MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2011-02-22T23:58:47Z

75.185.113.106: /* When to omit "Transformers" from an article title */

__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]]
 <div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
 <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]]
 <div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
 <div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
 <div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
 <div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
}} 

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


==Didn't we have a Transformers Appearances/References in Other Media page?==
I could have sworn we did, mentioning stuff like Family guy etc. If we don't have such a page, would it be allowed to be created? [[User:Drmick|Drmick]] 11:53, 18 December 2010 (EST)
:Unless it's officially sanctioned by Hasbro, no, we do not mention Transformer appearances in other media. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 11:54, 18 December 2010 (EST)
:: If it ever existed, it would have been destroyed with fire in about 30 seconds. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 12:46, 18 December 2010 (EST)
::: Of course, if we did have such a page, we could use it as a lighting rod, keep anons from adding something to Soundwave's page every time Seth Green says the word "transformers." -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 16:28, 18 December 2010 (EST)
::::Of course, NO. Discussion over. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 16:45, 18 December 2010 (EST)
::::Discussion not quite over. If the unofficial nature of the topic is the reason why it is not allowed, then there are several articles that already exist that are pushing boundaries on the wiki. I would have thought that the biggest problem would be it's size.[[User:Drmick|Drmick]] 09:26, 20 December 2010 (EST)
:::::Yeah, that'd be the other big reason. There's so many such references it would be impossible to keep track of them all. It would also involve making sure what's added there is actually a TF reference. And given all the Toms, Dicks and Harrys that'll come out of the woodwork to add such stuff, that's going to be more trouble than not having a page. Best not to get a larger headache for the sake of reducing a smaller one. --[[User:Tigerpaw28|Tigerpaw28]] 12:44, 20 December 2010 (EST)

=="Knockoff warning" for toy sections?==
Just something that occurred to me... as I skimmed this page http://www.highendtfs.com/?q=node/17 and looked at alllllll the "could be mistaken for real and paid stupid money for" knockoffs... is there any objection to some form of link to this in the relevant toy sections? Sadly, the page lacks a "jump to" feature of any kind, but alerting people to the potential danger of dropping several hundred on what they think is a genuine Defensor box set... --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 02:50, 19 December 2010 (EST)

:I think it skirts the line with our "we don't really discuss knockoffs" policy, but on the other hand, yeah, it's a useful bit of information, almost to the point where we could stand to have a special page about ''these specific knockoffs''. I am not opposed to adding a link to that site, no, as long as it's got a massive and specific caveat attached to it (maybe even with a special template box thing ("A Prime Problem"-themed perhaps?)). Hell, maybe the highendtfs people would be willing to throw up navigation in exchange for the inevitable deluge of hits - anyone got contact info for the owner? [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 09:11, 19 December 2010 (EST)

::It's worth noting that there are some very well-done Henkei seekers knockoffs now, too. The really expensive ones even, like Thundercracker. Their sections could use warnings as well. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 17:56, 19 December 2010 (EST)

:::Are they in knockoff PACKAGING that is meant to look like the real thing? That's the really tricky part. G1 MIB shit is much, much more expensive. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 20:27, 19 December 2010 (EST)
::::Yes, they are: http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/buyer-beware-update-on-ko-henkei-seekers/20380/ -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 23:03, 19 December 2010 (EST)

::I am not sure I want to attach more template boxes to pages as is. Especially over something like knockoffs. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 20:55, 19 December 2010 (EST)

:::I'd ''thought'' about a template, but... ehn. I think a simple link under the TFU.info (or whatever), perhaps with a bolded "'''Knockoff alert'''" text. Like...

::::*''[http://www.highendtfs.com/?q=node/17 '''Knockoff alert''': More information on packaged imitations of this toy at HighendTFs.com]''

:::Thoughts? This would ONLY cover stuff that is in packaging meant to deceive you by looking as real as they can get it. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 21:05, 19 December 2010 (EST)

::::I could agree with that. This is a step beyond your standard knock off crap, some notice might be appropriate.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 21:44, 19 December 2010 (EST)

:::::I think it is a good idea to have it, since it is useful. This is different from putting info of some KO or unlicensed products on the page. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 21:49, 19 December 2010 (EST)

== Extension:Oversight ==

Quite a few times I've seen admins delete and undelete pages to clean out bad revisions. Why they do this I have no idea, since we have [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Oversight the Oversight extension] installed.

Perhaps we should look into granting some people "oversighter" access? --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 05:09, 25 December 2010 (EST)
:I've just noticed that deleting and then restoring pages in the manner mentioned above has the side effect of resetting a page's page views stats, so that's another point in favour of the Oversight extension. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)

== Wikipedia, revisited ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_.22Campaign_of_Deletion.22_against_the_Transformers_Wiki_Project_by_NotARealWord_and_TFWiki.net]

Just in case anyone's interested. --[[Special:Contributions/84.193.193.10|84.193.193.10]] 10:54, 5 January 2011 (EST) (-Blackout-, can't be bothered to log back in)
:NEWSFLASH: Nobody cares. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 16:21, 5 January 2011 (EST)

== Captcha to prevent spambots? ==

Is there any way we could implement captcha to account creation to prevent the spambot problem we're having now? I've seen other wikis use that measure. Maybe also disable new page creation by anons? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:56, 6 January 2011 (EST)
:We already have CAPTCHA implemented on the account creation service. --[[Special:Contributions/84.193.193.10|84.193.193.10]] 13:09, 6 January 2011 (EST) (-Blackout-, can't be bothered to log in)
::Never mind, then! [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)

