the junior franchises is terrible and I'd love to do something about it, but I need feedback. We currently have most Japanese and American Go-Bots as separate characters, except for the Japanese Go-Bots from the 1-2-3 line. Though there are requests for a separate Chopper page. Should those pages be split or not? And if so, what about the figures that came with some of the toys. Kid-Bot clearly isn't the "red driver" or "blue driver", but the dog and "Gas-Bot" both have fiction in only one of the two franchises, so is it worth separating them? Also, does the unpublished coloring book count as apocrypha or not, seeing as it was mostly approved? And the human characters within, do they count as cameos like Kelly in the Dreamwave comics or separate characters? And does anyone know what the Japanese name was by which the First Transformers were released? The Go-Bots fansite has an image of Dumpkun's box featuring what looks like a G1 logo, the First Transformers logo and "初めてトランスフォーマー" written on it.
: Secondly, many disambiguation pages still mention if there's a separate page for the toys of a character. Is this system still necessary now that we use subpages to separate such stuff under? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 17:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

::I think unpublished stuff is treated as apocrypha, isn't it? The character page coverage of unreleased Dreamwave issues is in notes, for instance. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:48, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::True, but we don't know if those were approved or know those weren't approved. The coloring book was approved, just not released. That makes it better comparable to Wreckers #$, which we do not consider apocrypha (though I wouldn't know if we'd do that if Wreckers #5 didn't partially canonize it). [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 11:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::Just weighing in on the toy page issue: I find it useful to have these called out on the disambig pages. Being able to go directly from the disambig page to the toy page of a character saves me at least one click (if I see the suite box in time) and often some scrolling (if I don't see it). However, I won't fight too hard on this if consensus is for the removal of this feature. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 07:47, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::Thinking some more about the Go-Bots stuff, as the Japanese version of Gas-Bot has no fiction, it probably doesn't need its own page - either link to Gas-Bot's page or just leave it unlinked in the appropriate toy sections. Same with the US version of the dog. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:30, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Facebook. ==

Is '''<nowiki>http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFwikinet/191252494230187</nowiki>''' us? Because it's the #1 link when you search for "TFWiki Facebook," and our group is nowhere to be seen. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

:I think our group is not showing up because you have to have a Facebook account to see it? When I go to the group's URL, I just get a page prompting me to log in to Facebook. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:47, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

::The link is this one: [http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/ http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/], which is the #3 on the search by "TFwiki site:facebook.com" on Google. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 19:51, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So the other one isn't ours, and we can't put a link on it pointing it to the group.
:::Annoying. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It's a "Community page", whatever that is. Clicking on the "Create a page" button on the top right of that page does bring up some sort of form which seems like it will do something. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:12, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Halloween ==

Presuming we're deco'ing our frontpage for Halloween... does anyone have any suggestions? Monsters, ghosts, gouls? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:Animated Blitzwing's random face looks sorta Jack O'Lanterny and could work as a replacement for the Autobot insignia on the site logo, assuming we can find a head-on image of it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:35, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

== Moving "(Timelines)" articles ==

I'm thinking that, as we don't bother with "(Timelines)" for SG, TransTech, and Animated characters, we should apply the same across the board and only use it if necessary.

*[[Astrotrain (Timelines)]] → Astrotrain (Cybertron)
*[[Cannonball (Timelines)]] → Cannonball (G1)
*[[Cop-Tur (Timelines)]] → Cop-Tur (G1)
*[[Halogen (Timelines)]] → Halogen (G1)
*[[Side Burn (Timelines)]] → Side Burn (G1)
*[[Sky-Byte (Timelines)]] → Sky-Byte (G2)
*[[Switchblade (Timelines)]] → Switchblade (BW)
*[[Thunderblast (Timelines)]] → Thunderblast (G1)
*[[Yoketron (Timelines)]] → Yoketron (G1)

The exceptions are the Descent into Evil characters, who don't really fit in any pre-existing franchise, and the Nexus Prime characters, who don't originate from a particular universe.
*[[Buzzclaw (Timelines)]]
*[[Dirge (Timelines)]]
*[[Flareup (Timelines)]]
*[[Landquake (Timelines)]]
*[[Ricochet (Timelines)]]
*[[Heatwave (Timelines)]]

Thoughts? Or does nobody really care that much? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 10:19, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:Since you asked, I'll pitch 2¢ into the conversation, since I know a little bit about it. I found out the hard way that wiki "doesn't bother with '(Timelines)' for Animated." And by hard way, I mean I was clobbered over the head without a hint of explanation for proposing that a Timelines-original Animated continuity character should be at "(Timelines)." But no hard feelings. I still think "franchise of origin" and not "continuity of origin" is best for disambiguations. For reasons that have been discussed previously on the subject. TransTech and SG are treated as a kind of sub-franchises of Timelines by the wiki, so I think they are an OK exception. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::The prose stories are identified as "Transformers Timelines presents a Transformers: (franchise) story". I would say that both franchises are equally valid to the stories, and the fact that non-Timelines stories (Around Cybertron, magazine comics, etc.) bleed together with Timelines stories makes the "(Timelines)" designation convoluted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, that's different. It sounds like you are calling their actual franchise of origin into question, not just their disambiguation. I don't have an opinion about their actual franchise of origin. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying that they're Timelines, but saying that they're better categorized under their other franchise. Like the Animated guys, it seems more instinctive to file [[Side Burn (Timelines)]] under "Side Burn (G1)" instead (not to mention that there's other Side Burn in Timelines: [[Side Burn (SG)]]).[[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:38, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
I'm hesitating, but let me think about the ramifications. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'd be fine with this. Though, one thing I'd like to propose is giving the Wings Universe characters their own disambiguation suffix. Like maybe "(Wings)" or something. I know it's a part of G1, but it's kinda like its own series within the over G1 continuity family like the Japanese G1 series are (which are also given their own suffixes such as "(Victory)", "(ROC)", "(BT)" etc.).

:Though, as for the Descent into Evil characters, maybe something like "(DIE)" or "(Descent)" or even just "(Descent into Evil)". Or, if not, keep them at "(Timelines)". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 11:51, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think the DIE guys are fine where they are (although you could argue moving [[Ricochet (Timelines)]] because of [[Ricochet (SG)]], but I don't really care). As for the Wings Universe guys getting their own disambiguation, eh... [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I am '''definitely absolutely''' against creating a (Wings) disambiguation when (G1) or (Timelines) work perfectly fine. We do NOT disambiguate by continuity except by absolute necessity within a franchise. Making up a (Wings) parenthetical just because incredibly confuses our disambiguation policy for no real reason. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::And what exactly keeps the Descent into Evil guys from being tagged G1? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Is the intermezzo period between G1 and BW considered G1 or BW?

:::It's all G1 characters... and IIRC the Insecticons were supposed ot be part of Insecticon plans which had been around for ages, so the characters weren't "BW-era only" characters...

:::I could support a G1 disambigif you talked me into it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:01, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::DIE fiction (Descent into Evil itself and [[Intimidation Game]]) has elements of both BW and G1; it doesn't have a certain franchise placement. Dirge (Timelines) and Ricochet (Timelines) also have namesakes firmly in G1. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:14, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::::BW is both BW and G1. And G1 has been back-incorporating BW elements since, like, 1995. The fact DIE has G1 and BW doesn't mean it's part of neither. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think that, by the nature of Timelines, it feels more natural to parse that specific set of characters by their continuity or parent-franchise of origin. Honestly, I think the Nexus components (''all'' of them) are really the best and only candidates for the Timelines parser.

::Also, I made a [http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Template:c quick template] that you guys could use here to simplify the coding for whenever you need to link a continuity-parsed name.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:37, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately I don't think that template would work as well here, because our articles are not consistently named by franchise. For instance [[Lightspeed (G1 Technobot)]], [[Flattop (Autobot)]] and [[Impactor]] are all (G1) characters but don't use (G1) in their title, so the template wouldn't work for linking to them. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I think that Timelines is a pretty clunky franchise for the purposes of this wiki, in that it covers multiple continuities. I think the proposal on the table makes sense.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Two spaces after a period in a sentence ==

I've noticed this for a while on the Wiki. In practice, it makes no difference as the software displays one space the same way it displays one. However, I've been wondering why people do it. Now I '''know: They''' were taught so in school. '''By teachers who were taught on friggin' ''typewriters''.''' So the "two spaces after a period" rule is a leftover from the typewriter days, where it was a necessity, but it's completely obsolete on computers. [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html Source]--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:The sentence spacing rules were, in fact, developed by typographers, but were not phased out via the magical introduction of the personal computer. The em-space rule exists for monospaced fonts, which were still fairly common for a great number of printers through the mid-1980s. If you would like to begin a tyrannical series of grammar-based wiki edits, I would begin by avoiding the use of prepositions at the start of sentences. I would also advise some respect for the proper use of colons and semi-colons, as typographical errors should not take priority over proper word selection and punctuation. Cheers! --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 14:20, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Are you referring to sentences beginning with prepositional phrases for the sake of emphasis (also known as an introductory modifiers)? That's totally valid. Or do you mean idiocies such as relative clauses that are separated from the preceding main clause by a period instead of a comma? The most glaring typographic blunders I encounter on the wiki typically go hand in hand with awkwardly worded sentences and clunky terminology, so I'm inclined to assume the same person(s) is/are responsible for all of those.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::I have bolded an example. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Aw, you altered your post. No fair! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:16, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::What'd I alter? I just moved it up. Anyway... I'd call that one "deliberate departure from proper grammar for the sake of dramatic emphasis". It's about as improper as using a period after ''every. Single. Word.'' If it's obvious from the context that it's done for emphasis, I'd call it acceptable as long as it's not used inflationary. I'm sure we have a few cases of "We know it's not proper grammar, but we want to stress a point here" on the wiki. (How did the saying go again? "Know the rules first before you break them"?)--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:28, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:....or you can just set the bot to convert " " to " ". Since we don't output monospace font, or anything.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Over the whole wiki, those extra spaces account for maybe 20kb of data, which I don't think is worth worrying about. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Typed text is typed text, and the double-space after a period is still correct. Shall we next be told that we're "wrong" for not having the wiki use the metric system, or for writing down dates with the month before the day instead of after it? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, and I bolded something too. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Due to habit, I'm gonna double-space until I die. I really don't think that needs to be considered a problem. Is that really a problem? An extra millimeter between sentences? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Nevermore ''is'' right about it being mostly obsolete, but for purely technical reasons: All double (triple, etc.) spaces are collapsed down to one for display in HTML. If you want the extra spaces to actually be viewable as extra blank space, you have to use <tt>&</tt><tt></tt><tt>nbsp;</tt>. So if you double-space here on the wiki, it only shows up when you edit the page. For whatever that's worth. (Not really taking sides, just presenting the info.) --[[Special:Contributions/67.252.49.31|67.252.49.31]] 06:08, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== More on the search box/"Transformers" everything ==

Typing "Energon" into the search box does not give me [[Energon (franchise)]], [[Energon (cartoon)]] or [[Energon (toyline)]] as top results. Same for "Cybertron". I assume this has to do with the recent "Transformers" prefixing for article titles. However, typing "Animated" into the seach box ''does'' give me franchise and toyline as top results, so it should be ''possible'' despite the prefixing.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:It's purely alphabetical, dude. ''Animated'' shows up before ''Arcee (Animated)'' because "An" precedes "Ar", whereas ''Arcee (Energon)'' comes up before ''Energon'' because "A" precedes "E". --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:13, 6 November 2011 (EST)
::There's an option in the search suggest tool to limit the results to stuff starting with the search query rather than with stuff with the term anywhere in their titles, however it's not something that can be configured through MediaWiki. There's a bit of discussion about it in the "Making the search suggestion work better" section up above. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:::If we wanted to do ''that'', when we shouldn't have prefixed "Transformers:" before hundreds of articles 3 weeks ago. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:06, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::We still have the titles without "Transformers: " as redirects though, so they'll still show up. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:23, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== Spam-dalism ==

Is that the neologism for it? Anyway, somehow the ReCaptcha is failing to stop the automated spam, and I'm guessing the IP's are all very different.

How old are the accounts when they do this? If they're fairly new, would it be possible to simply block IPs and new accounts from inserting new external links? If not (or if that's unworkable), would it be possible to flag such edits for review the way that wikipedia does to edits on contested pages?

Also, is there any chance these are at least coming from the same proxy? The fact that they're getting past ReCaptcha makes it seem like these are actual people doing this, unless ReCaptcha only activates on certain namespaces.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 14:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:I was using captcha with images on my phpBB installation on another site (Doctor Who related) until yesterday and getting a half dozen spammers a day signing up in despite of it. Yesterday I switched to a Question Answer challenge which asks the person registering to name the main character's time machine, and so far it has stopped the spammers dead.
:MediaWiki has [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha] which looks like it works in exactly the same way, and works with the ConfirmEdit extension we already have installed. If we can get that installed and set up, it might be more effective than the image-based system we use now. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::What would the questions be? It can't be too obvious or too obscure. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:31, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:::Not necessarily. The question I'm using on my Doctor Who site is obvious if you have any knowledge at all of the source material, but it seems to be working. We can always start with something easy and see how we go. Most likely all of the spammers are using bots anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::"What is the name of the red-and-blue semi Autobot?", "What's the name of the blue casette player Decepticon?", or "What is the name of the yellow semi Micromaster Autobot with a hydraulic crane?"[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 17:50, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::: "What is the fandom's usual reaction when a new franchise is announced?" :p [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:56, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::::<tt>If Dick has two apples and Jane has two apples, how many apples do they have? (3 letters.)</tt> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:09, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::Ah, but then it would be so easy for users to use only three exclamation marks, and forget the requisite four exclamation marks and a 1.
::No but yeah, a question helps a lot. Might even be worth doing for all IP edits and new accounts, not just those with external links.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:57, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::While we're on the subject, is it somehow possible to flag certain terms or words used by IP editors and auto-block them? *coughcoughobamacoughcough*[[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 16:31, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::...but we have an article on [[Barry Obama]].
:::Are you trying to whitewash the wiki? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:13, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::: It was just an academic question; after all, I'm sure that you've noticed our considerable problem with a certain IP editor lately. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:19, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::: Well yes... but I couldn't resist. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:43, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a temp ban on the whole ISP might get better results. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:51, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::sooo...who would you need to talk to about getting this set up, and what exactly do you want to restrict?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 19:45, 21 November 2011 (EST)
:::::The guy whose IP addresses are always located in England who keeps vandalizing articles with Obama-related nonsense. Doesn't look like even banning IP ranges stops him. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 11:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::...so, there's no way to stop this lunatic? [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 11:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:Options, in order of severity:
#Block all new uses of the word "Obama" to all anonymous editors.
#Block anonymous editors entirely.
#Destroy England.
:But really, that's a separate issue with probably a separate solution, since the guy is a some kind of being. To deal with the spamdalism, I think you guys should add a "name that Transformer-mon!" question, which should cut down heavily on automated edits, and if they still get through, look at blocking all uses of external links for anonymous or new editors. The use of the question for all IP edits is fairly standard, so it should be easy to implement, and you can look into harsher measures if the bots still make it through. However, I really think you guys should make an effort to get this setup, because the conversation keeps kind of drifting down and the vandalism keeps happening.[[Special:Contributions/98.223.102.157|98.223.102.157]] 02:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:: On another note... isn't it cute how he keps trying to badly pass himself off as me? I think someone has a bad case of hero-worship. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 10:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Please stop egging on vandals. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::: OK, on a more serious note, is anyone averse to just locking the wiki for a few days? Bulbapedia does it regularily and they don't have much of a vandalism problem. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 12:36, 23 November 2011 (EST)
Removing the "Undo" option for anons would help, at the very least. We need a regular tech person (or give abates access to the MediaWiki stuff, since he seems to know his way around). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:12, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::: What if we implemented a captcha system for anon edits? I mean, it wouldn't ''stop'' them, per se, but it would make persistent vandalism wars a hassle. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:16, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would not be opposed to that, or simple stock questions. ("Who is the leader of the Autobots?", "What is two plus three?", etc.) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:23, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:::: Rodimus Prime? :p
::::: But seriously, how did Mr. Obama Guy get past the rangeblock? Because that's rather worrysome in and of itself. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::::BT Internet has a lot of IP ranges. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:58, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Okay. Listen.<br>
1) CAPTCHA won't change crap. It ''might'' stop a small number of bot edits, but we have a large, active mod presence that basically polices this place around the clock, and any of those crappy ad pages can be eliminated in mere minutes, if not within seconds of their creation.<br>
2) There is basically '''''NOTHING''''' that can be done to ''stop'' someone who has decided that the best use of their time is constant, repeated, easily-reverted vandalism of a wiki. Well, okay there are a few options, but they're not ones any kind of wiki coding is gonna be part of. They'll find ways around bans, and all these automated things that are being suggested are basically shooting blind and wasting time. This is not remotely the first time someone has thought to do this. It won't be the last. But we've outlasted all those others. And that's all it takes. Again... that large active 24-hour admin presence that quickly and coolly reverts the vandalism ''without getting all butthurt''. That's what vandals want, to watch you get pissy and panicky and angry... ''and that's what you're giving them.'' So '''''shut up''''' and stop feeding that, then they'll eventually get bored and leave.<br>
3) I can perhaps get behind removing the "Undo" option for anons. I don't think though that it will really help much, since making an account takes what, a few seconds?<br>
--[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:38, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:Um. I don't want to offend anyone, but the Obama-guy thing ''really'' isn't related to this topic, although some of the solutions to the spamdalism thing might work to hinder him. The bigger issue is the guys spamming the wiki with links to knockoff viagra, sort of thing, and putting up a simple question system for anons and new editors would work to stop that almost completely, at least everywhere I've seen it in use.
:The mod presence, yeah, things eventually get cleaned up by the end of the day, but a simple, standard change like adding the question will prevent that from happening in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/99.39.88.159|99.39.88.159]] 22:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)
:Just to alleviate any concerns: In my experience, the question captcha does not prevent human edits except from the most severely uninformed editors, and it completely prevents the bot-spam, which at this point almost totally covers the RC when I happen to check it. Many other independent wikis, such as Halopedian, use the question captcha, so if you guys wanted a first-person POV on it, you could also ask them for their experiences. Basically, the captcha question should totally eliminate the bot-spam, with the only drawback being that it adds maybe a fraction of a second to anonymous human edits. So, given that, does anyone have any objections to adding the captcha question?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)--(same anon as throughout this topic)

== Spelling throughout the Wiki ==

I've found that, on multiple spots on the Wiki, there are UK English spellings of words. Now, I know that the Transformers Wiki is a country-spanning project, but I'd like a consensus on whether or not we should change incidences of UK spellings (like "practise" and "polarize") to their American English counterparts. A streamlined flow using only one dialect would, I believe, make the editing process much easier. However, I do not want a backlash from UK users. <br>
P.S.: Damn you, Webster! You and your new-world dictionary! [[User:TheMZone|TheMZone]] 18:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:[[Help:Style guide#National varieties of English|Here is the wiki's policy on the subject]] just so you know. I myself don't think it needs changing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

== Why are the IDW books in G1? ==

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.) {{unsigned|158.103.0.1}}
:Uggghhhhhh. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:Yeahhh, you not understanding the concept of Continuity Families particularly well.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 16:30, 1 December 2011 (EST)

::Other continuities within the G1 continuity family also eschew some of those classic aspects. In [[Action Blast 1]], for instance, the Autobots crash on present-day Earth and they don't hang around in stasis for millions of years. I don't think there's really a template of specific events that a G1 continuity has to stick to. That would hamper storytelling too much. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

:::Also, they share a lot of the same characters, body designs, and personalities. Granted, some of them are common across the multiverse, but things like Megatron becoming a gun and Optimus Prime as a flatnosed tractor-trailer are distinctly G1-ish. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:29, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::FYI: [[Talk:IDW Generation 1 continuity#New evidence that IDW is not G1|Previous discussion here]]. Yes, on the one hand, it is G1 because it uses the G1 cast of characters for the most part, and most of those pretty much have the same personality as their G1 bio card as on their G1 counterparts (with the significant exception of their gimmicks). On the other hand, [http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=143991#143991 an artist] has said it is not G1, so it isn't entirely crazy to say it isn't G1. The universe itself doesn't seem particularly G1. It is like a different universe populated with G1 guys. The Micromasters aren't Cybertronain (I think), so a whole class of G1 Transformers aren't Transformers which sounds like a different universe. In short, it mostly makes sense for the wiki to organize it under G1 so they don't have to duplicate character pages with characters with mostly the same intro paragraph. But don't take it too seriously, it isn't official or anything. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:54, 1 December 2011 (EST)
No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I mean is that there seems to be no CANON justification for why IDW is considered G1. Especially because it lacks the links of similar G1 works, it’s never been verified as such by the creators (as far as I know) and it’s “G1-ness” is tentative at best.

IDW really doesn’t have as strong a link as or other G1 families. They all either were marketed as direct extensions to the original 80s ‘Toon and Comic adaptations (Gen 2 and Dreamwave ) established “next gen” sequels (Beast Era) Inserts into Gen 1 (Alternators and much of Japan’s stuff) Or add ons to particular points of the G1 timeline (Classics, Dreamwave) hell Timelines might count as a little bit of all of these. IDW really has no direct link.

That leaves us to the creators, and when it’s referred as such by them they use the term ‘reboot” or the like. Hell Simon Furman, architect of a large section of G1, straight up called it an ‘Ultimate’ version in his CBR interview. And Don Fig doesn’t consider it G1 at all.

Even then we look at why we call it G1 it causes all kinds of fallacies. Relying on art style to tell families (as said in our very own article) leads to insanity, as characters change appearances across media ostensibly in eths same family all the time (for example WFC and Prime) likewise the “G1” aspects, such as personality, and looks, have been used both in the Transformers Film and Animated families, and yet we don’t consider them G1 despite both being just about the same kind of reboot on it IDW is. They incorporate a version of the Beast Ear into their timeline but assuming a connection with their main IDW addition, it’s just as differing as Aligned or Animated version of the Beast era would be.

I’m not trying to rock the boat I se4riously would just like to know if there’s any official, canon, or Hasbro/Creator data that states IDW as a version of G1, because right now I’m not seeing it.

:::::Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be seen as the "young turk" coming into old pros territory and rocking the boat against guys who have been studying this since before I was born, but I just picked up a bunch of Simon Furman stuff from [[http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Marvelcomicscontinuity.jpg The old comics]] as well as the big two volume IDW packs and they just don't fit at all. They're as different from G1 as the Films, Animated or RID are. I don't think we should makes assumptions and leaps of logic just for convenience's sake, kind belies the purpose of a wiki, ya know?
::::::This is a ridiculous amount of navel-gazing to get past the point that IDW continuity is just G1 in new dressing and not a new franchise of its own. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::By that terminology ALL of Transformers media is Just "g1 in a new dressing" by the virtue of G1 starting the franchise.

