Editing MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. For less wide-reaching subjects, either use articles' individual talk pages or [https://discord.gg/tfwiki our Discord server].

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/>
<!--BEGIN ARCHIVE NAV INCLUDE-->
{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}
<!--END ARCHIVE NAV INCLUDE-->

== Site Logo revamp ==

Up until now, our rotating logo on the main page tends to have a batch of logos pointing to pages from the most recent franchises and series, plus a few from older franchises that we forgot or didn't bother to remove. I'd like to rework this system a bit to have a more even balance franchise-wise. I think we should have one character for every franchise that has had a cartoon or movie (including the JG1 shows), plus one from each of the major English-language comic runs (Marvel, Dreamwave, IDW1, and IDW2 at the bare minimum). This would be a good way to demonstrate the breadth of the franchise scope of the wiki, and help drive new readers towards legacy content. (Of course, we'd still have a few extra banners based on whatever is currently running for the "Hey, I know that guy!" factor. Would love to get some thoughts on this, and potentially character suggestions for each franchise. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 00:59, 18 December 2021 (EST)
:I think this is a great idea! Though, I'm unsure on which characters from each show would be good to use. Like, would we go most popular/memorable characters or just some really random left field obscurities like G1 Skids who appeared in only two episodes of ''The Transformers'', just to get some more eyes on character articles from franchises newer fans may not be fully aware of? Also, would Japanese-exclusive shows include ''Go!'', ''Q-Transformers'' and ''Robotmasters''? If so, maybe even an image from ''Portal'' (the Russian show) would be worthwhile too. -- [[User:Fanofcoolstuff27|Fanofcoolstuff27]] ([[User talk:Fanofcoolstuff27|talk]]) 02:47, 18 December 2021 (EST)
::Obscure/minor stuff risks just being the GO! Boxes again, and we already have those. For the big logo, best to go with majorish characters from majorish media. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 07:19, 18 December 2021 (EST)
:This sounds like a great idea. We could break it down like this: 
G1 Seasons 1 and 2 - Optimus Prime, 
TFTM/G1 Seasons 3 and 4 - Hot Rod/Rodimus Prime, 
G1 Marvel - Ratchet, 
Headmasters - Fort Max, 
Masterforce - Minerva, 
Victory - Star Saber, 
Idk if we would do Zone or any of the Japanese G1 stories that came after, 
Beast Wars - Megatron, 
Beast Wars II - Lio Convoy, 
Beast Wars Neo - Magmatron, 
RID/Car Robots - Side Burn, 
I've never read Dreamwave so I don't know a good character that represents it,
Unicron Trilogy - Hot Shot, 
IDW could be broken into a few character reps because of how long it went on, 
IDW Furman Era - IDW Bumblebee, 
IDW Post Furman - IDW Galvatron, 
IDW MTMTE/LL - Nautica, 
IDW RID/OP - IDW Optimus Prime, 
Animated - Bulkhead, 
Movies - Bumblebee, 
WFC Games - Bruticus, 
Prime - Starscream, 
RID15 - Strongarm, 
Cyberverse - Windblade, 
WFC Trilogy - G1 Megatron, 
And then we can have a few slots open for characters from the latest shows/movies. This list would give new readers an idea on how big the franchise truly is and how diverse the characters are. [[User:Paladin Denn|Paladin Denn]] ([[User talk:Paladin Denn|talk]]) 18:03, 5 January 2022 (EST)
:Certainly if anyone's gonna represent CR/RiD'01, it's gonna be Sky-Byte, the breakout star of the show, and not Side Burn, the Autobot womanizer. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 18:26, 5 January 2022 (EST)
::Funilly enough I meant to put him there lol. [[User:Paladin Denn|Paladin Denn]] ([[User talk:Paladin Denn|talk]]) 20:43, 5 January 2022 (EST)
::Dreamwave, I'd pick War Within Grimlock. Certainly Shockwave should be part of 2005 IDW since he's responsible for the whole sha-bang.--[[User:MistaTee|MistaTee]] ([[User talk:MistaTee|talk]]) 18:40, 5 January 2022 (EST)

