MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive42

2012-02-16T18:04:39Z

83.170.73.69: /* Financial */ new section

{{archive_nav
|from=August 1, 2009
|to=September 31, 2009
|notes=}}

== Marvel UK issue pages ==

I feel that we need to make a change with how we handle Marvel UK comic issues. The UK comics split most of its stories up over multiple issues, and even reprinted some of the split up in a ''different'' way. This has led the story articles to become bloated with non-story info (covers, letter pages, other comics from the same issue, contests, ads) for multiple issues on a single story page. Also, navigating the UK comic is a pain in the ass, as many issues having two stories (one issue has ''three''!), as well as the reprints.

Here's what I suggest we do:

* '''Make "hub" pages for the individual issues.''' These pages will cover issue-specific things. Those UK cover scans clogging up every Marvel Transformer story? They go here. As does information from that issue's letter pages, ads, TransFormations, and anything else that isn't a part of the actual stories. Also, there will be a list of what each issue contains, mostly the TOC from the issue itself. Non-Transformers backup strips (Machine Man, Action Force) should need nothing more beyond the name of the series and the title of the story unless more info is given in the cover, letters page, TransFormations, Coming Attractions or the like. The TOC will also have links to our story articles.

*'''Leave the story articles mostly unchanged''' The UK comic usually treated the stories like serials (think the early Flash Gotdon films or the original Doctor Who series), so splitting them up makes no sense. Aside from moving the issue-specific stuff to the hub pages, the only changes needed will be removing the story navigation box from the UK-original stories, removal of the UK navigation from the stories written for the US comic, and adding any needed "Reprinted in" links, and putting "Originally printed in" links on the stories written for the UK comic.

Marvel US 33 & 34 (Man of Iron!) and Action Force 24-27 (Ancient Relics!) would be handled in the same way. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 17:40, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
:So you're suggesting that ''any'' issue which contained multiple discontinuous stories get a page for the issue, and a page for both stories? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:37, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
:: Not exactly. Marvel UK is a special case because these multiple discontinuous stories are broken up over multiple issues. We would still have one page for Time Wars. I'll put together a sample tommorow. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 00:51, 2 August 2009 (EDT)
::I have a ''very'' rough example at [[User:FortMax/Sandbox]]. The main reason I feel this needs to be done is because not only does the UK comic non only have multiple stories in each issue, these stories get spread out over multiple issues. For example, [[Time Wars]] was printed over seven issues. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 12:04, 2 August 2009 (EDT)
:::That makes sense... a 'landing page.' I'm tentatively in favor of it... but I'd like to see what others say. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:40, 2 August 2009 (EDT)
::::I think this is a really good idea, because it enables us to show the very different format of the UK comic. Formats, in fact - something I didn't realise till I completed my collection is how ''very'' different the first 30 or so issues are from the rest. More like a robot enthusiast's magazine than a comic, and much more 'British' in feel. Unfortunately I've only got my scanned copies of issues 1-5 to work from at the moment, but I can mock something up to show you what I mean. --[[User:Tribimat|Tribimat]] 06:25, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::I've never been overly happy that a big, "blockbuster-that-changes-everything" story like Target: 2006 or The Legacy of Unicron only gets one issue, whereas, say, the issues leading up to US #75 get a page each. There's examples of serial storytelling and individual-issue focuses (eg, Prime surrendering, or the introduction of the Wreckers) in each. [[User:LiamK|LiamK]] 09:25, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::I've done a fair bit across the UK comics lately and I'd be hugely in favour of breaking T:2006 (especially) into its component issues - just because they weren't individually named they get lumped together in one article which I think does a great disservice to the story. I'd compare it to a six-issue series like Devastation which gets six pages labelled issue 1, issue 2 and so forth, so I don't think articles called Target: 2006 issue 1, Target: 2006 issue 2 etc. would necessarily be beyond the pale. I don't know how far I'd want to take it though - splitting up stories like City of Fear or Legion of the Lost seems a bit pointless, more so The Fall and Rise of the Decepticon Empire which wasn't meant to be split in the first place. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 15:07, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
:::I'm in favour. I also think that a standard link to the appropriate letters page on transfans.net (similar to the way we do tfu.info for toys) wouldn't go amiss. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 15:07, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

::::I'm also in favour. This is the approach I took on Joepedia for the weekly Action Force comics where there are similar problems - see [http://gijoe.wikia.com/wiki/Action_Force_%28weekly%29] for how it works on the individual issues. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 07:59, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
:If you are taking the navigation off the stories, won't that make it more difficult to click through the UK continuity, from one story to the next one, continuity-wise? Then again, I'm not super familiar with the UK comics, maybe it is so complicated that that feature is basically broken as it is. But if the current story-based nav works I'd like to keep that as well as a issue-to-issue nav. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:39, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

==Can the nav-template images be variables?==
For example: The [[:Template:Nav-henkei|''Henkei! Henkei!'' nav-template]] uses the logo from the toy packaging, since that applies to the majority of the pages the template is on. However, the [[Henkei! Henkei! (Comic Bun Bun)|Comic Bun Bun ''Henkei!'' material]]
uses a completely different logo design, and it would be nice to be able to substitute it for just that page. This is one of several times I've wanted to be able to do that, and maybe there's a simple way to designate the image as a replaceable variable, but my markup-fu is weak. Any help is appreciated. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 20:35, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
:<s>The answer seems to be "no"... for some reason, even with a default set in the parameter, the imagemap code refuses to parse the parameter's info.</s>
:<s>You could always just post the entire code of the navigation template manually on that one page with the logo code swapped...</s> --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:22, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
:NM, I figured it out. You should be able to do this now:
:<nowiki>{{nav-henkei|logo=(filename)|size=(number)(unit)}}</nowiki>
:It's set up so that if the parameters aren't given, it'll just display the default, so you don't need to change the pages that do use the typical logo. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:36, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
::Awesooooooooome, thank you. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 22:32, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
:::No problem. :) Let me know if you need any of the other navs altered, although you should be able to just copy and paste the code and change the defaults... (actually, with my [[User:Jeysie/FranchiseNavs|idea for a code revamp]], I wonder if it might be possible to just have one nav template with all variables...) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 23:22, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
::::Hmm, I didn't know you were playing around with franchise-nav revisions. I actually have a grand proposal cooking up in my head for a full breadcrumb-trail nav revamp that would be applicable to basically any non-character/item/place article. The idea being that if you're at, say, an article about a comic issue, there would be a nav in the corner with links to the series, franchise, and continuity family going up in a column. And if you're at a series-article, you would be one step up in that chain, and the nav would have links to all the other series in that franchise (presented in the current style), as well as the vertically-arranged "title" links to the franchise and continuity family. Then if you're at a franchise, you get links to the other franchises in that continuity family, plus the continuity family itself. And, finally, the continuity-family articles themselves would have a nav with links to the other families. It would be a change in functionality to the effect that the cluster of little links would always be lateral, and digging down into more specific topics would require links within the articles themselves. Currently that's the case with most articles, the exception being franchises. But I think it would be incredibly awesome to have that kind of breadcrumb-trail so a reader always knows where he or she is in the multiverse at large. Plus it would help clarify how the hierarchy of families and franchises and series and so on actually works in specific cases, since that's often been a source of confusion and argument.
::::But I figure I should cobble together a working sample of some sort before I formally present the idea, and I think I might need some more markup-fu before that's even possible. Or I could make a facsimile in Flash or something... Anyway, at the very least, I think having the ability to swap out the logo image is actually a step towards making this idea happen. So thanks again!
::::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 00:27, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::Well, my current idea was mainly just trying to simplify the existing coding a little, as well as adding some prev/next links to the continuity family section. I think the big problem with breadcrumb links is that people would have to put them in by hand, which would make filling in comic stories even more work than it already is. The "continuity family" section of the comicnav template already tends to be pretty inconsistent sometimes depending on how the person creating the page chooses to link it. (In other words, it's a nice idea, but it'd be too contingent on people filling it in correctly.) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 00:41, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::The episode nav template uses standard strings to identify continuities (like "g1toon") and then uses look-up tables to find the proper series page link for this, the proper "human-readable" for that link and even look up how many episodes there are in the series, and create automatic prev/next links as long as you give it an episode number.
:::::::The reason we use strings instead of pagenames is '''1)''' they're shorter, simpler, cleaner, more standardized... '''2)''' it means that if the page moves (or we change our mind on the naming convention) we only have to change it in ''one place'' in the lookup tables, and the link changes on hundreds of pages.
:::::::What I'm saying is... you DON'T need to force users to fill in series/franchise/family. ...just fill in the SERIES. Let the template fill in the rest! (And let you manually override the lookup if you explicitly provide variables, for maximum flexability.)
:::::::But that's not a system you can throw together by trial and error; it needs proper architecture planning or it'll be a godawful mess.
:::::::I guess what I'm saying is... if we really want to rationalize and standardize the major templates on the wiki... we need a serious meta-talk about what that means, in the broadest possible scope. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:01, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Well, the problem is... I agree it'd be pretty easy to auto-breadcrumb the TV series. But when you start getting into things like the comics and text stories, you start running into many different miniseries and individual issues, all of which fit into different continuities. I think the continuity family is already enough info for those, provided we make sure they all point to the right ones. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 01:48, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::That's not exactly a 'problem' as it's conventionally thought of. You could set up auto-fill-ins for the 6 most commons comics-- which would cover 70-80% of everything, but let manual values be set for the rest (or not set) to the level of detail you desire. No solution has to be 100% you know. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 03:05, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::No, but for stuff like the Marvel Comics it would take just as long to copy and paste in manual info as it would to paste in the new code, after all. So it's the new pages where people would have one more thing to add in that you'd really need to worry about, if it's part of that other 20%. Whereas I agree that new TV series episodes would get to have the benefit of auto-ness.
::::::::::I guess it just seems like a lot of work for little benefit, seeing as how the continuity part of the nav pretty much covers all the context necessary. Not that I don't think it's possible the ep/comicnav could use some overhaul (though what exactly I don't know; they both seem pretty complete to me), just that I don't think breadcrumbs would be an effective expenditure of time. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 03:43, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

