MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2019-09-12T20:18:44Z

TheScarletSpider: /* Help With Where To Store Images For 'Fritos Poster - The Power Struggle' and 'Hi-C Poster / Calendar Battle In The Desert Valley' */

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
<br/> <div class="list-header">'''Wiki Technical Information:'''</div>
* [[Transformers_Wiki:Tech|A Not So Brief Summary of the Horrible Things That McFly and Co. Have Done To Keep This Wiki From Melting Down]]
}}<br/>

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


==The latest vandal / scrubbing slurs==
Is there any way to scrub the changes and that username from the recent changes? Because now we've got a slur on multiple pages, and it'd be nice not to. We should probably also see if there's a way to prevent usernames from having that word too. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 19:01, 4 January 2019 (EST)
:I believe we're on a late enough version of MediaWiki that somebody with access to our LocalSettings.php (abates?) should be able to switch on the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:RevisionDelete 'revision delete'] function for sysops. That would let us scrub the offending edits from the article histories. [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] ([[User talk:Jalaguy|talk]]) 19:08, 4 January 2019 (EST)
::Well, I found a way to rename the user, at least. Which scrubs SOME stuff but not everything. But yeah, if that works, let's. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 19:11, 4 January 2019 (EST)
:::He had another account that got banned yesterday; we should scrub all those too. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 20:10, 4 January 2019 (EST)
::Sounds good, I'll see about enabling revision deletion for admins. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 21:10, 4 January 2019 (EST)
:::All right, I've redacted a bunch of revisions from both instances. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 21:33, 4 January 2019 (EST)
::::The one instance that wasn't able to be gotten is McFeely's banning of the original username, since it hadn't been changed yet, but that's only in the "Recent changes" view; it should be fixed everywhere else. Unless you want to undo the edit summaries of all the reversions to strike his name(s) entirely from the record, we're probably all set. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 21:37, 4 January 2019 (EST)
:::::Thanks, I've changed the usernames in Recent Changes manually. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 22:01, 4 January 2019 (EST)

== Scheduled downtime ==

Our host has to do some maintenance on our server, so there's going to be some downtime on Jan 8, 8:30am UTC. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 00:25, 6 January 2019 (EST)

== Creating a new page for Dropkick ==
I think that we should separate the 2007 Dropkick with the BB Dropkick just like we did it with Crosshairs and Hound {{unsigned|Crosshairs}}
:I'm rather inclined to agree. ''Bumblebee'' Dropkick has nothing concretely connecting him to ''Transformers'' Dropkick. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 15:18, 15 January 2019 (EST)
:Why? They're both whiny blue movieverse Decepticon grunts who hate being on Earth. Other than altmode, what makes them more different than ROTF and AOE Lockdown? --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (EST)
::ROTF and AOE Lockdown are both based on the same character (Animated Lockdown). The Dropkicks aren't. [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] ([[User talk:Omegatron|talk]]) 19:20, 16 January 2019 (EST)

== Help With Where To Store Images For 'Fritos Poster - The Power Struggle' and 'Hi-C Poster / Calendar Battle In The Desert Valley' ==

I have high quality scans of all the images on the Fritos Poster 'The Power Struggle' and Hi-C 'Battle In the Desert Valley', but don't know where to put them. It does not appear you put all images of something (like a book) onto this site; that's why there are external links. It also doesn't look like you could make a separate subpage with all of the images on it. I do not know if I could upload them on this site, or if you have a recommend place to upload them or send to someone's website (like where the Transformers Manga is stored) and then include appropriate links when the images are up so people could read the whole thing. {{unsigned|TheScarletSpider}}
:We have no problem with hosting full posters, actually. In fact, we already have images for [[:File:BitDesertValley.jpg|Battle in the Desert Valley]] and [[:File:HiCThePowerStruggle.jpg|The Power Struggle]]. If yours are cleaner than ours, though, we'd love for you to upload them! You can use the "Upload a new version of this file" link for each image to replace the existing versions. Please be careful about the filesize, though; we generally prefer JPG files at 150 kb or less for bandwidth reasons, though given all the small text, we can probably make an exception for these as long as they're not too big. (Also, please make sure to sign your talk page posts! Just type four tildes at the end (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) and the wiki will take care of the rest.) -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 15:25, 7 February 2019 (EST)

Yeah, so both posters are scanned 2 pages each so you can actually read it, but they are in the 4-7MB range, so they would probably need to be hosted elsewhere, and then a link provided on the TFWiki Page to it, if anyone knows any good places to email someone / a website about hosting them. I also have scanned the 4 advertisements on the back of the Battle Desert Valley Poster, as well as the Reinforcements Ad scanned that came with the Power Struggle. ([[User:TheScarletSpider|TheScarletSpider]] ([[User talk:TheScarletSpider|talk]]) 16:18, 12 September 2019 (EDT))

== Wiki page titles with diacritics ==

I recently read about how SEO is somewhat unfriendly towards searches containing diacritics, resulting in diacritic-containing page titles getting found less often by Google. In that case, how should pages such as that of [[David Garcia Cruz|David García Cruz of Spain]] and [[Gabriel Rodriguez|Gabriel Rodríguez Pérez of Chile]] be titled, additionally considering that IDW in the U.S. often doesn't spell their names with the diacritics in business material? Far be it from me to advocate not spelling personal names natively, but comprising on that seems to be most helpful for the wiki's Internet presence. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 17:42, 10 February 2019 (EST)
:I don't think we should base our spellings of creators' names on what's relevant for SEO, but more the correct way it should be spelled. Though I do notice from googling both of those names that even they themselves spell them both with and without diacritics on their social media. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 18:19, 22 April 2019 (EDT)

=="Core Concepts" and the Main Page==
Okay so here's a thing, kind of a big major cascading-ish thing. Abates brought this up on the Allspark in the discussion of the [[Comics]] page revamp, and let's discuss it here. Namely, the "Categories" box on the Main Page is useless. Categories are a TERRIBLE "first step" to finding information on a wiki. Just a big wad-list of links. That space would be better served with links to actual pages, particularly "core concepts" pages that are good "basics"-level starting points/hubs to find more information, like the new version of the Comics page.<br>
The issue, though, is that many of the big "core concepts" pages... well, range from "are in need of work" to "are dogshit". "Comics" was clearly thrown togther 15 years ago then not touched significantly since then since it was not a glamourous page to work on... but it's an essential concept. SO. I want to gather a list of candidate pages for this "core concepts" section, stuff that's broad but important, and it'd be good to have folks really work at polishing them up and making them approachable, current-standards pages.
:*'''[[Comics]]''' - Well, most of that work's been done recently.
:*'''[[Cartoons]]''' - We don't have this yet, but we prolly should. Same general idea as the Comics, but should be a LOT simpler. I'll probably work on a version of this in a few days.
:*'''[[Toy]]''' - I mean, it IS the reason this whole damn enterprise exists. A brief glance at this page shows it too could really use a revamp. It's not ''awful'', but it's... not up to our current standards.
:*'''[[Video games]]''' - I'm not convinced the current setup of this page is the best way it could be done. At the very least it needs some pictures.
:*'''[[Continuity]]''' - This page is solid but could use a brush-up. But it's at the core of a lot of related concepts... better to ease someone into "continuity family" talk with the broad-strokes of "continuity" first.
:*'''[[Franchise]]''' - Hoooooo boy does this page need work. What an ugly kludge. BUT the page ''idea'' is a perfect hub for people to find out more about that thing they remember from when they were a kid.
:*'''[[Transformer]]''' - Another good hub for the broader concepts of TF biology and whatnot.
:*'''[[Fandom]]''' - Sure.
:*'''[[Factions]]''' - Maybe? Abates mentioned it as a possibility. Wouldn't be a bad lead-in to reworking the individual factions' pages.
Maybe call the box "Getting Started" instead of "Core Concepts". And honestly? It should probably go ABOVE "Continuity Families", which I'm... increasingly unsold on the need for on the Mainpage, but I'm not calling for it to be deleted (yet). --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 06:00, 15 February 2019 (EST)
:What about '''[[Character]]'''? As for the general name for these, "the Basics" would be good ... except McFeely's already taken it. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 06:59, 15 February 2019 (EST)
::Christ on a tilt-a-whirl, that page needs SERIOUS culling. It should be MAYBE a third of its current size. There's no way in hell I'd recommend that as a "starter" page. *''looks at edit history to see who did the most work on the page''* of fucking course --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 07:29, 15 February 2019 (EST)
:::Hey, I make no claim as to the quality of the page, I'm just saying that "character" is a core concept that should be in this group (whether the current version of that page or some totally new one or something in between, I have no opinion on).--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (EST)
:I'd be willing to take a crack at the Video Games page, but I wonder whether we should continue to split them up by continuity, or do so by console generation instead? -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 11:57, 15 February 2019 (EST)
::It's a good question. I'm not wild about breaking them up by continuity. Breaking them up by pre-Nintendo gaming systems, 8-bit/16-bit era, uh... whatever the PS/Xbox/GC up to now would be considered, mobile apps, and arcades? That what you're thinking? --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 21:47, 15 February 2019 (EST)
:::More or less, yeah. I'm thinking we split it up into 3rd gen (8-bit systems), 5th gen (PS1/N64), 6th gen (GC/PS2), 7th gen (360/PS3/Wii), 8th gen (XB1/PS4/Wii U), mobile, and arcade, with a separate link to the [[Online game]] page because trying to merge all those in might actually bloat it too much. Depending on how the final breakdown looks, I might split off handheld games into their own section as well. Not sure yet whether to list games twice if they appeared across multiple console generations (like how some games were on both PS3 and PS4) or just once. I'll see how each approache looks, then decide where to go from there. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 22:46, 15 February 2019 (EST)
::::I'm'a be honest, I think distinguishing between 7 & 8 is kinda pointless, especially when you consider how many of those games were also on PC/Steam. 5 & 6 too also seem pretty much the same. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]])
:::::Fair enough. I started a [[User:Cyberlink420/vgsandbox|draft]] and sorted all the games accordingly into categories (though I haven't done any curation beyond that like putting them in release order). I'm gonna try and drill down further later, but I don't even know how to approach the mobile games section; whittling that one down into something digestible and/or writing a summary will probably require help from someone who actually plays the mobile games. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 03:13, 16 February 2019 (EST)
::::::You know, this might be a place for us to get a shade fancy. I'm thinking tables. Title, release date, system(s), franchise, with that little arrow in each column header that lets you sort the list by that column. Side benefit: not a bullet list leaving a lot of whitespace. I mean, still broken up by the current categories. Something to consider. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 04:02, 16 February 2019 (EST)
:::::::I did a quick and dirty mockup for the console games, with the systems themselves being a non-sortable column because it's not gonna make a difference when you've got like five or six of them in a single box. If this looks good, I'll do the same for the other sections. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 11:10, 16 February 2019 (EST)
::::::::Yeah, I like that. Has all the stuff most anyone might want to find a particular game, in a format much easier to find the variables in than our normal bullet points. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 18:10, 16 February 2019 (EST)
:::::::::Okay, the page is almost ready. There's still more to do, but I suggest we move further discussion to the [[User talk:Cyberlink420/vgsandbox|sandbox talk page]] so we're not taking up too much space here. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (EST)
:::::::::The games page has officially been updated. I also have a WIP Toys section for Transformers that turn into gaming devices like consoles and controllers, but I decided to leave it off for fear that it'd bloat the page. If anyone else thinks it's worth including, though, I'm happy to add it as well. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 21:55, 20 February 2019 (EST)
:Just want to note that I feel like these links should be consistently pluralised? "Franchises", "Continuities"... - [[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 13:25, 15 February 2019 (EST)

Okay, so, re-opening this discussion, since several of the above pages have gotten their overhauls. I'm feeling like both the "Continuity Families" and "Categories" boxes on the main page should go bye-bye in favor of a single "Fundamentals" section, with the pages listed above. Any thoughts to the contrary? (Sandboxing a box now.) --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 22:38, 27 February 2019 (EST)
:[[User:M_Sipher/Sandbox:Fundamentals|Started a "Fundamentals" sandbox page]]. And thought of a new addition... a "'''Movies'''" hub page, since there's been stuff in Japan not in the US... --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 22:53, 27 February 2019 (EST)
::That looks like a great improvement over what we've got at the moment. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 00:49, 28 February 2019 (EST)
:::Unless someone's got any kinda objections/additions to discuss, I figure I'll just make the change once I get [[User:M Sipher/Sandbox:MoviesHub|the "Movies" page]] sorted... and also once we slap a warning or something on [[Character]] because jeezus, that page needs worrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrk. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 04:09, 28 February 2019 (EST)