== Real world events by day Category ==

These of course comprise every date of the year. However, I notice recently people have been adding fictional events to these dates. That basically invalidates the Category, since it's no longer comprised of only real-world events. The fictional events should be moved out into another section, or the category name should be changed to "Events by day". Thoughts? --[[User:MistaTee|MistaTee]] 22:01, 9 January 2011 (EST)
:I agree with changing to "Events by day". I would also support having separate fictional and real world sections on the pages. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 22:38, 9 January 2011 (EST)

== Project Wonderful ads ==

Um, guys, I found there [http://www.projectwonderful.com/img/uploads/pics/53018-1293943633.gif Non-official products] in the ads of CapturedPrey. I know the small ads are showing up randomly (and may not be controllable since we can't regulate them), but I think it is still need to be reported here. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 01:04, 16 January 2011 (EST)
: I don't mind them in the non-permanent ads. TFSource used them all the time in their ads before we made them permanent sponsors. It was only when we made them a permanent sponsor did we ask to make them free of third-party product. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 01:57, 16 January 2011 (EST)

== Games <strike>fiction</strike> ==

Okay, now that [[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] has flooded the character pages with stubs for 30 years worth of crappy Transformers games, can we reconsider how the Games sections are treated? I really don't think in-universe fiction descriptions are the way to handle it. [[War for Cybertron]] may've had a plot, but the majority of TF games are more in the vein of "hit things until they stop coming". A fiction section makes even less sense for games where the character selection is variable. ''"[[Hardhead (G1)#Transformers:_The_Headmasters|Hardhead]] may (or may not) have been present at this battle. Or this one. Or this..."'' Ditto for generic drone soldiers. Isn't there a way to address the games without trying to craft a sensical fiction for them? --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:46, 25 January 2011 (EST)
:I agree. The games should appear as merchandise on all relevant characters pages, but there is no need for a fiction write up for most games on those same pages. A generic write up on the game page should suffice. Something like "An Autobot warrior participated in a battle...", with a character box listing all potential "Autobot warriors" (aka playable characters). --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 09:21, 25 January 2011 (EST)
::Moving games to merchandise sounds awful. It would result in amazing amounts of lost information. I have no idea what doing that would solve. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 09:44, 25 January 2011 (EST)
::I think it depends on the game - for example in the ROTF console game, while you CAN play as multiple characters, the game provides a suggested one for you. IMO, that's who "actually" did the stuff depicted in the game (and the opposing side's campaign generally suggests it as well). When you can just pick from a half-dozen dudes and it doesn't matter, then maybe a brief summary of the game's plot and a note. "Jerkwagon was one of many Autobots involved in blah blah plot synopsis bluh. NOTE: Such-and-such game allowed players to choose multiple protagonists, including Jerkwagon." [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 13:19, 25 January 2011 (EST)
I agree that Games should be their own section -- there's certainly enough of them, and they should be treated differently than keychains and what-not. But I think an out-of-universe description of the games would be better in most cases. Instead of having to write vague text like ''"As Ultra Magnus searched for the truth behind Optimus Prime's death, he battled Trypticon in a game of death and suffering."'', which is about all the plot I could wrangle out of [[Transformers: Mystery of Convoy|Convoy no Nazo]] and tells you virtually nothing, we could write something more informative, like ''"Trypticon is the boss of Stage 10."'', and describe what actually happens in the game instead of trying to make it sound like believable fiction. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 11:29, 25 January 2011 (EST)
:::My personal view on the matter is, from a character's page, I should be able to find EVERY place that character has appeared. And when we do list guys having an appearance when they're most likely an animation error in the far-background of an episode, I don't think there's any excuse to NOT list an appearance of a character wherever he might appear, including board and video games. Is that a lot of work? Yeah. But beneath all the jokes that make this place so great, this is still an encyclopedia, and purposely leaving out information out of an encyclopedia is wrong. Though I think Hooper X has the right idea... I doesn't have to be the most super-extensive write up. Heck, I was even going to suggest just having a link saying "See Return of Convoy article" or something like that. Also: I apologize if I had started getting very sloppy last night, but looking back, it was like 5 in the morning by the time I finished up. Yikes. --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] 14:10, 25 January 2011 (EST)
::::I totally agree that the games should be dealt with on the character pages. I'm just looking for an option other than a completely in-fiction description. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 15:14, 25 January 2011 (EST)
::::: The first idea that comes to mind is having a subsection called "Gameplay" or something like that for each game write-up, something that would be similar to a note? Though really, my main solution for stuff like that has been, up to this point, to just stick a couple of notes in the game write-up, like on [[Cheetor (BW)|Cheetor]]'s page. I'll keep on trying to think up other solutions though... --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] 15:26, 25 January 2011 (EST)
::::Storylinks already serve as that, so what's the point of another link? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:47, 25 January 2011 (EST)

== Fiction order guide? ==

I've been over the Style guides a few times trying to find if a page like this already exists, but it doesn't look like it. I'll be the first to admit that when adding in new fiction/game subsections to a character's article, I sometimes confuse and probably put them out of order. So I've been wondering if a page that lists every fictional work and game in the proper order of each other would be a good idea? On one hand, it seems like an ABSURD amount of work for a style guide, one that would have to be CONSTANTLY updated as new things come out. On the other hand, it would be very handy to have a list to reference for character pages. Especially because it can get VERY frustrating trying to hunt down which book/cartoon/whatever came first in the same year. For those who don't understand what I'm talking about, here's an example I quickly put together, using the [[Cheetor (BW)]] and [[Optimus Prime (G1)]] pages as reference.