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-02T07:07:07Z

158.103.0.1:

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-02T07:02:00Z

158.103.0.1:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Aligned Timeline ==

I'm going to try and take a stab at creating an Aligned timeline that unites everything we know about the franchise(s) so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Help Wanted ==

Hello one and all. I'm here representing a newly created Role-Playing forum that is based in the Transformers Universe. We're in the early stages yet, and are looking for people to help get the ball rolling. Since this site seems to lack a dedicated forum (where requests like these would usually be made) and I haven't seen any other way to effectively say my piece in front of a large audience, I thought that posting here was the best way to "advertise" us, as it were. I sincerely apologize if this was the wrong move on our part, or if I've breached protocol at all, but I can assure everyone that our intentions aren't malign. Those interested, please contact me using any of the ways that I have listed on my username page here on this site. I won't tempt fate by linking our website here directly =P

Once again, you all have my sincere greetings, and I hope to hear from you soon. Also, as a side note: the difference in quality between this page and the transformers wikia is amazing. [[User:Rathian Warrior|Rathian Warrior]] 23:50, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if you've crossed any lines, and frankly, you were polite enough about it that it's not a big deal, but you could always buy some ad space if you want to raise awareness of your forum. It's cheap! There's usually a link on every page around the banners, but if you didn't catch it, you can follow this link: [https://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=25311&type=4 Project Wonderful TFWiki Page]--[[User:McFly|McFly]] 16:13, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== "Fictional" and "real" categories ==
I think we need to come up with a consistent way to distinguish categories of things that are real and categories of things that have appeared in fiction. So far, we've skimmed the issue by using synonyms, such as [[:Category:Companies|companies]] and [[:Category:Businesses|businesses]], but that doesn't really work for things like [[:Category:Magazines|magazines]], which is already used for real magazines. Currently, we have [[:Category:Fictional books]], [[:Category:Fictional video games]] that consider the fictional entities "different". On the other hand, we have [[:Category:Real-world events by day]] and [[:Category:Real world films]]. We focus more on the fictional aspect of Transformers, so it makes sense to not point out the fictionality in categories, but "real world" sounds awkward to some. Which one should we use? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:26, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I thought I'd cheat and see how some of the other fictional Wikis deal with the problem. Three different approaches I saw:
:*[http://tardis.wikia.com/ Doctor Who wiki] has a [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Real_world "Real World" category] for real world stuff and in most cases the categories for real world things are at "Real world X".
:*[http://wookiepedia.org/ Wookiepedia] goes the parenthetical route, with "Books" and "Books (real-world)". Though they also have one or two like "Real world companies".
:*[http://stargate.wikia.com/ Stargate wiki] has "Books" versus "Stargate books" for real world books.
:I kinda like the parenthetical approach that Wookiepedia have taken. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'd favor pointing out the status of both categories, just to make absolutely clear what they are for. The words can be "Fictional" and "Real-world" (I notice both real-world categories use a different spelling. Whichever it's gonna be (if), only one spelling should be used). "Nonfictional" kinda works as an alternative, would "Real-world" be disliked. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:35, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::If we go that route, I think "real-world" should be used, since "real world" is a lot more easier to fix than the other parsing. I like the Wookiepedia approach, but I'm not sure that's enough to change how we already do categories. The idea to label both categories sounds nice, but "Fictional X" seems incongruous with unlabeled categories, such as "weapons", "technology", etc.; considering that our main focus is the fiction, I'm leaning towards only labeling the real stuff. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I think it would be advantageous to put a {{tl|disambig2}} at the top, so people could easily go from the fictional to the real world category too. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:30, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yeah, I think I put that on [[:Category:Films]] a while ago. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:57, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Speaking of this, I found we handle [[:Category:Films]] like [[:Category:Real people]], wouldn't this be some, um, confusing? It's just, somehow, reverse? (Except for the fictional films like ''Honoji'') According to the logic of how we handle [[:Category:Real people]], shouldn't we place films like ''40-Year-Old Virgin'' or ''Godzilla'' in the [[:Category:Real world films]]? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Godzilla doesn't go in "Real world films" because it's not a real world ''Transformers'' film. The Transformers is implied in that category name. Presumably we could have a "Real films" category for Godzilla, etc, but I'm not sure it's worth doing. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:53, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::We shouldn't use "fictional X" for two reasons. One, there things like [[As the Kitchen Sinks]] that are fictional even within the fictional Transformers universe. Second, the wiki is written in-universe by default and putting [[Big Steve's Used Cars]] in a "fictional businesses" category would kind of break that. Within Transformers fiction, "Big Steve's Used Cars" is not a fictional company, but "As the Kitchen Sinks" is a fictional TV show. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:47, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is not a fictional show. It depicts fictional events and fictional people, yes, but the show itself, as a piece of entertainment, is not fictional. I do get your point, as we actually have things like [[Frankenstein]] that are two layers of fiction removed from us. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, of course. I meant, in-universe, ''As the Kitchen Sinks'' is a work of fiction, whereas "Big Steve's Used Cars" is a real business that sells real used cars to real people. Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Wasn't ''Buck Rogers'' a fictional TV show? Anyway, it sounds like you got my point. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Or, judging by the fact categories like "Magazines" in used for magazines in our real life and "Companies" for companies in real life, why not just use "Film" for films (such as DOTM) in real life, while we move current contents in "Films" to "Films in ''Transformers'' fictions"? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::That seems like it would go counter to some of our existing naming schemes. e.g. if we split that out into films by franchise, you'd get "Films in Generation 1" rather than "Generation 1 films". Though admittedly the former title might have the advantage that it's clearer in meaning. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I think both are equally ambiguous in their meaning. If we still need to clarify the purpose of the categories, we can always spell it out in the category's introduction. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Transformers: " ==
We talked a bit about adding back "Transformers: " to the titles of articles [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive51#When_to_omit_.22Transformers.22_from_an_article_title|previously]], and the general sentiment was that people were for it or didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any input in this matter? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:34, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm okay with this change, but I do have three questions on execution. <br>1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled? <br>2.) If "Transformers(:)" is going to be added to every relevant page name, then what about all the extra words in the titles of Japanese stuff? <br>3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc? <br>[[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::#I think we've had two consistent rules about that: If the title is some kind of phrase, like "Transformers United", "The Transformers Collection", or "Transformers Animated", then we don't use the colon. If the title is some kind of obvious "title: subtitle" setup ("Transformers: Armada", "Transformers: Prime"), then we use the colon. There's some borderline examples, but I think we can figure them out one by one. Official sources will help with determining colon-status. The other rule seems to apply to only games: If the title has another subtitle, then the first colon is dropped (ex. [[Transformers Prime: Terrorcon Defense]]). I dunno why, but we can add back the colon, I suppose.
::#I guess we add them? We could argue it for ''Victory'', since it was released in English contexts as just "Transformers: Victory".
::#I think we're just going to continue the same in relation to those. The articles will still be sorted by their subtitles in categories. Storylinks I could go either way on, but I think the trend is to drop the main title. I've been doing that for the AAII storylinks to avoid excessively long links. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:49, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I don't see how "Transformers United" and "Transformers Animated" are any different from "Transformers: Prime". To me, all three could fall into either of your groups (phrase vs subtitle) and would prefer colons in all of those cases. Of your examples, only "The Transformers Collection" seems to really belong in the "phrase" group. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::"United" and "Animated" are adjectives that modify "Transformers" and have official sources that omit the colon. "Transformers Prime" doesn't make sense in that way. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:58, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I am not certain about those two "rules" for colons either. They're rather vague and bound to cause arguments and confusion. It needs to be made more obvious whether a colon should be used or not before "Transformers" can be added everywhere (a help page on the matter would also be handy in the future, me thinks).

::::I think that if we would put the cartoon at ''Transformers: Victory'', that would cause confusion with the manga, storypages, toyline and franchises, none of which were ever brought over and should thus not be named such. If moved, the ''Victory'' cartoon should best go to its Japanese name. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 15:28, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>shrug* The first rule is mostly there for Transformers Animated, which people will be resistant to moving to have a colon (plus, obvious cases like The Transformers Collection). The second rule I really don't care about and can be tossed (it mostly only concerns the movie series of video games and online games). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you suggesting there that Victory articles should be moved to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory"? I'd disagree with that, if so! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:25, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Why? We can't go around writing out the full names of Western franchises and stuff but not do so for the Japanese stuff. We already have "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" written out for the 1985 & 1986 Japanese franchises, so why not ''Victory''? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 07:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Victory (the cartoon) has been released in the West as "Transformers: Victory", to me that means that the official English name of the franchise ''is'' Transformers: Victory. Yes, we should give the full Japanese title at the beginning of the franchise page but there is no reason to move anything to that name. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:35, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::That was pretty much my reasoning too (also typing out the full name every time we wanted to link to it would be tedious). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Tying out "(franchise)" every time for everything is more tedious, but we still have it (for... some reason). Ditto long titles like [[The Story of Super Robot Lifeforms: The Transformers]] and [[Transformers Vault]]'s previous ridiculously long title.
:::::::::But I guess the general principle of "Transformers: " is acceptable to most. I'll start moving the noncontroversial pages (Western comics and cartoons with definite subtitles, etc.) if there's no opposition in the next few hours. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Is there a difference between [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|Transformers: Beast Wars: The Ascending]]? I must admit, the comma/colon distinction seems kinda arbitrary. Also, these page names seem kind of overlong and stupid, what's wrong with [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|The Ascending]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering|The Gathering]]? It's a Transformers wiki and those are Beast Wars series; prefixing everything we possibly can with "Transformers" is only going to clog up the search box and make editing just that bit more arduous. What were the arguments in favour of this again? --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 16:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::That's the formatting used in the indicia. Your complaint about the search box is silly; did you really think typing "Transformers" into it yielded anything useful 99% of the time?
:::::::::::Like it or not, "Transformers: " is the part of the name of many things, and the hoops we have to go through to maintain this silly system of dropping it from article titles has gotten ridiculous and inconsistent. Adding "Transformers: " to article titles, on the other hand, adds ''clarity'' and avoids pointless disambiguation. "The Transformers: Bumblebee" is preferable to "Bumblebee (comic)", "Transformers: Sector 7" to "Sector 7 (comic)", etc. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:44, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::I get that it's useful in some cases, but it just seems like applying the rule across the board means we're overcomplicating the issue. Occam's razor has a lot going for it, and for user-friendliness I'd go for brevity. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 17:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Also on an Occam's razor tip, "Bumblebee (comic)" conveys more information in fewer characters than "Transformers: Bumblebee". I really don't understand why the latter is preferable. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 14:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::There's something to say for either argument, but as it is, we have proven to be unable to keep to one consistent "Transformers"-as-part-of-the-title policy at least since TFA. And if trying to keep "Transformers" out of the deal doesn't work, we oughta give the alternative a chance. I don't think it necesarilly makes it harder to find anything, as the search box reacts to words even if they are not the first part of a page title. And I want to have the changes in clear perspective before I might suggest deleting a few redirects, so at least for now, searches won't be any harder and we have a consistent policy. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:49, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I gotta say, I'm hating how this is working in practice. Article titles seem long and ugly to me.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:46, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I feel the same, but it seems to be an necessary evil because "Transformers: ***" is a full title? duh. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 22:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::I fear the day someone decides to add full titles to disambiguation suffixes as well, e.g. "Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)", "Grindor (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)" etc.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 13:43, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::That would be silly, and I'm pretty sure most people would oppose it. Putting "Transformers:" in names is a change we'd already been drifting towards for a while with, for instance, the War for Cybertron articles all doing it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::On a related note, it's a pet peeve of mine when a writeup talks about a specific medium related to a franchise but links to the franchise as a whole instead, such as "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] toyline" or "in episode 6 of the [[Energon (franchise)|Energon]] cartoon...".--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Would the best solution there be something like "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] [[Cybertron (toyline)|toyline]]"? --[[Special:Contributions/77.99.176.103|77.99.176.103]] 03:32, 29 September 2011 (EDT) (oops, emvee not logged in)
::::::I think linking to the toyline page is sufficent. There's no need for an additional link to the corresponding umbrella franchise. The thought behind this is: "If Joe McRandom sees something that interests him and clicks a link, does he want the link to take him straight to the specific topic or to a more general overview?" I think link targets should always be as specific as necessary. If someone gets interested in a broader overview, he can always go one level up. After all, a link referring to G1 Optimus Prime leads to [[Optimus Prime (G1)]], not to [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)]], either. In the same fashion, toyline pages should deeplink to the specific toy entries on the respective characters' pages (or even their toy pages, if applicable). Like, if Joe McRandom is on the [[Transformers: Universe (2008 toyline)|Universe (2008 toyline)]] page, sees a "Prowl" toy listed under "Deluxe Class" and wants to read more about that toy, he wants the "Prowl" link to take him straight to [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Universe (2008)]], not to the [[Prowl (G1)|main character page]] where he then has to scroll down to "toys", see that G1 Prowl toys have their separate page, go ''there'', ''then'' scroll down to "Universe (2008)". (It currently links to [[Prowl (G1)/toys]], which is at least halfway there.) I will fix this wherever I see it, and implement it when doing writeups.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

===Suggestion to creating templates===

Do we need some kinds of templates when typing contents for convenience? For my experience in Terminator Wiki, we use templates like <nowiki>{{T3}} for ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' or {{TSCC}} for ''[[Terminator: The Sarah Connnor Chronicles]]''</nowiki>. What I'm suggesting is that after we make all franchise names into full title (and we don't use redirect links), it is some how trouble some when typing the title. So we can make some templates like:
<pre>
{{tf|Armada}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (franchise)|Transformers: Armada]]''

{{tf|Armada|toyline|Pokeformer}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Pokeformer]]''

{{jptf|bwn}} -> ''[[Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo]]''

</pre>

If there is any user who can created complex template, we could make

<pre>
{{tf|armada|t}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Transformers: Armada]]''

parameter 1:
2010 = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010 (toyline)
thm = Transformers: The Headmasters (toyline)
mf = Transformers: Super-God Masterforce (toyline)
v = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory
z = Transformers: Zone
roc = Transformers: Return of Convoy
oc = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Operation Combination
armada = Transformers Armada
bwn = Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo
mov = Movie
rotf = Revenge of the Fallen
tfa = Transformers Animated
...and (blah blah)

parameter 2:
*default* - franchise
t - toyline
ct - cartoon
co - comic
m - manga
f - film

And, if possible:
if parameter 3 = s (for example), it will become short title like ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Armada]]''

</pre>

--'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's something I've thought about as well. Considering there are a lot of exceptions to the regular naming system (parts of franchises that are called something different or franchises that lack the (franchise) identifier on the wiki because it's not necessary to disambiguate it), I don't think a template can be coded to put a link together. A full list system like our TFtoon templates have could maybe work though. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:08, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think with the number of franchises we have, it would end up being a hellishly big template and difficult to maintain for only a minor gain. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:03, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

==="Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" Transformers===
With the insertion of this phrase into the Victory page titles, should it also be inserted into the titles of The Headmasters, Super-God Masterforce, and Zone? now while the immediate answer would be "No", there are some places that do include this text above the "Toransufōmā" text in each of these series's logos. An example of this would the [[Transformers Tapestry]] (which even includes it in the Operation combination logo as well) and the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Columbia_Zone_DVD.jpg Columbia DVD of Zone]. Its inclusion in these places seems more than mere coincidence, so would we take this idea into consideration? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 14:33, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Um, that ''Zone'' DVD does not support your assertion. All of the ''actual'' media for those series (except for the Zone manga and story pages) do not include The "Fight!..." portion. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Technically the whole toyline in Japan from 1985 to 1992 was called "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" (as was written on the boxes), so at least the toyline pages for the series of those years would probably need the longer title than just "Transformers: ''X'' (toyline)" --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 16:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So you want to move the toyline pages to some made-up name? Pick one: 1) Merge all of the toyline pages to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)" 2) Leave the toyline pages as they are instead of stressing over naming things that technically don't exist. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::How is it "made up"? "Tatakae! Chō Robot Seimeitai" means "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" and is written above the "Toransufōmā" text on the packages of the 1985-1992 Japanese toys. I'm not proposing we merge all those toyline pages together, but rather something akin to the [[Transformers: Beast Wars (Japanese toyline)|Japanese Beast Wars toyline]] page, in which the individual toylines are kept separate even though they were all collectively the same-named toyline. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 17:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: The Headmasters" and its ilk are the imaginary names. Those articles for imaginary toylines are fine where they are. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==="Movie"===
There's still [[Movie (franchise)]], [[Movie (toyline)]] and more. Shouldn't that be "Transformers (2007 franchise)" and "Transformers (2007 toyline)", with the current [[Transformers (2007)]] becoming "Transformers (2007 movie)"?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Probably. I didn't move them, since I wanted to bring it up for discussion first. The film should be moved to just "Transformers (film)", though. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:"Movie (''media'')" should be moved to "Transformers (2007 ''media'')" while "Transformers (2007)" goes "Transformers (film)". --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:27, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::That push for lexical accuracy strikes me as creating more ambiguity than it resolves. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:06, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Jungaroo==
Someone made a lovely [[Jungaroo]] gobox, but there's no page for him. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 21:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think he's in any applicable fiction, but his [http://home.comcast.net/~BattleBeastSD/MGCKang.html bio card is online here]. Someone will have to translate it from Japanese first though. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:25, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Making the search suggestion work better ==

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I noticed sometimes when I type something in the search box, the search suggestions below it jump around and end up on a list which doesn't quite match what I typed. I think it's something to do with the speed I'm typing and the amount of time the server takes to respond to each request.

Anyway, I tweaked the javascript for grabbing the suggestions from the server so it would only trigger when I stopped typing. That seems to fix the problem for me, and as a bonus it's not nagging the server on every keypress. The downside is no instant feedback when I type, but I can live without that if it fixes the other thing.

If anyone else is having that problem and wants to have a go, just copy and paste the following into your [[Special:MyPage/monacobook.js|monacobook.js]] (caveat: only tested on Firefox and Chrome):
<pre><nowiki>
var ss_memory = null;
var ss_timeron = 0;
var ss_timer;

function DoActualSearch() {
ss_timeron=0;
var newdiv = document.getElementById("searchsuggest");
if (!newdiv) {
var newdiv = document.createElement("div");
newdiv.id = "searchsuggest";
var searchdiv = document.getElementById("searchBody");
searchdiv.appendChild(newdiv);
}
var x = document.getElementById("searchInput").value;
if (x == ss_memory) {
return;
}
ss_memory = x;
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'none';
if (x.length < 30 && x.length > 1 && x.value != "") {
sajax_do_call("wfAjaxSearchSuggest", [x], newdiv);
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'block';
}
}

function MySearchCall() {
if(ss_timeron) {
clearTimeout(ss_timer);
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
} else {
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
ss_timeron=1;
}
}

function myss_ajax_onload(){
var x = document.getElementById('searchInput');
x.onkeyup = function(){
MySearchCall();
};
}

hookEvent("load", myss_ajax_onload);
</nowiki></pre>
Unfortunately it won't fix the actual contents of the search suggestions, so you'll still get a bunch of All Hail Megatron issues when you type "Megatron", but that requires changes on the server. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hmm. I feel like adding <tt>ORDER BY `page_counter` DESC</tt> around line 20 of ''suggest.php'' might help w/ our search results, but it's hard to say for sure given how abstracted mediawiki database calls are, someone would have ot make the change then test it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::The thought I had was to do a query on article titles starting with the search term, and then if that gives back less than 8 entries, do a second search to fill the rest of the list with titles with the term anywhere in the title. The search suggest currently supports both options, but not at the same time. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

==Stuff==
: Firstly, our organization of information related to the junior franchises is terrible and I'd love to do something about it, but I need feedback. We currently have most Japanese and American Go-Bots as separate characters, except for the Japanese Go-Bots from the 1-2-3 line. Though there are requests for a separate Chopper page. Should those pages be split or not? And if so, what about the figures that came with some of the toys. Kid-Bot clearly isn't the "red driver" or "blue driver", but the dog and "Gas-Bot" both have fiction in only one of the two franchises, so is it worth separating them? Also, does the unpublished coloring book count as apocrypha or not, seeing as it was mostly approved? And the human characters within, do they count as cameos like Kelly in the Dreamwave comics or separate characters? And does anyone know what the Japanese name was by which the First Transformers were released? The Go-Bots fansite has an image of Dumpkun's box featuring what looks like a G1 logo, the First Transformers logo and "初めてトランスフォーマー" written on it.
: Secondly, many disambiguation pages still mention if there's a separate page for the toys of a character. Is this system still necessary now that we use subpages to separate such stuff under? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 17:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

::I think unpublished stuff is treated as apocrypha, isn't it? The character page coverage of unreleased Dreamwave issues is in notes, for instance. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:48, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::True, but we don't know if those were approved or know those weren't approved. The coloring book was approved, just not released. That makes it better comparable to Wreckers #$, which we do not consider apocrypha (though I wouldn't know if we'd do that if Wreckers #5 didn't partially canonize it). [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 11:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::Just weighing in on the toy page issue: I find it useful to have these called out on the disambig pages. Being able to go directly from the disambig page to the toy page of a character saves me at least one click (if I see the suite box in time) and often some scrolling (if I don't see it). However, I won't fight too hard on this if consensus is for the removal of this feature. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 07:47, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::Thinking some more about the Go-Bots stuff, as the Japanese version of Gas-Bot has no fiction, it probably doesn't need its own page - either link to Gas-Bot's page or just leave it unlinked in the appropriate toy sections. Same with the US version of the dog. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:30, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Facebook. ==

Is '''<nowiki>http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFwikinet/191252494230187</nowiki>''' us? Because it's the #1 link when you search for "TFWiki Facebook," and our group is nowhere to be seen. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

:I think our group is not showing up because you have to have a Facebook account to see it? When I go to the group's URL, I just get a page prompting me to log in to Facebook. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:47, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

::The link is this one: [http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/ http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/], which is the #3 on the search by "TFwiki site:facebook.com" on Google. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 19:51, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So the other one isn't ours, and we can't put a link on it pointing it to the group.
:::Annoying. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It's a "Community page", whatever that is. Clicking on the "Create a page" button on the top right of that page does bring up some sort of form which seems like it will do something. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:12, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Halloween ==

Presuming we're deco'ing our frontpage for Halloween... does anyone have any suggestions? Monsters, ghosts, gouls? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:Animated Blitzwing's random face looks sorta Jack O'Lanterny and could work as a replacement for the Autobot insignia on the site logo, assuming we can find a head-on image of it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:35, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

== Moving "(Timelines)" articles ==

I'm thinking that, as we don't bother with "(Timelines)" for SG, TransTech, and Animated characters, we should apply the same across the board and only use it if necessary.