== Generation 1 toyline labeling ==

Of late, I have observed some "Generation 1" toy headers get changed to "The Transformers" (e.g. on the pages "[[Blowpipe (G1)]]", "[[Prowl (G1)/toys]]", "[[Roadhandler (G1)]]"), presumably because "''The Transformers''" was the actual series name on the original packaging. Is this a trend we want to propagate throughout the site? [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 00:52, 19 February 2019 (EST)
:Oof. I'd definitely prefer keeping "Generation 1". "The Transformers" is so unhelpfully generic. Using G1 may not be technically accurate, but it's such a universally known and intuitive retroactive term that it just looks better, especially with toys that have "Generation 2" releases right below it. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 09:34, 20 February 2019 (EST)
::Thing is, "Generation 1" gets used for both the franchise AND the wider grouping that sits above it (whereas Unicron Trilogy → Armada, for instance). That's why other stuff has been changed to ''The Transformers'' in the past (e.g., articles for the cartoon/toyline/etc; as well as Fiction section headers), IIRC - to make it clearer whether (e.g,) G1 cartoons in general (including the JP Headmasters/Masterforce/etc sequels) or the series running from MTMTE pt 1 to The Rebirth pt 3 is the subject at hand. - [[User:Mammalian Verisimilitude|Mammalian Verisimilitude]] ([[User talk:Mammalian Verisimilitude|talk]]) 21:22, 20 February 2019 (EST)
::I can say that personally, I've been using "The Transformers" only when I'm talking about the media and toyline specifically called that, and almost always something along the lines of "Marvel's ''The Transformers'' comic" or "Sunbow's ''The Transformers'' cartoon." When I'm talking about a character or whatnot, I'll say "Generation 1 Xnamehere." [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 21:47, 20 February 2019 (EST)
:::Well, that's in line with what Xaaron's objecting to, I think. Making (e.g.) the first subheader (under Toys) on [[Optimus Prime (G1)/toys]] say "The Transformers" (or a variation, like "The Transformers (1984)" - which would have precedent with the likes of Transformers (2007)/(2010), Robots in Disguise (2001)/(2015), Universe (2003)/(2008), etc) - rather than "Generation 1".
:::(And I was saying that I agree with the change, since if they're on the page of a "Generation 1" character, they're ''all'' "G1 toys", even if they weren't in the 1984-1991 toylines. We use "Generation 1" on multiple things whereas in other "continuity families" with multiple franchises, we use a term distinct from any of the constituent franchises, like [[Unicron Trilogy]], [[live-action film series]] or [[Aligned]]) - [[User:Mammalian Verisimilitude|Mammalian Verisimilitude]] ([[User talk:Mammalian Verisimilitude|talk]]) 00:08, 21 February 2019 (EST)
Kind of related question: Why DO we consider the first franchise to officially be "The Transformers"? I know the "the" is right there in the logo, but it's in the same font as the "More than meets the eye" tagline which we don't consider part of the title. Aside from that, if we REALLY wanted to match the franchise name to the logo, wouldn't it be "The Trans {insert faction symbol here} Formers" or, at least, "The Trans Formers"? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 08:22, 21 February 2019 (EST)
:[[File:TFUSindiciasamples.jpg|thumb|Knew I'd seen one of these somewhere around here]] Well, the Marvel US series was formally "The Transformers", even after the "The" was dropped from the front cover logo... - [[User:Mammalian Verisimilitude|Mammalian Verisimilitude]] ([[User talk:Mammalian Verisimilitude|talk]]) 19:40, 22 February 2019 (EST)

== Quotation punctuation on Siege toy entries ==

So, I noticed that pretty much all of the [[War for Cybertron: Siege (toyline)|Siege]] toy entries use the American quotation style (commas and periods outside the quotation marks, like "this,") instead of the British/logical style (commas and periods inside the quotation marks, like "this",). I've never liked the American style, but personal opinions aside, I kinda find this odd, considering [[Help:Style guide#Grammar|this wiki perfers the logical style]]. Granted, our style guide also says "Respect other editors' style choices", but honestly, I think it'd be better to change to the logical style. After all, are those commas and periods really part of the weapons' names? [[User:ShootingStar7X|ShootingStar7X]] ([[User talk:ShootingStar7X|talk]]) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (EST)
:It seems to vary by personal choice of the editor, and in spite of that guideline, most users on this wiki prefer U.S.-style punctuation inside quotation marks (which is unfortunate, but oh well). [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 21:39, 15 March 2019 (EDT)

== Rename IDW Generation 1 continuity to IDW 2005 continuity? ==

Obviously, we have an imminent reboot, which the wiki will almost certainly classify as G1, 'cause that's what it does with comics. But even until now, the "IDW Generation 1 continuity" is not the ''only'' G1 based continuity IDW have published - ''Star Trek/Transformers'' has just finished, and there's been a bunch of other G1 "micro-continuities" they've done. "IDW Generation 1 continuity" only really works as a name if it's the ''only'' IDW G1 continuity. And even if you ignore the small stuff, that's not the case as of later this month. So how about switching to naming it by date? - [[User:Mammalian Verisimilitude|Mammalian Verisimilitude]] ([[User talk:Mammalian Verisimilitude|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2019 (EST)
:Date seems to be the most future-proof naming scheme, in case they reboot again in another 10 years. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 16:57, 10 March 2019 (EDT)
::Yeah, I'm all for switching to date as well, but I'd like to get a few more folks to weigh in before I start updating things, since this change would effect a LOT of articles. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 21:04, 14 March 2019 (EDT)
:::Problem is, the longer you wait, the harder it becomes to actually do it, if people start slipping in "IDW Generation 1 (2019)" and similar styles that would get caught by find'n'replace. - [[User:Mammalian Verisimilitude|Mammalian Verisimilitude]] ([[User talk:Mammalian Verisimilitude|talk]]) 21:21, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
::::Perhaps, but again, I think this is a big enough change that there needs to be some level of consensus before it starts getting implemented. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 21:43, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
:::::Distinguishing by date seems to have a lot of support in the Allspark thread. https://www.allspark.com/forums/topic/101932-tfwikinet-thread-30/page-609 Not sure why more haven't weighed in here. "IDW 2005 continuity" and "IDW 2019 continuity" sounds good to me. [[User:NovaSaber|NovaSaber]] ([[User talk:NovaSaber|talk]]) 11:26, 16 March 2019 (EDT)
::::::In line with our RiD headers, I suggest adjusting that to "2005 IDW continuity" and "2019 IDW continuity". [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 22:42, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
:::::::The thing about that is that the pages for the RID cartoons are at [[Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2001 cartoon)]] and [[Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2015 cartoon)]]. Wherever [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] goes needs to match the headers, because of the way split pages are done. Hence why I prefer "IDW (year) continuity"
:::::::And is anything actually HAPPENING with this? - [[User:Mammalian Verisimilitude|Mammalian Verisimilitude]] ([[User talk:Mammalian Verisimilitude|talk]]) 20:03, 22 March 2019 (EDT)
::::::::It seems we've got a category problem on our hands. I'm seeing pages marked under "IDW 2005", "IDW (2005)", and "2005 IDW". Can we just pick one category banner name and stick with it?--[[User:NexusShard17|NexusShard17]] ([[User talk:NexusShard17|talk]]) 13:23, 04 April 2019 (EDT)
:::::::::There was some further discussion on AllSpark, and it sounds like the current consensus is "2005 IDW continuity". -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 14:27, 4 April 2019 (EDT)
::::::::::The main continuity page stands at "[[2005 IDW continuity]]" while categories should become "Category:IDW (2005) x" in line with our precedent of "Category:Robots in Disguise (2001) x". [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 15:57, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

== Guideline for fan opinions? ==

Hi, I'd just like to ask if there are general guidelines for citing fan opinions on pages (e.g. ''Revenge of the Fallen'' is bad, ''Masterpiece'' Prime is considered one of the best toys ever)? I noticed that some pages cite subjective opinions and some don't, but I'd just like to figure out when it's acceptable or not to do so. --[[User:Samus Aran|Samus Aran]] ([[User talk:Samus Aran|talk]]) 12:42, 22 May 2019 (EDT)

==Uploading Images==
Hi, I'm new to this wiki. I've made contributions on other wikis (Marvel, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, etc) and was going to upload images, starting with two regarding the Autobot Fleet (IDW) but I keep getting the message that I don't have permission to create new pages. I've followed the instructions and continue to get that message. What am I missing or are only certain individuals permitted to upload images?

[[User:Esparza3368|Esparza3368]] ([[User talk:Esparza3368|talk]]) 00:05, 22 June 2019 (EDT)
:New users are restricted from creating articles (which image uploads fall under) as an anti-spam measure. After you've made more edits (I forget the exact number, hopefully another admin can come along and say?) that functionality will be automatically unlocked for you. [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] ([[User talk:Jalaguy|talk]]) 15:27, 22 June 2019 (EDT)

== General policy regarding toy writeups for toys with multiple releases, reissues etc. ==

I feel like this has been discussed a few times already, but do we have a general rule regarding how we treat toys that had multiple releases in the respective characters' toy sections? For example, both [[Tracks (G1)/toys#Generation 1|Tracks]] and [[Wheeljack (G1)/toys#The Transformers|Wheeljack]] still have their [[Classics (Europe)|"Classic Heroes"]] releases tacked onto their original G1 toy writups, whereas others such as [[Jazz (G1)/toys#Generation 1|Jazz]], [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Generation 1|Prowl]] and [[Sunstreaker (G1)/toys#Generation 1|Sunstreaker]] have them separated out into separate writeups. (On top of that, the date for "Classic" Tracks was off by one year! It originally said "1992" twice before I fixed it.) Meanwhile, [[Silverbolt (G1)#Unite Warriors|G1 Silverbolt's ''Unite Warriors'']] writeup itself mentions the 2019 re-release, but the top of the writeup only mentions the original 2015 release date (presumably because the exact date would make adding the re-release date look awkwardly clunky, unlike a simple "2015/2019" date). The other Aerialbots' UW writeups don't mention the 2019 re-release at all.

Generally, I ''think'' the guideline ''should be'' more or less "if there is a new production run in largely unaltered packaging within a few years of the original version, it gets added to the original writeup, but if the official branding on the packaging changes, it gets its own separate writeup", which made us separate stuff like the ''[[The Transformers Collection|Transformers Collection]]'', ''[[The Transformers: Generation One Commemorative Series|Commemorative Series]]'' and ''[[Transformers Encore|Encore]]'' out into their own sections. But that doesn't ''really'' cover the "Euro Classics", which had their own distinct packaging designs but ''were'' still part of what we consider the "Generation 1 line"... and then there are a bunch of other complicated cases:
* The 1989-onwards [[The Transformers (Chinese toyline)|Chinese releases]] are generally ignored ''entirely'' in the toy writeups, even though some of them were released more then half a decade after their original US versions, around the same time as the "Euro Classics".
* Most of the [[Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)#Post-series releases|2000-onwards Japanese reissues]] in (mostly) unaltered packaging get their own writeups, but [[Predaking (G1)#Generation 1|Predaking]] and the individual Predacons, as well as [[Sixshot#Generation 1|Sixshot]], have the reissues added to the writeups for the original 1986/1987 releases instead.
*The unreleased redecos of ''Generation 2'' "Hero" [[Optimus Prime (G1)/toys#CombatHeroOptimusPrime|Optimus Prime]] and [[Megatron (G1)/toys#CombatHero|Megatron]] get separate entries, even though based on the packaging, they were intended as mere color variants like the G2 Dinobots and Constructicons had. The only reason they're considered as separate items is because of the fabled "''Combat'' Heroes" name, which is likely the result of a persistent outdated working name seeping into the fandom's collective consciousness. (See [[Hero (G2)#Notes|here]] for more.)
* What about the very odd case of the Toys"R"Us exclusive [[Unicron/toys#Universe (2008)|''Universe'' Unicron]], a straight re-release of the ''Armada'' figure in an identical deco, featuring the same Hasbro product code number and UPC barcode as the ''Armada'' release, but sold in completely redesigned packaging and branded under the ''Universe'' line rather than ''Armada''?
* What, then, about the "Dollar store" releases of Legion Class [[Optimus Prime (G1)/toys#Transformers (2014)|Optimus Prime]], [[Bumblebee (G1)/toys#Transformers (2014)|Bumblebee]], [[Starscream (G1)/toys#Transformers (2014)|Starscream]] and [[Grimlock (G1)/toys#LegionClass|Grimlock]]? Originally released in 2014, in packaging mimicking the overall look of the then-concurrent ''Age of Extinction'' line, Optimus, Bumblebee and Grimlock were re-released a year later, now in completely redesigned packaging mimicking the overall look of the then-concurrent ''Combiner Wars'' line, complete with new Hasbro product code numbers and UPC barcodes compared to their 2014 releases... and ''then'' Optimus, Bumblebee and Starscream were re-released ''again'' in 2017, this time in slightly altered and updated versions of their 2014 releases' packaging complete with the old Hasbro product code numbers and UPC barcodes. Optimus, Bumblebee and Starscream mention the re-releases both in their writeups themselves and in the writeup headers (though I had to remove an incorrect mention of an alleged 2015 release for Starscream), whereas Grimlock only mentions it in the writeup itself, but not in the header. Do we consider these all as variations of the same releases, including the 2015 versions?
*My head hurts.