::::::::I'm pretty much in agreement with that last sentiment, which is one of the reasons why I'm not technically proposing my idea yet. It needs a more concrete starting point (like a mock-up design) from which all the discussion and probably argument can branch. I have my own notions about how it could be set up in a way that wouldn't involve as much work or personal discretion as Jeysie suggests, but... well, now's not the time. Maybe later. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 01:12, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::So what needs revision? The episode templates-- fine. And the comic issues. And the franchise navigation. And a standard breadcrumbing system... but what else? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:17, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::I've noticed on the Marvel wiki that the "writer"/"artist" text in their issue infoboxes links to [[:Category: Writers]]. I'd liek us ot consider adding this. (Also, there's something about the size or spacing of their infoboxes I just ''like''... I think we might want to take a look at 'em when we get around to recoding.)

::::::Derik points out that in such a scenario, the breakcrumb need not be built into (for example) the episode infobox template. The more elegant solutions is something like:
<pre><nowiki> {{episode
|breadcrumb= {{breadcrumb
|continuity_family=[[Unicron Trilogy]]
|franchise=[[Armada (franchise)|]]
|series=[[Armada (cartoon)|cartoon]]
}}
}}</nowiki></pre>
::::::...where you'd be pass the whole breadcrumb template as a parameter to another template. That way if the breadcrumb also has to show up in other templates... there's a standard code, standard styling, etc. Cleaner simpler code, easier to maintain, more universal, easier to work with, less percussive maintenence, etc.
::::::That's not a solution to everything though, because we've got two prev/next/series navs for comics, and some of the Marvel issues could use ''four'' or more. Stacking 4 of those things is retarded, and pointless. We need a more rational means of addressing republished stuff. I went to look up when a certain Marvel UK issue was published the other day and we '''didn't have the information'''. ...because it was published in the US first, and our template only has one "pub date" field. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:52, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

::Sankyuu! Henkei needs a bit more love. :D --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 22:59, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

===CSS rationalization===
While discussing rewriting our HTML... we should also probably discuss CSS rationalization.

Right now our code has absolutely no regard for what the page looks like printed. (Those messageboxes at the top of pages probably don't need to be there when printed.) Do we want our links to have addresses when printed? For example, I believe CSS could make [[Optimus Prime (G1)|this link]] print like this link ("Optimue Prime (G1)") or like this link ( http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Optimus_Prime_(G1) ) or like this link ( tfwiki.net/wiki/Optimus_Prime_(G1) ), any of which would be 'friendlier' for printed-out versions.

Of course, if this was applied to excessively [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PotHole PotHole'd] articles, the text it might become almost unreadable. Perhaps smaller or faded text would make tooting my own horn User:Derik less obtrusive when printed. Regardless what's decided for article text, I strongly believe that ''storylinks'' should have the disambig visible when printing. King of the Hill (Armada episode)

Printing, I grant you, is a fairly minor concern. But what about syndication? A few people are beginning to [http://www.botchthecrab.com/archive/history.asp dynamically syndicate] our content. Botch went to some trouble to remove our messageboxes and various other elements-- he just wanted the guts of the article. If we'd attached standard classes to templates (ones that have '''no CSS''' associated with them as far as TFWiki is concerned) he could have just syndicated the page as-is and hidden those elements with a few lines of CSS! (If nothing else, the storylinks need a class marking them... that seems like something that many would like to hide.)

Live page syndication is clumsy. (And I need to yell at Botch, because IIRC he's doing his in a terrible way, from our server's perspective.) But if we ''encourage'' it, it's another tool in our promotional quiver! (There was a PHP script I was working on the other month that actually has some ''fairly good'' TFWiki-specific syndication. If that was polished and made easy to use, it could have some legs.)

Soto-voice snark aside-- we really need classed like ''.noPrint'' and ''.printOnly.'' And when we redo our episode/issue infoboxes... the tables should be tested to they print nicely, '''and''' we should publish the CSS people can use to turn various 'bits off. (Or a 'general guide to site CSS', if only for our OWN use.)

How about this...? We've been moving a LOT of our code out of HTML and into CSS. One of the effects of this is that simply syndicating [http://tfwiki.net/w2/index.php?title=Package_art&action=render the "rendered" page]... a lot of the HTML layouts are gobbeltygook. Should we have a consideration for syndicators who don't include our CSS file? Maybe templates we know are unlikely to be wanted can be flagged with a ''.noSyndicate'' class, making it easy to hide them? Or we should have a Syndicate.css file that includes the bare-minimum CSS code for templates to lay out right? Should ''some'' templates (<nowiki>{{quote}}</nowiki>, for instance) be rewritten so that they will render in a readable (if not ideal) fashion even if no css is included? Is there a "scale" these questions all fall on... a sort of "how important is this element to the content of the page?" spectum, where at the low end we don't care and tell people to hide it, at the middle we provide identifying tags so they can be hidden, or a truncated CSS file so they render nice, and at the high end we write the HTML so the element will always be readable even without CSS to make it pretty? (That last one means code that's less contextual. Where do our priorities lie?)

These are philosophical issues. None are especially high priority, but the "cost" of addressing them is relatively tiny, so if we're doing some thorough redesigning... it'd be a good idea.

Some elements we have (like main pages) sometimes get quite "big" (laid out in a fashion that accepts a minimum of 500+ pixels wide.) Is it worth adding a ''.bigElement'' class or a ''.mobile'' class so that those elements can have code written in a mobile device CSS file that reduces their size? Is this even a concern for new mobile devices, which scale easily? How to Kindles handle them? Do e-readers support javascript? What about tablets and wireless internet devices?

More and more, content on the internet is going to be viewed by something other than what we normally think of as a "web browser," and because web-''developers'' spend all their time in web browsers they often neglect these outlets. We do not have to bend over backward to accommodate these technologies... if problems do arise, they will probably be the 90/10 sort; 90% of the solution/benefit can be accomplished with just 10% of the effort. '''Example:''' When [http://tformers.com a certain news site] rolled out their home page redesign several years ago, it mis-rendered on some versions of Safari-- pushing the story content below the left navigation bar. In short... the page appeared '''blank'''. This problem remained unfixed for almost a year-- it was caused by the nav rendering just ''one'' pixel too wide, pushing a floated layout down. This remained unfixed for almost a year. I'm sure that this bug only affected maybe 1% of site visitors. But after a year of blank pages... that 1% also probably '''stopped visiting'''. 1% over the course of a year is a ''lot'' of lost pageviews, it's like having your site be down for 3 days.

Anyway... that's my rant. There's no solutions there... just ideas/concerns/meta.