*[[Astrotrain (Timelines)]] → Astrotrain (Cybertron)
*[[Cannonball (Timelines)]] → Cannonball (G1)
*[[Cop-Tur (Timelines)]] → Cop-Tur (G1)
*[[Halogen (Timelines)]] → Halogen (G1)
*[[Side Burn (Timelines)]] → Side Burn (G1)
*[[Sky-Byte (Timelines)]] → Sky-Byte (G2)
*[[Switchblade (Timelines)]] → Switchblade (BW)
*[[Thunderblast (Timelines)]] → Thunderblast (G1)
*[[Yoketron (Timelines)]] → Yoketron (G1)

The exceptions are the Descent into Evil characters, who don't really fit in any pre-existing franchise, and the Nexus Prime characters, who don't originate from a particular universe.
*[[Buzzclaw (Timelines)]]
*[[Dirge (Timelines)]]
*[[Flareup (Timelines)]]
*[[Landquake (Timelines)]]
*[[Ricochet (Timelines)]]
*[[Heatwave (Timelines)]]

Thoughts? Or does nobody really care that much? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 10:19, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:Since you asked, I'll pitch 2¢ into the conversation, since I know a little bit about it. I found out the hard way that wiki "doesn't bother with '(Timelines)' for Animated." And by hard way, I mean I was clobbered over the head without a hint of explanation for proposing that a Timelines-original Animated continuity character should be at "(Timelines)." But no hard feelings. I still think "franchise of origin" and not "continuity of origin" is best for disambiguations. For reasons that have been discussed previously on the subject. TransTech and SG are treated as a kind of sub-franchises of Timelines by the wiki, so I think they are an OK exception. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::The prose stories are identified as "Transformers Timelines presents a Transformers: (franchise) story". I would say that both franchises are equally valid to the stories, and the fact that non-Timelines stories (Around Cybertron, magazine comics, etc.) bleed together with Timelines stories makes the "(Timelines)" designation convoluted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, that's different. It sounds like you are calling their actual franchise of origin into question, not just their disambiguation. I don't have an opinion about their actual franchise of origin. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying that they're Timelines, but saying that they're better categorized under their other franchise. Like the Animated guys, it seems more instinctive to file [[Side Burn (Timelines)]] under "Side Burn (G1)" instead (not to mention that there's other Side Burn in Timelines: [[Side Burn (SG)]]).[[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:38, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
I'm hesitating, but let me think about the ramifications. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'd be fine with this. Though, one thing I'd like to propose is giving the Wings Universe characters their own disambiguation suffix. Like maybe "(Wings)" or something. I know it's a part of G1, but it's kinda like its own series within the over G1 continuity family like the Japanese G1 series are (which are also given their own suffixes such as "(Victory)", "(ROC)", "(BT)" etc.).

:Though, as for the Descent into Evil characters, maybe something like "(DIE)" or "(Descent)" or even just "(Descent into Evil)". Or, if not, keep them at "(Timelines)". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 11:51, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think the DIE guys are fine where they are (although you could argue moving [[Ricochet (Timelines)]] because of [[Ricochet (SG)]], but I don't really care). As for the Wings Universe guys getting their own disambiguation, eh... [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I am '''definitely absolutely''' against creating a (Wings) disambiguation when (G1) or (Timelines) work perfectly fine. We do NOT disambiguate by continuity except by absolute necessity within a franchise. Making up a (Wings) parenthetical just because incredibly confuses our disambiguation policy for no real reason. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::And what exactly keeps the Descent into Evil guys from being tagged G1? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Is the intermezzo period between G1 and BW considered G1 or BW?

:::It's all G1 characters... and IIRC the Insecticons were supposed ot be part of Insecticon plans which had been around for ages, so the characters weren't "BW-era only" characters...

:::I could support a G1 disambigif you talked me into it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:01, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::DIE fiction (Descent into Evil itself and [[Intimidation Game]]) has elements of both BW and G1; it doesn't have a certain franchise placement. Dirge (Timelines) and Ricochet (Timelines) also have namesakes firmly in G1. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:14, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::::BW is both BW and G1. And G1 has been back-incorporating BW elements since, like, 1995. The fact DIE has G1 and BW doesn't mean it's part of neither. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think that, by the nature of Timelines, it feels more natural to parse that specific set of characters by their continuity or parent-franchise of origin. Honestly, I think the Nexus components (''all'' of them) are really the best and only candidates for the Timelines parser.

::Also, I made a [http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Template:c quick template] that you guys could use here to simplify the coding for whenever you need to link a continuity-parsed name.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:37, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately I don't think that template would work as well here, because our articles are not consistently named by franchise. For instance [[Lightspeed (G1 Technobot)]], [[Flattop (Autobot)]] and [[Impactor]] are all (G1) characters but don't use (G1) in their title, so the template wouldn't work for linking to them. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I think that Timelines is a pretty clunky franchise for the purposes of this wiki, in that it covers multiple continuities. I think the proposal on the table makes sense.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Two spaces after a period in a sentence ==

I've noticed this for a while on the Wiki. In practice, it makes no difference as the software displays one space the same way it displays one. However, I've been wondering why people do it. Now I '''know: They''' were taught so in school. '''By teachers who were taught on friggin' ''typewriters''.''' So the "two spaces after a period" rule is a leftover from the typewriter days, where it was a necessity, but it's completely obsolete on computers. [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html Source]--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:The sentence spacing rules were, in fact, developed by typographers, but were not phased out via the magical introduction of the personal computer. The em-space rule exists for monospaced fonts, which were still fairly common for a great number of printers through the mid-1980s. If you would like to begin a tyrannical series of grammar-based wiki edits, I would begin by avoiding the use of prepositions at the start of sentences. I would also advise some respect for the proper use of colons and semi-colons, as typographical errors should not take priority over proper word selection and punctuation. Cheers! --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 14:20, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Are you referring to sentences beginning with prepositional phrases for the sake of emphasis (also known as an introductory modifiers)? That's totally valid. Or do you mean idiocies such as relative clauses that are separated from the preceding main clause by a period instead of a comma? The most glaring typographic blunders I encounter on the wiki typically go hand in hand with awkwardly worded sentences and clunky terminology, so I'm inclined to assume the same person(s) is/are responsible for all of those.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::I have bolded an example. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Aw, you altered your post. No fair! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:16, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::What'd I alter? I just moved it up. Anyway... I'd call that one "deliberate departure from proper grammar for the sake of dramatic emphasis". It's about as improper as using a period after ''every. Single. Word.'' If it's obvious from the context that it's done for emphasis, I'd call it acceptable as long as it's not used inflationary. I'm sure we have a few cases of "We know it's not proper grammar, but we want to stress a point here" on the wiki. (How did the saying go again? "Know the rules first before you break them"?)--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:28, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:....or you can just set the bot to convert " " to " ". Since we don't output monospace font, or anything.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Over the whole wiki, those extra spaces account for maybe 20kb of data, which I don't think is worth worrying about. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Typed text is typed text, and the double-space after a period is still correct. Shall we next be told that we're "wrong" for not having the wiki use the metric system, or for writing down dates with the month before the day instead of after it? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, and I bolded something too. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Due to habit, I'm gonna double-space until I die. I really don't think that needs to be considered a problem. Is that really a problem? An extra millimeter between sentences? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Nevermore ''is'' right about it being mostly obsolete, but for purely technical reasons: All double (triple, etc.) spaces are collapsed down to one for display in HTML. If you want the extra spaces to actually be viewable as extra blank space, you have to use <tt>&</tt><tt></tt><tt>nbsp;</tt>. So if you double-space here on the wiki, it only shows up when you edit the page. For whatever that's worth. (Not really taking sides, just presenting the info.) --[[Special:Contributions/67.252.49.31|67.252.49.31]] 06:08, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== More on the search box/"Transformers" everything ==

Typing "Energon" into the search box does not give me [[Energon (franchise)]], [[Energon (cartoon)]] or [[Energon (toyline)]] as top results. Same for "Cybertron". I assume this has to do with the recent "Transformers" prefixing for article titles. However, typing "Animated" into the seach box ''does'' give me franchise and toyline as top results, so it should be ''possible'' despite the prefixing.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:It's purely alphabetical, dude. ''Animated'' shows up before ''Arcee (Animated)'' because "An" precedes "Ar", whereas ''Arcee (Energon)'' comes up before ''Energon'' because "A" precedes "E". --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:13, 6 November 2011 (EST)
::There's an option in the search suggest tool to limit the results to stuff starting with the search query rather than with stuff with the term anywhere in their titles, however it's not something that can be configured through MediaWiki. There's a bit of discussion about it in the "Making the search suggestion work better" section up above. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:::If we wanted to do ''that'', when we shouldn't have prefixed "Transformers:" before hundreds of articles 3 weeks ago. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:06, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::We still have the titles without "Transformers: " as redirects though, so they'll still show up. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:23, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== Spam-dalism ==

Is that the neologism for it? Anyway, somehow the ReCaptcha is failing to stop the automated spam, and I'm guessing the IP's are all very different.

How old are the accounts when they do this? If they're fairly new, would it be possible to simply block IPs and new accounts from inserting new external links? If not (or if that's unworkable), would it be possible to flag such edits for review the way that wikipedia does to edits on contested pages?

Also, is there any chance these are at least coming from the same proxy? The fact that they're getting past ReCaptcha makes it seem like these are actual people doing this, unless ReCaptcha only activates on certain namespaces.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 14:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:I was using captcha with images on my phpBB installation on another site (Doctor Who related) until yesterday and getting a half dozen spammers a day signing up in despite of it. Yesterday I switched to a Question Answer challenge which asks the person registering to name the main character's time machine, and so far it has stopped the spammers dead.
:MediaWiki has [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha] which looks like it works in exactly the same way, and works with the ConfirmEdit extension we already have installed. If we can get that installed and set up, it might be more effective than the image-based system we use now. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::What would the questions be? It can't be too obvious or too obscure. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:31, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:::Not necessarily. The question I'm using on my Doctor Who site is obvious if you have any knowledge at all of the source material, but it seems to be working. We can always start with something easy and see how we go. Most likely all of the spammers are using bots anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::"What is the name of the red-and-blue semi Autobot?", "What's the name of the blue casette player Decepticon?", or "What is the name of the yellow semi Micromaster Autobot with a hydraulic crane?"[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 17:50, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::: "What is the fandom's usual reaction when a new franchise is announced?" :p [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:56, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::::<tt>If Dick has two apples and Jane has two apples, how many apples do they have? (3 letters.)</tt> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:09, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::Ah, but then it would be so easy for users to use only three exclamation marks, and forget the requisite four exclamation marks and a 1.
::No but yeah, a question helps a lot. Might even be worth doing for all IP edits and new accounts, not just those with external links.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:57, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::While we're on the subject, is it somehow possible to flag certain terms or words used by IP editors and auto-block them? *coughcoughobamacoughcough*[[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 16:31, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::...but we have an article on [[Barry Obama]].
:::Are you trying to whitewash the wiki? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:13, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::: It was just an academic question; after all, I'm sure that you've noticed our considerable problem with a certain IP editor lately. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:19, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::: Well yes... but I couldn't resist. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:43, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a temp ban on the whole ISP might get better results. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:51, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::sooo...who would you need to talk to about getting this set up, and what exactly do you want to restrict?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 19:45, 21 November 2011 (EST)
:::::The guy whose IP addresses are always located in England who keeps vandalizing articles with Obama-related nonsense. Doesn't look like even banning IP ranges stops him. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 11:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::...so, there's no way to stop this lunatic? [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 11:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:Options, in order of severity:
#Block all new uses of the word "Obama" to all anonymous editors.
#Block anonymous editors entirely.
#Destroy England.
:But really, that's a separate issue with probably a separate solution, since the guy is a some kind of being. To deal with the spamdalism, I think you guys should add a "name that Transformer-mon!" question, which should cut down heavily on automated edits, and if they still get through, look at blocking all uses of external links for anonymous or new editors. The use of the question for all IP edits is fairly standard, so it should be easy to implement, and you can look into harsher measures if the bots still make it through. However, I really think you guys should make an effort to get this setup, because the conversation keeps kind of drifting down and the vandalism keeps happening.[[Special:Contributions/98.223.102.157|98.223.102.157]] 02:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:: On another note... isn't it cute how he keps trying to badly pass himself off as me? I think someone has a bad case of hero-worship. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 10:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Please stop egging on vandals. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::: OK, on a more serious note, is anyone averse to just locking the wiki for a few days? Bulbapedia does it regularily and they don't have much of a vandalism problem. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 12:36, 23 November 2011 (EST)
Removing the "Undo" option for anons would help, at the very least. We need a regular tech person (or give abates access to the MediaWiki stuff, since he seems to know his way around). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:12, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::: What if we implemented a captcha system for anon edits? I mean, it wouldn't ''stop'' them, per se, but it would make persistent vandalism wars a hassle. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:16, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would not be opposed to that, or simple stock questions. ("Who is the leader of the Autobots?", "What is two plus three?", etc.) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:23, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:::: Rodimus Prime? :p
::::: But seriously, how did Mr. Obama Guy get past the rangeblock? Because that's rather worrysome in and of itself. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::::BT Internet has a lot of IP ranges. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:58, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Okay. Listen.<br>
1) CAPTCHA won't change crap. It ''might'' stop a small number of bot edits, but we have a large, active mod presence that basically polices this place around the clock, and any of those crappy ad pages can be eliminated in mere minutes, if not within seconds of their creation.<br>
2) There is basically '''''NOTHING''''' that can be done to ''stop'' someone who has decided that the best use of their time is constant, repeated, easily-reverted vandalism of a wiki. Well, okay there are a few options, but they're not ones any kind of wiki coding is gonna be part of. They'll find ways around bans, and all these automated things that are being suggested are basically shooting blind and wasting time. This is not remotely the first time someone has thought to do this. It won't be the last. But we've outlasted all those others. And that's all it takes. Again... that large active 24-hour admin presence that quickly and coolly reverts the vandalism ''without getting all butthurt''. That's what vandals want, to watch you get pissy and panicky and angry... ''and that's what you're giving them.'' So '''''shut up''''' and stop feeding that, then they'll eventually get bored and leave.<br>
3) I can perhaps get behind removing the "Undo" option for anons. I don't think though that it will really help much, since making an account takes what, a few seconds?<br>
--[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:38, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:Um. I don't want to offend anyone, but the Obama-guy thing ''really'' isn't related to this topic, although some of the solutions to the spamdalism thing might work to hinder him. The bigger issue is the guys spamming the wiki with links to knockoff viagra, sort of thing, and putting up a simple question system for anons and new editors would work to stop that almost completely, at least everywhere I've seen it in use.
:The mod presence, yeah, things eventually get cleaned up by the end of the day, but a simple, standard change like adding the question will prevent that from happening in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/99.39.88.159|99.39.88.159]] 22:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)
:Just to alleviate any concerns: In my experience, the question captcha does not prevent human edits except from the most severely uninformed editors, and it completely prevents the bot-spam, which at this point almost totally covers the RC when I happen to check it. Many other independent wikis, such as Halopedian, use the question captcha, so if you guys wanted a first-person POV on it, you could also ask them for their experiences. Basically, the captcha question should totally eliminate the bot-spam, with the only drawback being that it adds maybe a fraction of a second to anonymous human edits. So, given that, does anyone have any objections to adding the captcha question?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)--(same anon as throughout this topic)

== Spelling throughout the Wiki ==

I've found that, on multiple spots on the Wiki, there are UK English spellings of words. Now, I know that the Transformers Wiki is a country-spanning project, but I'd like a consensus on whether or not we should change incidences of UK spellings (like "practise" and "polarize") to their American English counterparts. A streamlined flow using only one dialect would, I believe, make the editing process much easier. However, I do not want a backlash from UK users. <br>
P.S.: Damn you, Webster! You and your new-world dictionary! [[User:TheMZone|TheMZone]] 18:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:[[Help:Style guide#National varieties of English|Here is the wiki's policy on the subject]] just so you know. I myself don't think it needs changing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

== Why are the IDW books in G1? ==

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.) {{unsigned|158.103.0.1}}
:Uggghhhhhh. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:Yeahhh, you not understanding the concept of Continuity Families particularly well.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 16:30, 1 December 2011 (EST)

::Other continuities within the G1 continuity family also eschew some of those classic aspects. In [[Action Blast 1]], for instance, the Autobots crash on present-day Earth and they don't hang around in stasis for millions of years. I don't think there's really a template of specific events that a G1 continuity has to stick to. That would hamper storytelling too much. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

:::Also, they share a lot of the same characters, body designs, and personalities. Granted, some of them are common across the multiverse, but things like Megatron becoming a gun and Optimus Prime as a flatnosed tractor-trailer are distinctly G1-ish. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:29, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::FYI: [[Talk:IDW Generation 1 continuity#New evidence that IDW is not G1|Previous discussion here]]. Yes, on the one hand, it is G1 because it uses the G1 cast of characters for the most part, and most of those pretty much have the same personality as their G1 bio card as on their G1 counterparts (with the significant exception of their gimmicks). On the other hand, [http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=143991#143991 an artist] has said it is not G1, so it isn't entirely crazy to say it isn't G1. The universe itself doesn't seem particularly G1. It is like a different universe populated with G1 guys. The Micromasters aren't Cybertronain (I think), so a whole class of G1 Transformers aren't Transformers which sounds like a different universe. In short, it mostly makes sense for the wiki to organize it under G1 so they don't have to duplicate character pages with characters with mostly the same intro paragraph. But don't take it too seriously, it isn't official or anything. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:54, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::: No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I mean is that there seems to be no CANON justification for why IDW is considered G1. Especially because it lacks the links of similar G1 works, it’s never been verified as such by the creators (as far as I know) and it’s “G1-ness” is tentative at best.

:::::IDW really doesn’t have as strong a link as or other G1 families. They all either were marketed as direct extensions to the original 80s ‘Toon and Comic adaptations (Gen 2 and Dreamwave ) established “next gen” sequels (Beast Era) Inserts into Gen 1 (Alternators and much of Japan’s stuff) Or add ons to particular points of the G1 timeline (Classics, Dreamwave) hell Timelines might count as a little bit of all of these. IDW really has no direct link.

:::::That leaves us to the creators, and when it’s referred as such by them they use the term ‘reboot” or the like. Hell Simon Furman, architect of a large section of G1, straight up called it an ‘Ultimate’ version in his CBR interview. And Don Fig doesn’t consider it G1 at all.

:::::Even then we look at why we call it G1 it causes all kinds of fallacies. Relying ion art style to tell families (a s said in our very own article) leads to insanity, as characters change appearances across media ostensibly in eths same family all the time (for example WFC and Prime) likewise the “G1’ aspects, such as personality, and looks, have been used both in the Transformers Film and Animated families, and yet we don’t consider them G1 despite both being just about the same kind of reboot on it IDW is. They incorporate a version of the Beast Ear into their timeline but assuming a connection with their main IDW addition, it’s just as differing as Aligned or Animated version of the Beats era would be.

:::::I’m not trying to rock the boat I se4riously would just like to know if there’s any official, canon, or Hasbro/Creator data that states IDW as a version of G1, because right now I’m not seeing it.

:::::Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be seen as the "young turk" coming into old pros territory and rocking the boat against guys who have been studying this since before I was born, but I just picked up a bunch of Simon Furman stuff from [[http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Marvelcomicscontinuity.jpg The old comics]] as well as the big two volume IDW packs and they just don't fit at all. They're as different from G1 as the Films, Animated or RID are. I don't think we should makes assumptions and leaps of logic just for convenience's sake, kind belies the purpose of a wiki, ya know?
::::::This is a ridiculous amount of navel-gazing to get past the point that IDW continuity is just G1 in new dressing and not a new franchise of its own. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::By that terminology ALL of Transformers media is Just "g1 in a new dressing" by the virtue of G1 starting the franchise.

Talk:Continuity

2011-12-02T06:39:48Z

158.103.0.1:

==New Chart==

I'm proposing that the chart we have up front be replaced with this slightly more accurate and cohesive chart.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1729/timelinea1jo5.jpg

==featured?==

I was thinking... this and the continuity family article should either be featured articles... or even "right off the main page all the time" articles. I think the information they contain should be touted as important reading. Thoughts? --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 08:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:I think they are important enough to get some special emphasis, yes. They're very well written as is. My only suggestion is a small one (and I'm not entirely sure how best to implement it) but they're rather visually boring at the moment. I know they don't immediately lend them selves to it but if we could cook up some more pics to serve as visual aids that would liven things up immensly.--[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 12:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:I still feel like the articles are a bit of a mess, although I don't know that they could ever ''not'' be messy. I think the idea of linking to them more prominently is a good one, but... maybe not quite yet. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 15:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

::Well, a good image for the "multiverse" portion could be a photo of a bunch of the various TF medias. A Marvel comic, an IDW comic, a DW comic, an old G1 coloring book and storybook, a G1 cartoon videotape, the RID DVD cover, some UT fiction (storybook, maybe?), BW DVD cover... Legends... I'd do it except I don't have any of those of G1 storybooks anymore. (I DO have the "See & Read" videocassette, though...)<br>
::The "Unified Japanese continuities"... pity that flash timeline doesn't really screen-grab well. Hm. "Continuity soup" could certainly use a scan of a post- BW G1 story mentioning "sparks".... --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 22:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::: I have added a pic of Optimus Prime's spark from Primeval Dawn in Continuity Soup. [[User:Ronimus Prime|Ronimus Prime]] 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

==old discussion==
I dislike refering to RiD as a first-contact story, as in episode 3, the train station personel recognized Optimus Prime, and seemed ot have a fairly good grasp of him being the good guy to Preds' bad guy.
A perponderance of evidence within the cartoon would appear to indicate that RiD was not first-contact, but that there had been some previous period of public TF activity on Earth. (That activity being based on parts of the G1 cartoon.)

Also, the description of the Unicron Trilogy, though factually accurate, is muddled. I was glazing over while reading it.

:I've made some minor modifications to address your concerns. I at least partially agree with you about the RID thing -- the story told in the cartoon is clearly not the Transformers' first contact with humans in that timeline, as a big part of the story centers around TF contact with ancient humans. My original wording was a little clumsy.

:Also, I removed the mention of the manga that XBob put into the "prominant g1 continuities" list. If I'm mistaken about this, somebody should feel free to put it back in again, but I was under the impression that the manga wasn't, in general, in-continuity with the TV shows. I had already made mention of the manga's existence in the Japanese continuities section, and I think that is probably sufficient. Certainly among English-speakings fans at least, the G1 manga is not a "prominant" continuity.

:As a reminder to everyone using Talk pages, please sign your comments so other editors can tell who said what and when they said it. You can sign automatically by writing four tilde (~) characters in a row. There is even a "signature" button at the top of the edit area which will insert this automatically.