== New admins ==

Several recent incidents seem to indicate a need for more admins. How do we go about getting some? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 16:11, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
: I think Walky is the only person with the power to appoint admins, so you'd need to talk to him. [[User:Grum|Grum]] ([[User talk:Grum|talk]]) 17:17, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

== Fixing up the category system ==

Our category system at the moment is a mess, in no small part because the wiki is old and over time people have added stuff in different places. One of the rules we should be sticking to is that if an article is in a subcategory, it should be equally able to fit into the parent category. By example, [[Optimus Prime (G1)]] is in:

*[[:Category:Characters|Characters]] -> [[:Category:Robots|Robots]] -> [[:Category:Transformers|Transformers]] -> [[:Category:Generation 1 Transformers|Generation 1 Transformers]] -> [[:Category:Generation 1 Autobots|Generation 1 Autobots]]

Optimus Prime is a character, a robot, and a Transformer, so he can fit into any of the parent categories, so this is a good structure. Meanwhile [[Destro]] is in:

*[[:Category:Organizations|Organizations]] -> [[:Category:Human organizations|Human organizations]] -> [[:Category:Cobra|Cobra]]

While [[Cobra]] is a human organization, Destro is not. If you're navigating into a category for "Organizations", I don't think you should find a category containing a bunch of characters.

The Cobra category has been categorized as though it's the Cobra article when it's actually "People and objects related to Cobra". It contains Cobra personnel and things like [[Cobra Island]].

So I think the Cobra category should be removed from both its current parents, but I'm not sure where it would go. Do we need a top-level category for categories of "articles by subgroup" perhaps? (there are a bunch of categories like Cobra) Thoughts? --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 02:47, 11 July 2019 (EDT)

==Parentheticals for way-too-similar page titles==
Okay, this has been brought up on Allspark ([https://www.allspark.com/forums/topic/101932-tfwikinet-thread-or-the-all-new-all-different-community-portal/?p=3909370 link to the start)] in the wake of the whole "Bring Me The Head Of Optimus Prime" deal, but let's talk about this here.<br>
"[[Transformers Generations]]", "[[Transformers: Generations]]" and "[[The Transformers: Generations]]" all link to considerably different things, and none of them are redirects. So, tell me, without clicking any of the links... which does each link to? Really shouldn't HAVE to go to a disambig page to find out which is which.<br>
And I don't think we need to make up a ton of redirects to clutter the searchbar with every variant depending on ":", "the" or minor capitalization change. Hell, "Generations (toyline)" already exists and is sufficient, "Generations (books)" can lead to the disambig page seeing as that list is like 80% books titled "Generations".<br>
But let's consider other other cases, like how we got "[[Energon grid]]" and "[[Energon Grid (episode)]]", and how that's a bit more helpful than making people page-bounce. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 19:50, 27 August 2019 (EDT)
:Goes without saying, but I'm all in favor. It might also be a worthwhile idea for someone to do an audit of our list of redirects, see which ones aren't really necessary. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 10:11, 28 August 2019 (EDT)
:I've never liked the idea that "well, it isn't EXACTLY the same title, so it doesn't need disambiguation". These sorts of things are REAL WORLD ambiguous and we shouldn't be making it hard for people to find what they are looking for. Titles with or without "the" or "a" or "an", capitalization differences, spacing differences (Motormaster vs Motor Master), use or non use of a colon, terminal "!" or "?" all are horrible things to depend on for disambiguation. Translation: I'm all for this. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 10:21, 28 August 2019 (EDT)
::[[Hun-Grrr]], too? --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 08:39, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
:::I'd redirect all variant spellings to the disambiguation page and tag all of the individual articles with their franchise of origin. Even if the name in franchise X is spelled differently from the name in every other franchise, I guarantee you people will get confused and it is quite likely that any particular spelling will eventually be used for another version of the character. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 09:44, 29 August 2019 (EDT)

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2019-09-12T20:18:22Z

TheScarletSpider: /* Help With Where To Store Images For 'Fritos Poster - The Power Struggle' and 'Hi-C Poster / Calendar Battle In The Desert Valley' */

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
<br/> <div class="list-header">'''Wiki Technical Information:'''</div>
* [[Transformers_Wiki:Tech|A Not So Brief Summary of the Horrible Things That McFly and Co. Have Done To Keep This Wiki From Melting Down]]
}}<br/>

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


==The latest vandal / scrubbing slurs==
Is there any way to scrub the changes and that username from the recent changes? Because now we've got a slur on multiple pages, and it'd be nice not to. We should probably also see if there's a way to prevent usernames from having that word too. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 19:01, 4 January 2019 (EST)
:I believe we're on a late enough version of MediaWiki that somebody with access to our LocalSettings.php (abates?) should be able to switch on the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:RevisionDelete 'revision delete'] function for sysops. That would let us scrub the offending edits from the article histories. [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] ([[User talk:Jalaguy|talk]]) 19:08, 4 January 2019 (EST)
::Well, I found a way to rename the user, at least. Which scrubs SOME stuff but not everything. But yeah, if that works, let's. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 19:11, 4 January 2019 (EST)
:::He had another account that got banned yesterday; we should scrub all those too. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 20:10, 4 January 2019 (EST)
::Sounds good, I'll see about enabling revision deletion for admins. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 21:10, 4 January 2019 (EST)
:::All right, I've redacted a bunch of revisions from both instances. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 21:33, 4 January 2019 (EST)
::::The one instance that wasn't able to be gotten is McFeely's banning of the original username, since it hadn't been changed yet, but that's only in the "Recent changes" view; it should be fixed everywhere else. Unless you want to undo the edit summaries of all the reversions to strike his name(s) entirely from the record, we're probably all set. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 21:37, 4 January 2019 (EST)
:::::Thanks, I've changed the usernames in Recent Changes manually. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 22:01, 4 January 2019 (EST)

== Scheduled downtime ==

Our host has to do some maintenance on our server, so there's going to be some downtime on Jan 8, 8:30am UTC. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 00:25, 6 January 2019 (EST)

== Creating a new page for Dropkick ==
I think that we should separate the 2007 Dropkick with the BB Dropkick just like we did it with Crosshairs and Hound {{unsigned|Crosshairs}}
:I'm rather inclined to agree. ''Bumblebee'' Dropkick has nothing concretely connecting him to ''Transformers'' Dropkick. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 15:18, 15 January 2019 (EST)
:Why? They're both whiny blue movieverse Decepticon grunts who hate being on Earth. Other than altmode, what makes them more different than ROTF and AOE Lockdown? --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (EST)
::ROTF and AOE Lockdown are both based on the same character (Animated Lockdown). The Dropkicks aren't. [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] ([[User talk:Omegatron|talk]]) 19:20, 16 January 2019 (EST)

== Help With Where To Store Images For 'Fritos Poster - The Power Struggle' and 'Hi-C Poster / Calendar Battle In The Desert Valley' ==

I have high quality scans of all the images on the Fritos Poster 'The Power Struggle' and Hi-C 'Battle In the Desert Valley', but don't know where to put them. It does not appear you put all images of something (like a book) onto this site; that's why there are external links. It also doesn't look like you could make a separate subpage with all of the images on it. I do not know if I could upload them on this site, or if you have a recommend place to upload them or send to someone's website (like where the Transformers Manga is stored) and then include appropriate links when the images are up so people could read the whole thing. {{unsigned|TheScarletSpider}}
:We have no problem with hosting full posters, actually. In fact, we already have images for [[:File:BitDesertValley.jpg|Battle in the Desert Valley]] and [[:File:HiCThePowerStruggle.jpg|The Power Struggle]]. If yours are cleaner than ours, though, we'd love for you to upload them! You can use the "Upload a new version of this file" link for each image to replace the existing versions. Please be careful about the filesize, though; we generally prefer JPG files at 150 kb or less for bandwidth reasons, though given all the small text, we can probably make an exception for these as long as they're not too big. (Also, please make sure to sign your talk page posts! Just type four tildes at the end (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) and the wiki will take care of the rest.) -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 15:25, 7 February 2019 (EST)

Yeah, so both posters are scanned 2 pages each so you can actually read it, but they are in the 4-7MB range, so they would probably need to be hosted elsewhere, and then a link provided on the TFWiki Page to it, if anyone knows any good places to email someone / a website about hosting them. I also have scanned the 4 advertisements on the back of the Battle Desert Valley Poster, as well as the Reinforcements Ad scanned that came with the Power Struggle. (----)

== Wiki page titles with diacritics ==

I recently read about how SEO is somewhat unfriendly towards searches containing diacritics, resulting in diacritic-containing page titles getting found less often by Google. In that case, how should pages such as that of [[David Garcia Cruz|David García Cruz of Spain]] and [[Gabriel Rodriguez|Gabriel Rodríguez Pérez of Chile]] be titled, additionally considering that IDW in the U.S. often doesn't spell their names with the diacritics in business material? Far be it from me to advocate not spelling personal names natively, but comprising on that seems to be most helpful for the wiki's Internet presence. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 17:42, 10 February 2019 (EST)
:I don't think we should base our spellings of creators' names on what's relevant for SEO, but more the correct way it should be spelled. Though I do notice from googling both of those names that even they themselves spell them both with and without diacritics on their social media. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 18:19, 22 April 2019 (EDT)