If other people are interested in discussing this sort of thing... may I suggest we create a dumping ground at "Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Quantum Cycle Upgrade" where we can gather thoughts/issues about long-term infrastructure upgrades? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 20:35, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

:Picking up on just one thing for now:
::''Those messageboxes at the top of pages probably don't need to be there when printed''
:Thing about that is that they DO contain information you might want when printed that isn't contained elsewhere on a page (the writer of a story, for instance).
:I could certainly see a certain degree of stripping down the messageboxen for printing as a good idea (take a look at http://tfwiki.net/w2/index.php?title=End_of_the_Road!_(US)&printable=yes - it's not even just the {{tl|comicstory}} [which has become a bad name for that template as its' uses have multiplied...] box - the {{tl|featuredcharacters}} box further down could do with being stripped for print. And I'm not sure the {{tl|disambig2}} needs to be visible at all.), but I'm not sure about hiding them by default. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 22:15, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
::I agree about stripping those kinds of things down... but when I said "messageboxes" I meant things like "picsneeded"; those have an ''enormous'' footprint, and they print. Their ''entire purpose'' is to alert editors of page deficiencies.... but people reading print-outs aren't editing those the pages, it's pointless. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:32, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Ah. I wasn't thinking of those, just {{tl|comicstory}} and {{tl|episode}}. Yeah, removing {{tl|picsneeded}} and its ilk would make sense. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 10:20, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

===Jeysie's infobox===
<div style="border:solid 2px #def;float:right;margin:0 1em 1em 1em;text-align:center;width:300px;">
'''Prisoner of War!'''
<div style="margin:1em .25em .5em .25em;">[[Image:MarvelUS-03.jpg|frameless|230px]] Is he strong? Listen, [[Bud]], he made Megatron go thud.</div>
{|cellspacing="0" style="margin:.5em 0;text-align:left;width:100%;"
|-
!colspan="2" style="background:#def;margin:0;padding:.5em 0;text-align:center;"|[[Marvel Comics]]
|-
!style="padding:.5em .5em .2em .5em;"|Cover date
|style="padding:.5em .5em .2em .5em;text-align:right;"|January 1985
|-
!style="padding:.2em .5em .5em .5em;"|Street date
|style="padding:.2em .5em .5em .5em;text-align:right;"|[[October 2]], 1984
|-
|colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"|[[Marvel Comics continuity]]
|}
{|style="background:#def;padding:.5em 0;width:100%;"
|-
!style="border:outset 3px #9cf;font-size:125%;padding:0 .2em;"|[[Power Play!|«]]
![[The Transformers (Marvel comic)|''The Transformers'' (US)]] #3
!style="border:outset 3px #9cf;font-size:125%;padding:0 .2em;"|[[The Last Stand|»]]
|-
!style="border:outset 3px #9cf;font-size:125%;padding:0 .2em;"|[[Power Play!|«]]
![[The Transformers (Marvel comic)#Marvel UK|''The Transformers'' (US)]] #5–6
!style="border:outset 3px #9cf;font-size:125%;padding:0 .2em;"|[[The Last Stand|»]]
|}
{|style="padding:.5em;text-align:right;width:100%;"
|-
!style="text-align:left;"|Writer
|[[Jim Salicrup]]
|-
!style="text-align:left;"|Penciler
|[[Frank Springer]]
|-
!style="text-align:left;"|Inker
|[[Kim DeMulder]], [[Mike Esposito]]
|-
!style="text-align:left;"|Colorist
|[[Nelson Yomtov]]
|-
!style="text-align:left;"|Letterers
|[[Janice Chiang]] & Others
|-
!style="text-align:left;"|Editor
|[[Bob Budiansky]]
|}
</div>
I remember doing this rough tweak idea based on Derik's comment that he liked the Marvel wiki's infobox.

Not very ''much'' of a tweak, admittedly, as I actually like our current setup for the most part. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:46, 17 September 2009 (EDT)
:Okay, some things:
:#{{tl|comicstory}} is used for a LOT more than, well, comic stories, to the point that the template name is bad. But unless you want to go and find/change all of those uses (and they're pretty diverse, I don't think you could bot them), it's pretty much impossible to change the broad layout of the template.
:#Moving the back/forward navigation from the top (where it's easily accessible) to a point where it would be ''below the fold'' on netbooks, e-readers and less up to date PCs? Are you seriously suggesting that?!
:Seriously, I don't "get" the ideas behind the layout here at all. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 22:00, 17 September 2009 (EDT)
::They all use pretty much the same setup, actually, if you look at them. I can't think of any usage on text stories and books that is seriously different offhand... they have different credit/info types, yes, but they go visually in the same places. I would probably put things like page count and ISBN in the "publisher" box. 
::And like I said, I was emulating the Marvel wiki infobox, which actually has the navigation at the ''bottom''. But essentially... I wanted to get the title up top, and make a "publisher" section, and a "credits" section... and the navigation made a good visual divider between the last two sections. I agree it's kind of weird, though... I could see moving it back up to the top under the title and just having a thick border in its place between the bottom two sections.
::Like I said, it's pretty minor stuff... I think our infobox is just about perfect as-is, really. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 22:10, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

:::It's not just stories. The [[Hasbro Q&A]] pages use it. The Collectors' Club Magazine pages use it, along with other non-story content from magazines, etc. What's the "title" in those instances?
:::Moreover, why move the title to the top at all? The title is already written in big letters at the top of the page on a single-story page, or at the top of the section on multi-story pages. Below the cover is a good place for it.
:::And the cover date & street date are hanging in no-man's land here, with no association with any relevant information - it looks like ''Marvel Comics'' had a street date of Oct 2, 1984.- [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 22:37, 17 September 2009 (EDT)
::::We'd leave the title off. You know, just like we do for miniseries ''already''? Sheesh, I love it when people complain about something "new" without realizing the wiki already does it.</sarcasm>
::::That said, if we move the navigation back to the top, we could move the title back under the picture again. I guess it just seems to me like it's the "first" bit of info about a book, and you could use your comment as an argument towards leaving out the title bit entirely anyway.
::::I like my publisher idea, though... it separates the meta-info about the book from the credits. And the publisher's name makes the most logical sense to use in a section heading. Like you said, the title's at the top, so I have a hard time thinking anyone's going to think the street date has to do with the publisher's name instead of the issue the article's about. I like to assume basic intelligence on the part of the reader. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 06:53, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

:::Our existing comicstory template is already deficient in presenting multi-part stories: I went to look up when [[Target: 2006]] was published... and discovered it had no date. And why ''should'' it? The article spans several issues, with no single correct date to give!
:::(I happen to think presenting the UK stories in 1 article like this is stupid... but I lost that fight a long time ago, so the template might as well address it well.) -23:44, 17 September 2009 (EDT)
::::Er. What's wrong with just listing all the dates in the date section, or a range of dates? We already do that for Man of Iron, IIRC. I don't see what the big deal is there. It's a date field... no reason it can't have more than one date in it.
::::The only accommodation I might make is adding extra "story 2" credits to make credits for multiple stories a bit tidier, but that's less a major change and more just a tweak. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 06:53, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

====Counter-proposal====
{{:User:SanityOrMadness/infobox}}
Keeps the basic layout of the current {{tl|comicstory}} (including keeping the '''issue numbers''' rather than the title at the top, which I consider key), but separates the meta-info from the story info (which is headed by the title, as it should be. I would prefer to use separate infoboxen for separate stories on the same page, but you could have separate subsections for separate stories, each headed by the title, if it was thought desirable). - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 08:55, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:I definitely agree with San here that the navigation info ''needs'' to be at the top. It's just counter-intuitive otherwise.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 12:15, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
::I like the idea of separate credit sections in the same infobox for separate stories in a single issue, with the titles of each story as the header; I was going to suggest that myself. We could always do a "if/then" clause so the extra section only shows up if one of the pertinent parameters is used. (I think stacking entire infoboxes might get a bit too cluttered, plus it's nice to see a whole issue's overview right at the top, but I'm willing to see a mockup if someone thinks that might work better.)
::I find myself wondering if continuity should be in the navigation somehow, as then we could potentially tag it as a separate prev/next series if need be. I know that I was reading the Axiom Nexus text stories, for instance, and there seems to be a lack of a good way to show how some stories relate to each other in terms of reading order when the actual publication order in the franchise it's released under has stuff in between. (The Shattered Glass stories at least had the ready excuse of being stuck under that franchise for the navigation...) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 18:01, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::''I like the idea of separate credit sections in the same infobox for separate stories in a single issue, with the titles of each story as the header; I was going to suggest that myself.''
::::Betcha weren't :p [Seriously, with the title up top out of the way, you couldn't do anything of the sort]
::::Anyhoo, the main reason I'm a bit reluctant to put multiple stories together in such a fashion is that it would seem to divorce the latter stories from the infobox with their credits. If they end up so close together that the infoboxen actually '''stack''' and push the info ''away'' from the story in question, put them together in one infobox by all means. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 20:39, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::Betcha I was. Because hey, you could put the title of the issue at the top (or not, if the issue doesn't actually have a title), and the title of the individual stories in the credit sections. It's funny how that works. :D
:::::And, like I said, if someone can do a mockup of dual infoboxes that doesn't look silly, I could buy it. As it is, I just think it'd be weird basically having two separate pages on one page. I like the idea of the infobox itself being devoted to the comic issue as a whole. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:01, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I am uncomfortable with the "dual navigation" system simply because... some of these stories have now been published 3 or '''4''' times. No previous/next for them? They don't get credits or publication dates? What if I '''want''' to know when IDW published an issue of "Prey," how many parts of that story they published (IDW doubled up content from 2 UK issues) or anything else important?
:::We're just tossing aside republishing info because our template doesn't support it. Same problem with the dates being left off multi-part stories... if it's nto clear how to add the information, the information becomes lost. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:40, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
::::Isn't the point of the '"dual-navigation" system' to record '''contemporaneous''' republication? [Marvel US in Marvel UK/Marvel G2 in Fleetway G2/IDW Beast Wars & AHM in Titan TF (...actually we don't currently do that last set, although we should)/etc]. That is, we wouldn't record an IDW "Best of the UK" as such even if it was the first such reprinting, because it was twenty years later?
::::If you try to fit ''four'' sets of data in one poor infobox, it would become unmanageably and unreadably large. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 20:39, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't disagree.
:::::Speaking of... right now our navigation at the top of such boxes is (in theory) publication order... but with a weird mix-in of reading order too.
:::::Should it become one or the other? And which is of primary importance? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:32, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::...Didn't I more or less say that a few comments above? I think maybe we should have both... the main navigation(s) being publication order, then a third "continuity" section with a link to the issue's continuity and the prev/next reflecting proper reading order. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 06:12, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::The thing about THAT idea is that the issue doesn't necessarily reflect the continuity if you want one infobox per page - take the AHM "coda" issues, or the Animated ''Arrival'' issues as examples, since they have multiple stories on one page. There's no one continuity place for those issues, since they're anthologies which take place out of order. You'd have to do the continuity nav at the ''story'' level, rather than the issue level. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 13:52, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