:--[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 05:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's good to know. Thanks.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

>>Also, I removed the mention of the manga that XBob put into the "prominant g1 continuities" list. If I'm mistaken about this, somebody should feel free to put it back in again, but I was under the impression that the manga wasn't, in general, in-continuity with the TV shows. I had already made mention of the manga's existence in the Japanese continuities section, and I think that is probably sufficient. Certainly among English-speakings fans at least, the G1 manga is not a "prominant" continuity.<<

IIRC The G1 Manga's plosts were so simple(Save the animals from the Destrons!!!) that theres hardly any chance for contradiction, same thing goes for 2010 and Headmasters. The masterforce, and the victory manga however do conterdict. And the Zone-Operation Combination mangas seem to be in contuity with the TV show If I'm not mistaken X-BoB58
: A note in the final paragraph (the one mentioning the manga) about how those fit into continuity would be appropriate, then. But you should also find out about the other, non-G1 manga if you want to include that, so readers aren't confused. But the in-continuity status of those is worth at least a brief mention. --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
:The Zone manga is a retelling of the first OVA episode. However, the character designs for Kain, Akira and the Destron Demon-Generals are all different. As well, Bruticus shows up (he wasn't in the OVA) and the homoerotic subtext between Akira and Kain doesn't seem present. Otherwise, the events happen more-or-less as animated.--[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 03:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The beastwars II and Neo Manga's arn't in continuity, and I don't think the UT mangas are either(withn the exception of linkage)

XBob, everything Takara or Hasbro publishes is "canon" in that it's "official." Transformers has no singular canon other than the recent notion of a unified multiverse. The phrase "aren't in canon" has basically no meaning pertaining to Transformers fiction. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Zac made [http://transformers.wikia.com/index.php?title=Continuities&curid=1519&diff=34284&oldid=34254 some edits] to the page, most of which I like, but I, personally, have a strong preference for the old opening sentence. I recognize that my opening was a little unusual-sounding, but it was direct and specific. So... rather than just reverting it I figured I'd see if anybody else cares? Did everyone, on reading my old opening, think "what the hell is he on about?" If so, I'll let it go. (Although I do think that at the least, the mention of comic books in the new one is unnecessary and just gets in the way.) --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 16:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
: I preferred your original opening statement, which was more clear, so I reverted. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure some will think the added image contains some mistakes (and some lacks, it's already several years old), but it still illustrate the subject quite well and give a rather good recap of the whole thing--[[User:GUIGUI|GUIGUI]] 02:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that ''Galaxy Force'' has been reconciled with the rest of the Japanese Unicron Trilogy, though the explanation didn't comefrom the cartoon proper. Is that correct?[[User:Chip|Chip]] 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I think you're referring to the DVD booklet that connected Unicron to Planet X and explained the ending images. [[User:Interrobang|Interrobang]] 06:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

== The impossible japanese continuity retcon ==

I don't read Japanese, but I can already feel just how auto-contradicting the G1 storyline retcon on the new TakaraTomy site is: http://www.takaratomy.co.jp/products/TF/table.html
Is it possible to not recognize it canon despite it being official?

What I want to know is where that image of Cerebros transforming into Fortress's head came from. I don't recall Fortress's head transforming into anything in the Headmasters show, and I know those aren't ''Rebirth'' models. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 23:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:It's from ''Headmasters'', alright, from the singular time that transformation happened, in the flashback episode to when the Headmasters were learning to transform. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 23:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

*Yeah, that timeline is a bit of a clusterfuck. Trying to shoehorn Car Robot in there is especially painful. Though, this sort of "official yet non-sensical timeline" thing isn't exclusive to Transformers. Shigeru Miyamoto once belted out a Zelda timeline which has been ignored by just about everyone because it made absolutely no sense. --[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 23:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:The Zelda time line is not ignored. A lot of people consider each game happens in the same universe in the same continuity. It's just the correct order that has never been clearly figured out. But that's beside the point. So back to the it, using that Zelda/Shigy case is not really a good argument to rule out that new retcon.

:T'would seem to me that the only real problem is the random insertion of Car Robots - everything else that has been retroactively inserted into the G1 timeline (Robot Masters, Binaltech, Kiss Players) has managed to fit itself in there through the use of enough fiddly stuff to work fairly well. Binaltech, but the end of it's own story, has been diverged off as an alternate universe, while Robot Masters allowed itself to work through time travel, and as insane as Kiss Players is, they kept their ducks in a row, and by the end of the story everything was in a position to allow 2010 to occur unmolested (heh). It even managed to explain Daniel's lack of aging between the movie and 2010. Well, I'm assuming Prime, er, died again. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::Except the new movie is in there too; or does the red color mean something different? (And I like the entry for the launch of Voyager, heh)[[User:EricMarrs|EricMarrs]] 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
:: The red colors are just signifying that those two white trails are part of the same line. The red is the hyphen at the linebreak, so to speak. I think it's safe to say that Car Robots is part of J-G1 while RiD is not part of US-G1. Sort of like how, for most of Galaxy Force, it was not considered part of the UT over there, but Cybertron definitely was over here. (Of course, that's not the case anymore. See the same page.) There are plenty of US materials that contradict the Japanese G1 timeline. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 02:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

T6heir timeline places the Voyager prome launch witht he golden disk in 1977. Does it say which specific Voyager? (1 or 2?)

IIRC, I did a comparison once and the design of the satellite we saw,though similar to 1 and 2, matches neither, so it was probably meant to be a fictional subsequent launch, but if Japan SAYS it's Voyager 2, I'm willing to accept that.

Can someone who reads Japanese tell me? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

==Hoping to avoid controversy==
Hi there. [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]] here, after a long absence followed by some very minor edits in recent weeks. Some of you may recall many months ago I made some petulant, uncalled-for comments on relevant IDW and Movie pages about my (unpopular) opinions regarding the continuity status of these neo-G1 universes. Anyway, it all got rather heated, I got temporarily banned when I stood up for myself and some people got astonishingly hostile, blah blah blah. Anyway, regardless of the subsequent unpleasantness, I acknowledge (as I did at the time) that my inital actions were in the wrong and I'd like to leave it at that, please.

To briefly recap my opinion (divorced from the acrimony); I felt/still feel that the IDWverse and the MoiveVerse should be granted equal footing, continuity-wise, as being either both part of the G1 continuity family, or both outside of it. My reasoning is that the IDWverse is significantly different enough from all other iterations of G1 while the MovieVerse is significantly similar enough to G1, especially when compared to RID and the Unicron Trilogy. I'm willing to cop that the MovieVerse is slightly more "un-G1" than IDW, but solely on the basis of including several non-classic characters, as I think that their respective premises are equally different from traditional G1 and that the drastic aesthetic differences are essentially superficial and not a significant factor.

Anyway, I want to stress that I'm NOT trying to lobby for a change in Teletraan 1's categorisation (although I'd be delighted if it were to happen), and that I have NOT made any unilateral changes to this effect. All I'm saying here so far is context for the paragraph I've added to THIS article.

So, I recently noticed that in my absence someone else (and please, don't even suggest that it was me) has added bits here and there that are at least somewhat sympathetic to my point of view, such as the prhase "loosely based on Generation 1" at the head of the [[IDW]] page, or the "Quibbles" section in the [[Continuity family]] article. So, given the nature of THIS article and its acknowledgement of the highly subjective, [[personal canon]] nature of TF continuity, and especially the subsection "Continuity Soup", I thought this would be an appropriate place to include an invective-free comment on the specific subjectivity of continuity subcategorisation. I promise that I'm not trying to be controversial or have a dig at anyone, and I hope that the section will not be seen as warranting deletion.

Thanks for listening. [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]].

:Not too surprisingly considering I disagreed with you before, I think your changes were a little too much, but I definitely agree with you in principle that these things should be addressed explicitly. I was the one who added the "quibbles" section to [[continuity family]], largely influenced by your previous statements on other talk pages. I've just made revisions to this article that tone down some of what you wrote, but I think (I hope!) that I have treated your viewpoint fairly. I mainly wanted to remove words and phrases that sounded a bit like editorializing to my ears. Feel free to make more changes. I imagine that in a couple rounds we can get the article into a shape we are both happy with. I would, however, prefer to keep most of the "categorization" talk in the families article instead of here. The other article is basically entirely about categorizing continuities, so, it's more relevant there. Hence, my revision of this article truncates the discussion and says "see the other article". I am okay with the idea of the IDW and movie quibbles over there being expanded a little bit. I am, however, still baffled by your continuing insistence that the altmode changes in IDW, which I consider completely trivial (ex: Thundercracker is a contemporary fighter jet instead of one that was contemporary 25 years ago), are meaningful, especially in light of your statement that you ''don't'' think the G1/Movie aesthetic rift is important. That seems really contradictory to me. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 05:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
<div class="thumb tright"><div class="thumbinner">http://www.emopanda.com/tmp/excluded_middle.png<div class="thumbcaption">Steve</div></div></div>
::I bet he's more hung up on there being no Ark/Mt. St. Hillary 4 million years ago.
::I believe you, Steve-o, have been at least mutedly interested in ''discussing'' whether the Movie should be in the G1 continuity family— if only to explore the argument to its logical conclusion.
::(It's not really an argument that Movie == G1 as it is an argument that our system of Continuity Families is inadequate. ...at least as I see it. Pacci might feel different.)
::I have translated the core argument against the existing Family model from messy ''English'' to ''Steve-o'' through the use of a nice, unambiguous chart. (right.) It's the Linnean thing, discuss. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 10:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

:::If we're talking about my own personal thoughts on how close things are, I consider IDW to be unambiguously a G1 continuity, while the movie is outside G1, but a lot closer to G1 than the UT or RID is. Early on, I wasn't sure whether I would think of the movie as G1 or not, but eventually found the differences from G1 to be too large for me to think of them as the same thing. I understand what you're trying to do with your chart, but really it is committing falacies too because the continuum needs to be N-dimensional, not linear. There are many, many different axes along which we can move to find new universes. What is the origin of the TF race? How and when do they interact with Earth? What characters exist? Is there a Unicron? What factions are there? What subgroups/gimmicks do the TFs develop? Do they have sparks? What is energon like, if it exists at all? And on and on...--[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Assuming there is an objective way to quantify those N-dimensional criteria, then you could presumably reduce them down to a weighted geneology; "How 'G1y' is this continuity? How 'Armaday,'" and whichever 'ethnicity' was preeminent would be the category it was sorted into. So not a continuum-- but a sorted noisy set with individual population curves where the values off to the side aren't 'how close is it to the continuity on my left' (because putting continuity families in a line is silly) but rather 'those continuities whose bond to this family are so weak they're close to snapping over to another.'
::::(That's still a lousy system because it only functions assuming you have a full set of all possible Continuity Families. And some, like Megazarak's Universe, don't seem to fit into ''any'' of them.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Also, silly boy-- all Transformers have Sparks because Primus exists in all universes! ^_^
:::::You know, except for the Challenge of the GoBots universe, which appears to have Gobotron but no Cybertron... and maybe the Go-go-go-go-bots world...
:::::I admit I have problems with a multiverse that declares that all universes are wild ahistoric variations on a theme-- so the same two characters (Prime and Megatron) are genetically related in one universe but not another-- but at the same time ''also'' insists that there's a common unvarying history. So you can have 'wild unchecked flights of fancy and imagination-- up to a point.' You can never do a world where Unicron is a god of creation and Primus of destruction, or where Unicron is a trickster space-lemur that teaches the Junkions how to hunt the wild Buffalodumps of Goo, or where the 'allspark' is a fiction made up by the theocratic ruling body to keep Cybertron a 'demon haunted world' and Transformers are naturally occuring processes of levers and gears with no sparks, or stories where the Allspark dimension is real but a naturally-occurring phenomena with no Unicron or Primus, or stories about the [[Lords of Chaos]], or stories about the very first Transformers where they're all My Little Ponies. You can never tell a story where the good guys ''win'', and if they think they have they're just ignorant.
:::::It doesn't seem like ''much'' of a constraint... but when you remove one ball the manatees don't want to play any more. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Anyway, I totally agree that the "family" system is imperfect because it creates undefined categories that are supposed to span then entire multiverse with no overlaps or holes, and that is not a job that is possible. However, I think the system is "good enough" as long as we don't think of it as being The Truth and recognize it just as a way of helping to keep most stuff organized. (As has been previously discussed (and stated in "quibbles"), even if one were to convince me that Movie should fall under the G1 umbrella, I would still advocate splitting them for practical purposes of wikification.) --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh, totally. This is a problem ''all'' hierarchical categorization schemes have. But in the end we use them because they're ''useful'', and trying to address a large flat set ''without'' an imposed system is totally unmanageable. Ultimately the concern is 'does this system meet our needs in most cases,' which it does.
::::But it's still healthy to talk about its shortcomings once in awhile to see if any new solutions come up. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:[Please note that Steve-o's post immediately prior to this one appeared just as I was submitting ''this'', so my (loooong) comments below don't touch on that post specifically]
:Hi fellas, thanks for weighing in. Particularly nice to be able to have a discussion without people hurling personal insults at me. ;-)
:I'm pretty happy with your changes, Steve-o, and yes, I do think your toning down of my edit still fairly represents my view. Which is good! I agree that the Quibbles section (which I'm delighted and more than a little surprised that you originated) on the other page is a more appropriate place to discuss this further, and the link to it is good. I'm also pleased that you are amenable to slight expansion of the Quibbles section, as that is precisely what I plan to do (as soon as I get around to it). I hope we can both be pleased with the result.
:As to my position on altmode aesthetics, well, I think it's likely that we're ultimately going to just have to agree to disagree on that one, but my reasoning is more or less this: All macro and micro continuities of G1, including pre-IDW neo-G1 (most prominently Dreamwave) consistently depict the characters with the likenesses of the toys (with the obvious minor exceptions of differences in animation models for characters like Ironhide, Jetfire etc.) and their '80s vintage altmodes. While the different continuities have presented various different origins for G1, they've all involved them being on a ship which was buried etc. etc. and when they woke up in the mid-'80s they had those specific altmodes. The IDWverse, however, presents us with such a radically different war/universe premise, timeline etc. that it requires more up-to-date vehicles. Which is fine. But by not being directly based on the G1 toyline so much as the characterisations which were later developed for it by ancillary media, I view it as being a further step removed, as thus being "less" G1. So, yes, I acknowledge that the altmode question in isolation ''is'' a somewhat superficial issue, but it is a pervasive and immediately apparent one. Any other incarnation of G1 you can look at it out of context and (depending on being able to recognise the artist, obviously) not be able to immediately delcare which sub-continuity we're looking at (e.g. many IDW covers use traditional altmode-model pinup art). However, one glance at IDWverse Megs or Starscream and it's instantly obvious that they're the IDWverse versions. Just like you can immediately distinguish Machine Wars or Movie iterations of the same two characters.
:As to your comment about my assessment of the "aesthetic rift" with the MovieVerse as compared to the IDWverse, I think you've slightly misunderstood me, but perhaps that's my fault for not being clear enough. What I meant to say is that I think ''part'' of the reason many people are more prepared to situate the MovieVerse further away from "core" G1 than the IDWverse is an overreaction (on their parts) to how drastically different the movie characters whole aesthetic looks. I mean, you show me IDW Ratchet and although he's clearly not classic animated/comic Ratchet, he's still immediately recognisable, whereas I think you'd agree that without being told even the most ardent Transformers fan wouldn't have recognised Movie Ratchet from a bag of chips.
:So, essentially I'd argue that although the aesthetics of the Movie designs are extreme compared to Core G1, I think they are themselves only marginally more "important" than the aethetic differences between the IDWverse and G1, i.e. in both cases they create a significant dissociative effect that mitigates against identifying them as "true" G1, or at least being ''as'' G1 as, for example, Dreamwave. Which, is naturally, very ironic, since I think the writing of the IDW comics kicks the crap out of Dreamwave's but we're talking about continuity deliniation here, not measuring quality.
:Ultimately, of course, I think issues of alterations to the basic premise of all traditional G1s (again, Ark, hibernation, 1980s wakeup call) are far more important, but you asked me about my altmode obsession, so that's why I've focused on that here. As far as storytelling is concerned, I still tout the opinion that the IDWverse and the MovieVerse present new spins on G1 concepts and characters that are ''vaguely'' equal in their degree of difference from vintage G1 (if one doesn't let the more extreme visual dissonance of the Movie sway you), at least to the extent that they are both deserving of being equally in OR out of the larger G1 continuity umbrella. At this point, I really don't have a strong opinion which, just that both should be one or the other.
:Obviously it's all a matter of personal taste. I think you put it quite nicely yourself where you wrote "What ratio of character rehashes to original characters is required to count as part of the old family instead of the start of a new one? " Obviously there are no hard answers, but I would hope that maybe this might generate some wider discussion as to this question.
:Whew! That was... long. Hope you got through it with your sanity intact!
:Cheers, [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]]
:P.S. Thanks for the graphic Derik, but I'm afraid I dropped maths for art way back in High School and have never looked back! ;-) Would you care to do a "graphs for dummies" version, please?
::This is Derik you're talking about. He's ''already'' making graphs for the dummies.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:::...I made it for steve-o, what are you implying? ;)
:::And simpler, um... "Any given continuity is a shade somewhere along that color spectrum (from red to blue,) but our system of categorization says that they are ''either'' red ''or'' blue, and does not recognize that there can be values in between. Thus you could have two shades of purple ''right'' next to one another, but one would be considered G1 and the other Armada because they're on opposite sides of the imaginary defining border, and our syste would recognize no kinship/relationship/closeness between them."
::::See, I totally didn't understand the graph at all, but once you ''said'' it, I totally got it. - (Chris McFeely, not signed in, and contributing nothing of worth.)
:::::Charts with specialized terminology are less likely to be misunderstood, but also less likely to be understood ''at all''. Ironic, don'cha think? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I could throw my support behind a handy pie chart that says the movie is 33% G1, 45% things that blow up real good, and 22% raspberry cream.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
<div class="thumb tright"><div class="thumbinner">http://www.emopanda.com/tmp/movie_chart.png</div></div>
:<nowiki>*shrug*</nowiki> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Mmm, pie... Yes, that pretty much sums it up for me. Shades of purple. I'd argue that the IDWverse and the MovieVerse are not at exactly the same point in the spectrum (I assume '''Armada'' being the francise selected to represent the opposite end of the spectrum to G1 was an arbitrary choice?), but that they are reeeealy close in therer level of similarity to, yet removal from, G1. Especially when compared to anything else that is or is not Geewunniee.
:::But yes, I agree with your general proposition that our continuity family system here is too black and white (err, red and blue) to happily deal with the differing shades of purple. HOWEVER, I would ''still'' argue that, as I just said, IDW and Movie continuities are both so similar in terms of their shade of purple when compared to anything else in the spectrum that they really should be considered either both included in or excluded from the same umbrella. I don't strongly care which it is, I just think it's really semantic to place them on opposite sides of the "is/is not G1" divide.
:::Cheers, [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]]

===On Continuity families===
I propose that above the currently existing term 'continuity family' we recognize a 'continuity order' which encloses multiple like-grouped families. (G1, Movie, Animated are probably members of the same Order.) This mechanism would allow us to ''recognize'' that some characters are closely related (G1 and Animated Grimlock for example) while still documenting them separately.

Our current system holds that Animated Grimlock has no more relationship to G1 Grimlock than RiD Grimlock does, which seems... disingenuous. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:I think just saying that Animated and Movie bear a close resemblance to G1 covers all that, doesn't it? [[User:JW|JW]] 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Homage characters can appear in ''completely'' unrelated continuities, such as Unicron Trilogy Wing Saber and Shockblast. The Animated Dinobots and Constructicons are just another example of that. It's more like the Animated Constructicons bearing no more relationship to G1 than the Unicron Trilogy Constructicons.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
: Especially considering how many G1 homages ther eare in Energon alone... including a t-rex Grimlock and ptero Swoop... --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

=="Subset"==
I would like to officially register my discontent with the word "subset" as it's used in this page.

I'm sure the original author was thinking of the mathematical sense of the word, but most readers aren't going to read it that way. Saying that the American cartoon is a subset of the Japanese cartoon makes it sound like Japan produced this cartoon all on their own, then some Americans came along, cherry-picked out some of the cartoon and aired it in the States (presumably "ruining" the "original intent" in the process.) Given how common the mistaken "Transformers all came from Japan" notion is, I really think a different wording is preferable. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

:I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure offhand how to remove that possible connotation without making the explanation muddier. Do you have something in mind? --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 04:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Question wasn't directed at me, but I would think that it should simply look like this...

*Cartoons (American) - Three complete seasons of varying length, and a 3-episode "fourth season". Probably the best-known of all continuities.
*Cartoons (Japanese) - Includes the first three seasons of the American cartoons as well as three additional TV series, two OVAs and a [[manga]] series.

--[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 05:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:That sounds perfect. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 13:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

== List of continuities? ==

...do we have a list? I'm working on a thing where it'd be quasi-useful. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:Not really... how exhaustive do you want it to be? The closest I can think of is Jackpot's attempt to make a complete list of section headings ([[User:Jackpot/Sandbox/Sections]]). --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

==Other universes==
Do these universes warrant a mention in the Continuity/Continuity Family articles?

The universe that houses [[Defensor (OTFCC)]], [[Megazarak (Universe)|Megazarak]], [[Ultra Trion]], [[Optimus Prime (Balancing Act)]], etc. All of these characters are listed as hailing from the Universe franchise, but they all really come from the same universe. Any chance of allowing there to be a page devoted to this universe? It seems like a much less formal Shattered Glass situation.

Also, the Tonka GobBots: their universe is shown in the beginning of [[Withered Hope]], and GoBots are the stars of that story. Is the GoBots universe worth a mention since it appears in official TF fiction?