When listing a character's media appearances, use this sorting order:
*Fiction
**Generation 1 Marvel Comics continuity
**Generation 1 S.T.A.R.S. pack-in flyers
**Generation 1 cartoon continuity
**Generation 1 Kid Stuff Talking Story Books
**Generation 1 Big Looker Story Books
**Generation 1 Ladybird Books continuity
**''Transformers in 3-D''
**''Transformers PD Type'' comic
**''Comic Bom Bom G-2'' comic
**Beast Wars First wave toy bios
**Beast Wars Cartoon continuity
***Dawn of Future's Past
***''Beast Wars'' cartoon
***Fast Action Battlers toyline
***3H ''Tales from the Beast Wars'' comics
***IDW ''Beast Wars'' comics
***''Transformers Legends'' anthology
***''Beast Machines'' cartoon
***''Beast Machines'' toy bio
***''Universe'' comic
***''Beast Wars Metals'' comic
***Beast Wars ''Henkei! Henkei!'' pack-in comic
**Generation 1 Dreamwave comics continuity
**''G.I. Joe vs. the Transformers''
**''Transformers/G.I. Joe''
**Generation 1 IDW comics continuity
**''Hearts of Steel''
**''Music Label''
**''Henkei! Henkei!'' (pack-in comic)
**''Henkei! Henkei!'' Bun Bun manga
**Alternity
**''Robot Heroes'' comic
**''Universe'' cartoon
**Wings of Honor

Is this a good idea? Would anyone actually like to see this kind of thing, or would I just be putting a whole bunch of work into something we don't need? --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] 16:28, 25 January 2011 (EST)
:We do need standardization of section names. The section order, however, depends on order in which the character appeared in those continuities in the real world. Then the subsections are ordered by the fictional chronology. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:35, 25 January 2011 (EST)
::No wonder I get confused by this fiction order thing. @_@ I guess I might just be one of those people that will never get the hang of some of these things. And yeah, the section names was definitely something else I wanted to tackle, since I've seen at times no less than four different ways to refer to a certain media. I sometimes have to check the storylinks at the end to be sure it's all part of the same story! --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] 16:45, 25 January 2011 (EST)
::Note that, within a continuity, flashbacks and time travel can mean that experiential fictional chronology for one character requires a different order of headings than for another. [[User:JW|JW]] 20:16, 25 January 2011 (EST)
:::In regards to standardization, I have an idea. What if we create a list of headers (kept on this page perhaps) used on Optimus Prime (G1)'s page (probably has the greatest number of different headers), use that as our initial standards list, then update it as we find other headers or decide to change the existing standards? Once we think we've covered the majority of possibilities, we could move it to a help page and make it official policy. --[[User:Tigerpaw28|Tigerpaw28]] 17:49, 6 February 2011 (EST)
::::I put together [[User:Jackpot/Sandbox/Sections|a sandbox along these lines]] a couple of years ago. It hasn't been updated in quite a while, and I'm not sure it was ever actually complete, and it was the subject of [[User_talk:Jackpot/Sandbox/Sections|a bit of debate]]... but there it is, for what it's worth. (Also, I support standardization of headers, but I've run into [[Talk:Ricochet_(Headmasters)#Header|some]] [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive22#Section_naming_conventions|opposition]] over the nitty-gritty before, so best of luck.) - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 06:11, 8 February 2011 (EST)

== Foreign name reorganization ==

Is there any chance we could consider moving the foreign names somewhere else in the article other than at the top? We've already established a new standard for episodes, but characters could stand to have their names moved to their own dedicated section, likely under "Notes". There, we could add things like kana and Cyrillic forms of names not different from the English version. Opinions? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:56, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:I'm in favor of it. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 16:33, 4 February 2011 (EST)

::All things considered, since this is (mostly) an english-centric wiki when it comes to stuff, the foreign names do come off as being interesting trivia more than anything else. I'm in favour of this too. --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] 16:37, 4 February 2011 (EST)

:I'm fine with where they are now, personally. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 16:39, 4 February 2011 (EST)

:I can see the logic in them being moved down to notes. You've got an in-universe profile, then a bunch of out-of-universe names, then the in-universe fiction section. The only argument I have against it is that I'm used to seeing the foreign names at the top. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:05, 4 February 2011 (EST)

::If it can be moved downward (to the first entry of the notes section or a new section after the notes section) instead of being on the top, MOVE it. Originally, I'm fine withe where they are {{m-}} but that would be a character with fewer foreign names. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 19:55, 4 February 2011 (EST)
Any further opinions on this? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 00:36, 21 February 2011 (EST)
:What about cases where some of the extra names at the top are English, e.g. Omni Productions names, or preliminary or nicknames? Would they remain at the top or become notes too? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:29, 21 February 2011 (EST)
::The Malay dub still technically counts as foreign in my mind. Nicknames should be integrated in the introduction (or notes section), and preliminary names should have been in notes in the first place, since they aren't the characters' "real names" in any sense. Further elaboration of the preliminary names better suits the notes section, anyway. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:43, 21 February 2011 (EST)