I've started work on fleshing out changes at "Template:Comicstory beta" (relevant: "Template:Comicstory beta/Example"), but there's one major bit that I'm not sure how to deal with - Editors. Sometimes, editors work on the story level (to the point you could have separate editorial teams working on the different stories in the same issue, although I'm not aware of any TF examples off the top of my head), but sometimes they work at the issue level, overseeing a load of non-story content in addition to any stories in the issue (the latter's more common in the UK - US comics tend to have a letters page at most for non-story content). And so I'm having trouble placing where the various editorial credits should go - I've bunged them under a separate "Editorial" header temporarily, but I'm not happy with that - I want them under the story, or under the Publication info... - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 14:00, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
{{--}}

== Images for deletion ==

[[User:Interrobang|Interrobang]] has marked a pile of unused images for deletion. Some of them, I suspect, are unused because of the Bookworm crash, like the pictures of Lipoles. I've made a start on some of them, but if anyone wants to pitch in and fix up some of the images we should keep, be my guest! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:59, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

:True, part of them are, um, "victims"(sort of) of the Bookworm crash, such as [[:Image:Convoy BT.jpg]] and several others. I think those pictures should be hold and got checked/salvage for a while before being deleted. I've check the [[:Category:To be deleted]], but I can only recognize a few. People can check their watch list or Category:To be deleted to help ID those pictures they(users) know where they(pictures) belong to. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 08:26, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

:I've noticed that several of them aren't "unused" per se--they're not used as images anywhere, but they're still wikilinked to. For example, [[:Image:Fat guard.JPG]] says "There are no pages that link to this file", but if you check "What links here", you'll see that [[Capture the Cube]] does in fact link to it. So before anyone deletes any images, I suggest checking if anything is wikilinking to them first. --[[User:Apoc|Apoc]] 08:42, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
::Yeah, I noticed a while back that the section under the image that lists pages which link to it only includes pages where the image is actually embedded. Plus some images are used in the site skin or CSS files, like the logos [[User:Derik|Derik]] set up to appear after links to certain sites. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:30, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Are we intending to resurrect the community-nav template? The images used on it were among those tagged for deletion... --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:11, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
:I'll take that as a no. And down to 150 pictures now. Again, if anyone wants to take a look through [[:Category:To be deleted]] in case anything they recognise where the images are supposed to go, please do! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 08:16, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Down to 76 images. Most of those left were uploaded during the crash period, so any information about where they were intended to go is lost. Some of them, like Mugheads.jpg, are from lost talk pages. Some, like Tflive_logo_stacked.jpg, might be still useful for something. The two covers for The Ark II probably should be on the appropriate page. Some, like Mort-icons.png and Tf gf 002 back.jpg, I don't have the foggiest what they were intended for... --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:23, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

== This Day in Transformers History ==
We should try to turn the This Day in Transformers History into an exportable module, like our Go-Boxes. It'll help our SEO by encouraging links back to us as well as give us another source of dynamically-generated deep links to help users discover our content. We have info for all 366 days, we should exploit it. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:46, 16 September 2009 (EDT)
:Speaking of history, today is the 25th anniversary of the premiere of the G1 cartoon right? Want to mention that anywhere? --[[User:SuzyP|SuzyP]] 18:35, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

== Guess what..... ==

I've just decided to check our statistics for no apparent reason, and we have 9,588 "legitimate content pages", whatever that means. So then I randomly decided to check out the Wikia page (which, by the way, has had the same Featured Article for God-knows-how-long), and guess what?

7,209 pages. We're beating them out by 2,349 pages, which is quite a lot. Who thinks we can hit 10,000 soon? --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 15:15, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:No problem. ...though it's about quality, not quantity. ;) -- [[User:Silver|Silvery]] 15:24, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
::I can tell you the quality of their articles as well.
::Nonexistent. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 15:29, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Oh, you're too harsh. Anyways, I know this wiki's the best 'cause I checked all TF wikis before I've decided to join... -- [[User:Silver|Silvery]] 15:45, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:::I can personally testify, we ''delete'' articles that aren't up to snuff and don't look like they're going to be.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 15:36, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:Now I'm interest in knowing how many articles the original wiki had back before the big split. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 15:57, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
::Somewhere around [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Arriving#A_spirit_of_healthy_competition|6890 or so]]. I should note that our current total is artificially inflated by about 75 due to the "ghost" pages causing the macron issue, so our total's nearer 9513 or so. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:36, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:::@Silvery: I'm not being that harsh. Here's some examples. And I know, this will give them slightly more traffic.
:::[http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Soundwave_(Movie) Their ROTF Soundwave page.]
:::[http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/All_Hail_Megatron Their All Hail Megatron page. Count the red links.] --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 02:53, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
::::You're too harsh in a "hit 'em when they're down" sense. It's called "irony". :P -- [[User:Silver|Silvery]] 04:11, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
::::I get a bit of personal pride whenever I compare our Shattered Glass section to theirs. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 06:11, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::I weep whenever i read the Animated articles...Sentinel Prime's page is the best example.--[[User:Sunjumper|Sunjumper]] 15:00, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::I just removed an ''{ongoing}'' tag from their Animated Perceptor's page. What the hell? --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 15:08, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Also, for some reason, someone back there REALLY liked deleting my stuff. They liked it so much in fact, that my contributions page has been wiped clean. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 07:23, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Also, Monaco now screws up page layouts when you move mainpics to where they're meant to be! (That's what it does on another wiki I happen to be an admin on, anyway.) Woo-freakin'-hoo. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 07:37, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
:[[Image:What was wikia thinking.PNG|300px|thumb|Wikia, ''seriously?'']]
:Look at the image, and be confused as to why anyone would want to see the ads? --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 13:36, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
::That option was actually put in due to user feedback. It's so they can view pages with the ads still in place and modify the layout to not look like ass.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 14:17, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::I just checked their Shattered Glass (comic) page, and hell, they've not even added Soundwave, Rumble, Long Haul...I also feel a bit of pride since I uploaded the images and started writing most of those :) --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 20:00, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
{{-}}

== Reading Order ==
When the wiki began in 2006, reading order was a clear and obvious thing. It was straight publication order-- and even if broken up into minis like Dreamwave did, they followwed a logical "volume" order.

...IDW is nowwhere near that clean. Characters literally leave one aeries, appear in another, bunches of stories are interwoven. I think we should consider creating an IDW "reading order" page, simply because reading order is not the same as publication order, is not the same as chronological order. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 04:41, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
:[[User:Jackpot/Sandbox/IDW-G1 recommended reading order]] :3 --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 06:10, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

== OK.....weird. ==

Did someone *looks at Derik* break the block log, or is it meant to only show blocks up to March this year? --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 13:14, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
:Also, how didn't I get an edit conflict when Jimsorenson and I were trying to delete the same duplicate section at the same time?
:Derik, please don't break the wiki. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 13:16, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
::Think back to what happened in March.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 13:23, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Oh yeah.
:::STUPID BOOKWORM! *scream is heard across the world* --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 13:27, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
::::Yeah, not everything is Derik's fault. On the other hand, many awesome improvements to the site ''are''.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 13:56, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::I may have been reading a bit too much Community Portal Archives recently. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 14:23, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::Derik breaking things is generally content, template, or presentational related-- despite all the joking, I have only ever broken the core of the site itself once. (And even then, it was for less than 10 minutes, Siph was nice enough to delete the page that was giving the site's database epileptic fits.)
::::::I'm actually rather ''proud'' of that one-- insofar that it was ''supposed'' to be completely impossible, but I somehow managed to do it! (This was back on Bookworm, I suspect their server bog-down issues contributed to making my impossible feat happen.)
::::::When I break stuff it tends to be more localized or cosmetic. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 14:46, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Speaking of local/cosmetic issues, the automatic archive listing on this page does not appear to want to display archive 39.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 14:48, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::The one that doesn't exist yet?
::::::::Also, [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive29#So.2C_Derik_broke_the_site.|This]] is incredibly funny. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 15:04, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::Oh, it most definitely exists. Click on archive 38, then use the archive navigation at the top to go to the next archive. 39 is already populated.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 15:09, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::Vote to move that page to "Things that don't exist". --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 15:19, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::That might be because the nav you're referring to isn't automatic. Just the ones in the individual archives. - {{unsigned|Derik| - who thought there actually were five lights in that TNG ep :p}} 16:03, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

== Something I just came up with..... ==

Because I absolutely loathe our current ''<nowiki>{{caption bastard}}</nowiki>'' tag, I came up with this.