And last and least, the universe with [[Optimus Prime (Worlds Collide)]]: worth a note? --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 10:41, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

== Menonia and alternate dimensions ==

Do the "alternate dimensions" that are shown in [[Madman's Paradise]] count as continuities? I'm not entirely sure what science fiction generally means by "alternate dimensions." Are [[Menonia]] in another dimension that is still within the G1 cartoon universe? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:41, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
:Menonia is not in any way, shape, or form a "continuity." How exactly an "other dimension" from the G1 cartoon universe fits into the multiverse structure, I'm not really sure, but a continuity? No. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 23:27, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Fiction section ==

{{quote
|...based on my notes on [[Talk:Omniverse]] regards what I'd like to see in a Multiverse article. A fiction section involving plot points that directly involve the multiversal concept seem entirely appropriate.
|Jeysie on [[Talk:Multiverse]]}}
Maybe that stuff about dimension-hopping and whatnot should go into the [[multiverse]] article instead. Considering that the fiction sections of both articles are pretty much about the same kind of thing. [[User:Item42|Item42]] 10:38, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

== Confusion ==

I am somewhat confused. I know Transformers Prime and War for Cybertron are in the same continuity, but not the same universe. Could someone please explain the difference to me, because they sound like the same thing. Is it like the G1 Cartoon and the G1 Comic, or something along those lines?[[Special:Contributions/166.109.0.45|166.109.0.45]] 11:57, 11 February 2011 (EST)
: We're not entirely sure yet. We've asked Hasbro, and they tell us things will make sense later as the show continues, though I'm not sure how that can be the case. We're right there with you in your confusion. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 12:13, 11 February 2011 (EST)
::I use the analogy of the G1 comics, cartoon and ''Beast Wars'' for ''Exodus'', WFC and ''Prime'' myself. The former three were based on Bob Budiansky's concepts and bios, while the new three clearly link to the story bible Hasbro uses for the Hall of Fame bios, where Orion Pax and Megatron led a class rebellion, Jazz was Optimus's best friend, Energon is the emanation of Primus and Dark Energon is Unicron's, the lost art of space bridge technology, Mini-Cons as terminology for all small Transformers, Shockwave waiting to betray Megatron when the time is right, a loose incorporation of the first movie's events with Bumblebee being rendered mute by Megatron and the AllSpark's jettisoning onto Earth, and the identities and history of the Thirteen.
::Perhaps we could do with this out-of-universe information in the article, discussing how divergences can be formed because writers use outdated sources (eg the movieverse's novelists and comic writers using older screenplay drafts) or ignore it (as in the case of Sunbow's Shockwave). [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 12:16, 11 February 2011 (EST)
::: Yeah The best we can see right now they're alternate stories springing from the same story bible. Alternate but similar universes. Hasbro still insists that they are more the same and conected than we can see right now and that we will learn more in the future... Whether that's true or not, who can tell yet. For right now I'd personally assume they were seperate realities within the same [[Continuity family]] (read that page if you don't know the term.) Hasbro says they may be more, but you'll have to wait and see with the rest of us.--[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 13:48, 11 February 2011 (EST)

==New Chart==

I'm proposing that the chart we have up front be replaced with this slightly more accurate and cohesive chart.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1729/timelinea1jo5.jpg
{{unsigned|158.103.0.1|01:19, 2 December 2011 (EST)}}
:That's impressive, but bits of it are not in English, there's no key to say what the different coloured lines mean. It looks like it was originally posted [http://z4.invisionfree.com/forum_da_ATB/index.php?showtopic=3002&st=0 here], so we would also have to get that dude's permission. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:32, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::It's also inaccurate and badly formatted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Continuity

2011-12-02T06:19:51Z

158.103.0.1:

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-02T04:15:00Z

158.103.0.1:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Aligned Timeline ==

I'm going to try and take a stab at creating an Aligned timeline that unites everything we know about the franchise(s) so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Help Wanted ==

Hello one and all. I'm here representing a newly created Role-Playing forum that is based in the Transformers Universe. We're in the early stages yet, and are looking for people to help get the ball rolling. Since this site seems to lack a dedicated forum (where requests like these would usually be made) and I haven't seen any other way to effectively say my piece in front of a large audience, I thought that posting here was the best way to "advertise" us, as it were. I sincerely apologize if this was the wrong move on our part, or if I've breached protocol at all, but I can assure everyone that our intentions aren't malign. Those interested, please contact me using any of the ways that I have listed on my username page here on this site. I won't tempt fate by linking our website here directly =P

Once again, you all have my sincere greetings, and I hope to hear from you soon. Also, as a side note: the difference in quality between this page and the transformers wikia is amazing. [[User:Rathian Warrior|Rathian Warrior]] 23:50, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if you've crossed any lines, and frankly, you were polite enough about it that it's not a big deal, but you could always buy some ad space if you want to raise awareness of your forum. It's cheap! There's usually a link on every page around the banners, but if you didn't catch it, you can follow this link: [https://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=25311&type=4 Project Wonderful TFWiki Page]--[[User:McFly|McFly]] 16:13, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== "Fictional" and "real" categories ==
I think we need to come up with a consistent way to distinguish categories of things that are real and categories of things that have appeared in fiction. So far, we've skimmed the issue by using synonyms, such as [[:Category:Companies|companies]] and [[:Category:Businesses|businesses]], but that doesn't really work for things like [[:Category:Magazines|magazines]], which is already used for real magazines. Currently, we have [[:Category:Fictional books]], [[:Category:Fictional video games]] that consider the fictional entities "different". On the other hand, we have [[:Category:Real-world events by day]] and [[:Category:Real world films]]. We focus more on the fictional aspect of Transformers, so it makes sense to not point out the fictionality in categories, but "real world" sounds awkward to some. Which one should we use? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:26, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I thought I'd cheat and see how some of the other fictional Wikis deal with the problem. Three different approaches I saw:
:*[http://tardis.wikia.com/ Doctor Who wiki] has a [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Real_world "Real World" category] for real world stuff and in most cases the categories for real world things are at "Real world X".
:*[http://wookiepedia.org/ Wookiepedia] goes the parenthetical route, with "Books" and "Books (real-world)". Though they also have one or two like "Real world companies".
:*[http://stargate.wikia.com/ Stargate wiki] has "Books" versus "Stargate books" for real world books.
:I kinda like the parenthetical approach that Wookiepedia have taken. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'd favor pointing out the status of both categories, just to make absolutely clear what they are for. The words can be "Fictional" and "Real-world" (I notice both real-world categories use a different spelling. Whichever it's gonna be (if), only one spelling should be used). "Nonfictional" kinda works as an alternative, would "Real-world" be disliked. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:35, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::If we go that route, I think "real-world" should be used, since "real world" is a lot more easier to fix than the other parsing. I like the Wookiepedia approach, but I'm not sure that's enough to change how we already do categories. The idea to label both categories sounds nice, but "Fictional X" seems incongruous with unlabeled categories, such as "weapons", "technology", etc.; considering that our main focus is the fiction, I'm leaning towards only labeling the real stuff. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I think it would be advantageous to put a {{tl|disambig2}} at the top, so people could easily go from the fictional to the real world category too. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:30, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yeah, I think I put that on [[:Category:Films]] a while ago. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:57, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Speaking of this, I found we handle [[:Category:Films]] like [[:Category:Real people]], wouldn't this be some, um, confusing? It's just, somehow, reverse? (Except for the fictional films like ''Honoji'') According to the logic of how we handle [[:Category:Real people]], shouldn't we place films like ''40-Year-Old Virgin'' or ''Godzilla'' in the [[:Category:Real world films]]? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Godzilla doesn't go in "Real world films" because it's not a real world ''Transformers'' film. The Transformers is implied in that category name. Presumably we could have a "Real films" category for Godzilla, etc, but I'm not sure it's worth doing. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:53, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::We shouldn't use "fictional X" for two reasons. One, there things like [[As the Kitchen Sinks]] that are fictional even within the fictional Transformers universe. Second, the wiki is written in-universe by default and putting [[Big Steve's Used Cars]] in a "fictional businesses" category would kind of break that. Within Transformers fiction, "Big Steve's Used Cars" is not a fictional company, but "As the Kitchen Sinks" is a fictional TV show. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:47, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is not a fictional show. It depicts fictional events and fictional people, yes, but the show itself, as a piece of entertainment, is not fictional. I do get your point, as we actually have things like [[Frankenstein]] that are two layers of fiction removed from us. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, of course. I meant, in-universe, ''As the Kitchen Sinks'' is a work of fiction, whereas "Big Steve's Used Cars" is a real business that sells real used cars to real people. Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Wasn't ''Buck Rogers'' a fictional TV show? Anyway, it sounds like you got my point. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Or, judging by the fact categories like "Magazines" in used for magazines in our real life and "Companies" for companies in real life, why not just use "Film" for films (such as DOTM) in real life, while we move current contents in "Films" to "Films in ''Transformers'' fictions"? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::That seems like it would go counter to some of our existing naming schemes. e.g. if we split that out into films by franchise, you'd get "Films in Generation 1" rather than "Generation 1 films". Though admittedly the former title might have the advantage that it's clearer in meaning. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I think both are equally ambiguous in their meaning. If we still need to clarify the purpose of the categories, we can always spell it out in the category's introduction. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Transformers: " ==
We talked a bit about adding back "Transformers: " to the titles of articles [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive51#When_to_omit_.22Transformers.22_from_an_article_title|previously]], and the general sentiment was that people were for it or didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any input in this matter? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:34, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm okay with this change, but I do have three questions on execution. <br>1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled? <br>2.) If "Transformers(:)" is going to be added to every relevant page name, then what about all the extra words in the titles of Japanese stuff? <br>3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc? <br>[[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::#I think we've had two consistent rules about that: If the title is some kind of phrase, like "Transformers United", "The Transformers Collection", or "Transformers Animated", then we don't use the colon. If the title is some kind of obvious "title: subtitle" setup ("Transformers: Armada", "Transformers: Prime"), then we use the colon. There's some borderline examples, but I think we can figure them out one by one. Official sources will help with determining colon-status. The other rule seems to apply to only games: If the title has another subtitle, then the first colon is dropped (ex. [[Transformers Prime: Terrorcon Defense]]). I dunno why, but we can add back the colon, I suppose.
::#I guess we add them? We could argue it for ''Victory'', since it was released in English contexts as just "Transformers: Victory".
::#I think we're just going to continue the same in relation to those. The articles will still be sorted by their subtitles in categories. Storylinks I could go either way on, but I think the trend is to drop the main title. I've been doing that for the AAII storylinks to avoid excessively long links. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:49, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I don't see how "Transformers United" and "Transformers Animated" are any different from "Transformers: Prime". To me, all three could fall into either of your groups (phrase vs subtitle) and would prefer colons in all of those cases. Of your examples, only "The Transformers Collection" seems to really belong in the "phrase" group. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::"United" and "Animated" are adjectives that modify "Transformers" and have official sources that omit the colon. "Transformers Prime" doesn't make sense in that way. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:58, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I am not certain about those two "rules" for colons either. They're rather vague and bound to cause arguments and confusion. It needs to be made more obvious whether a colon should be used or not before "Transformers" can be added everywhere (a help page on the matter would also be handy in the future, me thinks).

::::I think that if we would put the cartoon at ''Transformers: Victory'', that would cause confusion with the manga, storypages, toyline and franchises, none of which were ever brought over and should thus not be named such. If moved, the ''Victory'' cartoon should best go to its Japanese name. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 15:28, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>shrug* The first rule is mostly there for Transformers Animated, which people will be resistant to moving to have a colon (plus, obvious cases like The Transformers Collection). The second rule I really don't care about and can be tossed (it mostly only concerns the movie series of video games and online games). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you suggesting there that Victory articles should be moved to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory"? I'd disagree with that, if so! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:25, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Why? We can't go around writing out the full names of Western franchises and stuff but not do so for the Japanese stuff. We already have "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" written out for the 1985 & 1986 Japanese franchises, so why not ''Victory''? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 07:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Victory (the cartoon) has been released in the West as "Transformers: Victory", to me that means that the official English name of the franchise ''is'' Transformers: Victory. Yes, we should give the full Japanese title at the beginning of the franchise page but there is no reason to move anything to that name. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:35, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::That was pretty much my reasoning too (also typing out the full name every time we wanted to link to it would be tedious). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Tying out "(franchise)" every time for everything is more tedious, but we still have it (for... some reason). Ditto long titles like [[The Story of Super Robot Lifeforms: The Transformers]] and [[Transformers Vault]]'s previous ridiculously long title.
:::::::::But I guess the general principle of "Transformers: " is acceptable to most. I'll start moving the noncontroversial pages (Western comics and cartoons with definite subtitles, etc.) if there's no opposition in the next few hours. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Is there a difference between [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|Transformers: Beast Wars: The Ascending]]? I must admit, the comma/colon distinction seems kinda arbitrary. Also, these page names seem kind of overlong and stupid, what's wrong with [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|The Ascending]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering|The Gathering]]? It's a Transformers wiki and those are Beast Wars series; prefixing everything we possibly can with "Transformers" is only going to clog up the search box and make editing just that bit more arduous. What were the arguments in favour of this again? --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 16:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::That's the formatting used in the indicia. Your complaint about the search box is silly; did you really think typing "Transformers" into it yielded anything useful 99% of the time?
:::::::::::Like it or not, "Transformers: " is the part of the name of many things, and the hoops we have to go through to maintain this silly system of dropping it from article titles has gotten ridiculous and inconsistent. Adding "Transformers: " to article titles, on the other hand, adds ''clarity'' and avoids pointless disambiguation. "The Transformers: Bumblebee" is preferable to "Bumblebee (comic)", "Transformers: Sector 7" to "Sector 7 (comic)", etc. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:44, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::I get that it's useful in some cases, but it just seems like applying the rule across the board means we're overcomplicating the issue. Occam's razor has a lot going for it, and for user-friendliness I'd go for brevity. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 17:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Also on an Occam's razor tip, "Bumblebee (comic)" conveys more information in fewer characters than "Transformers: Bumblebee". I really don't understand why the latter is preferable. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 14:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::There's something to say for either argument, but as it is, we have proven to be unable to keep to one consistent "Transformers"-as-part-of-the-title policy at least since TFA. And if trying to keep "Transformers" out of the deal doesn't work, we oughta give the alternative a chance. I don't think it necesarilly makes it harder to find anything, as the search box reacts to words even if they are not the first part of a page title. And I want to have the changes in clear perspective before I might suggest deleting a few redirects, so at least for now, searches won't be any harder and we have a consistent policy. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:49, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I gotta say, I'm hating how this is working in practice. Article titles seem long and ugly to me.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:46, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I feel the same, but it seems to be an necessary evil because "Transformers: ***" is a full title? duh. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 22:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::I fear the day someone decides to add full titles to disambiguation suffixes as well, e.g. "Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)", "Grindor (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)" etc.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 13:43, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::That would be silly, and I'm pretty sure most people would oppose it. Putting "Transformers:" in names is a change we'd already been drifting towards for a while with, for instance, the War for Cybertron articles all doing it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::On a related note, it's a pet peeve of mine when a writeup talks about a specific medium related to a franchise but links to the franchise as a whole instead, such as "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] toyline" or "in episode 6 of the [[Energon (franchise)|Energon]] cartoon...".--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Would the best solution there be something like "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] [[Cybertron (toyline)|toyline]]"? --[[Special:Contributions/77.99.176.103|77.99.176.103]] 03:32, 29 September 2011 (EDT) (oops, emvee not logged in)
::::::I think linking to the toyline page is sufficent. There's no need for an additional link to the corresponding umbrella franchise. The thought behind this is: "If Joe McRandom sees something that interests him and clicks a link, does he want the link to take him straight to the specific topic or to a more general overview?" I think link targets should always be as specific as necessary. If someone gets interested in a broader overview, he can always go one level up. After all, a link referring to G1 Optimus Prime leads to [[Optimus Prime (G1)]], not to [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)]], either. In the same fashion, toyline pages should deeplink to the specific toy entries on the respective characters' pages (or even their toy pages, if applicable). Like, if Joe McRandom is on the [[Transformers: Universe (2008 toyline)|Universe (2008 toyline)]] page, sees a "Prowl" toy listed under "Deluxe Class" and wants to read more about that toy, he wants the "Prowl" link to take him straight to [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Universe (2008)]], not to the [[Prowl (G1)|main character page]] where he then has to scroll down to "toys", see that G1 Prowl toys have their separate page, go ''there'', ''then'' scroll down to "Universe (2008)". (It currently links to [[Prowl (G1)/toys]], which is at least halfway there.) I will fix this wherever I see it, and implement it when doing writeups.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

===Suggestion to creating templates===

Do we need some kinds of templates when typing contents for convenience? For my experience in Terminator Wiki, we use templates like <nowiki>{{T3}} for ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' or {{TSCC}} for ''[[Terminator: The Sarah Connnor Chronicles]]''</nowiki>. What I'm suggesting is that after we make all franchise names into full title (and we don't use redirect links), it is some how trouble some when typing the title. So we can make some templates like:
<pre>
{{tf|Armada}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (franchise)|Transformers: Armada]]''

{{tf|Armada|toyline|Pokeformer}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Pokeformer]]''

{{jptf|bwn}} -> ''[[Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo]]''

</pre>

If there is any user who can created complex template, we could make

<pre>
{{tf|armada|t}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Transformers: Armada]]''

parameter 1:
2010 = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010 (toyline)
thm = Transformers: The Headmasters (toyline)
mf = Transformers: Super-God Masterforce (toyline)
v = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory
z = Transformers: Zone
roc = Transformers: Return of Convoy
oc = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Operation Combination
armada = Transformers Armada
bwn = Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo
mov = Movie
rotf = Revenge of the Fallen
tfa = Transformers Animated
...and (blah blah)

parameter 2:
*default* - franchise
t - toyline
ct - cartoon
co - comic
m - manga
f - film

And, if possible:
if parameter 3 = s (for example), it will become short title like ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Armada]]''

</pre>

--'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's something I've thought about as well. Considering there are a lot of exceptions to the regular naming system (parts of franchises that are called something different or franchises that lack the (franchise) identifier on the wiki because it's not necessary to disambiguate it), I don't think a template can be coded to put a link together. A full list system like our TFtoon templates have could maybe work though. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:08, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think with the number of franchises we have, it would end up being a hellishly big template and difficult to maintain for only a minor gain. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:03, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

==="Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" Transformers===
With the insertion of this phrase into the Victory page titles, should it also be inserted into the titles of The Headmasters, Super-God Masterforce, and Zone? now while the immediate answer would be "No", there are some places that do include this text above the "Toransufōmā" text in each of these series's logos. An example of this would the [[Transformers Tapestry]] (which even includes it in the Operation combination logo as well) and the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Columbia_Zone_DVD.jpg Columbia DVD of Zone]. Its inclusion in these places seems more than mere coincidence, so would we take this idea into consideration? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 14:33, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Um, that ''Zone'' DVD does not support your assertion. All of the ''actual'' media for those series (except for the Zone manga and story pages) do not include The "Fight!..." portion. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Technically the whole toyline in Japan from 1985 to 1992 was called "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" (as was written on the boxes), so at least the toyline pages for the series of those years would probably need the longer title than just "Transformers: ''X'' (toyline)" --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 16:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So you want to move the toyline pages to some made-up name? Pick one: 1) Merge all of the toyline pages to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)" 2) Leave the toyline pages as they are instead of stressing over naming things that technically don't exist. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::How is it "made up"? "Tatakae! Chō Robot Seimeitai" means "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" and is written above the "Toransufōmā" text on the packages of the 1985-1992 Japanese toys. I'm not proposing we merge all those toyline pages together, but rather something akin to the [[Transformers: Beast Wars (Japanese toyline)|Japanese Beast Wars toyline]] page, in which the individual toylines are kept separate even though they were all collectively the same-named toyline. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 17:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: The Headmasters" and its ilk are the imaginary names. Those articles for imaginary toylines are fine where they are. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==="Movie"===
There's still [[Movie (franchise)]], [[Movie (toyline)]] and more. Shouldn't that be "Transformers (2007 franchise)" and "Transformers (2007 toyline)", with the current [[Transformers (2007)]] becoming "Transformers (2007 movie)"?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Probably. I didn't move them, since I wanted to bring it up for discussion first. The film should be moved to just "Transformers (film)", though. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:"Movie (''media'')" should be moved to "Transformers (2007 ''media'')" while "Transformers (2007)" goes "Transformers (film)". --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:27, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::That push for lexical accuracy strikes me as creating more ambiguity than it resolves. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:06, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Jungaroo==
Someone made a lovely [[Jungaroo]] gobox, but there's no page for him. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 21:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think he's in any applicable fiction, but his [http://home.comcast.net/~BattleBeastSD/MGCKang.html bio card is online here]. Someone will have to translate it from Japanese first though. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:25, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Making the search suggestion work better ==

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I noticed sometimes when I type something in the search box, the search suggestions below it jump around and end up on a list which doesn't quite match what I typed. I think it's something to do with the speed I'm typing and the amount of time the server takes to respond to each request.

Anyway, I tweaked the javascript for grabbing the suggestions from the server so it would only trigger when I stopped typing. That seems to fix the problem for me, and as a bonus it's not nagging the server on every keypress. The downside is no instant feedback when I type, but I can live without that if it fixes the other thing.

If anyone else is having that problem and wants to have a go, just copy and paste the following into your [[Special:MyPage/monacobook.js|monacobook.js]] (caveat: only tested on Firefox and Chrome):
<pre><nowiki>
var ss_memory = null;
var ss_timeron = 0;
var ss_timer;

function DoActualSearch() {
ss_timeron=0;
var newdiv = document.getElementById("searchsuggest");
if (!newdiv) {
var newdiv = document.createElement("div");
newdiv.id = "searchsuggest";
var searchdiv = document.getElementById("searchBody");
searchdiv.appendChild(newdiv);
}
var x = document.getElementById("searchInput").value;
if (x == ss_memory) {
return;
}
ss_memory = x;
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'none';
if (x.length < 30 && x.length > 1 && x.value != "") {
sajax_do_call("wfAjaxSearchSuggest", [x], newdiv);
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'block';
}
}

function MySearchCall() {
if(ss_timeron) {
clearTimeout(ss_timer);
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
} else {
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
ss_timeron=1;
}
}

function myss_ajax_onload(){
var x = document.getElementById('searchInput');
x.onkeyup = function(){
MySearchCall();
};
}

hookEvent("load", myss_ajax_onload);
</nowiki></pre>
Unfortunately it won't fix the actual contents of the search suggestions, so you'll still get a bunch of All Hail Megatron issues when you type "Megatron", but that requires changes on the server. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hmm. I feel like adding <tt>ORDER BY `page_counter` DESC</tt> around line 20 of ''suggest.php'' might help w/ our search results, but it's hard to say for sure given how abstracted mediawiki database calls are, someone would have ot make the change then test it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::The thought I had was to do a query on article titles starting with the search term, and then if that gives back less than 8 entries, do a second search to fill the rest of the list with titles with the term anywhere in the title. The search suggest currently supports both options, but not at the same time. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

==Stuff==
: Firstly, our organization of information related to the junior franchises is terrible and I'd love to do something about it, but I need feedback. We currently have most Japanese and American Go-Bots as separate characters, except for the Japanese Go-Bots from the 1-2-3 line. Though there are requests for a separate Chopper page. Should those pages be split or not? And if so, what about the figures that came with some of the toys. Kid-Bot clearly isn't the "red driver" or "blue driver", but the dog and "Gas-Bot" both have fiction in only one of the two franchises, so is it worth separating them? Also, does the unpublished coloring book count as apocrypha or not, seeing as it was mostly approved? And the human characters within, do they count as cameos like Kelly in the Dreamwave comics or separate characters? And does anyone know what the Japanese name was by which the First Transformers were released? The Go-Bots fansite has an image of Dumpkun's box featuring what looks like a G1 logo, the First Transformers logo and "初めてトランスフォーマー" written on it.
: Secondly, many disambiguation pages still mention if there's a separate page for the toys of a character. Is this system still necessary now that we use subpages to separate such stuff under? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 17:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

::I think unpublished stuff is treated as apocrypha, isn't it? The character page coverage of unreleased Dreamwave issues is in notes, for instance. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:48, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::True, but we don't know if those were approved or know those weren't approved. The coloring book was approved, just not released. That makes it better comparable to Wreckers #$, which we do not consider apocrypha (though I wouldn't know if we'd do that if Wreckers #5 didn't partially canonize it). [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 11:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::Just weighing in on the toy page issue: I find it useful to have these called out on the disambig pages. Being able to go directly from the disambig page to the toy page of a character saves me at least one click (if I see the suite box in time) and often some scrolling (if I don't see it). However, I won't fight too hard on this if consensus is for the removal of this feature. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 07:47, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::Thinking some more about the Go-Bots stuff, as the Japanese version of Gas-Bot has no fiction, it probably doesn't need its own page - either link to Gas-Bot's page or just leave it unlinked in the appropriate toy sections. Same with the US version of the dog. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:30, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Facebook. ==

Is '''<nowiki>http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFwikinet/191252494230187</nowiki>''' us? Because it's the #1 link when you search for "TFWiki Facebook," and our group is nowhere to be seen. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

:I think our group is not showing up because you have to have a Facebook account to see it? When I go to the group's URL, I just get a page prompting me to log in to Facebook. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:47, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

::The link is this one: [http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/ http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/], which is the #3 on the search by "TFwiki site:facebook.com" on Google. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 19:51, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So the other one isn't ours, and we can't put a link on it pointing it to the group.
:::Annoying. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It's a "Community page", whatever that is. Clicking on the "Create a page" button on the top right of that page does bring up some sort of form which seems like it will do something. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:12, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Halloween ==

Presuming we're deco'ing our frontpage for Halloween... does anyone have any suggestions? Monsters, ghosts, gouls? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:Animated Blitzwing's random face looks sorta Jack O'Lanterny and could work as a replacement for the Autobot insignia on the site logo, assuming we can find a head-on image of it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:35, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

== Moving "(Timelines)" articles ==

I'm thinking that, as we don't bother with "(Timelines)" for SG, TransTech, and Animated characters, we should apply the same across the board and only use it if necessary.