== Commercial Appearances section ==

Alright, so I plan later on to start going through characters' pages and add in a "Commercial Appearances" section where it applies (sorry, I can't this weekend... homework to do!). Several characters already have this section and a lot of these commercials have nice short animations or other interesting characterizations and tidbits that I think they bear to be included in the characters' pages. Although, much like the Games sections, I'll only be able to marginally help by adding in the section itself to let people know that there's work to be done on a character's page... MY computer is so incredibly shitty that I can't even play videos off youtube. D:

But anyways, the reason I'm bringing this up here is because before I get started, I'd like to discuss what kind of format we want for this section, so it can be done right the first time around. Obviously, where it applies, stuff like indicating who the voice actor for the character makes sense, but should the write-up be in-universe or not? Since commercials fluctuate between using a short animation telling a mini-story and just being a straight-up commercial saying "buy this toy!" should a combination of both in-universe and out-of-universe description be used? And should we count the parts where the kids brandish their action figures and talk for the character as dialog spoken by the character? That's all the questions on the subject I can really think of for now... --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] 15:12, 6 February 2011 (EST)
:I would write up the animation segments in-universe so long as they're unique to the commercial (i.e. not just recycled footage from one of the cartoons). Anything else that's notable enough could qualify for an out of universe note. But I wouldn't bother with recycled animation or the kids talking for the figures. That doesn't qualify as fiction to me.
:In regards to your inability to view the commercials, would it help if you could download them in some fashion and then watch them offline? Maybe burn the videos to a DVD disc? --[[User:Tigerpaw28|Tigerpaw28]] 17:43, 6 February 2011 (EST)
::Yeah, any clips taken from pre-existing mediums would be redundant from those scenes being already covered in other sections on that character's page. Personally though, I'm still on the fence about the kids talking for the figures... I find it comparable to botcon script readings in a way... People just talking out loud for a character without any accompanying animation... I'm prone to be swayed either way. As for me viewing the commercials themselves, my spring break is a week from now. I might have access to a better computer then, but otherwise I'll just be putting in information already available on the wiki to the appropriate pages throughout the week, I guess. --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] 17:53, 6 February 2011 (EST)

==How to resolve monster debates?==
[[User:-Blackout-]]'s recent meltdown over being prevented from editing [[Goldbug (IDW)]] has made me think again about how policy/content discussions tend to go on this wiki. It's a big part of why I haven't been around since last summer: I found myself perpetuating these miles-long debates that few cared to read, everyone was irritated by, and most importantly ''were impossible to resolve.''

That Goldbug article is a sterling example. Right now, people are talking about it as if the [[Talk:Goldbug (IDW)/Archive1|giant]] [[Talk:Goldbug (IDW)/Archive2|debate]] had resolved in favor of the current setup, so changing the article at this point is taboo because it "was dealt with already." But that's not how it went at all. Blackout's dickishly unilateral edit-war was definitely the Wrong Way to reopen this, but it's also wrong to pretend that we had achieved consensus or closure on the issue.

At [[Talk:Goldbug (IDW)/Archive2#Breaking down the problem|the end of the debate]], I had restated the case for [[User:Jackpot/Sandbox/Goldbug (G1)|my "Goldbug (G1)" sandbox]], which is definitely different from the current setup, and 6 other people declared support for it while 2 objected at length. But the objectors were also against the current setup: Jeysie wanted the toy gone, and Derik wanted... something inscrutable and Deriky. Combining those numbers with the [[Talk:Goldbug (IDW)/Archive1#Vote Tally|premature vote]] that had been taken earlier (and adjusting for the voters who changed their minds by the end), I count:

Sandbox: 8 
Sandbox with modifications: 3 
Current page: 7 
Current page without the toy: 2

That's not consensus. That's deadlock. In fact, there were fewer votes to keep the page as-is than there were to change it in some fashion. The current setup didn't win out in terms of votes, logic, precedent, or any other measure: It won out because it was what happened to be there when the debate died of exhaustion.

So we're stuck with an awkward page that most people want to be different, encased in concrete forevermore. I don't see any way out of this situation, and I've watched the same principle play out with other debates too many times. At the very least, I wonder if it would be helpful to have a Template:Deadlock that we could slap on inconclusive debates (with a picture of [[Drift (G1)|Deadlock]], natch) so people know the true state of things.

Taking that idea further, maybe it could come with a period of enforced moratorium – say, two weeks – followed by a revote and/or a formalized "final statements" opportunity? The most extreme option I can think of is to create a "council of elders" that has the community-bestowed power to resolve intractable debates and declare relevant policy principles. Basically, a Supreme Court. I do worry that creating an authoritative heirarchy might produce even more problems, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

Thoughts? Other ideas?

- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 18:20, 9 February 2011 (EST)
: This whole argument goes to the heart of what we mean when we say two characters are "the same". The Bumblebee toy was produced and fiction was made to promote that toy, thus all of those fictions (which differ from each other) are about "the same" character. The Goldbug toy was produced with a tech spec that stated that it was "the same" character as Bumblebee. Fiction was produced to promote that toy, thus all those varying depictions of Goldbug are "the same" character as Bumblebee. The same argument applies to the differing backstories of Optimus Prime; Orion Pax and Optronix are "the same" character because they both are earlier forms of the character that was used to promote the sale of the Optimus Prime toy. The problem comes in with later stories that are not produced to promote those original toys. How do we decide what is the same? When is a character "the same character under different circumstances/in a different universe" and when is it simply an homage character? I really can't see how others see the IDW Goldbug as "the same" character as the original toy and not (as I see him) as a simple homage character. Under their viewpoint the toy belongs, under mine it doesn't. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 10:15, 10 February 2011 (EST)

: I NOMINATE MYSELF AS FINAL ARBITER AND SUPREME OVERLORD. all decisions will be made based on what amuses me the most. (seriously, we probably ought to have some kind of "no consensus" tag for articles like that.) [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 12:58, 10 February 2011 (EST)

Mmm...probably best not to restart the Goldbug debate itself here, Khajidha -- that would quickly distract from what Jackpot's actually asking here, which is how debates should be resolved ''in general''.

Some of the basic rules we already follow should remain. No "edit-warring"...leave it up to the Talk Pages to hash out the problem. I don't think a mere two weeks is enough to give people time to change their minds, though, especially in this crowd. One thing I notice is that despite dozens of regular contributors and hundreds overall, most Talk Page or Community Portal votes I've seen have less than 20 votes at the end. Many of these debates fly right under the radar. I'm relatively active here, but the Goldbug (IDW) chaos completely passed me by.

What about, when a Talk Page debate has clearly reached an impasse between <strike>obstinant</strike> strong-willed parties, a Vote is taken on the ''Main Page''? Some sort of easy-to-see box temporarily added to the Main Page, "above the fold" so that its visible to all visitors when they enter? It would be more noticeable than if the vote is hidden away on a single Talk Page people may or may not see. Something like ''"A [[Deadlock]] has arisen! Choose from the following choices: Should [[Goldbug (IDW)]] have the G1 toy on his page? Yes or No? (See the Goldbug (IDW) Talk Page for the full debate.)"''

I realize many debates won't be as simple as Yes or No, but if the debating parties agree in advance how to phrase the Voting Box, it could be a useful tool. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 13:07, 10 February 2011 (EST)

:Yeah, wasn't really trying to restart that debate. Was bringing up questions about general character debates, as they seem to occur quite often. But other debates also bog down, so I recognize that my questions don't apply to those debates.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:35, 10 February 2011 (EST)

:I like the idea of keeping a debate in the regulars' faces until a decision has been reached by enough people (at least 20? 25?). Many debates I keep away from because I think they'll disappear anyway and my vote doesn't really matter <s>and I also can't deal all that well with the aggressive nature of most debates, making it actively a lose-only situation if I'd enter</s>. I'm not sure if others feel that way, but I imagine this would be a boost for all to participate. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 13:23, 10 February 2011 (EST)
::I absolutely disagree with the premise that people who don't care enough to read the argument should have it shoved in their face until they vote. AT MOST, we should mention it somewhere prominent, like the community portal. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 18:53, 10 February 2011 (EST)
:::I agree that essentially putting a ballot on the front page is asking for trouble. You might get the dozens of votes you're looking for, but they'll all be uninformed gut reactions. One of the reasons these debates happen is that issues can be much more complicated and subtle than they seem at first glance. Plus one would hope that the reasoning behind the winning option would help develop our policies, but if the decisions are made by the majority of an explicitly uninformed mob, it's hard to glean any substantial precedent out of that.
:::But I think an approach like that ''could'' be combined with my "final statements" suggestion. Thinking out loud here: After a cooling-off period has been declared and a set amount of time has passed, anyone who wants to present a case can write up a defense of his or her preferred option. Those are all submitted to a neutral volunteer, who then posts them simultaneously on the relevant Talk page, and those become the voting choices. No replies are allowed, only votes. We put a notice up at least on the Community Portal, possibly on the Main Page, for another set time period, then close voting and go with the majority.
:::How does that sound? Like I said, thinking out loud, so suggestions are more than welcome.
:::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 19:18, 10 February 2011 (EST)
::::Sounds pretty good to me. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 10:19, 11 February 2011 (EST)

==How featured articles are chosen==
On a side note, would a box like that also be useful to start a voting system for featured pages? Because I'm fine with Drift and Wreck-Gar and all others before, but I am absolutely clueless as to who chose them to become featured for what reasons. I'd like to see a better system for that. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 13:23, 10 February 2011 (EST)
: If there was a recently-completed article that's of respectable length, I choose it. The pool for featured articles is pretty damn small. Not many articles are finished, and the ones that are finished have usually already been Featured Articles already. Finished articles don't happen very frequently, so sometimes we find one that's close to completion near the end of a month and then push to finish it before the month is over. Sometimes we think a subject or a character is timely (like around BotCon, or before an episode or movie premiere) and push for that. If you want a heads up, Chris McFeely's [[Matrix of Leadership]] article is so totally March's. (I think Chris has the record for number of articles he's completed which have become featured.) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:31, 10 February 2011 (EST)
: Long story short, if you want an article to be featured, finish it. That means photos for every toy and known merchandise, and storylinks (with summaries) to every piece of fiction they've appeared in. Behind the scenes information helps. The longer and more involved the article, the more appealing it is. Meaning, finishing an article for a Mini-Con who showed up in the background somewhere, or finishing an article for someone who doesn't have any illutrated appearances... these are probably not going to be featured. But people like Perceptor (G1) or Side Burn (RID) or High Wire (Armada) have enough about them to say to make an interesting featured article. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:36, 10 February 2011 (EST)
: "Long story short," my ass. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:37, 10 February 2011 (EST)
:: Have we done any episodes as Featured yet? I know the over-arching "Target 2006" article was chosen once. You'd think we could get, say [[Code of Hero]] up to that standard pretty quickly. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 07:42, 11 February 2011 (EST)
:::I really think we need to get [[BotCon]] up to that standard. We're pretty close! --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 15:22, 11 February 2011 (EST)
:::[[B.O.T. (episode)|B.O.T.]] is a Featured article about an episode. [[User:Excise|Excise]] 00:00, 16 February 2011 (EST)