{{messagebox
|justification=left
|header=Your humour escapes me, Starscream.
|message_text=If you haven't contributed anything, we'd really rather you didn't simply change jokes or add new ones without adding actual content. This also holds true for removing captions whole-hog or replacing them with "information" that really isn't.
Write an episode summary, check out the Most Wanted Pages list or the Stubs list.

For further information, see: [[Project:Caption]].

|image_name=G1toon_starscream_bawled_out.jpg
|image_width=125px
|mouseover=
|width=100%
}}

--[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:03, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Tough. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 12:51, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
:You're pretty obsessed with caption edits.[[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 12:57, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
::I was very bored that day. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 01:50, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

{{messagebox
|justification=center
|header=Your humour escapes me, Starscream.
|message_text=If you haven't contributed anything, we'd really rather you didn't simply change jokes or add new ones without adding actual content. This also holds true for removing captions whole-hog or replacing them with "information" that really isn't.
Write an episode summary, check out the [[Special:Wantedpages|Most Wanted Pages]] list or the [[:Category:Stub|Stubs]] list. 
:''For further information, see: [[Project:Caption]].''
|image_name=G1toon_starscream_bawled_out.jpg
|image_width=125px
|mouseover=
|width=100%
|bottomtext={{{1|}}}
}}
:Just a minor layout change. :D --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 09:35, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
::Well it definitely looks better now. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:39, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

== Keep an Eagle Eye (ROTF) ==

I notice that the first DVD-rips of ROTF have begun to drop-- 3 weeks before the movie is out on DVD. Be wary of a flurry of new screencaps appearing. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:20, 26 September 2009 (EDT)

== TF Wiki link forum signatures = spam = loss of google ranking? ==

Somebody on a Macross forum reported that posting links to their website via forum signatures counted as spam, which took a major hit in their site's google ranking, and it was the same for Digg linking. Since I'm not that net savvy, I'm waiting for the guy to provide more info about this, but we should probably discuss it here anyway: To our more tech and net-experienced members - does linking to our wiki via our forum signatures (as suggested and encouraged by our staff during the move last year) actually count as spam in Google's eyes and hurt our search ranking? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 16:04, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
:No. The worst that Google would do would be to ignore the links for the purposes of ranking. If Google ''did'' demote sites based on forum signatures, people would start putting links to their competitor's sites in their signatures. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:23, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

== Financial ==

side funds available a global sell for the knowledgeable trader. Emerging regions additionally to proven economic forces have apparent advantages and disadvantage can acquire total income that are not affected by any kind of certain stock exchange or trade. Around the world funds, specifically individuals who are generally controlled, are a fun way to be able to increase and have steady returns regardless of market imbalances. Successful expense strategies are precisely what models these types of money besides others inside the similar group, as well as cautious analysis regarding each performance along with know-how can easily correct the study procedure greatly.

Around the world hedge account strategies are generally as various since the nations by which they originate. Oftentimes, it might be good to encounter a supervisor that is certainly totally familiar with various international spots, simply because this can easily make sure a very aim evaluation from the hazards involved. You'll want to know that economic devices in foreign countries would be the the exact same or perhaps just like the varieties of devices accessible inside your country regarding origins, however guidelines may be distinct. You must use a pay for supervisor you never know the regulations and rules simply because get related to each area, and also who is able to make certain sticking to people legislation as well as rules.

Strategies utilized by these types of pay for managers may place establishing monetary places in the direct hedge against already-established regions. All-natural possessions, rising engineering, choices for organization improvement, and facilities may each one is probably required inside the options guiding the world method. Often, these kind of money will offer the most of the same instruments you'll probably supply in your neighborhood, and may furthermore make the most of foreign buying along with offering and overseas foreign currency as well as the discrepancies within price ranges which could happen.

Exactly the same studies crucial when faced with worldwide hedge cash comparable to hedge resources as part of your region involving origins. You would like to be sure that you simply realize the way a strategies inside fund might be approved, what sorts of choices may be the focus in the actual account, and what types of results are in fact produced previously. If perhaps you were talented fund professionals abroad, and you'll have to ensure that the particular account remains managed simply by somebody with the exact same amount of experience and knowning that you merely anticipate together with domestic resources.

The risks involving throughout the world getting along with promoting usually are not obviously worse when compared with home-based buying as well as offering, since prolonged as there is certainly correct investigation, as well as the benefits might be more effective. Since appearing places might have record development in early on many years, a considerable investment can lead to outstanding dividends. Worldwide controlled money can offer one more quantity of assurance a purchase may be handled properly, even though even now offering anyone while using essential overall flexibility to adopt full good thing about the globe marketplace along with the possibilities that you can get.

Whichever type of technique your throughout the world hedge fund boss employs, you will have to make certain it meshes well as well as your total expense strategy. Spend some time to discover your choices right before carrying out and expect to invest some time relatively assessing the complete threat vs . the actual give back for your purchase. You can definitely find the reliable globally fund is a bit more efficient when compared to a similar domestic fund if the consists of considering the possible dividends.

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2012-02-13T11:15:22Z

83.170.73.69: /* EIM Dyad */ new section

__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}}


== 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|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 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|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 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. 1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled? 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? 3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc? [[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|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 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|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 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|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 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|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 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. 
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. 
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. 
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? 
--[[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. 
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.) -[[User:Lush City|Lush City]]
: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? -[[User:Lush City|Lush City]]
::::::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. -[[User:Lush City|Lush City]]
::::::::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. -[[User:Lush City|Lush City]]

: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 G1continuity family but it isn't G1franchise. 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. {{unsigned|158.103.0.1}}
:::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. {{unsigned|158.103.0.1}}
:::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 G1continuity family. 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. -[[User:Lush City|Lush City]]
::::::::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? -[[User:Lush City|Lush City]]
:::::::::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. -[[User:Lush City|Lush City]]
::::::::::"Wings" is G1 '''because it takes place between episodes of the original cartoon.''' Oh my god. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:18, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::::WFC ''is'' G1continuity family for all the reasons stated already (it features the G1 cast of characters in a new setting.) But Hasbro shoehorned it into the modern stuff, so the wiki plays along. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:31, 5 December 2011 (EST)
Nobody is going to read that, dude. I don't know why you're putting this much effort into something that is not going to change. Just save yourself and us the trouble and give up the conversation. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:23, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:Hey! There was a mini-consensus brewing that although IDW belongs in G1continuity family, it doesn't belong in the [[Generation 1 (franchise)]]. Anyone want to talk about that? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:31, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::If it makes you sleep better at night, I really don't care. Nothing here is going to change and the idea of having the Wiki treat IDW G1 as its own franchise is imbecilic. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:57, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::: On a related note, though this is probably a question born out of my own stupidity/ignorance, but if Wings is G1, then why do we call it the Wings Universe, which implies that it is a seperate continuity family? (For the longest time, I thought it ''was'' its own little verse). [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:02, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::: ''We'' don't call it the "Wings Universe", Fub Pub do. In the same way one might call the Marvel comics the "Marvel universe" or the cartoon the "Sunbow universe". That's all. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 17:06, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::This is bit of a digression, but "Wings Universe" is used in the same fashion as "Cybertron", "Shattered Glass", and "TransTech" in the heading for their prose stories. I think that, in the lack of anything official to contradict it, "Wings Universe" is the name of that particular "franchise" (or whatever term you prefer). There's more to WU being a franchise, through parallel construction with the other Club/Timelines sub-franchises, than there is for IDW, at least. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:33, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::: Ah, I see. Thanks. [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 17:09, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Also, further to what Interro said - yes, please, Mr. anonymous type person... just let it go. No-one is going to read that giant wall of text. I don't understand how you can't simply ''look'' at the IDW comics, and the way the characters are portrayed in them, and not understand ''why'' they are G1. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 17:08, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Pardon, but why is the use of large amounts of text a bad thing? Wouldn't the use of Basic English essay format (claim, source, analyses, and explanation) to put out your points in an argument be a positive thing in an encyclopedic debate? @ Walky, yes I know Wings is explicitly set in G1, that's why I used it as an example to highlight a double standard. A reason given for why IDW was G1 was because they used G1 character traits as a base. I noted that under that rubric (characters over stories or what creators say) than Wings would count as a Malgus stream because of all the elements from Animated, regardless of its intended placement within the original cartoon as stated by the story. I'm not particularly attached to the idea of IDW being in or out of G1, I'm just noting that there is a paradox within the way we define Continuity families. Either we’d have to move IDW out of G1 (and perhaps others) to better fit in with the "definition" of a family we have now, or we'd have to reassess and probably redefine how we decide and clarify the families, otherwise we'll wind up doing classification by convenience; taking things on case by case basis by whatever "works" for the moment rather than having a single unifying maxim. If we're just going to "eyeball" to find what continuity fits where we are going to have contractions and hypocrisies, as we do now. We should move to standardize the method of continuity selection, because if we continue this method we’ll have a severe inconstancy and consistency is the lifeblood of any encyclopedic source of information. -[[User: Lush City| Lush City]] 23:58, 6 December 2011 (EST)