*[[Astrotrain (Timelines)]] → Astrotrain (Cybertron)
*[[Cannonball (Timelines)]] → Cannonball (G1)
*[[Cop-Tur (Timelines)]] → Cop-Tur (G1)
*[[Halogen (Timelines)]] → Halogen (G1)
*[[Side Burn (Timelines)]] → Side Burn (G1)
*[[Sky-Byte (Timelines)]] → Sky-Byte (G2)
*[[Switchblade (Timelines)]] → Switchblade (BW)
*[[Thunderblast (Timelines)]] → Thunderblast (G1)
*[[Yoketron (Timelines)]] → Yoketron (G1)

The exceptions are the Descent into Evil characters, who don't really fit in any pre-existing franchise, and the Nexus Prime characters, who don't originate from a particular universe.
*[[Buzzclaw (Timelines)]]
*[[Dirge (Timelines)]]
*[[Flareup (Timelines)]]
*[[Landquake (Timelines)]]
*[[Ricochet (Timelines)]]
*[[Heatwave (Timelines)]]

Thoughts? Or does nobody really care that much? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 10:19, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:Since you asked, I'll pitch 2¢ into the conversation, since I know a little bit about it. I found out the hard way that wiki "doesn't bother with '(Timelines)' for Animated." And by hard way, I mean I was clobbered over the head without a hint of explanation for proposing that a Timelines-original Animated continuity character should be at "(Timelines)." But no hard feelings. I still think "franchise of origin" and not "continuity of origin" is best for disambiguations. For reasons that have been discussed previously on the subject. TransTech and SG are treated as a kind of sub-franchises of Timelines by the wiki, so I think they are an OK exception. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::The prose stories are identified as "Transformers Timelines presents a Transformers: (franchise) story". I would say that both franchises are equally valid to the stories, and the fact that non-Timelines stories (Around Cybertron, magazine comics, etc.) bleed together with Timelines stories makes the "(Timelines)" designation convoluted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, that's different. It sounds like you are calling their actual franchise of origin into question, not just their disambiguation. I don't have an opinion about their actual franchise of origin. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying that they're Timelines, but saying that they're better categorized under their other franchise. Like the Animated guys, it seems more instinctive to file [[Side Burn (Timelines)]] under "Side Burn (G1)" instead (not to mention that there's other Side Burn in Timelines: [[Side Burn (SG)]]).[[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:38, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
I'm hesitating, but let me think about the ramifications. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'd be fine with this. Though, one thing I'd like to propose is giving the Wings Universe characters their own disambiguation suffix. Like maybe "(Wings)" or something. I know it's a part of G1, but it's kinda like its own series within the over G1 continuity family like the Japanese G1 series are (which are also given their own suffixes such as "(Victory)", "(ROC)", "(BT)" etc.).

:Though, as for the Descent into Evil characters, maybe something like "(DIE)" or "(Descent)" or even just "(Descent into Evil)". Or, if not, keep them at "(Timelines)". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 11:51, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think the DIE guys are fine where they are (although you could argue moving [[Ricochet (Timelines)]] because of [[Ricochet (SG)]], but I don't really care). As for the Wings Universe guys getting their own disambiguation, eh... [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I am '''definitely absolutely''' against creating a (Wings) disambiguation when (G1) or (Timelines) work perfectly fine. We do NOT disambiguate by continuity except by absolute necessity within a franchise. Making up a (Wings) parenthetical just because incredibly confuses our disambiguation policy for no real reason. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::And what exactly keeps the Descent into Evil guys from being tagged G1? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Is the intermezzo period between G1 and BW considered G1 or BW?

:::It's all G1 characters... and IIRC the Insecticons were supposed ot be part of Insecticon plans which had been around for ages, so the characters weren't "BW-era only" characters...

:::I could support a G1 disambigif you talked me into it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:01, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::DIE fiction (Descent into Evil itself and [[Intimidation Game]]) has elements of both BW and G1; it doesn't have a certain franchise placement. Dirge (Timelines) and Ricochet (Timelines) also have namesakes firmly in G1. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:14, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::::BW is both BW and G1. And G1 has been back-incorporating BW elements since, like, 1995. The fact DIE has G1 and BW doesn't mean it's part of neither. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think that, by the nature of Timelines, it feels more natural to parse that specific set of characters by their continuity or parent-franchise of origin. Honestly, I think the Nexus components (''all'' of them) are really the best and only candidates for the Timelines parser.

::Also, I made a [http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Template:c quick template] that you guys could use here to simplify the coding for whenever you need to link a continuity-parsed name.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:37, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately I don't think that template would work as well here, because our articles are not consistently named by franchise. For instance [[Lightspeed (G1 Technobot)]], [[Flattop (Autobot)]] and [[Impactor]] are all (G1) characters but don't use (G1) in their title, so the template wouldn't work for linking to them. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I think that Timelines is a pretty clunky franchise for the purposes of this wiki, in that it covers multiple continuities. I think the proposal on the table makes sense.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Two spaces after a period in a sentence ==

I've noticed this for a while on the Wiki. In practice, it makes no difference as the software displays one space the same way it displays one. However, I've been wondering why people do it. Now I '''know: They''' were taught so in school. '''By teachers who were taught on friggin' ''typewriters''.''' So the "two spaces after a period" rule is a leftover from the typewriter days, where it was a necessity, but it's completely obsolete on computers. [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html Source]--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:The sentence spacing rules were, in fact, developed by typographers, but were not phased out via the magical introduction of the personal computer. The em-space rule exists for monospaced fonts, which were still fairly common for a great number of printers through the mid-1980s. If you would like to begin a tyrannical series of grammar-based wiki edits, I would begin by avoiding the use of prepositions at the start of sentences. I would also advise some respect for the proper use of colons and semi-colons, as typographical errors should not take priority over proper word selection and punctuation. Cheers! --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 14:20, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Are you referring to sentences beginning with prepositional phrases for the sake of emphasis (also known as an introductory modifiers)? That's totally valid. Or do you mean idiocies such as relative clauses that are separated from the preceding main clause by a period instead of a comma? The most glaring typographic blunders I encounter on the wiki typically go hand in hand with awkwardly worded sentences and clunky terminology, so I'm inclined to assume the same person(s) is/are responsible for all of those.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::I have bolded an example. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Aw, you altered your post. No fair! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:16, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::What'd I alter? I just moved it up. Anyway... I'd call that one "deliberate departure from proper grammar for the sake of dramatic emphasis". It's about as improper as using a period after ''every. Single. Word.'' If it's obvious from the context that it's done for emphasis, I'd call it acceptable as long as it's not used inflationary. I'm sure we have a few cases of "We know it's not proper grammar, but we want to stress a point here" on the wiki. (How did the saying go again? "Know the rules first before you break them"?)--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:28, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:....or you can just set the bot to convert " " to " ". Since we don't output monospace font, or anything.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Over the whole wiki, those extra spaces account for maybe 20kb of data, which I don't think is worth worrying about. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Typed text is typed text, and the double-space after a period is still correct. Shall we next be told that we're "wrong" for not having the wiki use the metric system, or for writing down dates with the month before the day instead of after it? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, and I bolded something too. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Due to habit, I'm gonna double-space until I die. I really don't think that needs to be considered a problem. Is that really a problem? An extra millimeter between sentences? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Nevermore ''is'' right about it being mostly obsolete, but for purely technical reasons: All double (triple, etc.) spaces are collapsed down to one for display in HTML. If you want the extra spaces to actually be viewable as extra blank space, you have to use <tt>&</tt><tt></tt><tt>nbsp;</tt>. So if you double-space here on the wiki, it only shows up when you edit the page. For whatever that's worth. (Not really taking sides, just presenting the info.) --[[Special:Contributions/67.252.49.31|67.252.49.31]] 06:08, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== More on the search box/"Transformers" everything ==

Typing "Energon" into the search box does not give me [[Energon (franchise)]], [[Energon (cartoon)]] or [[Energon (toyline)]] as top results. Same for "Cybertron". I assume this has to do with the recent "Transformers" prefixing for article titles. However, typing "Animated" into the seach box ''does'' give me franchise and toyline as top results, so it should be ''possible'' despite the prefixing.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:It's purely alphabetical, dude. ''Animated'' shows up before ''Arcee (Animated)'' because "An" precedes "Ar", whereas ''Arcee (Energon)'' comes up before ''Energon'' because "A" precedes "E". --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:13, 6 November 2011 (EST)
::There's an option in the search suggest tool to limit the results to stuff starting with the search query rather than with stuff with the term anywhere in their titles, however it's not something that can be configured through MediaWiki. There's a bit of discussion about it in the "Making the search suggestion work better" section up above. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:::If we wanted to do ''that'', when we shouldn't have prefixed "Transformers:" before hundreds of articles 3 weeks ago. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:06, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::We still have the titles without "Transformers: " as redirects though, so they'll still show up. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:23, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== Spam-dalism ==

Is that the neologism for it? Anyway, somehow the ReCaptcha is failing to stop the automated spam, and I'm guessing the IP's are all very different.

How old are the accounts when they do this? If they're fairly new, would it be possible to simply block IPs and new accounts from inserting new external links? If not (or if that's unworkable), would it be possible to flag such edits for review the way that wikipedia does to edits on contested pages?

Also, is there any chance these are at least coming from the same proxy? The fact that they're getting past ReCaptcha makes it seem like these are actual people doing this, unless ReCaptcha only activates on certain namespaces.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 14:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:I was using captcha with images on my phpBB installation on another site (Doctor Who related) until yesterday and getting a half dozen spammers a day signing up in despite of it. Yesterday I switched to a Question Answer challenge which asks the person registering to name the main character's time machine, and so far it has stopped the spammers dead.
:MediaWiki has [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha] which looks like it works in exactly the same way, and works with the ConfirmEdit extension we already have installed. If we can get that installed and set up, it might be more effective than the image-based system we use now. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::What would the questions be? It can't be too obvious or too obscure. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:31, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:::Not necessarily. The question I'm using on my Doctor Who site is obvious if you have any knowledge at all of the source material, but it seems to be working. We can always start with something easy and see how we go. Most likely all of the spammers are using bots anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::"What is the name of the red-and-blue semi Autobot?", "What's the name of the blue casette player Decepticon?", or "What is the name of the yellow semi Micromaster Autobot with a hydraulic crane?"[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 17:50, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::: "What is the fandom's usual reaction when a new franchise is announced?" :p [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:56, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::::<tt>If Dick has two apples and Jane has two apples, how many apples do they have? (3 letters.)</tt> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:09, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::Ah, but then it would be so easy for users to use only three exclamation marks, and forget the requisite four exclamation marks and a 1.
::No but yeah, a question helps a lot. Might even be worth doing for all IP edits and new accounts, not just those with external links.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:57, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::While we're on the subject, is it somehow possible to flag certain terms or words used by IP editors and auto-block them? *coughcoughobamacoughcough*[[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 16:31, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::...but we have an article on [[Barry Obama]].
:::Are you trying to whitewash the wiki? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:13, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::: It was just an academic question; after all, I'm sure that you've noticed our considerable problem with a certain IP editor lately. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:19, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::: Well yes... but I couldn't resist. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:43, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a temp ban on the whole ISP might get better results. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:51, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::sooo...who would you need to talk to about getting this set up, and what exactly do you want to restrict?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 19:45, 21 November 2011 (EST)
:::::The guy whose IP addresses are always located in England who keeps vandalizing articles with Obama-related nonsense. Doesn't look like even banning IP ranges stops him. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 11:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::...so, there's no way to stop this lunatic? [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 11:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:Options, in order of severity:
#Block all new uses of the word "Obama" to all anonymous editors.
#Block anonymous editors entirely.
#Destroy England.
:But really, that's a separate issue with probably a separate solution, since the guy is a some kind of being. To deal with the spamdalism, I think you guys should add a "name that Transformer-mon!" question, which should cut down heavily on automated edits, and if they still get through, look at blocking all uses of external links for anonymous or new editors. The use of the question for all IP edits is fairly standard, so it should be easy to implement, and you can look into harsher measures if the bots still make it through. However, I really think you guys should make an effort to get this setup, because the conversation keeps kind of drifting down and the vandalism keeps happening.[[Special:Contributions/98.223.102.157|98.223.102.157]] 02:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:: On another note... isn't it cute how he keps trying to badly pass himself off as me? I think someone has a bad case of hero-worship. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 10:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Please stop egging on vandals. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::: OK, on a more serious note, is anyone averse to just locking the wiki for a few days? Bulbapedia does it regularily and they don't have much of a vandalism problem. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 12:36, 23 November 2011 (EST)
Removing the "Undo" option for anons would help, at the very least. We need a regular tech person (or give abates access to the MediaWiki stuff, since he seems to know his way around). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:12, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::: What if we implemented a captcha system for anon edits? I mean, it wouldn't ''stop'' them, per se, but it would make persistent vandalism wars a hassle. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:16, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would not be opposed to that, or simple stock questions. ("Who is the leader of the Autobots?", "What is two plus three?", etc.) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:23, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:::: Rodimus Prime? :p
::::: But seriously, how did Mr. Obama Guy get past the rangeblock? Because that's rather worrysome in and of itself. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::::BT Internet has a lot of IP ranges. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:58, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Okay. Listen.<br>
1) CAPTCHA won't change crap. It ''might'' stop a small number of bot edits, but we have a large, active mod presence that basically polices this place around the clock, and any of those crappy ad pages can be eliminated in mere minutes, if not within seconds of their creation.<br>
2) There is basically '''''NOTHING''''' that can be done to ''stop'' someone who has decided that the best use of their time is constant, repeated, easily-reverted vandalism of a wiki. Well, okay there are a few options, but they're not ones any kind of wiki coding is gonna be part of. They'll find ways around bans, and all these automated things that are being suggested are basically shooting blind and wasting time. This is not remotely the first time someone has thought to do this. It won't be the last. But we've outlasted all those others. And that's all it takes. Again... that large active 24-hour admin presence that quickly and coolly reverts the vandalism ''without getting all butthurt''. That's what vandals want, to watch you get pissy and panicky and angry... ''and that's what you're giving them.'' So '''''shut up''''' and stop feeding that, then they'll eventually get bored and leave.<br>
3) I can perhaps get behind removing the "Undo" option for anons. I don't think though that it will really help much, since making an account takes what, a few seconds?<br>
--[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:38, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:Um. I don't want to offend anyone, but the Obama-guy thing ''really'' isn't related to this topic, although some of the solutions to the spamdalism thing might work to hinder him. The bigger issue is the guys spamming the wiki with links to knockoff viagra, sort of thing, and putting up a simple question system for anons and new editors would work to stop that almost completely, at least everywhere I've seen it in use.
:The mod presence, yeah, things eventually get cleaned up by the end of the day, but a simple, standard change like adding the question will prevent that from happening in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/99.39.88.159|99.39.88.159]] 22:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)
:Just to alleviate any concerns: In my experience, the question captcha does not prevent human edits except from the most severely uninformed editors, and it completely prevents the bot-spam, which at this point almost totally covers the RC when I happen to check it. Many other independent wikis, such as Halopedian, use the question captcha, so if you guys wanted a first-person POV on it, you could also ask them for their experiences. Basically, the captcha question should totally eliminate the bot-spam, with the only drawback being that it adds maybe a fraction of a second to anonymous human edits. So, given that, does anyone have any objections to adding the captcha question?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)--(same anon as throughout this topic)

== Spelling throughout the Wiki ==

I've found that, on multiple spots on the Wiki, there are UK English spellings of words. Now, I know that the Transformers Wiki is a country-spanning project, but I'd like a consensus on whether or not we should change incidences of UK spellings (like "practise" and "polarize") to their American English counterparts. A streamlined flow using only one dialect would, I believe, make the editing process much easier. However, I do not want a backlash from UK users. <br>
P.S.: Damn you, Webster! You and your new-world dictionary! [[User:TheMZone|TheMZone]] 18:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:[[Help:Style guide#National varieties of English|Here is the wiki's policy on the subject]] just so you know. I myself don't think it needs changing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

== Why are the IDW books in G1? ==

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.) {{unsigned|158.103.0.1}}
:Uggghhhhhh. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:Yeahhh, you not understanding the concept of Continuity Families particularly well.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 16:30, 1 December 2011 (EST)

::Other continuities within the G1 continuity family also eschew some of those classic aspects. In [[Action Blast 1]], for instance, the Autobots crash on present-day Earth and they don't hang around in stasis for millions of years. I don't think there's really a template of specific events that a G1 continuity has to stick to. That would hamper storytelling too much. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

:::Also, they share a lot of the same characters, body designs, and personalities. Granted, some of them are common across the multiverse, but things like Megatron becoming a gun and Optimus Prime as a flatnosed tractor-trailer are distinctly G1-ish. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:29, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::FYI: [[Talk:IDW Generation 1 continuity#New evidence that IDW is not G1|Previous discussion here]]. Yes, on the one hand, it is G1 because it uses the G1 cast of characters for the most part, and most of those pretty much have the same personality as their G1 bio card as on their G1 counterparts (with the significant exception of their gimmicks). On the other hand, [http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=143991#143991 an artist] has said it is not G1, so it isn't entirely crazy to say it isn't G1. The universe itself doesn't seem particularly G1. It is like a different universe populated with G1 guys. The Micromasters aren't Cybertronain (I think), so a whole class of G1 Transformers aren't Transformers which sounds like a different universe. In short, it mostly makes sense for the wiki to organize it under G1 so they don't have to duplicate character pages with characters with mostly the same intro paragraph. But don't take it too seriously, it isn't official or anything. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:54, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::::: No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I mean is that there seems to be no CANON justification for why IDW is considered G1. Especially because it lacks the links of similar G1 works, it’s never been verified as such by the creators (as far as I know) and it’s “G1-ness” is tentative at best.

IDW really doesn’t have as strong a link as or other G1 families. They all either were marketed as direct extensions to the original 80s ‘Toon and Comic adaptations (Gen 2 and Dreamwave ) established “next gen” sequels (Beast Era) Inserts into Gen 1 (Alternators and much of Japan’s stuff) Or add ons to particular points of the G1 timeline (Classics, Dreamwave) hell Timelines might count as a little bit of all of these. IDW really has no direct link.

That leaves us to the creators, and when it’s referred as such by them they use the term ‘reboot” or the like. Hell Simon Furman, architect of a large section of G1, straight up called it an ‘Ultimate’ version in his CBR interview. And Don Fig doesn’t consider it G1 at all.

Even then we look at why we call it G1 it causes all kinds of fallacies. Relying ion art style to tell families (a s said in our very own article) leads to insanity, as characters change appearances across media ostensibly in eths same family all the time (for example WFC and Prime) likewise the “G1’ aspects, such as personality, and looks, have been used both in the Transformers Film and Animated families, and yet we don’t consider them G1 despite both being just about the same kind of reboot on it IDW is. They incorporate a version of the Beast Ear into their timeline but assuming a connection with their main IDW addition, it’s just as differing as Aligned or Animated version of the Beats era would be.

I’m not trying to rock the boat I se4riously would just like to know if there’s any official, canon, or Hasbro/Creator data that states IDW as a version of G1, because right now I’m not seeing it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be seen as the "young turk" coming into old pros territory and rocking the boat against guys who have been studying this since before I was born, but I just picked up a bunch of Simon Furman stuff from [[http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Marvelcomicscontinuity.jpg The old comics]] as well as the big two volume IDW packs and they just don't fit at all. They're as different from G1 as the Films, Animated or RID are. I don't think we should makes assumptions and leaps of logic just for convenience's sake, kind belies the purpose of a wiki, ya know?

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-12-01T20:55:42Z

158.103.0.1:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Why are the IDW books in G1? ==

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.)