=="Core Concepts" and the Main Page==
Okay so here's a thing, kind of a big major cascading-ish thing. Abates brought this up on the Allspark in the discussion of the [[Comics]] page revamp, and let's discuss it here. Namely, the "Categories" box on the Main Page is useless. Categories are a TERRIBLE "first step" to finding information on a wiki. Just a big wad-list of links. That space would be better served with links to actual pages, particularly "core concepts" pages that are good "basics"-level starting points/hubs to find more information, like the new version of the Comics page.<br>
The issue, though, is that many of the big "core concepts" pages... well, range from "are in need of work" to "are dogshit". "Comics" was clearly thrown togther 15 years ago then not touched significantly since then since it was not a glamourous page to work on... but it's an essential concept. SO. I want to gather a list of candidate pages for this "core concepts" section, stuff that's broad but important, and it'd be good to have folks really work at polishing them up and making them approachable, current-standards pages.
:*'''[[Comics]]''' - Well, most of that work's been done recently.
:*'''[[Cartoons]]''' - We don't have this yet, but we prolly should. Same general idea as the Comics, but should be a LOT simpler. I'll probably work on a version of this in a few days.
:*'''[[Toy]]''' - I mean, it IS the reason this whole damn enterprise exists. A brief glance at this page shows it too could really use a revamp. It's not ''awful'', but it's... not up to our current standards.
:*'''[[Video games]]''' - I'm not convinced the current setup of this page is the best way it could be done. At the very least it needs some pictures.
:*'''[[Continuity]]''' - This page is solid but could use a brush-up. But it's at the core of a lot of related concepts... better to ease someone into "continuity family" talk with the broad-strokes of "continuity" first.
:*'''[[Franchise]]''' - Hoooooo boy does this page need work. What an ugly kludge. BUT the page ''idea'' is a perfect hub for people to find out more about that thing they remember from when they were a kid.
:*'''[[Transformer]]''' - Another good hub for the broader concepts of TF biology and whatnot.
:*'''[[Fandom]]''' - Sure.
:*'''[[Factions]]''' - Maybe? Abates mentioned it as a possibility. Wouldn't be a bad lead-in to reworking the individual factions' pages.
Maybe call the box "Getting Started" instead of "Core Concepts". And honestly? It should probably go ABOVE "Continuity Families", which I'm... increasingly unsold on the need for on the Mainpage, but I'm not calling for it to be deleted (yet). --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 06:00, 15 February 2019 (EST)
:What about '''[[Character]]'''? As for the general name for these, "the Basics" would be good ... except McFeely's already taken it. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 06:59, 15 February 2019 (EST)
::Christ on a tilt-a-whirl, that page needs SERIOUS culling. It should be MAYBE a third of its current size. There's no way in hell I'd recommend that as a "starter" page. *''looks at edit history to see who did the most work on the page''* of fucking course --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 07:29, 15 February 2019 (EST)
:::Hey, I make no claim as to the quality of the page, I'm just saying that "character" is a core concept that should be in this group (whether the current version of that page or some totally new one or something in between, I have no opinion on).--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (EST)
:I'd be willing to take a crack at the Video Games page, but I wonder whether we should continue to split them up by continuity, or do so by console generation instead? -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 11:57, 15 February 2019 (EST)
::It's a good question. I'm not wild about breaking them up by continuity. Breaking them up by pre-Nintendo gaming systems, 8-bit/16-bit era, uh... whatever the PS/Xbox/GC up to now would be considered, mobile apps, and arcades? That what you're thinking? --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 21:47, 15 February 2019 (EST)
:::More or less, yeah. I'm thinking we split it up into 3rd gen (8-bit systems), 5th gen (PS1/N64), 6th gen (GC/PS2), 7th gen (360/PS3/Wii), 8th gen (XB1/PS4/Wii U), mobile, and arcade, with a separate link to the [[Online game]] page because trying to merge all those in might actually bloat it too much. Depending on how the final breakdown looks, I might split off handheld games into their own section as well. Not sure yet whether to list games twice if they appeared across multiple console generations (like how some games were on both PS3 and PS4) or just once. I'll see how each approache looks, then decide where to go from there. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 22:46, 15 February 2019 (EST)
::::I'm'a be honest, I think distinguishing between 7 & 8 is kinda pointless, especially when you consider how many of those games were also on PC/Steam. 5 & 6 too also seem pretty much the same. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]])
:::::Fair enough. I started a [[User:Cyberlink420/vgsandbox|draft]] and sorted all the games accordingly into categories (though I haven't done any curation beyond that like putting them in release order). I'm gonna try and drill down further later, but I don't even know how to approach the mobile games section; whittling that one down into something digestible and/or writing a summary will probably require help from someone who actually plays the mobile games. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 03:13, 16 February 2019 (EST)
::::::You know, this might be a place for us to get a shade fancy. I'm thinking tables. Title, release date, system(s), franchise, with that little arrow in each column header that lets you sort the list by that column. Side benefit: not a bullet list leaving a lot of whitespace. I mean, still broken up by the current categories. Something to consider. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 04:02, 16 February 2019 (EST)
:::::::I did a quick and dirty mockup for the console games, with the systems themselves being a non-sortable column because it's not gonna make a difference when you've got like five or six of them in a single box. If this looks good, I'll do the same for the other sections. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 11:10, 16 February 2019 (EST)
::::::::Yeah, I like that. Has all the stuff most anyone might want to find a particular game, in a format much easier to find the variables in than our normal bullet points. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 18:10, 16 February 2019 (EST)
:::::::::Okay, the page is almost ready. There's still more to do, but I suggest we move further discussion to the [[User talk:Cyberlink420/vgsandbox|sandbox talk page]] so we're not taking up too much space here. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (EST)
:::::::::The games page has officially been updated. I also have a WIP Toys section for Transformers that turn into gaming devices like consoles and controllers, but I decided to leave it off for fear that it'd bloat the page. If anyone else thinks it's worth including, though, I'm happy to add it as well. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 21:55, 20 February 2019 (EST)
:Just want to note that I feel like these links should be consistently pluralised? "Franchises", "Continuities"... - [[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 13:25, 15 February 2019 (EST)

Okay, so, re-opening this discussion, since several of the above pages have gotten their overhauls. I'm feeling like both the "Continuity Families" and "Categories" boxes on the main page should go bye-bye in favor of a single "Fundamentals" section, with the pages listed above. Any thoughts to the contrary? (Sandboxing a box now.) --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 22:38, 27 February 2019 (EST)
:[[User:M_Sipher/Sandbox:Fundamentals|Started a "Fundamentals" sandbox page]]. And thought of a new addition... a "'''Movies'''" hub page, since there's been stuff in Japan not in the US... --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 22:53, 27 February 2019 (EST)
::That looks like a great improvement over what we've got at the moment. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 00:49, 28 February 2019 (EST)
:::Unless someone's got any kinda objections/additions to discuss, I figure I'll just make the change once I get [[User:M Sipher/Sandbox:MoviesHub|the "Movies" page]] sorted... and also once we slap a warning or something on [[Character]] because jeezus, that page needs worrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrk. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 04:09, 28 February 2019 (EST)

== Generation 1 toyline labeling ==

Of late, I have observed some "Generation 1" toy headers get changed to "The Transformers" (e.g. on the pages "[[Blowpipe (G1)]]", "[[Prowl (G1)/toys]]", "[[Roadhandler (G1)]]"), presumably because "''The Transformers''" was the actual series name on the original packaging. Is this a trend we want to propagate throughout the site? [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 00:52, 19 February 2019 (EST)
:Oof. I'd definitely prefer keeping "Generation 1". "The Transformers" is so unhelpfully generic. Using G1 may not be technically accurate, but it's such a universally known and intuitive retroactive term that it just looks better, especially with toys that have "Generation 2" releases right below it. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 09:34, 20 February 2019 (EST)
::Thing is, "Generation 1" gets used for both the franchise AND the wider grouping that sits above it (whereas Unicron Trilogy → Armada, for instance). That's why other stuff has been changed to ''The Transformers'' in the past (e.g., articles for the cartoon/toyline/etc; as well as Fiction section headers), IIRC - to make it clearer whether (e.g,) G1 cartoons in general (including the JP Headmasters/Masterforce/etc sequels) or the series running from MTMTE pt 1 to The Rebirth pt 3 is the subject at hand. - [[User:Mammalian Verisimilitude|Mammalian Verisimilitude]] ([[User talk:Mammalian Verisimilitude|talk]]) 21:22, 20 February 2019 (EST)
::I can say that personally, I've been using "The Transformers" only when I'm talking about the media and toyline specifically called that, and almost always something along the lines of "Marvel's ''The Transformers'' comic" or "Sunbow's ''The Transformers'' cartoon." When I'm talking about a character or whatnot, I'll say "Generation 1 Xnamehere." [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 21:47, 20 February 2019 (EST)
:::Well, that's in line with what Xaaron's objecting to, I think. Making (e.g.) the first subheader (under Toys) on [[Optimus Prime (G1)/toys]] say "The Transformers" (or a variation, like "The Transformers (1984)" - which would have precedent with the likes of Transformers (2007)/(2010), Robots in Disguise (2001)/(2015), Universe (2003)/(2008), etc) - rather than "Generation 1".
:::(And I was saying that I agree with the change, since if they're on the page of a "Generation 1" character, they're ''all'' "G1 toys", even if they weren't in the 1984-1991 toylines. We use "Generation 1" on multiple things whereas in other "continuity families" with multiple franchises, we use a term distinct from any of the constituent franchises, like [[Unicron Trilogy]], [[live-action film series]] or [[Aligned]]) - [[User:Mammalian Verisimilitude|Mammalian Verisimilitude]] ([[User talk:Mammalian Verisimilitude|talk]]) 00:08, 21 February 2019 (EST)
Kind of related question: Why DO we consider the first franchise to officially be "The Transformers"? I know the "the" is right there in the logo, but it's in the same font as the "More than meets the eye" tagline which we don't consider part of the title. Aside from that, if we REALLY wanted to match the franchise name to the logo, wouldn't it be "The Trans {insert faction symbol here} Formers" or, at least, "The Trans Formers"? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 08:22, 21 February 2019 (EST)
:[[File:TFUSindiciasamples.jpg|thumb|Knew I'd seen one of these somewhere around here]] Well, the Marvel US series was formally "The Transformers", even after the "The" was dropped from the front cover logo... - [[User:Mammalian Verisimilitude|Mammalian Verisimilitude]] ([[User talk:Mammalian Verisimilitude|talk]]) 19:40, 22 February 2019 (EST)

== Quotation punctuation on Siege toy entries ==

So, I noticed that pretty much all of the [[War for Cybertron: Siege (toyline)|Siege]] toy entries use the American quotation style (commas and periods outside the quotation marks, like "this,") instead of the British/logical style (commas and periods inside the quotation marks, like "this",). I've never liked the American style, but personal opinions aside, I kinda find this odd, considering [[Help:Style guide#Grammar|this wiki perfers the logical style]]. Granted, our style guide also says "Respect other editors' style choices", but honestly, I think it'd be better to change to the logical style. After all, are those commas and periods really part of the weapons' names? [[User:ShootingStar7X|ShootingStar7X]] ([[User talk:ShootingStar7X|talk]]) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (EST)
:It seems to vary by personal choice of the editor, and in spite of that guideline, most users on this wiki prefer U.S.-style punctuation inside quotation marks (which is unfortunate, but oh well). [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 21:39, 15 March 2019 (EDT)

== Rename IDW Generation 1 continuity to IDW 2005 continuity? ==

Obviously, we have an imminent reboot, which the wiki will almost certainly classify as G1, 'cause that's what it does with comics. But even until now, the "IDW Generation 1 continuity" is not the ''only'' G1 based continuity IDW have published - ''Star Trek/Transformers'' has just finished, and there's been a bunch of other G1 "micro-continuities" they've done. "IDW Generation 1 continuity" only really works as a name if it's the ''only'' IDW G1 continuity. And even if you ignore the small stuff, that's not the case as of later this month. So how about switching to naming it by date? - [[User:Mammalian Verisimilitude|Mammalian Verisimilitude]] ([[User talk:Mammalian Verisimilitude|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2019 (EST)
:Date seems to be the most future-proof naming scheme, in case they reboot again in another 10 years. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 16:57, 10 March 2019 (EDT)
::Yeah, I'm all for switching to date as well, but I'd like to get a few more folks to weigh in before I start updating things, since this change would effect a LOT of articles. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 21:04, 14 March 2019 (EDT)
:::Problem is, the longer you wait, the harder it becomes to actually do it, if people start slipping in "IDW Generation 1 (2019)" and similar styles that would get caught by find'n'replace. - [[User:Mammalian Verisimilitude|Mammalian Verisimilitude]] ([[User talk:Mammalian Verisimilitude|talk]]) 21:21, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
::::Perhaps, but again, I think this is a big enough change that there needs to be some level of consensus before it starts getting implemented. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 21:43, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
:::::Distinguishing by date seems to have a lot of support in the Allspark thread. https://www.allspark.com/forums/topic/101932-tfwikinet-thread-30/page-609 Not sure why more haven't weighed in here. "IDW 2005 continuity" and "IDW 2019 continuity" sounds good to me. [[User:NovaSaber|NovaSaber]] ([[User talk:NovaSaber|talk]]) 11:26, 16 March 2019 (EDT)
::::::In line with our RiD headers, I suggest adjusting that to "2005 IDW continuity" and "2019 IDW continuity". [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 22:42, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
:::::::The thing about that is that the pages for the RID cartoons are at [[Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2001 cartoon)]] and [[Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2015 cartoon)]]. Wherever [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]] goes needs to match the headers, because of the way split pages are done. Hence why I prefer "IDW (year) continuity"
:::::::And is anything actually HAPPENING with this? - [[User:Mammalian Verisimilitude|Mammalian Verisimilitude]] ([[User talk:Mammalian Verisimilitude|talk]]) 20:03, 22 March 2019 (EDT)
::::::::It seems we've got a category problem on our hands. I'm seeing pages marked under "IDW 2005", "IDW (2005)", and "2005 IDW". Can we just pick one category banner name and stick with it?--[[User:NexusShard17|NexusShard17]] ([[User talk:NexusShard17|talk]]) 13:23, 04 April 2019 (EDT)
:::::::::There was some further discussion on AllSpark, and it sounds like the current consensus is "2005 IDW continuity". -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 14:27, 4 April 2019 (EDT)
::::::::::The main continuity page stands at "[[2005 IDW continuity]]" while categories should become "Category:IDW (2005) x" in line with our precedent of "Category:Robots in Disguise (2001) x". [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 15:57, 4 April 2019 (EDT)

== Guideline for fan opinions? ==

Hi, I'd just like to ask if there are general guidelines for citing fan opinions on pages (e.g. ''Revenge of the Fallen'' is bad, ''Masterpiece'' Prime is considered one of the best toys ever)? I noticed that some pages cite subjective opinions and some don't, but I'd just like to figure out when it's acceptable or not to do so. --[[User:Samus Aran|Samus Aran]] ([[User talk:Samus Aran|talk]]) 12:42, 22 May 2019 (EDT)

==Uploading Images==
Hi, I'm new to this wiki. I've made contributions on other wikis (Marvel, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, etc) and was going to upload images, starting with two regarding the Autobot Fleet (IDW) but I keep getting the message that I don't have permission to create new pages. I've followed the instructions and continue to get that message. What am I missing or are only certain individuals permitted to upload images?