== Splitting Cloud characters ==

So now we have some sorta adequate translations, I'm being increasingly convinced that merging them just on the basis of AVP was a mistake and that the Cloud characters should be split out for simplicity and ease of explanation. Notably, the central conceit is far more similar to TransTech than G1—and more different to G1 than Cyberverse, for instance. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 02:44, 28 December 2021 (EST)
:I was against it then and I'm against it now. They're nothing like the TransTech; they are practically nigh identical to the G1 guys, there's a war going on in their universe, and the "central conceit" of them being multiversal guardians is more akin to Alternity than it is to TransTech, who for the majority of their fiction were at most passive observers. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 07:05, 28 December 2021 (EST)
::I am declining to weigh in personally until I finish first pass translations but please at least pretend to look over the translated material before repeating the same arguments. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 12:19, 28 December 2021 (EST)
:::I have looked over it. Nothing is convincing me that it's all that separate from G1 stuff. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 12:29, 28 December 2021 (EST)
::"War going on" describes most of Transformer fiction. What makes Cyberverse "not G1", but Cloud G1, other than convenience for us editors? [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 17:02, 28 December 2021 (EST)
::: As far as I can tell, there is no basic divergence, aside from Grimlock's origins, from the Cloud characters to the G1 counterparts. I could point to a fair few examples on the side of Cyberverse that rank higher than that (Grimlock's presenations, the origins of the Quintessons and Sharkticons, Skywarp, Acid Storm, etc etc.) [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 17:23, 28 December 2021 (EST)
::::We can be here all day debating over character minutiae, but the point is that Cyberverse ultimately doesn't diverge that much from G1 in its general premise as opposed to Cloud. G1 is bloated enough as it is; it doesn't hurt to take out the one thing that doesn't really fit in and make it its own thing. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 17:29, 28 December 2021 (EST)
::::: Well that just comes right back to my question: what actually makes Cloud World's core conceit any different from G1 beyond the fact that they have technology that allows them dimensional travel? Because if it is just that, I simply do not believe that is enough to justify a split for characters who are almost all made to look like and have the same personality as the G1 characters. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 17:51, 28 December 2021 (EST)
I agree for the sake of wiki presentation. *Cloud* is more like *TransTech* than it is like *Alternity*. *Cloud* characters got to travel to both the G1 and MD worlds as equally separate destinations. TakaraTomy used the *Generations War for Cybertron* moulds as the *United* series, which is G1 and not Aligned by our classification. *Cloud* recycling unused *Generations Fall of Cybertron* toys in a non-Aligned setting strikes me as more evidence that we can allow *Cloud* to live on its own rather than as another G1 setting. And *Cloud* was chosen by e-HOBBY over the competing proposal *Prime Shattered Glass* which would also have been on separate wiki pages despite employing purely redeco mould choiceis. [[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]]) 15:08, 28 December 2021 (EST)
:I'm not convinced by the idea that them saying "G1 World" is an indicator of separateness when there is also designations for "BW Spacetime" and "MF Spacetime." Brawn is depicted as practically identical in appearance to G1 Brawn before being upgraded. As for the Prime Shattered Glass choice, I think it's pretty obvious why that would be completely separate from this particular issue. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 16:25, 28 December 2021 (EST)
::The only reason Brawn is shown as the G1 body is if you take consideration that all Cloud members are drawn according to the latest toy or model available... he got no real toy before that, the only options were either G1 Sunbow, G1 toy or the tiny Universe 2.0 Legends. Now if you remove their appearance and focus on the story, Cloud is still more akin to Transtech than Alternity, Deadlock for example even got to visit the Legends World, a Aligned world (possibly the Adventure toyline) and the Ehobby spin-off dimension (now called Precursor World) -[[User:MahXyme|MahXyme/MahXymal]] ([[User talk:MahXyme|talk]]) 17:55, 28 December 2021 (EST)
:::Yes, I am aware of how Cloud repurposings work. Nothing prevents one G1 universe from visiting another. And aside from that, Japan has had barely any non-JG1 cartoon related G1 fiction; of course Cloud World, which isn't directly JG1 related, would be indicated as different; that doesn't mean that it's not able to be categorized as G1. If it were an American storyline, where we have always had multiple G1 storylines, I feel that this would not nearly be as much of a point of contention. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 18:05, 28 December 2021 (EST)
I'm in favor of splitting Cloud from G1. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 19:32, 28 December 2021 (EST)
:I haven't read any of the Cloud fiction myself, but I know that if our translation team collectively agrees on something based on the material available, then that's more than enough convincing for me to agree with them also. In other words, I agree with a split. -- [[User:Fanofcoolstuff27|Fanofcoolstuff27]] ([[User talk:Fanofcoolstuff27|talk]]) 19:52, 28 December 2021 (EST)
::I'd vastly prefer if we could get someone like McFeely to weigh in on this. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 19:56, 28 December 2021 (EST)
:::i'm in favour of the split. The cloud people have enough characteristics to distonguist them from theur jg1 counterpatts.--[[User:ZacAttack|ZacAttack]] ([[User talk:ZacAttack|talk]]) 20:14, 28 December 2021 (EST)
::::Alright, seriously, what characteristics are there actually to distinguish them from G1? Because nobody has been able to give me a concrete example so far. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 21:17, 28 December 2021 (EST)
:::::dinobot, heavy usage of aligned designs, hellwarp --[[User:ZacAttack|ZacAttack]] ([[User talk:ZacAttack|talk]]) 21:36, 28 December 2021 (EST)
Looks like Escargon is the only voice against the split thus far. Still, I suggest the discussion should remain open longer than usual, out of courtesy for people not checking the wiki as regularly given the holiday season. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 21:47, 28 December 2021 (EST)
:As the translations are still ongoing, I think the most we can suggest at this time is a note regarding its a classification as a Primax setting by AVP. As more information comes to light I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it was a decision made on shaky logic. Unlike the Alternity there doesn't seem to be any evidence of these guys being derived in-universe from G1 guys. And as fiction, it's about a bunch of super advanced parallel universe monitor guys who regularly travel to other universes. If it's literally just "the cast is mostly recolours of toys with G1 fiction" then maybe we need to start talking about listing the War for Cybertron games as G1 too. [[User:Star Spangled Sam|Star Spangled Sam]] ([[User talk:Star Spangled Sam|talk]]) 01:44, 29 December 2021 (EST)
::What exactly is super-advanced about them beyond SARA, who, as far as I can tell, is a gift from some being and not even their own creation? Because otherwise, they seem to be basic Transformers. Not a single person has been able to tell me that so far, and I'd be far more willing to listen if someone would just spell out what exactly makes them so distinct that means they can't be G1. It's not about in-universe stuff, because for all intents and purposes, the characters themselves are nigh-identical to the Generation 1 characters; you look at Cloud Megatron or Cloud Rodimus and it is obvious that, irregardless of whatever the fiction might say, they are being sold as new versions of the G1 characters. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (EST)
:::By the same logic, then why not put the FOC and WFC games under the G1 banner since it heavly takes inspirations from it, same settings (war on cybertron, the resources are becoming low, escaping to another world), closest designs to G1.. hell they were more marketed towards G1 than the Movies and Prime in mind (let's face it.. that's what Hasbro always does).. but the further Hasbro tied them to Aligned and they became their own thing.. Cloud is about that, maybe marketed as G1 at first but they became their own thing at the end -[[User:MahXyme|MahXyme/MahXymal]] ([[User talk:MahXyme|talk]]) 13:20, 29 December 2021 (EST)
::::The WFC games are their own case that, despite what you say, were always clearly a part of Hasbro's ideas for the Aligned continuity, which is something that I'm not going to bother going into here. Nothing about Cloud registers to me as being somehow so separate that it requires us splitting off things into their own pages. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 13:24, 29 December 2021 (EST)
Bumping for more opinions. If there's no overall opposition to it by Friday or so, I'll start splitting. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 16:07, 4 January 2022 (EST)
:The Cloud fiction prominently features the Cloud characters interacting with their own G1 counterparts. If nothing else, it should be split on same basis as [[Galvatron II]]. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 16:50, 4 January 2022 (EST)
::We've seen that with other fiction. I'm not sure why it would justify them having their whole separate pages (Galvatron II is a unique case). If that's what it takes though to not go through some inane total split, though, then fine, whatever. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 10:03, 5 January 2022 (EST)
:If there is to be movement on this in the immediate future I suppose I should go ahead and weigh in. As the one doing the translation I broadly agree with Riptide. While I am unmoved by philosophical discussions on what constitutes "G1-ness" or "Transtech-ness," I believe it is important to return to our guiding principle of the end user experience. Given the already convoluted nature of the material as well as the cast's consistent interaction with both various Generation 1 continuities in general and their own incarnations in specific, I believe it will be in the best interests of intelligibility for the reader to split out Cloud from Generation 1. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 11:25, 5 January 2022 (EST)