== Letterers ==
On images of comic pages, do we credit the ''letterers'' by placing the image in an "Image by Letterer Name" category? We've got a few contradictory examples around. [[User:JW|JW]] 15:32, 12 February 2011 (EST)
:Okay, three options: For images currently in categories like "Images by Mike Scott" (where Mike Scott is a letterer), we can:
:# Create the category and treat letterers just like artists, inkers, and colorists.
:# Instead place them in a "Images ''lettered'' by Mike Scott" category.
:# Remove the category, and not attempt to categorize images by letterer.
:I'm probably going to go with option 3 barring dissent. [[User:JW|JW]] 17:25, 16 February 2011 (EST)
::I added galleries to a few of the pages for letterers (eg [[Bill Oakley]], [[Peri Godbold]]) on the basis that lettering can make or [[:Image:Cryotekmrrghmraghmrugghagh.jpg|break]] a comic. As well as adding the text, the letterer has to pick where the balloons will go and place, them, so they do have a large degree of control over how the comic turns out. That said, I don't know that we need to categorise images by letterer. The original intention was [[:Category talk:Images by artist|not to]], but it looks like we ended up doing it anyway, and at least one template is set up to put images into category by letterer. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:44, 16 February 2011 (EST)

:I'd vote for option 3 as well.--[[User:MistaTee|MistaTee]] 22:02, 16 February 2011 (EST)
::I'm leaning towards option 3 myself. My reasoning is that even though letterers can have a large effect on a comic, I don't see too many people wanting to find every image lettered by a given letterer. The galleries, on the other hand, are useful for demonstrating the quality of an individual's work. So those should be used. While the obsessive in me thinks we should categorize images by every applicable characteristic, it's not realistic. I don't think it benefits us enough to go through all that work for categories that only a few people might find useful. --[[User:Tigerpaw28|Tigerpaw28]] 01:09, 17 February 2011 (EST)
'Kay, I'm going to go with option 3. This may involve editing a template or two. [[User:JW|JW]] 10:35, 17 February 2011 (EST)

== Categories by toy size class? ==
Do we ''want'' the following categories?
 Leader class toy images
 Deluxe class toy images
 Voyager class toy images
 Scout class toy images
 They currently have a very few things in them (and could obviously have many more), but the cat' pages themselves have not been created. [[User:JW|JW]] 15:43, 12 February 2011 (EST)

:No. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 16:13, 12 February 2011 (EST)

::No. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:06, 15 February 2011 (EST)

:::As long as it's only the images and not the articles, I couldn't care less. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:09, 15 February 2011 (EST)

:There's also a "Legends class toy images" category which has 90 images in it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:21, 15 February 2011 (EST)

::Legends are kind of an exception because they're a different scale/play pattern, as evidenced by the upcoming Cyberverse stuff. Scouts-on-up are ''generally'' meant to intermingle, Legends aren't. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 07:41, 16 February 2011 (EST)

:I could go either way on this one. It's a lot of work to fill these categories out, but the ability to find all the Deluxe figures easily intrigues me. If we did institute this I would also think that this would be the proper place to put the "exclusive figure" categories and such. Basically, any category that pertains to a particular toy and not to the character could be tagged to the image of that toy. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 23:08, 15 February 2011 (EST)

:I've been doing them because I saw other people do them. I don't mind either way. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 05:51, 16 February 2011 (EST)
So, counting me as "no", that's three "no"s, an "I don't care", an "I don't mind either way", and an "either way/intrigues me". I think we're leaning toward "no". Final comments? [[User:JW|JW]] 07:08, 16 February 2011 (EST)

::I guess it's "no" or at least "not the time"? (Though I'm "I'm not sure".) --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 11:21, 16 February 2011 (EST)
:::I've gone with "no", and added a note to that effect to [[Transformers_Wiki:Images]]. [[User:JW|JW]] 14:27, 16 February 2011 (EST)

Ha ha, none of the no's have actually said why they've said no. Such super debating skills that. [[Special:Contributions/213.105.226.130|213.105.226.130]] 17:44, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== Undo Redone? ==