:::::I'm no longer sure what you're suggesting our organization should be. Are you suggesting that IDW comics are not G1 franchise (in which case we should move "Drift (G1)" to "Drift (IDW)") or are you suggesting that IDW comics are not in the G1 continuity family at all (in which case we would make an "Optimus Prime (IDW)" page)? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 00:28, 7 December 2011 (EST)

::::::What's this "we" shit? Have you actually done any work on the wiki before? And regardless of that, would you actually be willing to carry out the hours and hours of tedious work that would be required to carry out whatever it is you're suggesting? I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess the answer is a big ol' fat freakin' "No". Heck, just MAPPING OUT an IDW split-off would take for-freaking-ever, but you haven't even done that much. Give us a diagram, a mock up page, a sandbox, SOMETHING.
::::::We got a system that works, that makes it easy to find info on Prowl and Hardhead and Nightbeat and all their doings in the cartoons and the comics and whateverelse. There's no BENEFIT to anything you're suggesting. It would just be separating information that makes more sense, is more cohesive, and builds upon itself when it's all in one place.
::::::And dude, this is not Serious Business. It's MADE-UP GIANT SPACE ROBOTS. There are no "hypocrisies" involved. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 09:08, 7 December 2011 (EST)
::::::What major elements do you think make Wings an Animated related universe as opposed to a G1? The mere presence of an Elite Guard? That's pretty ridiculous. Look at all the characters used in those stories, they act like and take the positions of their G1 selves because they are those G1 characters. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 09:13, 7 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::Just as the IDW characters are. I think that if you're making such ridiculous claims as Wings being an Animated universe because of these elements then you are simply not understanding how continuity families work. I mean, what is so hard to understand about this? Wings is in the G1 continuity family because it features the G1 characters (in a setting explicitly derived from the backstory of the G1 cartoon). IDW is in the G1 continuity family because it features the G1 characters (in a new "Ultimate" style setting). Henkei Henkei is in the G1 continuity family because it features the G1 characters (with a movie-inspired backstory). - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 09:26, 7 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Yeah. At this point, it's pretty clear that -surprising no-one- the argument against how we have things now falls COMPLETELY apart. Wings of Honor as Animated? Oy. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 17:53, 7 December 2011 (EST)

:::::: Regardless of any continuity quibbles I'm almost certain that IDW isn't a G1 franchise. Those are decided by corporate not us (which, continuity families are, more or less). I'm also finding IDW's status as a G1 family debatable mostly because while it's characters and looks are "G1" it's story is quite different from any other G1, or at least as different from G1 as some other stories we've also made different families. It all depends on what exactly our rubric is, if we value Aesthetics , character traits and the like over plotline similarities or what creators say ,than Wings gets confusing, and Aligned is just a Clusterbomb, it might have to be split. (Or made into some bizarre "Dual Family" thing) Just shifting IDW and a few other pages to be more in line with what we already have seems far less drastic and disturbing.
:::::::: Repo, that tone is uncalled for. I'm from TvTropes, I know what it means to spend hours on a wiki, I'd also note that I would call anything that someone would ''consider'' spending hours on as "serious" business; this site has served as the primary bastion of TF knowledge for years, don't diminish that. By the same vein We shouldn't do things just because they're easier, we should do things because they're right, as it is, they way we define Continuity Families leads to inconsistencies, the largest one being IDW, I'll get to work on the mock-up, but I ''do'' find it hilarious that someone would tell me "it's not that serious" and "put several hours of work into this n00b" in the same breath. --[[User:Lush City|Lush City]] 4:38, 8 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::: '''"Then Wings gets confusing"'''
:::::::: No it does not. It will never, ever be confusing. Wings is G1. It is set in a variant of the G1 cartoon continuity. You will never, ''ever'', '''''ever''''' make a case for what you are saying by trying to hold up the Wings universe as an example of a similar (non-existent) conundrum, because it is unquestionably, unequivocally, unfalteringly, unhaltingly, utterly inarguably G1. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 04:54, 8 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::: That's my point. In the same way the Wings story is so totally G1 making it such is insane (despite the Animated influences, The IDW story is so totally ''not'' G1 that having it as such is insane (despite the G1 influences) We can either give characters our story priority, not either or.
::::::::: Simple question: How can you look at a comic full of G1 characters and say "this is not G1"? Please answer that. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 06:46, 8 December 2011 (EST)
::::::::::Your logic is idiotic. All you're doing is arguing for the sake of arguing because we will never consider IDW as not G1 in contradiction with common sense. If you don't like it, make your own wiki. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 06:50, 8 December 2011 (EST)
::::::: Wings had one character (Sentinel) and one concept (Elite Guard) that were arguably derived from Animated and not G1. The four Guard teams focused on (Thunder Clash's, Metalhawk's, Onslaught's, and Powerflash's) are all G1 characters, as are all the villains of the stories, the background characters, the setting, and the ''implicit and explicit authorial intent''. Yes, the unique nature of Transformers continuity allows for "reverse homages", as G1 influenced the creation of Animated and pieces of Animated have now influenced subsequent G1 stories, but that doesn't change the underlying nature of the entire universe. IDW is not an Animated timeline either, just because Lockdown was adopted into the universe in ''[[Transformers: Drift]]''.
::::::: G1 is the oldest and largest continuity family in Transformers and, as a result, it occasionally borrows characters and ideas from the other continuities that come and go in its wake. But across the 12 club comic issues, the 2 BotCon specials, and the 2 online prose stories, well over 150 characters have appeared. Of those, exactly THREE originated from non-G1 toylines. The remaining 99% are all G1 characters or brand-new to any universe.
::::::: Wings and IDW are both obviously G1 to anyone whose paying attention. Trying to craft an argument where it could, potentially, be re-phrased in some way that, if you squint, might make it look like they aren't G1...is ignoring common sense and the vast abundance of evidence put before you. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 08:27, 8 December 2011 (EST)
:If I may interject? The wiki's notion of continuity families runs parallel to the canon in-multiverse concept of [[universal stream]]s. There is a 99.999% chance that any reference to IDW continuity from a canon perspective would classify it as a positive-polarity Primax stream. That makes it part of the G1 continuity family. The movies and Animated are in the Tyran and Malgus clusters respectively. That makes them not part of the G1 continuity family. --[[User:Andrusi|Andrusi]] 08:43, 8 December 2011 (EST)

==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)

==Actor/Voice Actor's other roles==
It seems as of late that the intro sections for actors and voice actors have become mini-IMDB pages. [[Clancy Brown]] isn't really best known for being on ''Earth's Mightiest Heroes'', even if we do have a page for the [[Avengers]] to link to. [[John DiMaggio]]'s is getting to be more résumé than intro. It seems kinda silly to suggest ''removing'' content, but it's just been something bugging me.--[[User:Carrion|Carrion]] 19:03, 6 December 2011 (EST)
:No, you're quite right, and I agree. One user seems to be a bit of a voice-whore and is going around adding a lot of frivolous additional info. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 19:34, 6 December 2011 (EST)

== Character articles and redirects with titles/ranks ==

I'm of the opinion that where a character has a title or rank, there should be a redirect from their full name with their title in front of it to their article. I don't think we have any explicitly spelled out rules on how this would work though, and at the moment there are some redirects to the [[Sidney Biggles-Jones]] article marked for deletion. There's been some previous discussion about it [[Talk:Doctor Biggles-Jones|here]]. How should we treat ranks and titles? If her name was specifically parsed as "Dr. Biggles-Jones" in a comic, for instance, do we have a redirect using that name or do we just stick with writing it out as "Doctor"? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:58, 13 December 2011 (EST)
:My gut instinct is to have redirects for every way their name and rank is spelled out in fiction. I don't have a strong opinion on this, however. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:00, 13 December 2011 (EST)
::It's gramarically incorrect to use title-abbreviations in speech bubbles or inside quotes in writing. One doesn't say "Mrr Dlinn," one says "Mister Dlinn."
::I don't think we're beholden to the way such titles were parsed in the original source material; it's a distinction without meaning. But I don't mind having two redirects either. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:04, 13 December 2011 (EST)

== Fall of Cybertron ==

We desperately need to fix up the [[Fall of Cybertron]] related pages. The page that should remain as the definitive should be what is currently called [[Transformers: Fall of Cybertron (360/PS3)]], which I recommend should be renamed simply "Fall of Cybertron" or "Transformers: Fall of Cybertron". We do not require the franchise page and the video games page, along with the PS3/X360 page, as the PS3/X360 is the only confirmed version of the game, with PC confirmed to NOT be happening, and Nintendo systems left up in the air. I wholly support streamlining the navigation for the FOC pages, and perhaps placing FOC as "sequel" in the WFC franchise navigation bar. --[[User:Kaymac192|Kaymac192]] 05:32, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:That sounds sensible to me. We can always move it back to (360/PS3) when the DS and/or Wii and/or whatever version is announced. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:20, 20 December 2011 (EST)

== Problems retrieving password ==

(Since this seems the best place to ask.)
Hi,
I've been reliant on a cookie for so long that I've forgotten my password. (Blushes) However when I try to get the site to email me a new one it says one has been sent but nothing has arrived in my email; nor will it allow me to make the request again for 24 hours.