We are not going to pretend that these are completely separate from the Generation 1 characters. Put up a suite or a "see [X] article for more information" because it is completely ridiculous to pretend that Cloud is it's own little continuity. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 09:38, 8 January 2022 (EST)
:I disagree. Cloud should be split off entirely. So let's have an official vote and resolve this. I say '''Split'''. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 10:28, 8 January 2022 (EST)
::The articles have already been split. You'll forgive me if I don't show confidence in the decision from people who blew me off when I pointed out their original reason for splitting was incorrect (that supposedly the Almanac had come out before Cloud was truly explained, but in fact it had come after almost all of it had been published). [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 10:35, 8 January 2022 (EST)
:::This discussion has been open for twelve days. An unofficial tally shows at least 7-to-1 in favor of splitting. No one else has openly agreed with your position. Given that, and that Saix announced days in advance he would start splitting if there was no further discussion, it wasn't unreasonable for him to begin. But maybe there's a different split of opinions on the Discord or wherever, so it's certainly appropriate to ask for an official vote. Beyond that...the decision is just not up to you alone. The point of democracy is for all voices to be heard, not to leave every voice feeling satisfied with the outcome. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 11:08, 8 January 2022 (EST)
::::I have no idea what's going on in the Discord server; I'm barred from it. I certainly hope there's not more discussion going on over there, because I was told that there would be a push to have these sorts of big discussions to be on the wiki. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 23:42, 8 January 2022 (EST)
:::With all due respect: You need to stop putting so much emphasis on the in-universe designation, which AVP itself pointed out was ultimately arbitrary. I understand that AVP and the Almanacs are important to you, but Jim is not infallible, and while I'm sure he had good reasons for calling it "Primax" that's ultimately just ''his opinion''. Cloud being "its own thing" isn't some essential property; it's a matter of how to organise the wiki in order to make the fiction clear. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 11:47, 8 January 2022 (EST)
:I also vote '''Split''' if only because of how better translations now has pointed out various past errors/assumptions/presumptions that needed correcting, and thus updating is needed so as to make things easier to categorize and organize here. Any wiki really worth their salt and wanting to do proper service to their respective franchises' fandoms would do the same. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] ([[User talk:Lonegamer78|talk]]) 14:43, 8 January 2022 (EST)
::I ''still'' haven't got an answer for what makes Cloud so different that makes it ''need'' to be split. If there were a crossover between say, Marvel and Sunbow, nobody in their right mind we should completely separate, say, Huffer from Huffer. I'm willing to admit that I might just be missing something, but nothing in the stories themselves, as far as I can see, suggests it, beyond the aforementioned Cloud World classification, which for me is not enough of a justification. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 15:33, 8 January 2022 (EST)
:::Neither Marvel nor Sunbow consists primarily of crossovers with another G1 continuity. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 19:20, 8 January 2022 (EST)
::::If that's the main avenue of justification then frankly I don't think I'm ever going to agree with that line of reasoning, but I can clearly see I'm outvoted on this. I wish there would have been more people asked before the split was done, though, because I can see that this could very easily end up being another whole "retitling things to FSRLF" situation. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 20:00, 8 January 2022 (EST)
:::We functionally split out Marvel and Sunbow versions for a lot of characters anyway. We're at the point where we draw lines based on how easy/hard it is for the information to be conveyed, not whether it's G1 enough or not. We think Cloud, as its own fullblown storyline/premise, falls on the side of "it's easier to read and parse it if they get their own shebang" instead of burying them in overlong G1 articles. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 21:11, 8 January 2022 (EST)

I'm not gonna argue further on this because I recognize it's a losing battle, but I think that the line of thought of "this one bit of media shouldn't be kept in an article because it won't get out there otherwise" sets a bad precedent that could easily be misused in the future. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 23:39, 8 January 2022 (EST)