[[User:Esparza3368|Esparza3368]] ([[User talk:Esparza3368|talk]]) 00:05, 22 June 2019 (EDT)
:New users are restricted from creating articles (which image uploads fall under) as an anti-spam measure. After you've made more edits (I forget the exact number, hopefully another admin can come along and say?) that functionality will be automatically unlocked for you. [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] ([[User talk:Jalaguy|talk]]) 15:27, 22 June 2019 (EDT)

== General policy regarding toy writeups for toys with multiple releases, reissues etc. ==

I feel like this has been discussed a few times already, but do we have a general rule regarding how we treat toys that had multiple releases in the respective characters' toy sections? For example, both [[Tracks (G1)/toys#Generation 1|Tracks]] and [[Wheeljack (G1)/toys#The Transformers|Wheeljack]] still have their [[Classics (Europe)|"Classic Heroes"]] releases tacked onto their original G1 toy writups, whereas others such as [[Jazz (G1)/toys#Generation 1|Jazz]], [[Prowl (G1)/toys#Generation 1|Prowl]] and [[Sunstreaker (G1)/toys#Generation 1|Sunstreaker]] have them separated out into separate writeups. (On top of that, the date for "Classic" Tracks was off by one year! It originally said "1992" twice before I fixed it.) Meanwhile, [[Silverbolt (G1)#Unite Warriors|G1 Silverbolt's ''Unite Warriors'']] writeup itself mentions the 2019 re-release, but the top of the writeup only mentions the original 2015 release date (presumably because the exact date would make adding the re-release date look awkwardly clunky, unlike a simple "2015/2019" date). The other Aerialbots' UW writeups don't mention the 2019 re-release at all.

Generally, I ''think'' the guideline ''should be'' more or less "if there is a new production run in largely unaltered packaging within a few years of the original version, it gets added to the original writeup, but if the official branding on the packaging changes, it gets its own separate writeup", which made us separate stuff like the ''[[The Transformers Collection|Transformers Collection]]'', ''[[The Transformers: Generation One Commemorative Series|Commemorative Series]]'' and ''[[Transformers Encore|Encore]]'' out into their own sections. But that doesn't ''really'' cover the "Euro Classics", which had their own distinct packaging designs but ''were'' still part of what we consider the "Generation 1 line"... and then there are a bunch of other complicated cases:
* The 1989-onwards [[The Transformers (Chinese toyline)|Chinese releases]] are generally ignored ''entirely'' in the toy writeups, even though some of them were released more then half a decade after their original US versions, around the same time as the "Euro Classics".
* Most of the [[Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)#Post-series releases|2000-onwards Japanese reissues]] in (mostly) unaltered packaging get their own writeups, but [[Predaking (G1)#Generation 1|Predaking]] and the individual Predacons, as well as [[Sixshot#Generation 1|Sixshot]], have the reissues added to the writeups for the original 1986/1987 releases instead.
*The unreleased redecos of ''Generation 2'' "Hero" [[Optimus Prime (G1)/toys#CombatHeroOptimusPrime|Optimus Prime]] and [[Megatron (G1)/toys#CombatHero|Megatron]] get separate entries, even though based on the packaging, they were intended as mere color variants like the G2 Dinobots and Constructicons had. The only reason they're considered as separate items is because of the fabled "''Combat'' Heroes" name, which is likely the result of a persistent outdated working name seeping into the fandom's collective consciousness. (See [[Hero (G2)#Notes|here]] for more.)
* What about the very odd case of the Toys"R"Us exclusive [[Unicron/toys#Universe (2008)|''Universe'' Unicron]], a straight re-release of the ''Armada'' figure in an identical deco, featuring the same Hasbro product code number and UPC barcode as the ''Armada'' release, but sold in completely redesigned packaging and branded under the ''Universe'' line rather than ''Armada''?
* What, then, about the "Dollar store" releases of Legion Class [[Optimus Prime (G1)/toys#Transformers (2014)|Optimus Prime]], [[Bumblebee (G1)/toys#Transformers (2014)|Bumblebee]], [[Starscream (G1)/toys#Transformers (2014)|Starscream]] and [[Grimlock (G1)/toys#LegionClass|Grimlock]]? Originally released in 2014, in packaging mimicking the overall look of the then-concurrent ''Age of Extinction'' line, Optimus, Bumblebee and Grimlock were re-released a year later, now in completely redesigned packaging mimicking the overall look of the then-concurrent ''Combiner Wars'' line, complete with new Hasbro product code numbers and UPC barcodes compared to their 2014 releases... and ''then'' Optimus, Bumblebee and Starscream were re-released ''again'' in 2017, this time in slightly altered and updated versions of their 2014 releases' packaging complete with the old Hasbro product code numbers and UPC barcodes. Optimus, Bumblebee and Starscream mention the re-releases both in their writeups themselves and in the writeup headers (though I had to remove an incorrect mention of an alleged 2015 release for Starscream), whereas Grimlock only mentions it in the writeup itself, but not in the header. Do we consider these all as variations of the same releases, including the 2015 versions?
*My head hurts.

== New admins ==

Several recent incidents seem to indicate a need for more admins. How do we go about getting some? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 16:11, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
: I think Walky is the only person with the power to appoint admins, so you'd need to talk to him. [[User:Grum|Grum]] ([[User talk:Grum|talk]]) 17:17, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

== Fixing up the category system ==

Our category system at the moment is a mess, in no small part because the wiki is old and over time people have added stuff in different places. One of the rules we should be sticking to is that if an article is in a subcategory, it should be equally able to fit into the parent category. By example, [[Optimus Prime (G1)]] is in:

*[[:Category:Characters|Characters]] -> [[:Category:Robots|Robots]] -> [[:Category:Transformers|Transformers]] -> [[:Category:Generation 1 Transformers|Generation 1 Transformers]] -> [[:Category:Generation 1 Autobots|Generation 1 Autobots]]

Optimus Prime is a character, a robot, and a Transformer, so he can fit into any of the parent categories, so this is a good structure. Meanwhile [[Destro]] is in:

*[[:Category:Organizations|Organizations]] -> [[:Category:Human organizations|Human organizations]] -> [[:Category:Cobra|Cobra]]

While [[Cobra]] is a human organization, Destro is not. If you're navigating into a category for "Organizations", I don't think you should find a category containing a bunch of characters.

The Cobra category has been categorized as though it's the Cobra article when it's actually "People and objects related to Cobra". It contains Cobra personnel and things like [[Cobra Island]].

So I think the Cobra category should be removed from both its current parents, but I'm not sure where it would go. Do we need a top-level category for categories of "articles by subgroup" perhaps? (there are a bunch of categories like Cobra) Thoughts? --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 02:47, 11 July 2019 (EDT)

==Parentheticals for way-too-similar page titles==
Okay, this has been brought up on Allspark ([https://www.allspark.com/forums/topic/101932-tfwikinet-thread-or-the-all-new-all-different-community-portal/?p=3909370 link to the start)] in the wake of the whole "Bring Me The Head Of Optimus Prime" deal, but let's talk about this here.<br>
"[[Transformers Generations]]", "[[Transformers: Generations]]" and "[[The Transformers: Generations]]" all link to considerably different things, and none of them are redirects. So, tell me, without clicking any of the links... which does each link to? Really shouldn't HAVE to go to a disambig page to find out which is which.<br>
And I don't think we need to make up a ton of redirects to clutter the searchbar with every variant depending on ":", "the" or minor capitalization change. Hell, "Generations (toyline)" already exists and is sufficient, "Generations (books)" can lead to the disambig page seeing as that list is like 80% books titled "Generations".<br>
But let's consider other other cases, like how we got "[[Energon grid]]" and "[[Energon Grid (episode)]]", and how that's a bit more helpful than making people page-bounce. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 19:50, 27 August 2019 (EDT)
:Goes without saying, but I'm all in favor. It might also be a worthwhile idea for someone to do an audit of our list of redirects, see which ones aren't really necessary. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 10:11, 28 August 2019 (EDT)
:I've never liked the idea that "well, it isn't EXACTLY the same title, so it doesn't need disambiguation". These sorts of things are REAL WORLD ambiguous and we shouldn't be making it hard for people to find what they are looking for. Titles with or without "the" or "a" or "an", capitalization differences, spacing differences (Motormaster vs Motor Master), use or non use of a colon, terminal "!" or "?" all are horrible things to depend on for disambiguation. Translation: I'm all for this. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 10:21, 28 August 2019 (EDT)
::[[Hun-Grrr]], too? --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 08:39, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
:::I'd redirect all variant spellings to the disambiguation page and tag all of the individual articles with their franchise of origin. Even if the name in franchise X is spelled differently from the name in every other franchise, I guarantee you people will get confused and it is quite likely that any particular spelling will eventually be used for another version of the character. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 09:44, 29 August 2019 (EDT)

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2019-02-07T19:49:12Z

TheScarletSpider:

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
<br/> <div class="list-header">'''Wiki Technical Information:'''</div>
* [[Transformers_Wiki:Tech|A Not So Brief Summary of the Horrible Things That McFly and Co. Have Done To Keep This Wiki From Melting Down]]
}}<br/>

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


== IDW first appearances on character pages ==

Why are these being added? Are similar additions going to be made for other continuities? They seem pretty useless and silly to me.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 12:06, 18 June 2018 (EDT)
:[[#"First appearances" on IDW pages|Well this is awkward.]] -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 14:09, 18 June 2018 (EDT)
::That proposal was for making notes about first appearances on the pages of the fiction, not the characters. I have no opinion on that. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 14:29, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

Anyhow, M Sipher stated in the Allspark discussion thread that given the tendency of IDW continuity to show characters out of chronological sequence, it would be useful to list first real world appearances. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 14:37, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

:It's been brought up on Twitter as a problem with "nerd wikis" in general to value in-universe event order over real-world reading/experience order to the Nth degree, often to the detriment of not-already-hugely-invested readers. While we do compare favorably to most (take note that Wookiepeedia wedges licensed video game events directly into a character's main timeline, like, ''right in the middle of the movie story''), something as simple as finding a character's first appearance in real-world reading order shouldn't be a chore requiring digging and multi-link jumping. ''Generally'' any given chunk of Transformers media's diagetic and real-world chronologies have lined up pretty well and it hasn't been much of an issue, as most of the prequel/backfills are spinoff media and we split those into their own subsections. But IDW, particularly after "phase two" started, '''''really''''' bounces around its own timeline; the example given was that Grimlock's IDW writeup starts with a material published four years after his first appearance.
:This seems like a thing the larger IDW character sections need, a simple "start here". Honestly we should probably take a look at the IDW-as-a-publisher/continuity pages and see about making the real-world publishing list a bit more easily-found/readable (it's kind of a morass of text). It's unlikely we'll need this for most of the fiction sections of character pages, since most fictions are relatively straightforward. But IDW is an exception. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 16:39, 18 June 2018 (EDT)
:Seems like that would be better served with an Appearances section with all entries in chronological release order. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 05:29, 19 June 2018 (EDT)
::That could get excessive for some of the more popular characters. The simple "First Appearance" entry at the top of their IDW fiction section seems just fine to me. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 17:24, 4 July 2018 (EDT)
:::To me, just saying "their IDW first appearance was here" seems pretty pointless and useless if we're not going to tell the reader what comes after. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 19:54, 4 July 2018 (EDT)
::::I concur with MSipher etc. that this is useful and valid, given the achronal order of IDW's reading (I was rather startled while looking at the timeline last night to be reminded that events in ''Lost Light'' are only up to ~TAAO #9!) - [[User:TBR|TBR]] ([[User talk:TBR|talk]]) 22:06, 4 July 2018 (EDT)
:::::Still not sure what good telling me "His first issue was X" is if you don't then tell me "His second issue is Y" and so on. Also, why would it get excessive? Just a summary list, not necessarily linked out. Like this:
:::::Appearances
::::::First Title #7, 10
::::::Second Title #1-3
::::::First Title #13-25 --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 10:28, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
I see Wookieepedia was brought up as an example of a bad nerd wiki, but do you know what they do? [https://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Luke_Skywalker#Appearances Sensible appearance lists.] Make it a subsection (for IDW or whatever) and list in publishing order and you basically get what everybody wants. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 11:57, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
:Except "everybody" doesn't want comprehensive appearance lists. Some people do, but others ''don't'', and for some characters (like Optimus frex.) this would result in some ''serious'' bloat. - [[User:TBR|TBR]] ([[User talk:TBR|talk]]) 03:11, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
::It gives you the "first appearance", which is what some people want. And how is "bloat" relevant here with a scrollbox like Wookieepedia? [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 03:30, 24 August 2018 (EDT)