Is anyone able to check the login database to see if something's gone wrong at that end? [[Special:Contributions/109.154.29.163|109.154.29.163]] 15:58, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Account renaming ==
Is it possible to get an account renamed in this wiki? Thanks. --[[User:AutoUIMagnus299|Autu299]] 16:43, 24 December 2011 (EST)
:It's not technically possible, because we don't have the MediaWiki Renameuser extension installed. The best you could do is create a new username, stop using the old one, and put links between the two accounts on your user pages. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:56, 24 December 2011 (EST)
::Ok, thanks for the tip. --[[User:AutoUIMagnus299|Autu299]] 16:49, 25 December 2011 (EST)

== Mozilla Firefox 9/10 and TFWiki ==

Just an FYI, Mozilla Firefox 9 introduced a rendering error with our site, causing the sidebar to render ''below'' the content area. Mozilla Firefox's beta of version 10 carried over this error initially, but the most current beta of 10 corrects this. I was scratching my head at this one, as we don't really use anything exotic in the way of code, but it turns out this was Mozilla's problem. I am kind of not liking the rapid release schedule, if this is what results.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 15:19, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:...or it could start working properly on my Firefox 9 PC too. I'd cleared cache a few times on both PCs, so either Derik fixed this sneaky-like or I've managed to hallucinate the whole thing. I'm ''pretty sure'' it's not the latter, as I still had the sidebar issue before refreshing today.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 02:35, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::It's still happening on my copy of Firefox 9.0.1, and when I check for updates, it's not reporting any. Tilt? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:54, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::No, wait, I tell a lie. I just cleared my Firefox cache and the problem's gone. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:57, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Yeah, and on both machines I experienced it, it only started doing it on Firefox 9, not 8. Worked fine in IE, and wouldn't budge through multiple cache clearings. I'd _thought_ that the very recent update to 10's beta is what cured it, but I returned home to my laptop that I never went beta on, and there it was after a refresh. Perhaps Derik could offer insight beyond digital poltergeist activity?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 03:07, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::I informed Suki Brits of the Firefox rendering error as soon as I became aware of it and she took care of it accordingly. Victory for Brits! --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 12:33, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Aha. See, I usually assume Derik when there's CSS muckery, but this is excellent news. Thanks, Suki! I vaguely suspect we did use a couple Mozilla flagged tags when we initially coded it, that are now fully supported in CSS proper.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 14:19, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::I think the fix may have worked for Google's preview thumbnails as well, as a couple I've found show the menu where it should be. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 19:32, 5 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::I'm still having this issue. My Firefox updated itself recently, so I don't know what version it is. And clearing my cache that a) I don't know how to do and b) scares me for some reason. [[User:Bobpiecheese|Bobpiecheese]] 00:37, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::You may be able to get it fixed by holding down Ctrl and pressing F5 while on a TFWiki page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bypass_your_cache#Mozilla_Firefox_and_other_related_browsers Wikipedia has a page on clearing the cache]. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 00:56, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::: Huzzah, the sidebar is no longer all brokey! Thanks Abates! [[User:Bobpiecheese|Bobpiecheese]] 01:16, 10 January 2012 (EST)

==Project Heat Scramble==
I just noticed that the wiki has NO data on the [http://tf.takaratomy.co.jp/tcg/ Heat Scramble TCG ]. So how should we go about this? {{unsigned|Lush City}}

== Robot Masters parsing ==

{{note|Moved from [[Talk:Robot Masters (franchise)#Parsing]].}}
This is something that's been bugging me. As far as I can tell, in all images of the official logo, the series is parsed "RobotMasters", yet all spellings on this wiki refer to it as "Robot Masters". Is there a reason we opted for two words instead of one? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 12:19, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:The packaging parses it as one word, while correctly spacing names like "Beast Megatron", so... I guess. Although it's debatable whether it's "Robotmasters" or "RobotMasters"; the brand's name isn't "[[:Image:Universelogo.jpg|TransFormers]]". [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::I'd like to avoid the CamelCase precisely because we can't usually tell from a logo whether it should "really" be written like that (as per "Transformers"), and also because I generally don't like the look of it. I do think the franchise should be one word, though. -[[User:LV|LV]] 19:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::The difference here is that there doesn't seem to have been any other spelling for it aside from the CamelCase spelling, whereas the "Transformers/TransFormers/Trans Formers" logo gets re-parsed all the time. "RobotMasters" is the consistently-seen version. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 19:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::Technically, it's presented as RobotMasters and ROBOTMASTERS. I think we can be flexible. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:57, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::They still make a point to enlarge the R and M. Though, is there any other series logo that uses this kind of CamelCase just as consistently? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 20:33, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Uh, I just pointed out one. The TransFormers logo was the standard design from 2001–2006, across six franchises and much longer than the existence of Robotmasters. I think you're putting too much stock on what is probably a stylistic choice by people who barely use lowercase to begin with. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 21:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::What I mean is, there's multiple versions of the "Transformers" logo, which gets restyled as "TransFormers", "Transformers" and Trans Formers" as the years go by. But the one for RobotMasters is always consistently styled as "RobotMasters". Unless I'm missing something, there hasn't been any other logo for it that wrote it in any other form than "RobotMasters" with the enlarged M. Unlike "Transformers", which is one word, "RobotMasters" is two words with a space missing. The uppercase M shows the distinction that the two are separate words, but the lack of space makes the end result thus resemble a rather sci-fi sounding compound word, which works for this sci-fi themed line of children's toys. Why change what the logo says? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 22:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
FYI, the second cartoon episode parses the title as TRANSFORMERS ROBOTMASTERS, so there's a bit more credence to it being one word. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 07:51, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:Cool, yay! Though, I still think there's some importance to the capitalization of the M (beyond mere stylistic choice). Like I said, it resembles a sci-fi sounding compound word, with M identifying the connection placement between the two words within the compound word. "RobotMasters" (instead of "Robotmasters") gets my vote. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 11:35, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== SOPA and PIPA ==

Has anyone read about the SOPA and PIPA bills and how they will affect the wiki?--[[User:Megatron Prime|Megatron Prime]] 13:51, 14 January 2012 (EST)

== Tech Specs ==

On the Character Bio pages, can you please include a Tech Spec section for those characters/toys which are applicable? This would be much appreciated. {{unsigned|161.28.74.79}}
:We tried doing this at one point, but ended up removing them all in the end. Each toy listing usually has a link to their tfu.info page with the tech spec bio and numbers on anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:47, 18 January 2012 (EST)
::It got surprisingly boring. In the end they're just stacks of numbers that frequently don't match the character portrayals. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:09, 18 January 2012 (EST)
:::And the bio parts are copyrighted text.
:::Could you imagine Thundercracker's toy page? 40 versions of the same basic write-up? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:10, 26 January 2012 (EST)

== Categories for different alt modes ==

Hello, I have a suggestion for this wiki! (Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place to post something like this...)

I think it'd be nice if there were categories for the different types of alt modes such as helicopters, tanks, etc.