Should the Cloud toys also be removed from the G1 character's pages? [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] ([[User talk:Omegatron|talk]]) 09:21, 17 February 2022 (EST)
:Yeah no, It vould be too convoluted, example look at the redirections [[Transformers_Cloud#Toys|there]]... where should each toy be redirected?? + the fiction regarding said toys has their own page now -[[User:MahXyme|MahXyme/MahXymal]] ([[User talk:MahXyme|talk]]) 10:58, 17 February 2022 (EST)
::...What on earth are you talking about? [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 11:16, 17 February 2022 (EST)
:::Srry I misread his question.. I thought he meant "added" not "removed" from the G1 pages...
:Not entirely certain what you're asking, but the eight toys in the Cloud toyline (plus Deadlock) have already been moved to the Cloud pages in conjunction with the fiction, as they solely represent Cloud characters. The remaining Cloud characters repurpose existing toys. The writeups for those toys remain on the original pages with duplicates on the repurpose pages, as is standard practice. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 11:54, 17 February 2022 (EST)
::I mean, for example, [[Blaster_(G1)/toys#Generations|G1 Blaster's toy page]] has FOC Blaster on it, due to FOC Blaster being repurposed as Cloud Blaster. Should that repurposing be removed from G1 Blaster's page, since Cloud Blaster isn't considered to be G1 Blaster anymore? [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] ([[User talk:Omegatron|talk]]) 12:34, 17 February 2022 (EST)
:::I believe yeah, the splitting between G1 and Cloud was recent (done last month) so there's still leftover traces on the wiki, if you can take your time to remove them why not -[[User:MahXyme|MahXyme/MahXymal]] ([[User talk:MahXyme|talk]]) 16:44, 17 February 2022 (EST)
::::Ok, good. I just wanted to check I wasn't missing anything. [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] ([[User talk:Omegatron|talk]]) 17:13, 17 February 2022 (EST)
:::::Oh! Yes those should go, good eye! -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 10:52, 18 February 2022 (EST)

==Split Movie Character Toy lists?==
Just as what happened with [[Optimus Prime (G1)/toys]] and [[Megatron (G1)/toys]], I suggest we split certain Movie toy pages such as [[Bumblebee (Movie)/toys]] and [[Optimus Prime (Movie)/toys]] as both pages have become excessively bloated. I suggest we separate them by having the original Bay film toylines (07, ROFT, DOTM, AOE, TLK, and any pre SS sub lines) have their own page and starting a new one that Contains SS, BB, and the upcoming ROTB toylines, alongside any future movie toylines until the new page itself becomes heavily bloated [[User:Paladin Denn|Paladin Denn]] ([[User talk:Paladin Denn|talk]]) 18:43, 5 January 2022 (EST)
:Sorry for being this late but given that ROTB toys are apparently coming this spring, I suggest you split like one part contains all 5 movies while the other starts with SS and BB until now -[[User:MahXyme|MahXyme/MahXymal]] ([[User talk:MahXyme|talk]]) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (EST)

== Multi-part comic stories ==

For old Marvel UK multi-part stories like [[Target: 2006]] or [[Time Wars]], we put the whole thing under a single article, but for modern-day ones like each storyline in [[Transformers (2019 comic)]] we have a separate article for each issue. Is there a good reason for the discrepancy, or are the old ones just an artefact of a time in the wiki's history that didn't follow our current standards? --[[User:Flicky1991|flicky]][[User talk:Flicky1991|1991]] 09:36, 22 January 2022 (EST)
:The thing with that is that it's a result of how the UK comic was written; there'd be about 8 or so pages per issue, meaning that we'd have a lot of little articles that are easier just grouped together. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 10:16, 22 January 2022 (EST)
::Makes sense, although that's essentially what we have for [[The Transformers: Autocracy]] et al., which are also 8 pages per issue. --[[User:Flicky1991|flicky]][[User talk:Flicky1991|1991]] 15:38, 23 January 2022 (EST)
:::The difference with Autocracy lies mostly in that pretty much all of those issues have a beginning and end, and also have different titles. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 15:47, 23 January 2022 (EST)
::::Oh, I always thought our headings on the Marvel UK story pages ''were'' the issue titles. --[[User:Flicky1991|flicky]][[User talk:Flicky1991|1991]] 01:21, 24 January 2022 (EST)

== Composite characters and page transclusion ==

This is something I've had the idea about for a while, but I've finally had a look at how the markup for it works and have come up with a proposal. The pages for [[Greatshot]] and [[Sixshot (G1)]] contain an entirely duplicated section set around the ''Victory'' cartoon owing to a retcon that occurred in the much later Legends manga. This is not an ideal solution because, among other reasons, any edits to Greatshot's cartoon section necessitates making the same edit to Sixshot's section.

Over in my sandbox, I've whipped up the page [[User:TheLastGherkin/Greatshot-test]], containing only the events that happened to both Greatshot and the retconned Sixshot. By inserting <nowiki>{{:User:TheLastGherkin/Greatshot-test}}</nowiki> into the relevant parts of Greatshot and Sixshot's pages (also sandboxed [[User:TheLastGherkin/Greatshot|here]] and [[User:TheLastGherkin/Sixshot|here]]), the same information is automatically transcluded. And clicking "Edit" on, for example, the Legends manga section on Sixshot's page automatically redirects the user to editing that portion of Greatshot-test, thus updating all three pages at once.