== YouTube template ==

I've noticed we've got a few hundred pages with different links to YouTube videos, and with more and more fiction being released via Hasbro's or other parties' YouTube channels, it might not hurt to have a template we can use to make the process easier and cleaner. I've got a [[User:Cyberlink420/sandbox|draft]] going on my sandbox; as it stands now, it'll be a basic "'Name of video' on YouTube", link, with options to add the channel name at the end or add your own text in place of the generated linktext, but I figured I'd get opinions first. Is this something people would use, and if so, should the format be changed at all? -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 15:51, 10 July 2018 (EDT)

==Uglydolls page question==
Hey, I'm still a bit shaky on this wiki, but I found that Uglydolls did an official collab with Transformers for the 2018 SDCC this year, with uploaded pictures for proof (in my contributions). I was wondering how a page should be handled for these. Thanks in advance! --[[User:ZootyCutie|ZootyCutie]] ([[User talk:ZootyCutie|talk]]) 16:25, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
: I would suggest making entries for each of the dolls on the Merchandise pages for [[Optimus Prime (G1)/merchandise|Optimus]] and [[Bumblebee (G1)/merchandise|Bumblebee]]. If you think it's warranted, perhaps make a company page for Uglydolls as well that links to those two entries. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 17:46, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
:: All right, thanks for the help! --[[User:ZootyCutie|ZootyCutie]] ([[User talk:ZootyCutie|talk]]) 19:05, 19 July 2018 (EDT)

== Transformers Armada [PS2] - Demo / Alpha / Unreleased Material ==

I've recently gone on a deep dive into the 2004 Armada PS2 game, primarily to get a copy of the complete soundtrack but also to see whether any unreleased material existed for the project. In my travels, I've come across several demo versions and an Alpha Version of the game that contains stuff like:

A bunch of unreleased music, An official instrumental of the Transformers Armada TV Theme, Voice Clips not used in the final game, The in-house audio-cues done before recording dialogue with the voice actors, Material from Star Wars Episode II and The Transformers: The Movie (1986), Early video material and artwork, as well as string files giving an earlier glimpse of what could have been.

And this is what I've found and been able to access, record and convert so far! I'm slowly dumping everything onto Youtube [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO5pmQ0j-aD0Yctrjk_KFhw], but I'd have no idea how to add this info to the Wiki, as it's all pretty disparate, and the game page as it stands now is pretty simple in it's construction.

I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how and structure this information, as well as your thoughts on the actual material.

Cheers! {{unsigned|Infernox}}

== Listing product names with Japanese words ==

Currently, both [[Unicron of Light]] toys are listed on that page with a direct transliteration of the Japanese words in the item name, but [[Shockwave (G1)/toys#MP29Plus|MP-29+ Defense Officer Shockwave]] is listed on his page by a translation of the Japanese words. Er, we should have some kind of consistency in this, no? [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 22:54, 16 August 2018 (EDT)
:Don't the Masterpiece toys always have Latin text on them? [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 14:48, 17 August 2018 (EDT)

== Underlining continuity headers ==

Of late, Sipher has tested underlining major continuity headers in fiction sections, as can be seen on "[[Toaster]]" and "[[Cybertronian colonies]]". How does everyone feel about utilizing this feature on pages? [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 21:41, 18 August 2018 (EDT)
:Oppose.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 22:03, 18 August 2018 (EDT)
:I like it. It makes it way easier to sort through the information being presented; the various headers can get pretty overwhelming, and this helps a lot. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep|Foffy]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep|talk]]) 00:52, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
:Anything with multiple <nowiki>===</nowiki> and <nowiki>====</nowiki> level sub-headers becomes a bog-down where the text size and bolding between the two is so minimally different that telling where one <nowiki>===</nowiki> level header ends and the next one begins becomes difficult. Underlining at the <nowiki>===</nowiki> level is a clear delineation; most anything at that header is going to be a "start-over" point, and the underline indication that the above continuity string (or jumble) is done and what follows, well, doesn't follow, but being ONLY under the text shows "we ain't done with the major <nowiki>==</nowiki> level section yet". Honestly, I'm mulling giving any text under a <nowiki>====</nowiki> or higher (we do get up to five sometimes) header an indent like we do with the toy entries for further visual shorthand of what is a sub-header of what. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 05:18, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
:Seriously opposed to this, at least the underlining. Frankly it makes the page look amateurish and my initial reaction was that something had ''broken''. - [[User:TBR|TBR]] ([[User talk:TBR|talk]]) 05:52, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
::I oppose. [[User:Notirishman|notirishman]] ([[User talk:Notirishman|talk]]) 09:08, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
:I, for one, like the look of this. [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] ([[User talk:Omegatron|talk]]) 18:39, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
I have to say, when the two sides to this are "it makes the information on pages clearer and easier to read" and "it is a slight bother to me and I find it vaguely aesthetically displeasing", I find the former to be a lot more compelling than the latter. Like... Cybertronian colonies reads SO much better with those underlines in place, that's infinitely more important than whatever sense of aesthetics they may offend. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep|Foffy]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep|talk]]) 12:07, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
:Yeah, well that isn't just it, it's also takes much work to fix it on most of the pages on the wiki. While that wouldn't stop us normally, I see it as a "if it ain't broke, dont fix it." However, I can see Sipher's point, I personally don't feel its necessary, but that's just me. [[User:Notirishman|notirishman]] ([[User talk:Notirishman|talk]]) 14:12, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
::1. I’m pretty sure if we choose to go through with this, the underlines will be added to the site’s style sheet, thus changing all the h3 headers on every page all at once. (admins correct me if I’m wrong here). 2. I’m not really sure how to tackle the idea of improved readability being “not necessary”. Like, wearing shoes while you walk across a gravel road isn’t strictly “necessary”, but it’s a massive improvement. Just because it’s not of any noticable benefit to you in particular doesn’t mean it’s of use to anyone. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep|Foffy]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep|talk]]) 15:55, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
:::Yes, this would be done via style sheet, not manually. Well, indenting (if used) would be manual but that's also far more case-by-case and less common anyway. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 16:43, 19 August 2018 (EDT)

https://tfwiki.net/wiki/User:M_Sipher/Sandbox:Subheaders Experimenting with every section having SOME text.

::::The indents are something I think is good. The underlines are not. Regarding a few lines up...please don't put words in my virtual mouth. It is not "a slight bother and vaguely aesthetically displeasing". It's "horrible looking and makes TFWiki look 1. broken or 2. like a Wikia". - [[User:TBR|TBR]] ([[User talk:TBR|talk]]) 05:55, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
:::::Would it help if the underline looked more like the horizontal bar under the level 2 headers? <span style="border-bottom: 1px solid #888888; font-size: 132%; font-weight: bold">Like this for instance</span>. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 06:10, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
::::::That ''is'' a bit better, but still seems "off" in general to me - part of the problem I think is that underlined stuff looks like a hyperlink. - [[User:TBR|TBR]] ([[User talk:TBR|talk]]) 06:24, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
:::::::I could support such a horizontal bar. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 07:15, 20 August 2018 (EDT)

== "Preferred" Airdate ==

Just to establish a consensus/precedent for cases like the recent Cyberverse opener: If an episode is ''officially'' released via a streaming service or storefront like iTunes or the CN app ahead of its TV premiere, which of the two dates should take preference for the "airdate" field? -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 19:43, 27 August 2018 (EDT)
:Just put both in. For RID, we put both the earlier Candian release and American release. [[User:Notirishman|notirishman]] ([[User talk:Notirishman|talk]]) 19:50, 27 August 2018 (EDT)

== Toyline sub-headers for ease of use ==

[[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive65#Multiple co-brandings in headings|I have brought this up before]], and I will again: scores of people think of ''Generations''-branded toys by their subline name first instead of "Generations". Ergo, is it not the point of a wiki to have a navigation style that directs people in such a utilitarian fashion? Consider [[Blackout (Movie)#Generations|''Studio Series'' Blackout]] or [[Crowbar#Generations|''Studio Series'' Crowbar]]. I can't think of any casual fan who would look at the page and expect the table of contents header "Generations" to be the one that leads them to the ''Studio Series'' figure. Should we not do something about this? Just today a non-frequent user pointed out this problem and cited the hypothetical parallel of Wikipedia eliminating "bird" and "mammal" in favor of the supercategory "amniote". [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 11:30, 31 August 2018 (EDT)
:Bump. Anyone want to comment on this? Again, I point to ease of casual reader use. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 18:40, 2 October 2018 (EDT)

== Prime 1 Studio Statues ==

I thought the large official statues that are being created by studios like Prime 1 and Imaginarium Art should be added to the wiki so I created an account and am trying to do so but all this wiki code is confusing me. Anyone know enough about the coding to add the statues? I already added a placeholder for Optimus Primal's Prime 1 statue. https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Beast_Wars_(merchandise)#Statues -- [[User:Radi0activsquid|Radi0activsquid]] ([[User talk:Radi0activsquid|talk]]) 22:25, 02 September 2018 (CST)

== Transformers The Movie final character model artist ==

Who was responsible for creating the final character models for Transformers The Movie? It wasn't Floro Dery, the final style of the characters is too "anime-esque" for him I feel. But I can't seem to find anything on who made the finished models. Walruslaw's site has lots of the finished character model sheets, all of them are signed by "Kou" and written in Japanese. Whoever this could be I'm not sure, perhaps someone on Toei's end of the production? Here's a link to the final models http://tfraw.blogspot.com/p/g1-movie-model-sheets.html?m=1 {{unsigned|Valkyriesdf1}}

== Writing up new comics from henceforth ==

As previously announced on [https://www.allspark.com/forums/topic/101932-tfwikinet-thread-30/page-558#entry3785935 The Allspark Forums] and [https://twitter.com/chrismcfeely/status/1039850484838932480 Twitter], Chris is stepping down from doing release day writeups for new IDW comic issues as the Hasbro Universe ends. Do we want to continue our current system of one editor(s) debuting an entire article for new issues each North American morning of release? I believe Grum has mentioned wanting to step up to the plate. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 23:26, 25 September 2018 (EDT)

== Page Renaming ("Elite Guard" and "Jetfire (Movie)") ==
I would like to apologize for making the move from "Cybertron Elite Guard" to "Elite Guard" unannounced (by that I mean swapping the code from one page to the other). I felt like whatever conversation I make was being neglected. On another note, the page currently titled "Jetfire (Movie)" is ready for deletion. All the necessary information from that page has been moved to the one titled "Jetfire (ROTF)". I am asking for help with deleting "Jetfire (Movie)" so "Jetfire (ROTF)" can be renamed as such. Whatever you can do would be a real help, because sometimes I feel like renaming links can be extremely tiresome. --[[User:NexusShard17|NexusShard17]] ([[User talk:NexusShard17|talk]]) 14:26, 29 September 2018 (EDT)
:Please do not move pages by copying and pasting the text, as it does not preserve the history and the people who did all of the work building the page are no longer credited. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 18:33, 29 September 2018 (EDT)
:Yeah, if you want to get super-stickly-picayune about it, cut-and-paste moves make the cut-and-pasted page a ''massive copyright violation'' under the license the wiki uses. So...to quote Grover's Mommy: Don't Do It! - [[User:TBR|TBR]] ([[User talk:TBR|talk]]) 19:19, 29 September 2018 (EDT)
::I appreciate the wisdom you are all giving me, and shall put that knowledge to good use. Also, I would like to inform Administration that the pages with the Elite Guard logo still have the redirection to when the page was called "Cybertron Elite Guard". Can anyone fix these loose ends please?--[[User:NexusShard17|NexusShard17]] ([[User talk:NexusShard17|talk]]) 12:57, 30 September 2018 (EDT)