== Aligned Timeline ==

I'm going to try and take a stab at creating an Aligned timeline that unites everything we know about the franchise(s) so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Help Wanted ==

Hello one and all. I'm here representing a newly created Role-Playing forum that is based in the Transformers Universe. We're in the early stages yet, and are looking for people to help get the ball rolling. Since this site seems to lack a dedicated forum (where requests like these would usually be made) and I haven't seen any other way to effectively say my piece in front of a large audience, I thought that posting here was the best way to "advertise" us, as it were. I sincerely apologize if this was the wrong move on our part, or if I've breached protocol at all, but I can assure everyone that our intentions aren't malign. Those interested, please contact me using any of the ways that I have listed on my username page here on this site. I won't tempt fate by linking our website here directly =P

Once again, you all have my sincere greetings, and I hope to hear from you soon. Also, as a side note: the difference in quality between this page and the transformers wikia is amazing. [[User:Rathian Warrior|Rathian Warrior]] 23:50, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if you've crossed any lines, and frankly, you were polite enough about it that it's not a big deal, but you could always buy some ad space if you want to raise awareness of your forum. It's cheap! There's usually a link on every page around the banners, but if you didn't catch it, you can follow this link: [https://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=25311&type=4 Project Wonderful TFWiki Page]--[[User:McFly|McFly]] 16:13, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== "Fictional" and "real" categories ==
I think we need to come up with a consistent way to distinguish categories of things that are real and categories of things that have appeared in fiction. So far, we've skimmed the issue by using synonyms, such as [[:Category:Companies|companies]] and [[:Category:Businesses|businesses]], but that doesn't really work for things like [[:Category:Magazines|magazines]], which is already used for real magazines. Currently, we have [[:Category:Fictional books]], [[:Category:Fictional video games]] that consider the fictional entities "different". On the other hand, we have [[:Category:Real-world events by day]] and [[:Category:Real world films]]. We focus more on the fictional aspect of Transformers, so it makes sense to not point out the fictionality in categories, but "real world" sounds awkward to some. Which one should we use? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:26, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I thought I'd cheat and see how some of the other fictional Wikis deal with the problem. Three different approaches I saw:
:*[http://tardis.wikia.com/ Doctor Who wiki] has a [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Real_world "Real World" category] for real world stuff and in most cases the categories for real world things are at "Real world X".
:*[http://wookiepedia.org/ Wookiepedia] goes the parenthetical route, with "Books" and "Books (real-world)". Though they also have one or two like "Real world companies".
:*[http://stargate.wikia.com/ Stargate wiki] has "Books" versus "Stargate books" for real world books.
:I kinda like the parenthetical approach that Wookiepedia have taken. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::I'd favor pointing out the status of both categories, just to make absolutely clear what they are for. The words can be "Fictional" and "Real-world" (I notice both real-world categories use a different spelling. Whichever it's gonna be (if), only one spelling should be used). "Nonfictional" kinda works as an alternative, would "Real-world" be disliked. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:35, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::If we go that route, I think "real-world" should be used, since "real world" is a lot more easier to fix than the other parsing. I like the Wookiepedia approach, but I'm not sure that's enough to change how we already do categories. The idea to label both categories sounds nice, but "Fictional X" seems incongruous with unlabeled categories, such as "weapons", "technology", etc.; considering that our main focus is the fiction, I'm leaning towards only labeling the real stuff. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I think it would be advantageous to put a {{tl|disambig2}} at the top, so people could easily go from the fictional to the real world category too. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:30, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Yeah, I think I put that on [[:Category:Films]] a while ago. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:57, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Speaking of this, I found we handle [[:Category:Films]] like [[:Category:Real people]], wouldn't this be some, um, confusing? It's just, somehow, reverse? (Except for the fictional films like ''Honoji'') According to the logic of how we handle [[:Category:Real people]], shouldn't we place films like ''40-Year-Old Virgin'' or ''Godzilla'' in the [[:Category:Real world films]]? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Godzilla doesn't go in "Real world films" because it's not a real world ''Transformers'' film. The Transformers is implied in that category name. Presumably we could have a "Real films" category for Godzilla, etc, but I'm not sure it's worth doing. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:53, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::We shouldn't use "fictional X" for two reasons. One, there things like [[As the Kitchen Sinks]] that are fictional even within the fictional Transformers universe. Second, the wiki is written in-universe by default and putting [[Big Steve's Used Cars]] in a "fictional businesses" category would kind of break that. Within Transformers fiction, "Big Steve's Used Cars" is not a fictional company, but "As the Kitchen Sinks" is a fictional TV show. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:47, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is not a fictional show. It depicts fictional events and fictional people, yes, but the show itself, as a piece of entertainment, is not fictional. I do get your point, as we actually have things like [[Frankenstein]] that are two layers of fiction removed from us. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Yes, of course. I meant, in-universe, ''As the Kitchen Sinks'' is a work of fiction, whereas "Big Steve's Used Cars" is a real business that sells real used cars to real people. Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Wasn't ''Buck Rogers'' a fictional TV show? Anyway, it sounds like you got my point. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Or, judging by the fact categories like "Magazines" in used for magazines in our real life and "Companies" for companies in real life, why not just use "Film" for films (such as DOTM) in real life, while we move current contents in "Films" to "Films in ''Transformers'' fictions"? --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::That seems like it would go counter to some of our existing naming schemes. e.g. if we split that out into films by franchise, you'd get "Films in Generation 1" rather than "Generation 1 films". Though admittedly the former title might have the advantage that it's clearer in meaning. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I think both are equally ambiguous in their meaning. If we still need to clarify the purpose of the categories, we can always spell it out in the category's introduction. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== "Transformers: " ==
We talked a bit about adding back "Transformers: " to the titles of articles [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive51#When_to_omit_.22Transformers.22_from_an_article_title|previously]], and the general sentiment was that people were for it or didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any input in this matter? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:34, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm okay with this change, but I do have three questions on execution. <br>1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled? <br>2.) If "Transformers(:)" is going to be added to every relevant page name, then what about all the extra words in the titles of Japanese stuff? <br>3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc? <br>[[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 04:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::#I think we've had two consistent rules about that: If the title is some kind of phrase, like "Transformers United", "The Transformers Collection", or "Transformers Animated", then we don't use the colon. If the title is some kind of obvious "title: subtitle" setup ("Transformers: Armada", "Transformers: Prime"), then we use the colon. There's some borderline examples, but I think we can figure them out one by one. Official sources will help with determining colon-status. The other rule seems to apply to only games: If the title has another subtitle, then the first colon is dropped (ex. [[Transformers Prime: Terrorcon Defense]]). I dunno why, but we can add back the colon, I suppose.
::#I guess we add them? We could argue it for ''Victory'', since it was released in English contexts as just "Transformers: Victory".
::#I think we're just going to continue the same in relation to those. The articles will still be sorted by their subtitles in categories. Storylinks I could go either way on, but I think the trend is to drop the main title. I've been doing that for the AAII storylinks to avoid excessively long links. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:49, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I don't see how "Transformers United" and "Transformers Animated" are any different from "Transformers: Prime". To me, all three could fall into either of your groups (phrase vs subtitle) and would prefer colons in all of those cases. Of your examples, only "The Transformers Collection" seems to really belong in the "phrase" group. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::"United" and "Animated" are adjectives that modify "Transformers" and have official sources that omit the colon. "Transformers Prime" doesn't make sense in that way. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:58, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I am not certain about those two "rules" for colons either. They're rather vague and bound to cause arguments and confusion. It needs to be made more obvious whether a colon should be used or not before "Transformers" can be added everywhere (a help page on the matter would also be handy in the future, me thinks).

::::I think that if we would put the cartoon at ''Transformers: Victory'', that would cause confusion with the manga, storypages, toyline and franchises, none of which were ever brought over and should thus not be named such. If moved, the ''Victory'' cartoon should best go to its Japanese name. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 15:28, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>shrug* The first rule is mostly there for Transformers Animated, which people will be resistant to moving to have a colon (plus, obvious cases like The Transformers Collection). The second rule I really don't care about and can be tossed (it mostly only concerns the movie series of video games and online games). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you suggesting there that Victory articles should be moved to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory"? I'd disagree with that, if so! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:25, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Why? We can't go around writing out the full names of Western franchises and stuff but not do so for the Japanese stuff. We already have "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" written out for the 1985 & 1986 Japanese franchises, so why not ''Victory''? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 07:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Victory (the cartoon) has been released in the West as "Transformers: Victory", to me that means that the official English name of the franchise ''is'' Transformers: Victory. Yes, we should give the full Japanese title at the beginning of the franchise page but there is no reason to move anything to that name. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:35, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::That was pretty much my reasoning too (also typing out the full name every time we wanted to link to it would be tedious). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Tying out "(franchise)" every time for everything is more tedious, but we still have it (for... some reason). Ditto long titles like [[The Story of Super Robot Lifeforms: The Transformers]] and [[Transformers Vault]]'s previous ridiculously long title.
:::::::::But I guess the general principle of "Transformers: " is acceptable to most. I'll start moving the noncontroversial pages (Western comics and cartoons with definite subtitles, etc.) if there's no opposition in the next few hours. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Is there a difference between [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|Transformers: Beast Wars: The Ascending]]? I must admit, the comma/colon distinction seems kinda arbitrary. Also, these page names seem kind of overlong and stupid, what's wrong with [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Ascending|The Ascending]] and [[Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering|The Gathering]]? It's a Transformers wiki and those are Beast Wars series; prefixing everything we possibly can with "Transformers" is only going to clog up the search box and make editing just that bit more arduous. What were the arguments in favour of this again? --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 16:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::That's the formatting used in the indicia. Your complaint about the search box is silly; did you really think typing "Transformers" into it yielded anything useful 99% of the time?
:::::::::::Like it or not, "Transformers: " is the part of the name of many things, and the hoops we have to go through to maintain this silly system of dropping it from article titles has gotten ridiculous and inconsistent. Adding "Transformers: " to article titles, on the other hand, adds ''clarity'' and avoids pointless disambiguation. "The Transformers: Bumblebee" is preferable to "Bumblebee (comic)", "Transformers: Sector 7" to "Sector 7 (comic)", etc. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:44, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::I get that it's useful in some cases, but it just seems like applying the rule across the board means we're overcomplicating the issue. Occam's razor has a lot going for it, and for user-friendliness I'd go for brevity. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 17:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Also on an Occam's razor tip, "Bumblebee (comic)" conveys more information in fewer characters than "Transformers: Bumblebee". I really don't understand why the latter is preferable. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 14:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::There's something to say for either argument, but as it is, we have proven to be unable to keep to one consistent "Transformers"-as-part-of-the-title policy at least since TFA. And if trying to keep "Transformers" out of the deal doesn't work, we oughta give the alternative a chance. I don't think it necesarilly makes it harder to find anything, as the search box reacts to words even if they are not the first part of a page title. And I want to have the changes in clear perspective before I might suggest deleting a few redirects, so at least for now, searches won't be any harder and we have a consistent policy. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:49, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I gotta say, I'm hating how this is working in practice. Article titles seem long and ugly to me.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:46, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I feel the same, but it seems to be an necessary evil because "Transformers: ***" is a full title? duh. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 22:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::I fear the day someone decides to add full titles to disambiguation suffixes as well, e.g. "Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)", "Grindor (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)" etc.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 13:43, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::That would be silly, and I'm pretty sure most people would oppose it. Putting "Transformers:" in names is a change we'd already been drifting towards for a while with, for instance, the War for Cybertron articles all doing it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::On a related note, it's a pet peeve of mine when a writeup talks about a specific medium related to a franchise but links to the franchise as a whole instead, such as "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] toyline" or "in episode 6 of the [[Energon (franchise)|Energon]] cartoon...".--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Would the best solution there be something like "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the [[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]] [[Cybertron (toyline)|toyline]]"? --[[Special:Contributions/77.99.176.103|77.99.176.103]] 03:32, 29 September 2011 (EDT) (oops, emvee not logged in)
::::::I think linking to the toyline page is sufficent. There's no need for an additional link to the corresponding umbrella franchise. The thought behind this is: "If Joe McRandom sees something that interests him and clicks a link, does he want the link to take him straight to the specific topic or to a more general overview?" I think link targets should always be as specific as necessary. If someone gets interested in a broader overview, he can always go one level up. After all, a link referring to G1 Optimus Prime leads to [[Optimus Prime (G1)]], not to [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)]], either. In the same fashion, toyline pages should deeplink to the specific toy entries on the respective characters' pages (or even their toy pages, if applicable). Like, if Joe McRandom is on the [[Transformers: Universe (2008 toyline)|Universe (2008 toyline)]] page, sees a "Prowl" toy listed under "Deluxe Class" and wants to read more about that toy, he wants the "Prowl" link to take him straight to [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Universe (2008)]], not to the [[Prowl (G1)|main character page]] where he then has to scroll down to "toys", see that G1 Prowl toys have their separate page, go ''there'', ''then'' scroll down to "Universe (2008)". (It currently links to [[Prowl (G1)/toys]], which is at least halfway there.) I will fix this wherever I see it, and implement it when doing writeups.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

===Suggestion to creating templates===

Do we need some kinds of templates when typing contents for convenience? For my experience in Terminator Wiki, we use templates like <nowiki>{{T3}} for ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' or {{TSCC}} for ''[[Terminator: The Sarah Connnor Chronicles]]''</nowiki>. What I'm suggesting is that after we make all franchise names into full title (and we don't use redirect links), it is some how trouble some when typing the title. So we can make some templates like:
<pre>
{{tf|Armada}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (franchise)|Transformers: Armada]]''

{{tf|Armada|toyline|Pokeformer}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Pokeformer]]''

{{jptf|bwn}} -> ''[[Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo]]''

</pre>

If there is any user who can created complex template, we could make

<pre>
{{tf|armada|t}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Transformers: Armada]]''

parameter 1:
2010 = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010 (toyline)
thm = Transformers: The Headmasters (toyline)
mf = Transformers: Super-God Masterforce (toyline)
v = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory
z = Transformers: Zone
roc = Transformers: Return of Convoy
oc = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Operation Combination
armada = Transformers Armada
bwn = Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo
mov = Movie
rotf = Revenge of the Fallen
tfa = Transformers Animated
...and (blah blah)

parameter 2:
*default* - franchise
t - toyline
ct - cartoon
co - comic
m - manga
f - film

And, if possible:
if parameter 3 = s (for example), it will become short title like ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Armada]]''

</pre>

--'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

:It's something I've thought about as well. Considering there are a lot of exceptions to the regular naming system (parts of franchises that are called something different or franchises that lack the (franchise) identifier on the wiki because it's not necessary to disambiguate it), I don't think a template can be coded to put a link together. A full list system like our TFtoon templates have could maybe work though. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:08, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think with the number of franchises we have, it would end up being a hellishly big template and difficult to maintain for only a minor gain. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:03, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

==="Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" Transformers===
With the insertion of this phrase into the Victory page titles, should it also be inserted into the titles of The Headmasters, Super-God Masterforce, and Zone? now while the immediate answer would be "No", there are some places that do include this text above the "Toransufōmā" text in each of these series's logos. An example of this would the [[Transformers Tapestry]] (which even includes it in the Operation combination logo as well) and the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Columbia_Zone_DVD.jpg Columbia DVD of Zone]. Its inclusion in these places seems more than mere coincidence, so would we take this idea into consideration? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 14:33, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Um, that ''Zone'' DVD does not support your assertion. All of the ''actual'' media for those series (except for the Zone manga and story pages) do not include The "Fight!..." portion. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Technically the whole toyline in Japan from 1985 to 1992 was called "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" (as was written on the boxes), so at least the toyline pages for the series of those years would probably need the longer title than just "Transformers: ''X'' (toyline)" --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 16:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So you want to move the toyline pages to some made-up name? Pick one: 1) Merge all of the toyline pages to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)" 2) Leave the toyline pages as they are instead of stressing over naming things that technically don't exist. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::How is it "made up"? "Tatakae! Chō Robot Seimeitai" means "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" and is written above the "Toransufōmā" text on the packages of the 1985-1992 Japanese toys. I'm not proposing we merge all those toyline pages together, but rather something akin to the [[Transformers: Beast Wars (Japanese toyline)|Japanese Beast Wars toyline]] page, in which the individual toylines are kept separate even though they were all collectively the same-named toyline. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 17:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: The Headmasters" and its ilk are the imaginary names. Those articles for imaginary toylines are fine where they are. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==="Movie"===
There's still [[Movie (franchise)]], [[Movie (toyline)]] and more. Shouldn't that be "Transformers (2007 franchise)" and "Transformers (2007 toyline)", with the current [[Transformers (2007)]] becoming "Transformers (2007 movie)"?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Probably. I didn't move them, since I wanted to bring it up for discussion first. The film should be moved to just "Transformers (film)", though. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:"Movie (''media'')" should be moved to "Transformers (2007 ''media'')" while "Transformers (2007)" goes "Transformers (film)". --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 21:27, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::That push for lexical accuracy strikes me as creating more ambiguity than it resolves. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:06, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Jungaroo==
Someone made a lovely [[Jungaroo]] gobox, but there's no page for him. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 21:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
:I don't think he's in any applicable fiction, but his [http://home.comcast.net/~BattleBeastSD/MGCKang.html bio card is online here]. Someone will have to translate it from Japanese first though. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:25, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Making the search suggestion work better ==

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I noticed sometimes when I type something in the search box, the search suggestions below it jump around and end up on a list which doesn't quite match what I typed. I think it's something to do with the speed I'm typing and the amount of time the server takes to respond to each request.

Anyway, I tweaked the javascript for grabbing the suggestions from the server so it would only trigger when I stopped typing. That seems to fix the problem for me, and as a bonus it's not nagging the server on every keypress. The downside is no instant feedback when I type, but I can live without that if it fixes the other thing.

If anyone else is having that problem and wants to have a go, just copy and paste the following into your [[Special:MyPage/monacobook.js|monacobook.js]] (caveat: only tested on Firefox and Chrome):
<pre><nowiki>
var ss_memory = null;
var ss_timeron = 0;
var ss_timer;

function DoActualSearch() {
ss_timeron=0;
var newdiv = document.getElementById("searchsuggest");
if (!newdiv) {
var newdiv = document.createElement("div");
newdiv.id = "searchsuggest";
var searchdiv = document.getElementById("searchBody");
searchdiv.appendChild(newdiv);
}
var x = document.getElementById("searchInput").value;
if (x == ss_memory) {
return;
}
ss_memory = x;
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'none';
if (x.length < 30 && x.length > 1 && x.value != "") {
sajax_do_call("wfAjaxSearchSuggest", [x], newdiv);
document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'block';
}
}

function MySearchCall() {
if(ss_timeron) {
clearTimeout(ss_timer);
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
} else {
ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
ss_timeron=1;
}
}

function myss_ajax_onload(){
var x = document.getElementById('searchInput');
x.onkeyup = function(){
MySearchCall();
};
}

hookEvent("load", myss_ajax_onload);
</nowiki></pre>
Unfortunately it won't fix the actual contents of the search suggestions, so you'll still get a bunch of All Hail Megatron issues when you type "Megatron", but that requires changes on the server. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Hmm. I feel like adding <tt>ORDER BY `page_counter` DESC</tt> around line 20 of ''suggest.php'' might help w/ our search results, but it's hard to say for sure given how abstracted mediawiki database calls are, someone would have ot make the change then test it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::The thought I had was to do a query on article titles starting with the search term, and then if that gives back less than 8 entries, do a second search to fill the rest of the list with titles with the term anywhere in the title. The search suggest currently supports both options, but not at the same time. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

==Stuff==
: Firstly, our organization of information related to the junior franchises is terrible and I'd love to do something about it, but I need feedback. We currently have most Japanese and American Go-Bots as separate characters, except for the Japanese Go-Bots from the 1-2-3 line. Though there are requests for a separate Chopper page. Should those pages be split or not? And if so, what about the figures that came with some of the toys. Kid-Bot clearly isn't the "red driver" or "blue driver", but the dog and "Gas-Bot" both have fiction in only one of the two franchises, so is it worth separating them? Also, does the unpublished coloring book count as apocrypha or not, seeing as it was mostly approved? And the human characters within, do they count as cameos like Kelly in the Dreamwave comics or separate characters? And does anyone know what the Japanese name was by which the First Transformers were released? The Go-Bots fansite has an image of Dumpkun's box featuring what looks like a G1 logo, the First Transformers logo and "初めてトランスフォーマー" written on it.
: Secondly, many disambiguation pages still mention if there's a separate page for the toys of a character. Is this system still necessary now that we use subpages to separate such stuff under? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 17:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

::I think unpublished stuff is treated as apocrypha, isn't it? The character page coverage of unreleased Dreamwave issues is in notes, for instance. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:48, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::True, but we don't know if those were approved or know those weren't approved. The coloring book was approved, just not released. That makes it better comparable to Wreckers #$, which we do not consider apocrypha (though I wouldn't know if we'd do that if Wreckers #5 didn't partially canonize it). [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 11:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::Just weighing in on the toy page issue: I find it useful to have these called out on the disambig pages. Being able to go directly from the disambig page to the toy page of a character saves me at least one click (if I see the suite box in time) and often some scrolling (if I don't see it). However, I won't fight too hard on this if consensus is for the removal of this feature. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 07:47, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::Thinking some more about the Go-Bots stuff, as the Japanese version of Gas-Bot has no fiction, it probably doesn't need its own page - either link to Gas-Bot's page or just leave it unlinked in the appropriate toy sections. Same with the US version of the dog. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:30, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Facebook. ==

Is '''<nowiki>http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFwikinet/191252494230187</nowiki>''' us? Because it's the #1 link when you search for "TFWiki Facebook," and our group is nowhere to be seen. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

:I think our group is not showing up because you have to have a Facebook account to see it? When I go to the group's URL, I just get a page prompting me to log in to Facebook. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:47, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

::The link is this one: [http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/ http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/], which is the #3 on the search by "TFwiki site:facebook.com" on Google. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 19:51, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::So the other one isn't ours, and we can't put a link on it pointing it to the group.
:::Annoying. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It's a "Community page", whatever that is. Clicking on the "Create a page" button on the top right of that page does bring up some sort of form which seems like it will do something. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:12, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Halloween ==

Presuming we're deco'ing our frontpage for Halloween... does anyone have any suggestions? Monsters, ghosts, gouls? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
:Animated Blitzwing's random face looks sorta Jack O'Lanterny and could work as a replacement for the Autobot insignia on the site logo, assuming we can find a head-on image of it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:35, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

== Moving "(Timelines)" articles ==

I'm thinking that, as we don't bother with "(Timelines)" for SG, TransTech, and Animated characters, we should apply the same across the board and only use it if necessary.