I just undid an edit, but instead of getting the automatic "Reverting edit ##### by User1 to last version by User2" summary, that box was blank. In addition, above the edit window were the captions "Current revision" and "Your text", side by side, as if there's meant to be one editable text window under each. Instead, there was only one such text window beneath them, stretching across under both captions. The page is protected so only registered users can edit it, so that MIGHT have something to do with the problem, though I doubt it.--[[User:Apcog|Apcog]] 20:28, 19 February 2011 (EST)
:It doesn't automatically create an edit summary if you're doing an undo on multiple revisions, so that might be it. Not sure about the other part - it's always shown me a diff at the top of the screen when I've done an undo. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:54, 19 February 2011 (EST)
::Okay, blank edit summary's explained, because it was indeed a group of 3-4 edits being undone all at once. Still inexplicable is the fact that I just checked the page history; it didn't even accept my Undo! LoneGamer78 ended up doing it instead. I've noticed some sluggish response from the site over the past fifteen minutes or so, perhaps whatever caused that was a factor? It may never be known...--[[User:Apcog|Apcog]] 21:02, 19 February 2011 (EST)
:::Is it possible she just beat you to it by a few moments and thus there was an edit conflict? I've had that happen sometimes, and so there's no diff shown because now the page already matches what you were going to change it to. (Uh, does that make sense?) --[[Special:Contributions/67.252.49.31|67.252.49.31]] 22:17, 19 February 2011 (EST)
::::Can't rule it out entirely, but edit conflicts usually announce themselves as such, and they DO have two distinct editable text windows: one showing the text as it stands after someone edited while you were typing, the other as it would have been if you'd edited without interference.--[[User:Apcog|Apcog]] 22:24, 19 February 2011 (EST)
:::::A few times I've "undone" an edit, but someone else beat me to it. It doesn't seem to show an edit conflict if that happens, probably because the change is identical to the previous one. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:06, 19 February 2011 (EST)

== Banner ad question. ==
The small side box ad (the one that's still a free-floater) currently has an ad for some webcomic. Which is fine, but one of the panels has GIANT ERECT LADY NIPPLES ALL OVER THE PLACE. I'm not offended by it, but it's, uh, something. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 06:39, 21 February 2011 (EST)
:Ah, yeah. That'd be because it's an NSFW comic called DarkBrain which is read aloud by "adult film star Tabitha Stevens." -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 16:50, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:: If people don't like it, I can yank it. I didn't think its THO was that objectionable, apparently, when I okayed it. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:27, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== help ==

I cant find the latest talk please help([[User:Manmcmanman|Manmcmanman]] 15:44, 21 February 2011 (EST))
:What do you mean by the latest talk? -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 15:54, 21 February 2011 (EST)

== Revenge of the Fallen Online Games ==

So, I figured I might as well finish up the online game write-ups for Revenge of the Fallen online games, in case they go offline once Dark of the Moon comes out. But, hot damn, do I ever suck. Which means I'm not very likely to get pics of later levels in some of these games. I'll be trying to add in whatever I can to these sections, but some help would be much appreciated! --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] 14:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:I can have a go at getting some screencaps tonight if no one else does. Which games in particular? I noticed some of them are already gone a couple of weeks ago, as Hasbro has redirected most of the monkeybar site they were on to the Hub site, which doesn't have them. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:58, 22 February 2011 (EST)
::Well, personally I'm having difficulty getting pics of every character's sprite from Battle for the Matrix. I'm currently working on The RPMs Devastator game. --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] 18:41, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== Countdown? ==

Sorry if this isn't the right place to put this, but a while back ago, there was a countdown to ROTF on the Main Page. Perhaps a countdown to DOTM would now be appropriate as it's so close?

Also, I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me how to program/insert/design/<insert verb here> a countdown on a wiki page (it's for another wiki). What template or whatever does that use? I'd be very grateful if someone could tell me.

Again, terribly sorry if this is the wrong place to say this...
 - [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 4:02 PM, 22 February 2011 A.D.

==When to omit "Transformers" from an article title==
So I got a hankering to remove the "Transformers" from [[Transformers: War for Cybertron]] and [[Transformers: Prime (franchise)]] and all of their related pages, since unlike [[Transformers Animated (franchise)|Transformers Animated]], there's just no good reason to break policy for them. There are [[Revenge of the Fallen (Xbox 360/PS3/PC)|other video games that we drop the "TF" from]], and if "Prime" is too common a term, then what about "[[Energon (franchise)|Energon]]" or "[[Cybertron (franchise)|Cybertron]]"?

But then I decided to check out [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Special:Search?ns0=1&search=Transformers&searchx=Search&limit=500 which pages use "Transformers" in their titles,] and holyyyyyyyy crap. I copy-pasted here all the ones I found that I thought could lose the "Transformers" without negating their meaning, destroying a phrase, or otherwise severely damaging the title. (I added an "(etc.)" to each one that represents a series of identically-worded pages):