If we go forward with this, I can see it being used for other characters in similar situations, like BWU [[Wolfang (Maximal)#Beast Wars: Uprising|Wolfang]], or Unite Warriors [[Roller (IDW)#Unite Warriors|Roller]], or putting the lion's share (pun intended) of [[Victory Leo]]'s fictional appearances back onto Victory Leo's page. With refinements, like say a <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> explanation for what each subpage is for the layperson ("This page covers the events of the Japanese Generation 1 continuity, where Greatshot and Sixshot are the same individual...") and maybe a [[:Category:Transcluded pages]], I could see this really working, and it could probably be bent into shape for repurposed toys as well. [[User:TheLastGherkin|TheLastGherkin]] ([[User talk:TheLastGherkin|talk]]) 12:48, 10 February 2022 (EST)
:If we cannot avoid this sort of duplicated information entirely, this does seem like a pretty ideal solve to mitigate the constant peril of copy editing flubs maintaining multiple copies of one write-up entails. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 13:56, 10 February 2022 (EST)
::Is there any way to get rid of the "This section is transcluded from another page. To edit it, please edit the transcluded page." notice? [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 15:06, 10 February 2022 (EST)
:::There is! I just put that there manually while experimenting and also to make clear where the transcluded section is. In practice, since clicking "Edit" on a transcluded section takes you to the source page, a notice like that can be relegated to a commented-out note for editors who click to Edit the entire page (or a larger section). [[User:TheLastGherkin|TheLastGherkin]] ([[User talk:TheLastGherkin|talk]]) 16:16, 10 February 2022 (EST)
::::Oh, I thought it was automatic software stuff. Whoops, never mind. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 16:22, 10 February 2022 (EST)
::Also, this works for fiction, but I see it running into issues when it comes to toys. (Thinking of Sixshot/Greatshot, Sixshot always gets toys first with Greatshot as the retool later in the same line.) [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 15:14, 10 February 2022 (EST)
:I've made some tweaks to my sandboxes, including standardising the transcluded page. Are there any objections before I start implementing this (in fiction sections)? [[User:TheLastGherkin|TheLastGherkin]] ([[User talk:TheLastGherkin|talk]]) 07:10, 12 February 2022 (EST)
::I sense that there could be an issue in the future where, for whatever reason, these sorts of characters diverge back into separate ones, whether it be through alternate continuities or whatever. Also, in the case of Greatshot, I feel like at the very beginning of his entry, there has to be something different to set up the Sixshot retcon, and just having the same opening text doesn't do that. 08:57, 12 February 2022 (EST)
:::His toy bio that mentions Sixshot as a separate person could go there. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 00:21, 16 February 2022 (EST)
:This could also be applied to Primus and Vector Sigma for their 3H comics sections since they are one and the same in that continuity. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 19:26, 26 February 2022 (EST)

== What makes a franchise? Or, does "Precursor World" exist? ==

So, browsing around the wiki, as one does, and came across this: [[Precursor World continuity|Precursor World (franchise)]]

Now, I'm not as well-versed in the Legends + Selects comics, so maybe this is incorrect, but to the best of my understanding, the branding "Precursor World" doesn't exist — this story was told across Generations Selects and Legends, and no toy or story was ever released branded as "Precursor World". It doesn't seem like the name even existed until pretty recently. 

This...isn't a franchise, right? It's a long-running story told across various medium, but it's not a franchise, and calling it such implies something that isn't true. 

Particularly, the idea that there is a "toyline" seems a bit of a stretch. There are only three listed "official" toys, but none of them were released under the "Precursor World" branding (which near as I can tell does not exist) and the list of "repurposings" seems almost entirely just "this toy/characters showed up in this story" which doesn't seem like anything's been repurposed to me. The IDW comics used a bunch of existing/prior toys, but that doesn't create a toyline of that comic series. 

Am I off base here? --[[User:Spectre|Spectre]] ([[User talk:Spectre|talk]]) 12:16, 3 March 2022 (EST)
:Okay there's a lot to unpack here but to begin with every single one of those toys is being repurposed as a separate object/character in a separate setting a la, for example, [[Green Tender Convoy]] and the [[Matrix Buster|Red Matrix]]. Most of the unnamed crowdfillers are minimized to footnotes on existing articles to avoid generating a bazillion stubs. The closest analogue I can give you is the [[Transformers: Shattered Glass (toyline)|toyline]] for the original ''Timelines'' iteration of Shattered Glass. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 12:35, 3 March 2022 (EST)

::I'll grant that those indeed seem to be repurposings, but the vast majority of toys on this list merely link to the toy entry for the toy on the regular character's page. I don't think having a list of members of these groups is bad (it's good!) but I don't think this is a toyline. Again, crucially, Shattered Glass has a brand, with the official toys released under that brand, whereas precursor world does not. IDW repurposed WfC/FoC/aligned toys as G1 characters, but this didn't create a virtual toyline associated with that comic. --[[User:Spectre|Spectre]] ([[User talk:Spectre|talk]]) 12:46, 3 March 2022 (EST)

:::Arguably Shattered Glass toys weren't really released under their own brand either until the recent Hasbro Pulse stuff, until then the figures were all just released under the ''Timelines'' banner or whatever else Fun Pub used at the time - the idea of a singular "Shattered Glass toyline" was just as much of a constructed idea until like a year ago. I can't say "franchise" and "toyline" ''aren't'' slightly more non-literal labels than usual in this context, but I do think there's value in having the info collated like this, and I can't think of ''better'' labels that aren't something stupid like "(meta franchise)". [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] ([[User talk:Jalaguy|talk]]) 12:57, 3 March 2022 (EST)

::::To be honest, I'm inclined to agree re: Shattered Glass, and would not be opposed to restructuring the toyline page to delineate between the "Shatted Glass Collection" and "Shattered Glass toys released via Timelines" or something. Shattered Glass does, however, have a leg up on Precursor World given that every official SG toy was branded as "Shattered Glass" in some way, though perhaps not as a "franchise". The box set is called Shattered Glass, and every official toy was called "Shattered Glass". There's some nuance there, of course, as arguably those are part of the character's names ala "Prime Universe Bulkhead" is still a Legacy toy, not a Prime toy, but I'd be happy to have a debate around the best way to frame Shattered Glass stuff given those discrepancies. Allll that said, Shattered Glass is today a franchise, but there have been zero anythings released with Precursor World branding or labeling. --[[User:Spectre|Spectre]] ([[User talk:Spectre|talk]]) 13:06, 3 March 2022 (EST)

::I don't think the page should be removed or even severely modified, but I do think the terminology is flawed. [[User:Iacon0|Iacon0]] ([[User talk:Iacon0|talk]]) 16:02, 3 March 2022 (EST)
Precursor World is definitely not a "franchise" and should not have that label. The model to look at here is the [[Beast Wars: Uprising]] article, which gives an overview of the thing, lists it's stories and toys, but does not use the "franchise" label, and doesn't ''need'' to use it. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] ([[User talk:KilMichaelMcC|talk]]) 15:07, 3 March 2022 (EST)

Yeah, no, this is not a "franchise", and the page should not be labeled as such. It is a ''setting''. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 17:04, 3 March 2022 (EST)

:I like the solution that AzimuthAcolyte gave on Discord: move "Precursor World (franchise)" to "Precursor World continuity" (with all uses of the word "franchise" changed to "continuity") and "Precursor World (toyline)" to "List of Precursor World toys". Simple and elegant. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 18:55, 3 March 2022 (EST)
::Seconded.[[User:Iacon0|Iacon0]] ([[User talk:Iacon0|talk]]) 19:00, 3 March 2022 (EST)
:::That seems reasonable to me. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 19:00, 3 March 2022 (EST)
::::I'm for that. -- [[User:Fanofcoolstuff27|Fanofcoolstuff27]] ([[User talk:Fanofcoolstuff27|talk]]) 19:04, 3 March 2022 (EST)
::That's fair. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 23:59, 3 March 2022 (EST)
::Works for me, somewhat obviously! If there are no major objections over the next day or two I'll get those moved over. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 11:48, 4 March 2022 (EST)
::Ohhh, That works -[[User:MahXyme|MahXyme/MahXymal]] ([[User talk:MahXyme|talk]]) 18:19, 4 March 2022 (EST)
Alrighty as it's been a day or so with no objections I am proceeding with the moves away from (franchise) and (toyline). --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 18:06, 5 March 2022 (EST)

== Episode Order ==
It's come to my attention that all cartoons have been listed in production order '''except''' Beast Wars, RID01, RB, and RBA. While I understand production order is not available for the latter two I suggest we change the first two for consistency's sake - Unless I'm wrong and they are ''not'' all in production order. [[User:Iacon0|Iacon0]] ([[User talk:Iacon0|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2022 (EDT)
:We're not touching Beast Wars. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 13:52, 16 March 2022 (EDT)
::Beast Wars and RiD'01 not being in production order are accepted exceptions to the norm. We leave them as they are for reasons specific to each. But as for RB and RBA, we do have an idea of the production orders for each, but we instead use a weird mixture of production order and airing order that is consistent with no other series we cover. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 13:53, 16 March 2022 (EDT)
:OK quick correction to myself, turns out that it's all supposed to be chronological order; That just happens to be production order for everything but those four. Sorry! [[User:Iacon0|Iacon0]] ([[User talk:Iacon0|talk]]) 14:09, 16 March 2022 (EDT)

==Help with statues / figurines==
I wrote up many of the [[Super7#Transformers ULTIMATES!|ULTIMATES!]] entries, simply because no one else had. I don't actually care about that sort of merch and it ended up being me paraphrasing from press releases and copying their pics. Just today I learned there are 3 waves of TF [[Minimates]] that have no coverage here at all. It definitely seems like a lot of high-end statues are falling through the cracks as well. Is there someone who is willing to make that stuff more of a project? If not, could we perhaps put out a call for submissions on our Twitter feed? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 10:47, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
:I fear this is just... going to continue to be an Issue. The wiki is a labor of love, and the brand is at a point where there's a lot of stuff out there... well, that a lot of people probably aren't gonna love. Hasbro's moichandized the everloving HELL out of TF over the years, with more and more niche "G1" stuff that seemingly would never appeal to people for whom G1 is the big center of their fandom. I mean I just found some Micro Figures merch at a Big Lots, I've never seen these before, and I don't know offhand if they're on the wiki. They're kind of a nothing. It's hard to keep up. Same for stuff like phone games.<br>
:I don't know if there's an actual solution. ''Someone'' certainly needs to step up, but I kinda got my plate overflowing with my own pet (ha ha) niche chunk of TF history to exhaustively document, never mind dealing with stuff I am almost aggressively disinterested in. (Seriously what little Minimates experience I have left me with a worse impression of them than I already had from their hideous aesthetic alone.) Asking Twitter for people more well-versed in this stuff might could help for phone games, but... IS there anyone into Minimates as a whole Brand and not just in a "I get the licenses I like" sense to fill in gaps? --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 21:20, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
::Once I had composed the thought "Hey, it's bad that there are a lot of Minimates out with us not covering them at all," it was too late, and I just had to burn 40 minutes on some cut-and-paste writups for the entire series. That's one "solution," I guess, but even ''my'' obsessive-compulsiveness can only go so far. Editing this site really should not feel like a job... --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 10:18, 22 March 2022 (EDT)