== Page Merging ("Punch of Kill Everything" and "Gravity Generator") ==
Does anyone else think that the pages titled "Punch of Kill Everything" and "Gravity Generator" mean the same thing? I believe that the Gravity Generator is merely the name of the button switch which activates this power.--[[User:NexusShard17|NexusShard17]] ([[User talk:NexusShard17|talk]]) 11:40, 02 October 2018 (EDT)

== Live-action film series categories vs specific movie categories ==

Before I go on a mass reversion spree I just wanted to check that it was warranted. [[User:Slyhype]] has just changed a lot of TF2010 characters to specific movie characters. Oddly, [[User:NexusShard17]] had previously changed them from "Live-action film" categories to "Movie" categories back in July. Since the TF2010 toyline was not called out as being specific to one particular movie, these should all go back to "live-action film" categories, right?--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 18:09, 5 October 2018 (EDT)
:I would think yes. "Movie" should be specifically 2007-themed characters. AVP didn't go terribly in depth with these characters. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 18:17, 5 October 2018 (EDT)
::Done. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 18:35, 5 October 2018 (EDT)

== IDW G1 conclusion and presumed deaths ==
We haven't gotten ironclad closure on every single IDW character and we almost surely won't. But we've always taken reasonable inferences here before ("white Prime is Ultra Magnus"), so if Unicron eats a planet can we safely presume anyone not shown to escape is dead? And if so, what's the best way to finish out those character articles? Of course we should wait for the last month, but we should also have a plan.

:"Blackarachnia was killed when Unicron consumed Eukaris"

:"After Unicron consumed Eukaris, Blackarachnia was never seen again and is presumed dead."

I think it would be anticlimactic - an underweighting of the stakes of the story - to just leave those articles with their final undisputed appearances, as though nothing significant had happened. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 10:20, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:No, because that is speculative. If they didn't appear, then they didn't appear. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 10:45, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::I'd say we generally don't do that. I'm thinking of the Marvel Comics and the Autobot deaths from the Underbase Saga; we don't have notes on pages like Hoist, Perceptor, or Omega Supreme saying "They presumably were revived behind the scenes by Grimlock's Nucleon infusions." --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 11:25, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:I agree with Saix. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 11:42, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::What if instead of "presumed dead" it simply said "After Unicron ate *planet*, *character* was never seen again."? That's less speculative, it's still accurate, and it updates that chsracter in light of significant story events. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 14:08, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
:::I'd still argue against it. If they weren't specifically mentioned as being on the planet at the time it was eaten how do you know that they hadn't left? If the source doesn't tell us about them, we can't say anything about them.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 14:15, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
::::It's not our job to give implications either. Lots of characters across continuities never appear again, and this isn't really any different. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 14:28, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
I agree with Thy on this one, actually. Maybe something like "It is unclear whether Blackarachnia was still on Eukaris when it was consumed by Unicron"? I'm sure we've had notes like that before. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 14:38, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

:Christ no. It's making things up by implication based on supposition, and not even solid supposition at that. Countless characters just drop out of fiction at some point with no "closure", and often at cataclysmic events (TFTM, anyone?). This really is no different. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 03:35, 27 October 2018 (EDT)

== What constitutes "G1 cartoon continuity"? ==

This was a question posed on the [[Prime's Directive, Part One]] [[Talk:Prime's Directive, Part One|talk page]], but I wanted to open it up to wider discussion since it affects a lot of pages. My question is, with multiple G1 characters having pages dedicated to their cartoon-specific incarnations, what constitutes a piece of fiction also occupying space on that page? Obviously, both the American and Japanese cartoons themselves go there, but what about cases like the [[Wings Universe]] and [[Mars Attacks: The Transformers]], where the world is established as only a broad parody or loose interpretation of the cartoon? Or in cases like [[Star Trek vs. Transformers]] and [[Transformers: Bumblebee - Win If You Dare]], where everything meshes aesthetically but it features a later character like [[Windblade (G1)|Windblade]] that wasn't in the cartoon? Or should we keep it to JUST what was in the American cartoon itself and Japanese tie-in media, and move everything else back to their main pages? I'd appreciate some input to prevent edit warring due to future fringe cases like STvTF. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]])
:"Generation 1 cartoon continuity" has always been interpreted loosely. [[Optimus Prime (G1)/Generation 1 cartoon continuity]] should really be titled "Generation 1 cartoon continuities" since it covers the US G1 cartoon continuity, Japanese G1 cartoon continuity, Wings, etc. The solicit and fact that they're deliberately copying the animation style from the cartoon day to me that this is intended as a G1 cartoon continuity. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 16:02, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

== "Appearances" proposal ==

[[User:Saix/test|I've set up an example]] of my suggestion to replace the "first appearance" asides with a full, comprehensive list of appearances by order of publishing. Thoughts? [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 18:50, 4 November 2018 (EST)
:(1) "First appearance" doesn't need replacing. (2) The format is ugly; Scroll boxes are ugly on Wookiepedia, and they're ugly here. (3) I know you intend this to be a chronological-by-release date list of appearances. The average visitor would not understand what this is. (4) Repeating the issue titles from the Bio section like this is pointless -- one reason we added "First Appearance" in the first place was to service casual fans and visitors who don't know issues by title, but would more easily recognize "MTMTE Issue 1", etc. This is just a relisting of those same titles they wouldn't recognize, stripped of any useful explanatory test. (5) Seriously, what's your problem with "First Appearances" as a concept? You're trying to replace something that works with something that attempts to do something entirely different and fails. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 20:19, 4 November 2018 (EST)
::I would have to agree with Xaaron. [[User:Notirishman|--notirishman]] ([[User talk:Notirishman|talk]]) 20:23, 4 November 2018 (EST)
:::So your issues are with minor superficial aspects? Use issue numbers and expand the section title to "Appearances by publishing order", whatever. First appearance doesn't work because it's a meaningless data point in an ugly aside doesn't tell the reader its relation with anything else. This format actually does that and puts all stories in context at a quick glance. Articles have already gone off the deep end with ugly templates if you're gonna complain about that. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 20:45, 4 November 2018 (EST)
::::Everything you just said is so fundamentally wrong or missing the point of what I wrote, I don't even know how to respond to you. Suffice it to say, I don't like your proposal as it currently appears, and even if I did, I still don't believe it would replace the existing "First Appearance" box. A Publication List and a First Appearance box serve two completely different purposes. One does not supercede the other. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 21:15, 4 November 2018 (EST)
:::::I addressed your points. Whether you want to engage isn't really my problem. An appearance list would convey the same information as a first appearance aside (because, well, it's the first item listed), and you're really failing to argue just what makes the latter better than the former or even how it's an useful data point for your hypothetical "average reader". [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 21:42, 4 November 2018 (EST)
::::"Other stuff exists" is a no-no argument on Wikipedia and it's not really a good one here. I can see the merit of appearance-lists but I can see the downsides too: yes, the thing is ''ugly'', and what do you count as an appearance anyway? Even in the cast-list sections, sometimes "this character appeared in a crowd" gets counted and other times it doesn't... - [[User:TBR|TBR]] ([[User talk:TBR|talk]]) 21:16, 4 November 2018 (EST)
:::::If appearances in crowd shots aren't being counted in an article, then that's an error that needs fixing. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 21:42, 4 November 2018 (EST)
::::::I think that's mostly in older things (IIRC I've seen a few ''Animated'' cast lists doing that). - [[User:TBR|TBR]] ([[User talk:TBR|talk]]) 22:42, 4 November 2018 (EST)
:::::::Yeah, standards weren't as stringent back then and nobody really went back to redo the lists. Current policy is that all appearances no matter how minor are recorded on the story's page and the character articles. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 23:06, 4 November 2018 (EST)

I dislike this idea. Fiction sections already enumerate the sum total of appearances through storylinks, it's ugly-looking and awful, and it's a terrible replacement for the "first appearance" feature. It solves zero problems. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] ([[User talk:ItsWalky|talk]]) 00:17, 5 November 2018 (EST)

I see no reason or benefit from this. We only started doing First Appearance like two months ago and it was good enough. I oppose the suggested change. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 19:39, 5 November 2018 (EST)

I like the idea of appearance lists, but this proposal is not the way to do it. Scroll boxes are horrendous (and probably raise accessibility issues). Using story titles instead of issue numbers won't help anyone who wants this. But, as I said, I support the idea. I just cannot see how saying Character A first appeared in Issue B is useful to a fan looking to read about Character A unless we go on to say that he then appeared in issues C, D, E, etc. Just a first appearance listing doesn't tell you if Character A immediately became a series regular, or disappeared for several issues before returning for sporadic appearances over the next 5 years, or didn't appear again until a decade later with a completely different backstory. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 07:58, 5 November 2018 (EST)
:You mean like, for example, [[Getaway]], whose "First Appearance" box explains exactly that? But seriously, it's a non-starter of an argument to say FA boxes should be removed because they don't do all those things you listed. Correct, they don't do those things; they weren't intended to. And arguing in favor of appearance lists replacing FA boxes for those reasons doesn't make sense, when the proposed appearance list format ALSO doesn't do the things you're complaining FA boxes don't do. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 09:15, 5 November 2018 (EST)
::Getaway's FA box still doesn't tell me about anything past that first full appearance. The argument that was made when these were added was that it was to help new readers figure out how to follow a character due to the large amount of backfilling involved in the IDW storyline. The FA boxes don't do that. They say "Here, he first appeared here. From this point you are on your own." The things I listed are the things that would be needed to actually do what we were told the FA boxes were for. And, you will notice that I said that this proposal was not good. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 10:32, 5 November 2018 (EST)
:::Quoting M Sipher's proposal from the top of this page, ''This seems like a thing the larger IDW character sections need, a simple "start here".'' That's what FA boxes provide, a place to start. On Allspark, he confirmed the FA box format was what he was thinking of before I implemented it. The argument for FA boxes was not to help new readers "figure out how to follow a character" throughout the IDW comics. That is not something FA boxes were intended to do, nor did anyone claim they were intended to do that. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 11:07, 5 November 2018 (EST)
::::Sipher also said: "a problem with "nerd wikis" in general to value in-universe event order over real-world reading/experience order to the Nth degree, often to the detriment of not-already-hugely-invested readers." and "But IDW, particularly after "phase two" started, really bounces around its own timeline; the example given was that Grimlock's IDW writeup starts with a material published four years after his first appearance." and "Honestly we should probably take a look at the IDW-as-a-publisher/continuity pages and see about making the real-world publishing list a bit more easily-found/readable". I guess I synthesized those statements a little more in my understanding of the proposal than you did and possibly more than Siph intended. So, what benefit does telling JUST the first appearance bring? Because, to me, it seems like a pointless trivia question answer. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 11:37, 5 November 2018 (EST)
:::::I have trouble conceiving a defense for the idea of "First Appearance"s. I've been a comic book fan for 30 years -- First Appearance is just one of the most basic forms of information people want to know about characters.
:::::Which is part of the answer, I suppose. It's a ''starting point''. New people approaching the IDW sections of a Bio will just see a big block of heavily cited text. The first citation for Megatron's history is ''[[Remain in Light 1 of 5: The Fecund Moon|The Fecund Moon]]'', but you would have to read ''[[Elegant Chaos Part 3: Predestination: An Expert's Guide|Predestination: An Expert's Guide]]'' to even know where Megatron was in that first issue. The first citation for Starscream is ''[[Remain in Light 4 of 5: Arm the Lonely|Arm the Lonely]]'', a small cameo that is not his first published or chronological appearance, but the confirmation of his constructed cold status. These are historical, biographical starting points, but they are not starting points for a new reader. The IDW Fiction sections answer the question "What happened to Character X?", but don't answer "How do ''I read'' what happened to Character X?"
:::::"First Appearance" boxes tell new readers, right from the top, ''"You like Starscream? Start here."'' And the fact that the box ''doesn't'' then say, ''"And then read this, and this and this and this..."'' is a feature, not a bug. People don't always want the most complete, informative, technically accurate answer possible. The "nerd-wiki" mentality is to overwhelm people with information, like an entire publication or chronological read order of hundreds of comics published over 13 years. But sometimes people just want to know whether [[http://comiccritics.com/2012/05/05/nerd-fishing Aquaman can talk to fish, Yes or No?]] Sometimes people just want to know where to ''begin'', and then they'll work out from there how they want to approach what's next.
:::::So a Publication List (in ''some'' format) isn't a bad idea, but it doesn't replace the value of the "First Appearance" boxes, which is a '''''simple and easy answer''''' to the question of "Where do I begin?" --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 13:56, 5 November 2018 (EST)
::::::Pretty much what Xaaron said. This is why there's a "first appearance" note, it's related-but-separate-from my "overview of real-world publishing" thought, where I was specifically talking about the "IDW-as-a-publisher/continuity" pages (which I also then took a whack at in an effort to make it more readable), not something to add to every character page. Honestly I'm not sure how useful a total list for each character would even be, given that most characters will fall under three general trends...
:::::::* Minimal appearances that fit in a single screen or so
:::::::* Mainly restricted to a single title readers can follow in simple chronological publishing order without outside help
:::::::* Appears in just about every damn title a LOT so it'd just be another morass of text where "read everything" would achieve the goal just as well
::::::Sooooooooo yeah. Like at ''most'' I think ''maybe'', and I mean '''''maybe as in not a serious proposal''''' something that lays out a character's major, broad-strokes fictional path via "titles" rather than individual appearances, but again, I'm less than sold on the usefulness of this vague idea I just had. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 17:19, 5 November 2018 (EST)