[[Transformers: War for Cybertron]] (etc.) 
[[Transformers: Prime (franchise)]] (etc.) 
[[Transformers Animated (franchise)]] (etc.) 
[[Transformers Universe (Marvel comic)]] 
[[1-2-3 Transformers]] 
[[Transformers: Mystery of Convoy]] 
[[Hasbro Transformers Collectors' Club (magazine)]] (etc.) 
[[Transformers Legends]] 
[[Transformers: Beast Wars Transmetals (N64)]] (etc.) 
[[Transformers: The Headmasters (video game)]] 
[[The Transformers: Battle to Save the Earth]] 
[[Transformers Armada: The Energon Within]] 
[[The Transformers Collection]] 
[[Transformers Quest]] 
[[Transformers Key Recovery: The Game]] 
[[Transformers Power Up: The Game]] 
[[Transformers Cybertron: Primus Unleashed]] 
[[Transformers PD Type]] 
[[Transformers: The Animated Movie]] 
[[Transformers Generations]] 
[[Transformers: Rise of the Chevy Autobots]] 
[[Transformers Annual 1990]] (etc.) 
[[The Transformers Sticker Book (1986)]] 
[[Beast Wars: Transformers (video game)]] 
[[Transformers: The Junior Novel]] 
[[Look and Find Transformers]] 
[[Transformers Coloring and Activity Book and Crayons]] 
[[Transformers: The Ultimate Guide]] 
[[Transformers: Learn to Count Activity Tablet]] 
[[Transformers The Reusable Sticker Book]] 
[[Transformers: The Movie Storybook]] 
[[Transformers: The Movie Guide]] 
[[Transformers Prime Time]] 
[[Transformers Mix & Match]] 
[[Transformers Comic issue 1]] (etc.) 
[[Transformers The Game (console)]] (etc.) 
[[Transformers Autobots/Decepticons]] 
[[Transformers History of Music 1984-1990]] 
[[Transformers: Mosaic]] 
[[Transformers Name Generator]] 
[[Transformers Battle Universe]] 
[[The Transformers: Binaltech & TF Collection Complete Guide]] 
[[The Transformers Comic Magazine]] 
[[Transformers Pop-Up Book]] 
[[Transformers Visualworks]] 
[[Transformers Tooth Tunes]] 
[[Transformers Tapestry]] 
[[Transformers Song Universe]] 
[[Transformers G1: Awakening]] 
[[Transformers Armada Annual 2004]] 
[[Transformers: Beginnings]] 
[[Transformers the Movie water]] 
[[Transformers: The Score]] 
[[Transformers: The Thirteen]] 
[[Transformers: War Within Omnibus]] 
[[Transformers: The Ride]] 
[[Beast Wars Transformers Mutating Card Game]] 
[[Beast Wars Transformers Jigsaw Puzzle]] 
[[Transformers: Kōtetsu no Yūki]] 
[[The Transformers Continuum: The Definitive Chronology]] 
[[The Transformers: Bumblebee]] 
[[Transformers Adventures]] (etc.) 
[[Top Trumps: Transformers]] 
[[Transformers Armada: Race For The Mini-con Robots]] 
[[Transformers Armada: The Battle Begins]] 
[[Transformers Armada: Secret of the Star Saber]] 
[[Transformers Armada: The Autobots Strike Back]] 
[[Transformers Galaxy Force: Sound Pack 1]] 
[[Transformers Galaxy Force: Sound Pack 2]] 
[[Transformers Theme Song Collection]] 
[[The Transformers: Drift]] 
[[Transformers Revenge of the Fallen Annual 2010]] 
[[Transformers CyberToy]] 
[[Transformers Hall of Fame]] 
[[The Transformers: Ironhide]] 
[[Transformers Evo.]] 
[[The Transformers Legends of the Microns: Sound of Evolution Vol. 1]] (etc.) 
[[Transformers Music Matrix]] 
[[Transformers Ultimate Guide]] 
[[Transformers Ultimate Guide: Revenge]] 
[[Transformers: Battle for the Matrix]] 
[[Transformers: Coloring and Activity Book and Stickers]] 
[[Transformers: Activity Book and Gel Pen]] 
[[Transformers: Sector 7]] 
[[Transformers: Cybertron Adventures]] 
[[Transformers Cards]] 
[[Transformers RPMs: Devastator's Demise]] 
[[Cadbury's Transformers Card Game]] 
[[Ridiculous Legend Transformers]] 
[[Famicom How-to Manga: Transformers: Mystery of Convoy]] 
[[Transformers Caramel]] 
[[Transformers Comic-Magazin]] (etc.) 
[[Early war history records Transformers]] 
[[Transformers Extra Comic-Sonderheft]] (etc.) 
[[Transformers Super-Auswahlband]] (etc.) 
[[Transformers: Energon Valentine's cards]] 
[[The Transformers: Infestation issue 1]] 
[[The Transformers: Infestation issue 2]]

For many of them, the choice to keep or drop the "TF" seems intuitive, and many others are in a grey area... but I'll be damned if I can put into words any kind of coherent rationale. I'm seriously thinking that we've outgrown the "drop extraneous 'TF's" rule. Back when we only had a few hundred pages, it made a certain kind of sense: Why bother writing out stuff like "Transformers: Generation 2" when just "Generation 2" is equally meaningful to everyone here? Besides, isn't every page about Transformers by default? But in the past five years, both the wiki and the subject matter have exploded, and with both so many fine-grain, obscure topics being covered and so much not-strictly-TF content we've added, I don't think the policy serves us anymore. It doesn't make things simple; it makes things arbitrary and unpredictable.

So unless someone can sum up our policy in a way that makes a lick of sense, I propose: '''If a topic has an official title, then that should be used in full as the title of the relevant articles.''' Period. So [[Transformers: War for Cybertron]] and [[Transformers: Prime (franchise)]] would stay right where they are, and yes, [[Generation 2 (franchise)]] would become "Transformers: Generation 2 (franchise)", [[Revenge of the Fallen (franchise)]] would become "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (franchise)", etc. I don't think we'd need to make that change happen instantly, but we could slowly propagate it as people feel inclined to. I also think we can keep the parenthetical abbreviations and in-sentence references as short as they currently are; this is only about the titles.

Thoughts?

- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 18:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:What are these "Transformers"? -[[Special:Contributions/75.185.113.106|75.185.113.106]] 18:58, 22 February 2011 (EST)

MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal