User talk:Steve-o/Proposed Style Guide

qualifiers

i say use multiple qualifiers. compare "Armorhide (UT) (Mini-Con)" and "Armorhide (UT) (Autobot)". also, generally speaking, when using qualifiers, do continuity, then faction. If there are two guys with the same name, from the same continuity, of the same faction, then use subgroups as dividers. Offhand, Sky High is the only one I can think of, with the resultant pages being "Sky High (G1) (Pretender)" and "Sky High (G1) (Micromaster)". -hx 11:49, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

Also, while I'm thinking about it, there's UT Blurr and UT Skywarp and UT Thundercracker, who I guess would violate the traditional (UT) naming schema. How are we handling them? Blurr (UT) (Armada) vs Blurr (UT) (Cybertron)? -hx 11:52, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

As a side note, Hoop, we've been treating Cybertron Skywarp and Thundercracker as their Armada entities. Blurr (Cybertron) is as many as three distinct people, though, either being Armada Blurr (website bio), Velocitron Blurr (toy bio), or Earth-refugee Blurr (cartoon appearance). --ItsWalky 18:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cybertron* words

I'd like to bring up, in a less hostile environment, the Cybertron/Cybertronic/Cybertronian/Cybertronix discussion again. This is my preference originally, because we do have separate words to cover the four different definitions at hand, and I think encouraging people to use them within the confines of this wiki would be a productive thing to do, since it would introduce consistency and help eliminate ambiguity or confusion. Clearly using "Cybertronian" as a generic adjective isn't wrong. It shows up endlessly in the fiction, significantly more than "Cybertronic" does. But "Cybertronic" has no other defintion, whereas "Cybertronian" also means "those guys from G2". I grant that "Cybertron" as a name for a member of the race is the same as the name of the planet, and consequently I have the least strong feelings about it. But "Cybertronic" is, in my opinion, a very useful word. Therefore, I stand behind the suggestion that we come up with a consistent way to use "Cybertron*" words on this site, even though I don't think it was originally brought up in an appropriate way. -LV 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I also find it pretty strange to suggest that NOT distinguishing all these words is less confusing than doing so - how can this possibly be? Is anyone reading that someone is made of a Cybertronic alloy going to be incapable of comprehending what that means? -LV 13:24, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

I don't have anything to add to this but a general agreement with LV here. --M Sipher

Therefore, I stand behind the suggestion that we come up with a consistent way to use "Cybertron*" words on this site

By what process do you suggest we pick these usages? My knowledge of the canon is a lot less detailed than yours, so, maybe you're remembering things I'm not, but I can't imagine any basis for deciding that a particular variant of the word is going to mean one thing and not another thing. In my mind, Cybertronian and Cybertronic are both completely generic descriptors with no distinguishing uses aside from Cybertronian having been applied to Jhiaxus' forces in addition to its myriad generic uses.

I feel like any definitions we come up with would be totally arbitrary and not obvious to most readers of the Wiki. (That is, assuming that the Wiki ever amasses readers besides the dozen or so of us who are working on it.)

I'm not saying that I think it's impossible or that I am against have precise definitions. I just don't know that there is a good way of making those decisions, and that even if we make them, most people probably won't know them. I think it would be less confusing to just use both words as generic because that is the way the fandom already uses them.

--Steve-o 23:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not remembering anything you are not and make no claims that this would not be an arbitrary decision. My feeling is that it is an arbitrary decision which would improve clarity while not having any disadvantages. I would assume most people, when encountering "Cybertronic" or "Cybertronian", are not going to be totally at a loss as to what the terms mean. I am not necessarily even saying that people should go back over submitted entries and change them. I meerely think it is worth stating in the style guide, if anyone reads it, that we have generally agreed upon certain uses of words to avoid ambiguity. Clearly I feel this is a bigger issue than most of the contributors, from this and the other Talk page, on the subject. I think the way in which this is manifesting itself is that you can see no strong benefit to agreeing on usages, whereas I can see no strong detriments. -LV 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

the disadvantage I see is that you're making an arbitrary decision to impose one set meaning on a term that appears freely in the cannon with multiple meanings. That's fine and good for Wikipedia, but wouldnt' that be confusing to take that context back into watching episodes/discussions?

I just picture flamewars- "Don't yell at me, I'm using the words the RIGHT way." "You're using them a made-up and arbitrary way! And that's not what Megatrons aid in Episode 54..."

If you really see a need to clearly deliniate the relationship between Transformer/Cybertron Resident/Cybertroneque/endemic to Cybertron, then damnit, pick/invent a naming system. If you're trying to make matters clear and easy, you don't pick tersm that already have other meanings, often MULTIPLE other meanings. That's the opposite of clear and easy, it's practically obfuscating. -Derik 00:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons I have already stated. -LV 17:32, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

I gotta agree with LV still. I DON'T see a downside with keeping a consistant terminology, one that's hardly confusing and has precedent. We have a perfectly suitable, canon term for "something originating from Cybertron in nature or design" that DOES NOT have a second meaning, as, say "Cybertronian" does. Suggesting that using "Cybertronic" rather than "Cybertronian" to describe "something originating from Cybertron in nature or design" seems perfectly reasonable, logical, and above all prevents confusion with the G2 Leige Maximo's dudes. -- M Sipher

I disagree that it is "hardly confusing", Siph. I find the very notion of doing this at all to be confusing. Both words have widespread use to mean "from Cybertron". In my experience, the word you are suggesting changing the usage of -- Cybertronian -- is in far greater use than the one you are suggesting we leave alone. (Googling for "transformers" and "cybertronic" returns less than a thousand hits, while "transformers" and "cybertronian" returns over 56 thousand, which I would say supports me on that point.) As well as Cybertronian being a far more common word than Cybertronic when one wants to say "from Cybertron", the "from Cybertron" meaning for the word is also far more common than the "G2 dudes" meaning is. Cybertronian means "from Cybertron". That is its main, most prominent meaning.