== Broken links to Wikia ==

Many of the Wikia links on the site are no longer working properly on desktop or mobile browsers. All links that use the wikia:c:whatever format are just resulting in 404 pages. At the same time, all of Wikia's sites are supposed to be [http://community.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Brandon_Rhea/How_we%27re_testing_the_fandom.com_domain_migration migrating to the Fandom domain soon]; some like Stargate already have. Given this, we may want to update the interwiki linking to accommodate the changeover and phase out the Wikia link format as the migrations finishes up. Granted, that still leaves a whole lot of busted wikia:c: links, but one step at a time. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 09:15, 7 November 2018 (EST)
:I've updated the wikia interwiki link to match what they currently have on Wikipedia. It's been broken on mobile for some time, unfortunately, but there's not much we can do about that unless Wikia fixes it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 15:03, 7 November 2018 (EST)
::Appreciated. Is there a new format that the links should be changed to? I wasn't sure since the GI Joe link on our [[Help:Interwiki linking]] page is still broken. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 15:14, 7 November 2018 (EST)
:::Feck, sorry, I screwed up the interwiki link format. I've corrected it but it may take some time for the changes to propagate. Either Wikia:c: or plain Wikia: should work. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 16:20, 7 November 2018 (EST)
::::Uh-oh. All the interwiki links now point to a generic "<nowiki>https://www.wikia.com/wiki/w:</nowiki>" URL. Was this the original mistake and it's still taking some time for the changes to propagate, or is this something new? -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 08:26, 8 November 2018 (EST)
:::::That was the original mistake. Looks like the fixed version propagated through finally though. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 19:14, 8 November 2018 (EST)
::::::Testing again, it looks like wikia:c: style links work on mobile, but plain wikia: links don't. Both formats work on desktop. If we wanted to be futureproof, the best way to do it would be to change all existing wikia:c: style links to plain wikia:, and then I can just update the interwiki link format to insert the c: by default. That way if the preferred link format changes again in future to not include the c:, we can just change it in one place. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 19:20, 8 November 2018 (EST)
:::::::Got it. I'll spend some time this week work on tracking them all down and removing all the c:'s. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 23:24, 11 November 2018 (EST)
:::::::'''EDIT:''' Okay, that went a lot faster than expected. I think I got them all, aside from those on the various talk pages, so fire away. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 09:35, 12 November 2018 (EST)
::::::::Excellent! I've updated the interwiki link, so once that propagates, we should be set. At least until they fully change over to using "fandom" everywhere. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 14:34, 12 November 2018 (EST)

== name format of the g2 cartoon ==

Question: Is the G2 cartoon called "Transformers: Generation 2" or "'''The''' Transformers: Generation 2"?

[[Transformers: Generation 2 (cartoon)|The page for the cartoon]] has the former, but the [[:File:G2CartoonLogo.jpg|actual title card]] for the cartoon apparently has the latter, and clicking through the G2 navbar reveals that individual episode pages are all over the place, [[The Golden Lagoon (episode)|some having it one way]] and [[Prime Target (episode)|some having it the other]] with no apparent reasoning to it.

I'd like to standardize the format somewhat between pages, but i'd like to know which one i should be changing things to first. Can anyone offer any input? -[[User:Foffy the Sheep|Foffy]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep|talk]]) 13:30, 26 November 2018 (EST)
:I personally say we go with just "Transformers: Generation 2", as that's the trademark used during the closing credits. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 14:02, 26 November 2018 (EST)
::I say go with the title card. That's the general trend here. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 15:26, 26 November 2018 (EST)
:::But the G1 title card is just "Transformers", more often than it is "The Transformers"; it's only the S2 intro's title card that uses "The". We literally show the logo three times on the [[The Transformers (cartoon)|G1 cartoon page]], and none of them have "The". -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 15:31, 26 November 2018 (EST)
::::S2 has more episodes than S1 and S3 combined and it's the one consistent with the rest of the franchise. The G2 cartoon didn't have any variation, it sounds like. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 15:41, 26 November 2018 (EST)
:::::Fair. I just feel like when the franchise logo has no "the", the opening narration has no "the", and the ending credits (including trademark) has no "the", it all kind of adds up. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 16:00, 26 November 2018 (EST)

== The Bumblebee Movie ==

So, it seems like the Bumblebee movie ignores the flashbacks presented in The Last Knight. Does the Bumblebee movie contradict with the IDW timeline? Should it be added to that timeline, and should the Bumblebee movie be connected to the timeline in the first five movies? This then extends to the character pages: some have them all in oen section called "Movies" while some don't. Should these pages with just "Movies" be seperated into Bumblebee film, Transformers film, etc, due to contradictions between the films? Due we treat certain things as part of certain timelines? What do? [[User:Notirishman|--notirishman]] ([[User talk:Notirishman|talk]]) 15:19, 9 December 2018 (EST)
:It's best we wait until word from the filmmakers of the movie. [[User:Energizer|Energizer]] ([[User talk:Energizer|talk]]) 15:31, 9 December 2018 (EST)
::Here's a great fucking idea: how about we fucking wait until the movies been released beyond some select screenings before fucking up the recent changes page with spoilers for everyone and adding info to pages. Cause I'll tell you what, I'm beyond fucking livid. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 15:39, 9 December 2018 (EST)
:::Why are you so angry over this? I wasn't asking for changes now, I was just presenting something we have to figure out eventually. And I've been trying my best to avoid mentioning anything in summaries for edits based on what some folks told me. Hell, I haven't even seen the movie yet. I'm judging this isn't connected to Last Knight from trailers. And it's not like info has been added to pages yet past voice acting. If you really don't want to get spoiled on anything, just stay off Transformers websites for a bit. [[User:Notirishman|--notirishman]] ([[User talk:Notirishman|talk]]) 16:06, 9 December 2018 (EST)
Well, it looks like Walky locked a good amount of related articles. That should be good. [[User:Notirishman|--notirishman]] ([[User talk:Notirishman|talk]]) 16:32, 9 December 2018 (EST)
:Oh, the Bumblebee Prequel page says it rolls with the setup in The Last Knight, yet the comics also work around events in the Movieverse IDW Comics... which, from my understanding, conflicts with The Last Knight (it might not, I dunno). [[User:Notirishman|--notirishman]] ([[User talk:Notirishman|talk]]) 14:32, 10 December 2018 (EST)

== IDW 2: Electric Boogaloo ==
So IDW's new Transformers series is called... Transformers. No sublines or branding or anything. To try and get out ahead of things, any ideas yet on what we're going to call this continuity to differentiate it from the previous [[IDW Generation 1 continuity]]? -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 16:57, 18 December 2018 (EST)
:(IDW 2019) a la "RID 2015" sounds reasonable. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 19:15, 18 December 2018 (EST)

== A question ==

So hi, I'm new here, sorry for beign publishing here this but the thing is that I just find discussion portals about things of the wiki.
Where should i go if i just want to ask something about... you know... Transformers?
Does this wiki even has that kind of forum? I ask because others usually does.
Again, sorry for the trouble.
:Our discussion portals and talk pages are more meant for discussing changes and improvements that can be made to the wiki itself. If you want to have general discussions about Transformers, there's plenty of fansites like Seibertron and TFW2005 with their own forums. You might want to look there. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 12:18, 24 December 2018 (EST)
::The majority of TFWiki users actually use the Allspark forums; there's a thread specifically for wiki discussion there. It isn't an official forum for the wiki, though. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 16:28, 24 December 2018 (EST)

==The latest vandal / scrubbing slurs==
Is there any way to scrub the changes and that username from the recent changes? Because now we've got a slur on multiple pages, and it'd be nice not to. We should probably also see if there's a way to prevent usernames from having that word too. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 19:01, 4 January 2019 (EST)
:I believe we're on a late enough version of MediaWiki that somebody with access to our LocalSettings.php (abates?) should be able to switch on the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:RevisionDelete 'revision delete'] function for sysops. That would let us scrub the offending edits from the article histories. [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] ([[User talk:Jalaguy|talk]]) 19:08, 4 January 2019 (EST)
::Well, I found a way to rename the user, at least. Which scrubs SOME stuff but not everything. But yeah, if that works, let's. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 19:11, 4 January 2019 (EST)
:::He had another account that got banned yesterday; we should scrub all those too. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 20:10, 4 January 2019 (EST)
::Sounds good, I'll see about enabling revision deletion for admins. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 21:10, 4 January 2019 (EST)
:::All right, I've redacted a bunch of revisions from both instances. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 21:33, 4 January 2019 (EST)
::::The one instance that wasn't able to be gotten is McFeely's banning of the original username, since it hadn't been changed yet, but that's only in the "Recent changes" view; it should be fixed everywhere else. Unless you want to undo the edit summaries of all the reversions to strike his name(s) entirely from the record, we're probably all set. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 21:37, 4 January 2019 (EST)
:::::Thanks, I've changed the usernames in Recent Changes manually. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 22:01, 4 January 2019 (EST)

== Scheduled downtime ==

Our host has to do some maintenance on our server, so there's going to be some downtime on Jan 8, 8:30am UTC. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 00:25, 6 January 2019 (EST)

== Creating a new page for Dropkick ==
I think that we should separate the 2007 Dropkick with the BB Dropkick just like we did it with Crosshairs and Hound {{unsigned|Crosshairs}}
:I'm rather inclined to agree. ''Bumblebee'' Dropkick has nothing concretely connecting him to ''Transformers'' Dropkick. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 15:18, 15 January 2019 (EST)
:Why? They're both whiny blue movieverse Decepticon grunts who hate being on Earth. Other than altmode, what makes them more different than ROTF and AOE Lockdown? --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (EST)
::ROTF and AOE Lockdown are both based on the same character (Animated Lockdown). The Dropkicks aren't. [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] ([[User talk:Omegatron|talk]]) 19:20, 16 January 2019 (EST)

== Help With Where To Store Images For 'Fritos Poster - The Power Struggle' and 'Hi-C Poster / Calendar Battle In The Desert Valley' ==

I have high quality scans of all the images on the Fritos Poster 'The Power Struggle' and Hi-C 'Battle In the Desert Valley', but don't know where to put them. It does not appear you put all images of something (like a book) onto this site; that's why there are external links. It also doesn't look like you could make a separate subpage with all of the images on it. I do not know if I could upload them on this site, or if you have a recommend place to upload them or send to someone's website (like where the Transformers Manga is stored) and then include appropriate links when the images are up so people could read the whole thing.