*[[Astrotrain (Timelines)]] → Astrotrain (Cybertron)
*[[Cannonball (Timelines)]] → Cannonball (G1)
*[[Cop-Tur (Timelines)]] → Cop-Tur (G1)
*[[Halogen (Timelines)]] → Halogen (G1)
*[[Side Burn (Timelines)]] → Side Burn (G1)
*[[Sky-Byte (Timelines)]] → Sky-Byte (G2)
*[[Switchblade (Timelines)]] → Switchblade (BW)
*[[Thunderblast (Timelines)]] → Thunderblast (G1)
*[[Yoketron (Timelines)]] → Yoketron (G1)

The exceptions are the Descent into Evil characters, who don't really fit in any pre-existing franchise, and the Nexus Prime characters, who don't originate from a particular universe.
*[[Buzzclaw (Timelines)]]
*[[Dirge (Timelines)]]
*[[Flareup (Timelines)]]
*[[Landquake (Timelines)]]
*[[Ricochet (Timelines)]]
*[[Heatwave (Timelines)]]

Thoughts? Or does nobody really care that much? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 10:19, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:Since you asked, I'll pitch 2¢ into the conversation, since I know a little bit about it. I found out the hard way that wiki "doesn't bother with '(Timelines)' for Animated." And by hard way, I mean I was clobbered over the head without a hint of explanation for proposing that a Timelines-original Animated continuity character should be at "(Timelines)." But no hard feelings. I still think "franchise of origin" and not "continuity of origin" is best for disambiguations. For reasons that have been discussed previously on the subject. TransTech and SG are treated as a kind of sub-franchises of Timelines by the wiki, so I think they are an OK exception. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::The prose stories are identified as "Transformers Timelines presents a Transformers: (franchise) story". I would say that both franchises are equally valid to the stories, and the fact that non-Timelines stories (Around Cybertron, magazine comics, etc.) bleed together with Timelines stories makes the "(Timelines)" designation convoluted. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, that's different. It sounds like you are calling their actual franchise of origin into question, not just their disambiguation. I don't have an opinion about their actual franchise of origin. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying that they're Timelines, but saying that they're better categorized under their other franchise. Like the Animated guys, it seems more instinctive to file [[Side Burn (Timelines)]] under "Side Burn (G1)" instead (not to mention that there's other Side Burn in Timelines: [[Side Burn (SG)]]).[[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:38, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
I'm hesitating, but let me think about the ramifications. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I'd be fine with this. Though, one thing I'd like to propose is giving the Wings Universe characters their own disambiguation suffix. Like maybe "(Wings)" or something. I know it's a part of G1, but it's kinda like its own series within the over G1 continuity family like the Japanese G1 series are (which are also given their own suffixes such as "(Victory)", "(ROC)", "(BT)" etc.).

:Though, as for the Descent into Evil characters, maybe something like "(DIE)" or "(Descent)" or even just "(Descent into Evil)". Or, if not, keep them at "(Timelines)". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 11:51, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think the DIE guys are fine where they are (although you could argue moving [[Ricochet (Timelines)]] because of [[Ricochet (SG)]], but I don't really care). As for the Wings Universe guys getting their own disambiguation, eh... [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I am '''definitely absolutely''' against creating a (Wings) disambiguation when (G1) or (Timelines) work perfectly fine. We do NOT disambiguate by continuity except by absolute necessity within a franchise. Making up a (Wings) parenthetical just because incredibly confuses our disambiguation policy for no real reason. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::And what exactly keeps the Descent into Evil guys from being tagged G1? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Is the intermezzo period between G1 and BW considered G1 or BW?

:::It's all G1 characters... and IIRC the Insecticons were supposed ot be part of Insecticon plans which had been around for ages, so the characters weren't "BW-era only" characters...

:::I could support a G1 disambigif you talked me into it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:01, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::::DIE fiction (Descent into Evil itself and [[Intimidation Game]]) has elements of both BW and G1; it doesn't have a certain franchise placement. Dirge (Timelines) and Ricochet (Timelines) also have namesakes firmly in G1. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:14, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::::BW is both BW and G1. And G1 has been back-incorporating BW elements since, like, 1995. The fact DIE has G1 and BW doesn't mean it's part of neither. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::I think that, by the nature of Timelines, it feels more natural to parse that specific set of characters by their continuity or parent-franchise of origin. Honestly, I think the Nexus components (''all'' of them) are really the best and only candidates for the Timelines parser.

::Also, I made a [http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Template:c quick template] that you guys could use here to simplify the coding for whenever you need to link a continuity-parsed name.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:37, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:::Unfortunately I don't think that template would work as well here, because our articles are not consistently named by franchise. For instance [[Lightspeed (G1 Technobot)]], [[Flattop (Autobot)]] and [[Impactor]] are all (G1) characters but don't use (G1) in their title, so the template wouldn't work for linking to them. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

:I think that Timelines is a pretty clunky franchise for the purposes of this wiki, in that it covers multiple continuities. I think the proposal on the table makes sense.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

== Two spaces after a period in a sentence ==

I've noticed this for a while on the Wiki. In practice, it makes no difference as the software displays one space the same way it displays one. However, I've been wondering why people do it. Now I '''know: They''' were taught so in school. '''By teachers who were taught on friggin' ''typewriters''.''' So the "two spaces after a period" rule is a leftover from the typewriter days, where it was a necessity, but it's completely obsolete on computers. [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html Source]--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:The sentence spacing rules were, in fact, developed by typographers, but were not phased out via the magical introduction of the personal computer. The em-space rule exists for monospaced fonts, which were still fairly common for a great number of printers through the mid-1980s. If you would like to begin a tyrannical series of grammar-based wiki edits, I would begin by avoiding the use of prepositions at the start of sentences. I would also advise some respect for the proper use of colons and semi-colons, as typographical errors should not take priority over proper word selection and punctuation. Cheers! --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 14:20, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Are you referring to sentences beginning with prepositional phrases for the sake of emphasis (also known as an introductory modifiers)? That's totally valid. Or do you mean idiocies such as relative clauses that are separated from the preceding main clause by a period instead of a comma? The most glaring typographic blunders I encounter on the wiki typically go hand in hand with awkwardly worded sentences and clunky terminology, so I'm inclined to assume the same person(s) is/are responsible for all of those.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::I have bolded an example. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Aw, you altered your post. No fair! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:16, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::What'd I alter? I just moved it up. Anyway... I'd call that one "deliberate departure from proper grammar for the sake of dramatic emphasis". It's about as improper as using a period after ''every. Single. Word.'' If it's obvious from the context that it's done for emphasis, I'd call it acceptable as long as it's not used inflationary. I'm sure we have a few cases of "We know it's not proper grammar, but we want to stress a point here" on the wiki. (How did the saying go again? "Know the rules first before you break them"?)--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 20:28, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:....or you can just set the bot to convert " " to " ". Since we don't output monospace font, or anything.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)
::Over the whole wiki, those extra spaces account for maybe 20kb of data, which I don't think is worth worrying about. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Typed text is typed text, and the double-space after a period is still correct. Shall we next be told that we're "wrong" for not having the wiki use the metric system, or for writing down dates with the month before the day instead of after it? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Oh, and I bolded something too. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Due to habit, I'm gonna double-space until I die. I really don't think that needs to be considered a problem. Is that really a problem? An extra millimeter between sentences? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Nevermore ''is'' right about it being mostly obsolete, but for purely technical reasons: All double (triple, etc.) spaces are collapsed down to one for display in HTML. If you want the extra spaces to actually be viewable as extra blank space, you have to use <tt>&</tt><tt></tt><tt>nbsp;</tt>. So if you double-space here on the wiki, it only shows up when you edit the page. For whatever that's worth. (Not really taking sides, just presenting the info.) --[[Special:Contributions/67.252.49.31|67.252.49.31]] 06:08, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== More on the search box/"Transformers" everything ==

Typing "Energon" into the search box does not give me [[Energon (franchise)]], [[Energon (cartoon)]] or [[Energon (toyline)]] as top results. Same for "Cybertron". I assume this has to do with the recent "Transformers" prefixing for article titles. However, typing "Animated" into the seach box ''does'' give me franchise and toyline as top results, so it should be ''possible'' despite the prefixing.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 07:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:It's purely alphabetical, dude. ''Animated'' shows up before ''Arcee (Animated)'' because "An" precedes "Ar", whereas ''Arcee (Energon)'' comes up before ''Energon'' because "A" precedes "E". --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:13, 6 November 2011 (EST)
::There's an option in the search suggest tool to limit the results to stuff starting with the search query rather than with stuff with the term anywhere in their titles, however it's not something that can be configured through MediaWiki. There's a bit of discussion about it in the "Making the search suggestion work better" section up above. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)
:::If we wanted to do ''that'', when we shouldn't have prefixed "Transformers:" before hundreds of articles 3 weeks ago. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:06, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::We still have the titles without "Transformers: " as redirects though, so they'll still show up. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:23, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== Spam-dalism ==

Is that the neologism for it? Anyway, somehow the ReCaptcha is failing to stop the automated spam, and I'm guessing the IP's are all very different.

How old are the accounts when they do this? If they're fairly new, would it be possible to simply block IPs and new accounts from inserting new external links? If not (or if that's unworkable), would it be possible to flag such edits for review the way that wikipedia does to edits on contested pages?

Also, is there any chance these are at least coming from the same proxy? The fact that they're getting past ReCaptcha makes it seem like these are actual people doing this, unless ReCaptcha only activates on certain namespaces.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 14:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:I was using captcha with images on my phpBB installation on another site (Doctor Who related) until yesterday and getting a half dozen spammers a day signing up in despite of it. Yesterday I switched to a Question Answer challenge which asks the person registering to name the main character's time machine, and so far it has stopped the spammers dead.
:MediaWiki has [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha] which looks like it works in exactly the same way, and works with the ConfirmEdit extension we already have installed. If we can get that installed and set up, it might be more effective than the image-based system we use now. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::What would the questions be? It can't be too obvious or too obscure. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:31, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:::Not necessarily. The question I'm using on my Doctor Who site is obvious if you have any knowledge at all of the source material, but it seems to be working. We can always start with something easy and see how we go. Most likely all of the spammers are using bots anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::"What is the name of the red-and-blue semi Autobot?", "What's the name of the blue casette player Decepticon?", or "What is the name of the yellow semi Micromaster Autobot with a hydraulic crane?"[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 17:50, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::: "What is the fandom's usual reaction when a new franchise is announced?" :p [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:56, 18 November 2011 (EST)
::::::<tt>If Dick has two apples and Jane has two apples, how many apples do they have? (3 letters.)</tt> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:09, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::Ah, but then it would be so easy for users to use only three exclamation marks, and forget the requisite four exclamation marks and a 1.
::No but yeah, a question helps a lot. Might even be worth doing for all IP edits and new accounts, not just those with external links.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:57, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::While we're on the subject, is it somehow possible to flag certain terms or words used by IP editors and auto-block them? *coughcoughobamacoughcough*[[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 16:31, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::...but we have an article on [[Barry Obama]].
:::Are you trying to whitewash the wiki? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:13, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::: It was just an academic question; after all, I'm sure that you've noticed our considerable problem with a certain IP editor lately. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:19, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::: Well yes... but I couldn't resist. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:43, 19 November 2011 (EST)
:::It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a temp ban on the whole ISP might get better results. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:51, 19 November 2011 (EST)
::::sooo...who would you need to talk to about getting this set up, and what exactly do you want to restrict?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 19:45, 21 November 2011 (EST)
:::::The guy whose IP addresses are always located in England who keeps vandalizing articles with Obama-related nonsense. Doesn't look like even banning IP ranges stops him. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 11:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::...so, there's no way to stop this lunatic? [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 11:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:Options, in order of severity:
#Block all new uses of the word "Obama" to all anonymous editors.
#Block anonymous editors entirely.
#Destroy England.
:But really, that's a separate issue with probably a separate solution, since the guy is a some kind of being. To deal with the spamdalism, I think you guys should add a "name that Transformer-mon!" question, which should cut down heavily on automated edits, and if they still get through, look at blocking all uses of external links for anonymous or new editors. The use of the question for all IP edits is fairly standard, so it should be easy to implement, and you can look into harsher measures if the bots still make it through. However, I really think you guys should make an effort to get this setup, because the conversation keeps kind of drifting down and the vandalism keeps happening.[[Special:Contributions/98.223.102.157|98.223.102.157]] 02:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:: On another note... isn't it cute how he keps trying to badly pass himself off as me? I think someone has a bad case of hero-worship. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 10:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::Please stop egging on vandals. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 11:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::: OK, on a more serious note, is anyone averse to just locking the wiki for a few days? Bulbapedia does it regularily and they don't have much of a vandalism problem. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 12:36, 23 November 2011 (EST)
Removing the "Undo" option for anons would help, at the very least. We need a regular tech person (or give abates access to the MediaWiki stuff, since he seems to know his way around). [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:12, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::: What if we implemented a captcha system for anon edits? I mean, it wouldn't ''stop'' them, per se, but it would make persistent vandalism wars a hassle. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:16, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::I would not be opposed to that, or simple stock questions. ("Who is the leader of the Autobots?", "What is two plus three?", etc.) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:23, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:::: Rodimus Prime? :p
::::: But seriously, how did Mr. Obama Guy get past the rangeblock? Because that's rather worrysome in and of itself. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)
::::::BT Internet has a lot of IP ranges. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:58, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Okay. Listen.<br>
1) CAPTCHA won't change crap. It ''might'' stop a small number of bot edits, but we have a large, active mod presence that basically polices this place around the clock, and any of those crappy ad pages can be eliminated in mere minutes, if not within seconds of their creation.<br>
2) There is basically '''''NOTHING''''' that can be done to ''stop'' someone who has decided that the best use of their time is constant, repeated, easily-reverted vandalism of a wiki. Well, okay there are a few options, but they're not ones any kind of wiki coding is gonna be part of. They'll find ways around bans, and all these automated things that are being suggested are basically shooting blind and wasting time. This is not remotely the first time someone has thought to do this. It won't be the last. But we've outlasted all those others. And that's all it takes. Again... that large active 24-hour admin presence that quickly and coolly reverts the vandalism ''without getting all butthurt''. That's what vandals want, to watch you get pissy and panicky and angry... ''and that's what you're giving them.'' So '''''shut up''''' and stop feeding that, then they'll eventually get bored and leave.<br>
3) I can perhaps get behind removing the "Undo" option for anons. I don't think though that it will really help much, since making an account takes what, a few seconds?<br>
--[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:38, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:Um. I don't want to offend anyone, but the Obama-guy thing ''really'' isn't related to this topic, although some of the solutions to the spamdalism thing might work to hinder him. The bigger issue is the guys spamming the wiki with links to knockoff viagra, sort of thing, and putting up a simple question system for anons and new editors would work to stop that almost completely, at least everywhere I've seen it in use.
:The mod presence, yeah, things eventually get cleaned up by the end of the day, but a simple, standard change like adding the question will prevent that from happening in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/99.39.88.159|99.39.88.159]] 22:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)
:Just to alleviate any concerns: In my experience, the question captcha does not prevent human edits except from the most severely uninformed editors, and it completely prevents the bot-spam, which at this point almost totally covers the RC when I happen to check it. Many other independent wikis, such as Halopedian, use the question captcha, so if you guys wanted a first-person POV on it, you could also ask them for their experiences. Basically, the captcha question should totally eliminate the bot-spam, with the only drawback being that it adds maybe a fraction of a second to anonymous human edits. So, given that, does anyone have any objections to adding the captcha question?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)--(same anon as throughout this topic)

== Spelling throughout the Wiki ==

I've found that, on multiple spots on the Wiki, there are UK English spellings of words. Now, I know that the Transformers Wiki is a country-spanning project, but I'd like a consensus on whether or not we should change incidences of UK spellings (like "practise" and "polarize") to their American English counterparts. A streamlined flow using only one dialect would, I believe, make the editing process much easier. However, I do not want a backlash from UK users. <br>
P.S.: Damn you, Webster! You and your new-world dictionary! [[User:TheMZone|TheMZone]] 18:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:[[Help:Style guide#National varieties of English|Here is the wiki's policy on the subject]] just so you know. I myself don't think it needs changing. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:2005 IDW continuity

2011-12-01T20:55:36Z

158.103.0.1:

== Why is this is G1? ==

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.)

== Avengers crossover? ==

It's my understanding that while this is portrayed at a specific point in both New Avengers and IDW's Transformers, it's actually in continuity for neither. So perhaps this needs to be a special note rather than sandwiched between Infiltration and Escalation.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
: I know nothing about it aside from what I've been told here and there, which was just "it goes between Infiltration and Escalation." Is this in an official source somewhere? -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 17:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
: It's definitely part of IDW continuity, but not Marvel continuity. Spotlight: Ramjet spins off from one of its threads. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
: I think that when it comes to this issue, we might be best to wait for Spotlight: Ramjet and see if it addresses the continuity wierdness at all. - Chris McFeely (not signed in)

== Alternate Modes list ==
Hot Rod should be added to this list, if anybody knows what he's supposed to be. And Blitzwing and Megatron. Astrotrain, Hardhead and Nightbeat too, I suppose, though we haven't seen them transform. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 19:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:Oh, easily. I was just lifting it from Infiltration's page, as it doesn't belong there.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::Megatron's entry there seems to imply that he's still a Walther P38. I don't think that's true. If I knew what model gun he is now, I'd've changed it myself. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Megatron's own character entry identifies his altmode as a P99:

<i>Megatron stayed to guide the second stage of the Decepticons' plans, wishing to try out his new Earth-inspired handgun (Walther P99) altmode. {{storylink|The Transformers: Escalation|Escalation}}</i>

:::[[:Image:Massdisplacement.jpg|This image]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_P99 some real-life references] can support this assertation, as best as I can make out the comic scan. The details are difficult to be certain of in the final iteration of Megs in that scan, though, and many pistols have similar details. It would have to be a pretty exact match, I think, to certainly say it's any particular gun. --[[User:Sntint|Sntint]] 22:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

== New evidence that IDW is not G1 ==

[http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=143991#143991 DonFig]: "...and the thing is, I don't consider IDW's take as 'G1'. the stories are not a continuation of the ones from the 80's cartoon or the Marvel stuff. they didn't crash on earth 4 millions years ago and get lodged in a volcano, it doesn't even fit into Beast wars.

sure it's got the same names and elements from G1, but that can also be said with every other series that came and went since G1.

Armada, Energon, Cybertron, Animated, the Movie.. All have elements of G1 in them, all have an Optimus who's a red truck and there's a Yellow car that younger people can relate to. references to Matrixes, Unicrons..etc, but they're not G1." - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:46, 24 July 2009 (EDT)
:That's not "evidence," that's an opinion, and not one that is related to the wiki's classification system. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 21:55, 24 July 2009 (EDT)
::Agreed. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 02:29, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
:::The redesigns for the ongoing would also indicate to me that it isn't G1. Also, it may be a small point, but the differing origin for characters and gimmicks—that don't match G1 bios—would seem to indicate that it isn't G1. Scourge, Goldbug, Micromasters, Dropshot. Even Nightbeat never being a headmaster. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:33, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::::The original cartoon didn't match the G1 bios! Their Shockwave wasn't a calculating betrayer, their Sludge wasn't born on Cybertron, their Galvatron wasn't the City Commander. And it had differing origins from other continuities. Were the Dinobots born on Earth or Cybertron? Were the Constructions built on Earth or were they one of the other two origins also presented by the cartoon? Were the Aerialbots brought to life by Vector Sigma or the Creation Matrix? Was Blaster a brooding anti-hero or a hip-hop deejay? These things you bring up in favor of IDW not being part of G1 can be applied to every other aspect of what we all agree is G1. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:51, 16 January 2010 (EST)
:::::Are you proposing that the IDW comics are a franchise independent of the G1 franchise, Starfield? Because that's kind of silly. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:55, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::::::'Too Late' is never a reason to do, or not do, something. However, by just about any meaningful definition that I can think of, IDW is a 'G1' continuity. Virtually every Transformer is recognizably based on one of the original G1 toys. Their personalities draw broadly from these sources. The mechanics of the universe seem far more in keeping with prior G1 incarnations than other continuities. (By which I mean - no minicons or cyberkeys or energon weapons, no Magnus as the Autobot head-honcho, etc.) I just don't see it, at all. Even a little bit. Even the War for Cybertron, which is being touted as a continuity reboot, may prove to be 'G1,' so I'm gonna have to say I just don't see a case here. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 19:33, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::::::That is what "DonFig" is proposing. "I don't consider IDW's take as 'G1'.... sure it's got the same names and elements from G1, but that can also be said with every other series that came and went since G1." Maybe it is silly, but it can't be ''that'' far off. I was just posting some evidence in favor of it being a different franchise. For posterity? In case it splits more? It wouldn't entirely surprise me if it retroactively tied into a new "War for Cybertron" continuity. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 19:51, 16 January 2010 (EST)
:::::I admit the bio mismatch is a small thing. But I think the Micromasters take that to a new level. They aren't even Autobots and Decepticons. Are they even Cybertronian Transformers or were they from Gorlam Prime? I wasn't clear on that. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 19:51, 16 January 2010 (EST)
:As noted... that's an opinion, not evidence. And really, within context, he's talking about it not being a very SPECIFIC iteration of G1. Splitting it would be pointlessly stupid, especially since now we'd have what, an extra hundred-plus pages of characters with (IDW) now or someshit, when they're pretty much just G1 and are better served within the G1 character articles? Or are we going to split out all the guys who appeared in "Hearts of Steel" too? --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 20:43, 16 January 2010 (EST)

==Recommended reading order==
For a long time, I've been thinking that this wiki should provide the service to our readers of untangling all the IDW-G1 mini-series, maxi-series, and stand-alones into one "recommended reading order". I've given it quite a bit of thought, and I've come up with this: [[:User:Jackpot/Sandbox/IDW-G1 recommended reading order]] I explain my rationales on its [[:User talk:Jackpot/Sandbox/IDW-G1 recommended reading order|talk page]]. While I admit that some subjectivity had to come into play, I have the hope that the community can either accept the list as-is or come to its own alternate consensus. And, ultimately, I would love to see it incorporated into the navigation, maybe in a similar fashion to how we have parallel navs for the Marvel US and UK comics. The reader really ''should'' be able to just click-click-click through the entire IDW-G1 series in a simple and linear way the way they can with almost any other. We editors are as smart and obsessed as they come - IDW's capricious marketing schemes should be no obstacle for the likes of us. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 02:29, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

==-ations Cast==
Call me slow but, is the cast list for the Ations series the full cast? Because its made unclear. If not..is there a place I can see every Autobot and Decepticon that appears in said series? Because I'm curious to know who all shows up in them and to me the list seems too small to be ALL of the Transformers who show up in them. (Or at least the ones that have more than just minor appearances)--[[User:Chipmonk328|Chipmonk328]]
:No, there isn't really a list. It would be nice to have something. As the "-ation" story went on, there isn't really a core cast of main characters to list, so the list would be large. But we have large cast lists in other places. I agree an "-ations" cast list would be nice. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 19:07, 24 January 2010 (EST)

==Character-centric miniserieseses...es==
Since IDW seem to be launching more of these, would it be worthwhile agreeing a standard way in which they're listed on here? So far we have [[The Transformers: Bumblebee]], [[The Transformers: Ironhide]] and [[The Transformers: Drift]] listed. It looks a bit messy, but my attempt to remove the The from the (still red link) Ironhide one was undone. Yeah? YEAH - [[User:Guntrip|Guntrip]] 17:09, 16 March 2010 (EDT)