I will concede that if a group of people make an agreement to use a particular word to mean a particular thing, that it will eliminate ambiguity when talking amongst themselves. But, that's only useful if everybody knows the definition being used and, further, likes that definition. I am pretty confident that the vast majority of fans think of the terms as interchangeable. I will also concede that the meaning of "Cybertronic" is obvious. However, boosting usage of it would just make people wonder why we're using it instead of "Cybertronian"... the meaning of which is also obvious, unless one is using it in the meaning that you are suggesting we use it in exclusively.

LV's initial post led me to believe that there wasn't already a specific set of definitions in mind. I was willing to entertain suggestions. If this is the suggestion, though -- "Cybertronian" = G2 Guys, "Cybertronic" = from Cybertron -- I object pretty strongly. Any guideline that states or even implies that "Cybertronian" should not be used in the "from Cybertron" sense is totally unacceptable to me. That runs counter to decades of in-canon and fan usage.

If I am misinterpreting the suggestions, please correct me.

--Steve-o 19:45, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

I am suggesting exactly what you think, I totally disagree with your contention, and I do not care enough about the matter to continue to press it. -LV 02:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-read it.
Clearly using "Cybertronian" as a generic adjective isn't wrong. It shows up endlessly in the fiction, significantly more than "Cybertronic" does. But "Cybertronic" has no other defintion, whereas "Cybertronian" also means "those guys from G2".
I am not necessarily even saying that people should go back over submitted entries and change them. I meerely think it is worth stating in the style guide, if anyone reads it, that we have generally agreed upon certain uses of words to avoid ambiguity.
NOBODY, NO-BODY, is saying that "Cybertronian" does not mean "from Cybertron" canonically. The SUGGESTION is simply that to help avoid confusion with the G2 Cybertronians, people generally make use in the future of the OTHER canon "from Cybertron" adjective that HAS no other canonical definition in future entries. I can't for the life of me understand the objection to the suggestion that we encourage -not ENFORCE- the use of another CANON term.
And frankly, "fan-usage" doesn't swing much weight, I'm afraid. Think "Minelba". --M Sipher

Citation of Sources

For whatever it's worth, I wanted to voice some strong support for the notion of citing sources. We should be as exhaustive about where we're finding our information as possible. There are a surprisingly large number of instances where there are plot points or characters that have entries of their own, but I have no idea where they're coming from. If it's a comic book, issue number, publisher, title and country of origin should be the bare minimum. Likewise with all other items. I'm not suggesting we create an instance of every time Optimus Prime has occured within all of the continuties. We as a project should be interested in providing enough information that point readers in the right direction for further reference.

A perfect For-Instance would be the Fixer Bug entry. I have no idea what a Fixer Bug is. From the entry, I can determine it has something to do with the Minicons, but appearance data is completely absent. There's an image on the page, but there's absolutely no data about where this image came from. My point is that specific information should be heartily encouraged, if not required. Perhaps we can develop a flag or category (unsure of what technologically we could do) for entries that are wanting for this sort of information.

A perfectly fine example exists in the entry on U.S. 1. It's an obscure reference, but the information on the page is enough to let the reader know where to go for further information, and where within the Transformers' continuities this particular bit of ephemera falls. It can be as simple as that. I think that should be a minimum requirement. Aurax 04:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

minor edits

How do I mark something as a minor edit?

If you're a registered user and are logged in, there's a "This is a minor edit" box to check. --KilMichaelMcC 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Er...

Wasn't I the one who had this name system back then and got severely blasted at for it? Why did you guys change your minds now? Singularity 04:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty similar to the scheme you wanted to use, yes. What you got blasted for, to my recollection, was not the scheme itself, but starting to enforce that scheme on the wiki without discussing it with anybody. Practically the first thing you did when you arrived was begin unilaterally changing systematic aspects of the wiki that the rest of us had started setting up.

We changed our minds about this issue after an extended discussion on the community portal. The short version is that we made the change because we couldn't agree on a self-consistent scheme for determining which suffix to put on character article titles, so we decided to eliminate them (when they weren't strictly needed) instead.

What were you doing in the last four months that as soon as we decided to change this, you suddenly reappeared and started helping again? I appreciate, and I'm sure the others do too, that you are moving a bunch of pages. I'm just curious. Did somebody tell you we were going to this new scheme, and that brought you back?

--Steve-o 23:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I decided to come back out of curiosity and because the Transformers articles on Wikipedia are pretty much shitted on weekly by Bass X and Mathewignash. That, plus the fact that Wikipedia shouldn't be having articles on obscure Transformers characters. Rattrap is pushing it. Deep Space Team? No fucking way. The timing is suspect, but nothin' I can do about it.

This only has X-Bob, who isn't that much of trouble. Singularity 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we got rid of X-Bob. --ItsWalky 00:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)