Right now, you can sort of find all of the jets/seekers with this category:
http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Category:Seekers

And you can find some specific alt modes by looking here:
http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Popular_Earth_vehicle_alternate_modes

But I'm not aware of any way to find out the identity of all Transformers that have a specific type of alt mode. I noticed this because I was trying to find out who all of the helicopters are. I think it'd be a pretty useful addition to the wiki.
What does everyone else think?
--[[User:0x2A|0x2A]] 13:14, 23 January 2012 (EST)

:I second it. I've been thinking about this for a while. Having categories like "car altmode", "tank ~", "helicopter ~", "boat ~", "non-vehicle/object ~" etc would be convenient. I am willing to do the dirty work. -- [[User:Silver|Silvery]] 13:57, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::I don't think it would really be that useful. You would really have to lump things together to avoid having umpteen million categories. For example, does your "car altmode" category include station wagons? Or vans? Or pick up trucks? Or semi cabs? Or construction vehicles? Or SUVs? Or strange Cybertronic ground vehicles? 0x2A mentioned "jets", what about prop planes? Or Cybertronic aircraft? Or whatever the original Scourge was supposed to be (it is described as a "hovercraft" but most of the fiction portrayed it as a "spaceship", only a few minor sources show it as a ground vehicle). --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:34, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:::I was just throwing random examples, but I don't think categorizing Earth alt-modes would be that difficult (why not take the [[Popular Earth vehicle alternate modes]] page as an example and use categories such as "cars and trucks" or "military vehicles"?); another idea, better for non-Earth alt-modes, would be to categorize them in more broad categories, say, as land, water, flying and object alts. It would be extremely helpful when one would like to do a search of characters with similar alt-modes. Way more precise than just using "search" and sifting painstakingly through the results. -- [[User:Silver|Silvery]] 15:44, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::Or alternatively, you could go to TFU.info. Then you can narrow it down by color, too, and you don't even have to start a massive new headache for the wiki editors! --[[User:Andrusi|Andrusi]] 16:33, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:::::I'm an editor, too, and I wouldn't mind doing the job. Even if nobody other than me wants to touch a new big task and I have to do it alone. And why would I want to switch to and fro between two sites, when I just want to, say, compare appearances or personalities of characters with a motorcycle alt-mode? Characters, not toys. TFU is for toy info, TFwiki is for general knowledge. Besides, TFU's search system isn't very good. -- [[User:Silver|Silvery]] 17:45, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::::I support this idea and if you need any help doing it, Silver, I'm willing to help in any way I can. -- [[Special:Contributions/209.180.181.162|209.180.181.162]] 11:29, 25 January 2012 (EST)
::::I'm not sure it would be better than using search. A category for "cars and trucks" would contain thousands of articles. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:57, 25 January 2012 (EST)
This is a big can 'o worms, but I like the idea, if it is very focused. We have a subcategory named [[:Category:Functions]] that contains some interesting, less common functions like "medic", but not every single function. "Warrior" is not there since it is too common. So if there was an "Alternate modes" sub-category, it could skip "cars" and "trucks" altogether. But it could have less common, and well defined things such as "motorcycles." The can 'o worms would be narrowing down the categories everyone can agree on. I nominate "Mechanical beast modes" and "realistic beast modes" (there is already a [[:Category:Transmetals]]). - [[User:Starfield|Starﬁeld]] 15:34, 25 January 2012 (EST)

Yay, so there is some positive response. Cool. I have semi-finals in two weeks, after that I'm starting to do this. In the meantime I propose discussing categories. I can already see that the "cars" issue will be hot, haha. As for now, I propose "Motorcycles", "Boats/ships", "Hovercrafts", "Airplanes", "Helicopters", "Tanks", and something that would include objects, such as Perceptor's microscope, Blaster's boombox or Ejector's toaster alt-mode (possibly also cassettes?). Other, less thought-out propositions include: "Spacecrafts" and "Trains". -- [[User:Silver|Silvery]] 07:50, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:If you're going to do this, then I would prefer a distinction between actual things and Transformers with alternate modes based on those things. Flooding [[:Category:Aircraft]] with jet Transformers would make that category useless. And maybe place them at the end of category lists so that they can be grouped together. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 07:57, 26 January 2012 (EST)
::I want to start with a simple list in my sandbox. I'm not that quick to make changes of such caliber without a thorough discussion - and I'm not exactly a master of Wiki code yet. And what about an "Aircraft alternate mode" and then "Jet alternate mode" (I don't insist on using these exact names) subcategories in "Airplanes", for example? -- [[User:Silver|Silvery]] 08:10, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:::Probably "Aircraft alternate modes" would be the main category, with subcategories like "Prop plane alternate modes", "Jet alternate modes" and "Helicopter alternate modes". --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:30, 26 January 2012 (EST)
::::"X alternate modes" seems redundant in comparison to "X modes". "X modes" would be more inclusive of characters without robot modes like Ravage and Orcanoch. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 08:54, 26 January 2012 (EST)

== TF:Prime jump-fight factoid ==

I've just started to watch Prime, and so far every episode I've seen has had someone do a dramatic jump slowed down jump before landing on someone they are fighting, (and sometimes the camera). It's quirky enough that it's stood out, and I was wondering if it's worth adding to the episode guides? I just wanted to know now because I'm going to be watching the whole of season one over the next few days, and it's easier if I know now than if it's added later. Failing that, is there anything else that people desperatly want added to the Prime episode guides that I should be looking out for? [[User:LiamK|LiamK]] 17:31, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:There is a certain level of ridiculous info you can get away with adding if you're a regular contributor doing serious and consistent work on the pages, and you handle it with sufficient comedic value. Ref: [[Enter the Nightbird|Brawn vs. Soundwave]], [[Countdown to Extinction (episode)|What Makes Starscream the Leader?]], etc. This could conceivably qualify as well, but approach with caution. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 21:22, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::Fair enough. It wasn't just going to be an adding silly jokes because oh ha ha I think I'm hilarious. I was going to add anything missing to the relevent pages as well. It's just that 5 episodes in, we've had at least 4 dramatic jumps into the camera, one dramatic jump away from the camera, and several semi-dramatic jumps off to the side. It's hilarious when characters like Bulkhead are apparently able to jump 500 feet into the air. If Springer ever shows up in this continuity family, he's gonna reach orbit.[[User:LiamK|LiamK]] 19:59, 25 January 2012 (EST)

== Expandible voice actor lists ==

There's been some noise about some of the voice actor lists getting too long and the need for a way to have them hidden unless the user expands them. I've done some test code which is [http://www.aldenbates.com/vatest.html currently hosted externally] but is easily converted into something that will work on the wiki. Currently tested on Firefox 9 and 10, Internet Explorer 6 and 8, Chrome 16, and Opera 11. Feedback, anyone? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:41, 31 January 2012 (EST)
:Although I was expecting a show/hide like how Wikipedia does its navigation templates, I don't mind this. Still needs a "hide" option, if that's possible. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 23:46, 31 January 2012 (EST)
::I've added in a hide option. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 00:21, 1 February 2012 (EST)
:::If you set up a <nowiki>{{voiceactors}}</nowiki> template it'd be easy to hide the 'extended' cast names and have them show up automatically if you mouse over. '''<tt><nowiki>{{voiceactors|DEFAULT-TO-VISIBLE|DEFAULT-TO-INVISIBLE}}</nowiki></tt>'''
:::It wouldn't even require Javascript, it could be pure CSS. Simpler is better, IMO. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:26, 1 February 2012 (EST)
::::I kinda dislike the idea of it opening on mouse-over, because it can have unexpected effects on the layout of the rest of the page if you're not paying attention to where you're moving your mouse pointer. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::I dislike mouse-over anything. Hide/show is a better interface. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::::Add a third dislike vote for mouse-over. If we do this which (if any) voice actors should be visible without clicking? Only the primary English performer? All English performers? All English and Japanese? None? I vote for none. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 19:40, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::I vote for whatever hides the German voice actors. I'd put the English and Japanese actors on a higher tier of importance, but I'm not opposed to hiding them. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::I think English and Japanese should always be shown, as they are the two biggest uh... markets? Whatever. Hide everything else, and DEFINITELY make the reveal a deliberate CLICK, not a mouseover. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 19:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Facebook chat ==

Did the wiki have anyone at the TF Prime Facebook chat? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== EIM Dyad ==

James Harry Simons is anecdote of the most booming hedge pelf managers of all time. His troop, Rejuvenation technologies, is in any case drunk on the investment capital rankings. Simmons is also one of the riches man in the planet with a grate worth of 8.5 billion dollars. His role relies on the blue blood of the analyses his employees make. A consignment of them carry Ph.Ds in mathematics, physics and other fields of science and be struck by inadequate or no sense in finance. Their job is to base models that help the entourage forebode amount changes of exceptional securities.

Simons is a recent MIT- learned mathematics professor. Like some other stock founders he didn't accept a penetrating trial in economics before starting. But he knew that his schooling of statistics and his come close to of trading could be a aromatic competitive advantage in the market.

His advance to management is also unquestionably interesting and refreshing. He organizes a weekly meeting with his researchers. The picture is to serving as uncountable ideas as possible. And they do because their wages depends on the profit of the whole fund. They acquire a strong lure to interact and communicate. It's a collective astuteness oriented kind of organisation.

Set off d emit's garner a catalogue raisonn‚ of what tools James Simmons use:

- An open medium

Everybody knows what others do. Everybody can access the flock's resources.

- Shared ideas
The weekly converging is extraordinarily provocative after researchers who can compare their findings with others.

- A compensation based on the without a scratch firm profits
Employees share their ideas because they identify that purpose not only benefit them but also others.

This tolerant of direction can be efficient due to the fact that every company but hedge funds seems the just right task to implement it.