==Implementing galleries==
I propose making galleries on character pages a wiki standard. The current mainpic + show screenshots format doesn't cover images like character models (Unless used as a mainpic), concept art, appearances in posters or toy murals, comic book covers, etc. 
Other wikis have successfully implemented galleries, I think the Hololive Wiki galleries in particular work well as an example https://hololive.wiki/wiki/Tokino_Sora#Media.
This gallery header covers character models and has suites for concept art and even character uses in collaborative merch.[[User:MrRald|MrRald]] ([[User talk:MrRald|talk]]) 13:27, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
:Seconded. [[User:Iacon0|Iacon0]] ([[User talk:Iacon0|talk]]) 13:30, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
:I would say some version of this concept for a section has merit, if nothing else as a solve for major characters with several prominent character models, perhaps as a fairly unobtrusive method of documenting alt modes, etc etc. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 13:38, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
::I'm for this. As a good example, the BotBots characters all look to have been radically redesigned for the show. By default the current standard is to keep the original stock art look will appear as the mainpic each page. Having a gallery option would be a good way to show both versions. [[User:ParadoxFactor|ParadoxFactor]] ([[User talk:ParadoxFactor|talk]]) 14:24, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
:Oppose. There is no reason for these to take up space on the character pages. Would not oppose separate "gallery" pages. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 13:57, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
::If we are open to workshopping implementation I do agree a separate "gallery page" in the style we already use for more conceptual articles here and there would probably be cleaner. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 14:06, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
:::I love the gallery idea. There's a question of how much to include, and the exact implementation details of how to portion out overflow if there's too many images. It's a shame there isn't some way to generate them automatically just by tagging images with the characters they depict. —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 14:24, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
::A separate page seems like it would be overkill for someone like [[Flamewar (G1)|Flamewar]], who would only take a few images to cover appearances not already covered by fiction section images. I assume if a small gallery was to be used on a character's page, it would be near the bottom at any rate? --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 15:22, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
:::Yes, at the bottom would be ideal, no different from any of the galleries on our artist pages. IMO, separate gallery pages should only be used in instances where the number of images can't be comfortably fit onto one or two lines. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 15:33, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
::::I agree with Cyberlink. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 16:29, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
:::Fair; Using gallery sections for those with few images and gallery pages for those with many images might make sense. [[User:Iacon0|Iacon0]] ([[User talk:Iacon0|talk]]) 15:46, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
::::See [[Megatron (G1)/gallery|G1 Megatron]] and [[Megatron (BW)/gallery|BW Megatron]] for examples of characters with enough images to justify separate gallery pages. [[Rhinox (BW)/gallery|BW Rhinox]], as it is now, is probably right on the line between "split it off" and "stick it at the bottom of the page". -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 15:58, 21 March 2022 (EDT)
I think choosing between a header at the bottom or a suite depending on image amount is a good solution instead of sticking to just one method.
[[User:MrRald|MrRald]] ([[User talk:MrRald|talk]]) 11:29, 22 March 2022 (EDT)
:Yeah, I think that would be good, as has been pointed out earlier. I do have to ask - because sometimes the artistic difference between characters in comics is slight with details only a little different in shape or kibble - would those fall under gallery stuff? Because they're effectively different per artist interpretation. I would be inclined to say yes, because effectively a different artist's rendition is shown usually of the same character without having reformatted or taken up armor or so forth. --[[User:Causeway|Causeway]] ([[User talk:Causeway|talk]]) 10:56AM 27 March 2022 (PDT)
::I am very much on board with this idea. Having a gallery section or page depending on the character would be great, especially for characters like Flamewar who have a extremely prominent new design that we can't use as a main pic and for characters who have tons of designs, especially in the case of IDW where some characters change bodies every Tuesday. -- [[User:ComfyBlanket|ComfyBlanket]] ([[User:ComfyBlanket|talk]]) 11:35 AM 27 March 2022 (PDT)
::I think artistic liberty vs. new design would have to be on a case by case basis. Burcham's art of the BW cast wouldn't count for gallery purposes, in my opinion. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 15:08, 27 March 2022 (EDT)
:::I think it would be cool to have art of the same designs in different artstyles, but I agree it should probably be on case by case basis. -- [[User:ComfyBlanket|ComfyBlanket]] ([[User:ComfyBlanket|talk]]) 6:17 PM 27 March 2022 (PDT)
::I currently have a sandbox to test galleries using Tigatron https://tfwiki.net/wiki/User:MrRald/sandbox/Tigatron#Gallery. I'd appreciate any feedback on things to add or change! [[User:MrRald|MrRald]] ([[User talk:MrRald|talk]]) 23:44, 1 April 2022 (EDT)
::: I like what you have so far, I think we should maybe add a few more versions of Tigatron, like his different comic appearances and such. -- [[User:ComfyBlanket|ComfyBlanket]] ([[User:ComfyBlanket|talk]])

: Now that we're actually going ahead with this... I have to ask, what are the galleries actually ''for''? When we were discussing this I was under the impression that they were going to be for "behind-the-scenes" images that wouldn't otherwise have a place on the wiki, like out-of-universe character models, character concept art, or full-body renders from stuff like guidebooks. Right now, a lot of the galleries just feel redundant, given that they're just a bunch of cartoon and comic screengrabs taken from the relevant section and removed of all context... and a lot of them, like [[Blaster (G1)/gallery]] are just completely empty. The fact that every character ''can'' have a gallery does not mean that all of them ''should'', especially if most of them are just going to be redundant or mostly empty. [[User:Grum|Grum]] ([[User talk:Grum|talk]]) 18:57, 4 August 2022 (EDT)
::Agreed, I feel like this is bloating the wiki and toeing over the line of our vague remit. Despite having a LOT of images, we're not an image repository. Also, a lot of these could probably be done as a single subsection of the characters' mainpage under below "Notes" of whatever rather than as separate mostly-blank-space sub-pages full of sub-headers with like two images total in them. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 06:11, 5 August 2022 (EDT)
:::Yeah, I didn't think they'd be separate pages. What I was expecting was whichever of the cartoon character model, Dreamwave profile art or package art weren't being used for the mainpic, plus behind-the-scenes stuff, plus maybe extra bits from artbooks, covers, or sources like that. Stuff that can't just be slotted into a fiction writeup—and I don't mean "comic crops we don't have room for because equivalent/better panels are already in the fiction section". —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 06:35, 5 August 2022 (EDT)
My intentions for the gallery pages were for users to actually do the work in uploading character models, renders, et al., not dumping whatever cartoon screencaps we already have in fiction sections. And separate pages would be on a case by case basis. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 18:46, 5 August 2022 (EDT)
I don't see the point, honestly. It seems like pretty much any significant body a significant enough character has will appear on the wiki at some point in a comic panel or a toy info image or a screenshot or something, somewhere. I'm not sure this is a problem that needs solving. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] ([[User talk:Hooper X|talk]]) 20:36, 29 August 2022 (EDT)

===G1 model images===
To branch off of this topic, how would we feel about using [https://www.allspark.com/forums/threads/the-most-accurately-coloured-g1-animation-models-online.301/ DM's coloured models] for the G1 cartoon model galleries? The last time I brought this topic up (on Discord), some people were against the idea, due to them being fan-colour works and not official, but a few newer developments have been made since I last brought it up.

To clarify, for those unaware of DM's works: 

* All of the line art is original and unedited (unlike several of the models in ''The Ark'' books, which had been tweaked, altered and traced by Bill Forster to make them presentable for publishing).
* The models are the final ones used throughout the majority of the cartoon (in Toei-animated episodes at least). Note: several of the models in ''The Ark'' books we have also come to discover were unfinalized ones, due to the internet and more stuff being made public since what was originally found around 2007—not to discredit Jim and Bill's hard work in putting those books together, it's just some of what we knew then isn't entirely correct now.
* And finally, the colours (which was the big thing some people were against). Unlike the handful of fan-coloured models that were originally uploaded to the wiki in the past, which eye dropped colors straight from poor quality episode masters, DM's colours are based directly on Toei and Marvel Productions' model colour guides, colour codes, charts, colour chips found by a member of the ''Dragon Ball'' fandom (who has scanned and digitized said colour chips) and other original production materials, meaning that the colours DM has used are all coming from the ''original'' original source.

An alternative Mr. Rald had brought up on Discord is that we could possibly look at using the uncoloured model line art instead, if people feel strongly against using fan-coloured works, but I think in order to present the G1 character models fully as references, you kinda need the colours included, especially given how poor the cartoon production was, what with all the animation errors (even in Toei episodes) etc, making it hard to gather decent references for the characters, which is mostly what these galleries are for.

Also, for the record, DM has given us permission to use his colourings on the wiki.

Let me know you thoughts. -- [[User:Fanofcoolstuff27|Fanofcoolstuff27]] ([[User talk:Fanofcoolstuff27|talk]]) 01:39, 6 April 2022 (EDT)

: I personally think that we should use DM's coloured models, they are as official as coloured models are going to get, and it's not like DM just randomly picked and chose want colours to use as FOCS said. We could just have the model and the colour guide, but at that point, just have the model sheet coloured. I would however be in favour of the uncoloured models with colour guides and the sheets with the fully coloured models to cover all our bases. -- [[User:ComfyBlanket|ComfyBlanket]] ([[User:ComfyBlanket|talk]]) 11:16 AM, 6 April 2022 (PDT)

== Making a page for the Unreal Engine? ==

War for Cybertron, Dark of the Moon (PS3/X360), Fall of Cybertron, and Rise of the Dark Spark all run on Unreal Engine, specifically Unreal Engine 3. Why isn't there a page for it. It could have good info on those wanting to mod those games.

Unrelated, but there's a server revival project being worked on for those games. Right now it's only on PC, and progress is slow, but should we include info for it in the pages for those games? It's not official btw, there's a Discord server for it and a few YouTube vids about it.[[User:Trashatron|Trashatron]] ([[User talk:Trashatron|talk]]) 17:29, 24 March 2022 (EDT)
:I'm not sure what information we could put on an Unreal Engine page that would be useful to modders. An Unreal Engine page would be general info on the engine and a list of games which use it. Diving into technical details isn't really something we do. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 17:52, 24 March 2022 (EDT)
:I think linking to {{W|Unreal Engine|Wikipedia}} should be sufficient. That's what I did when I ''unfortunately'' had to document the Funko NFTs. [[User:Iacon0|Iacon0]] ([[User talk:Iacon0|talk]]) 19:11, 24 March 2022 (EDT)
:I don't see what value there would be to this. Unreal warrants, at ''most'', a mention on the relevant game pages. We don't have pages for every program used to make every piece of TF media/product. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 20:33, 24 March 2022 (EDT)

== Category for characters with no established gender ==

So I just had this idea and decided to share it here because why not? We have categories for female characters and variable gender characters but not for characters with undetermined genders. Many BotBots for example don't have genders and I think this category could be a useful way of grouping them together. And who knows, maybe someday it could even help official creators specifically looking for genderless characters to establish a gender to them. Does anyone agree to implement this category? -- [[User:Fritz|Fritz]] ([[User talk:Fritz|talk]]) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (EDT)
:This concept has been discussed before in the past, and generally the feeling has been that this would be a bit too much like the wiki actively trying to shape canon. Don't get me wrong, creators taking advantage of characters with no official pronouns is neat and I'm all for it, but IMO the wiki shouldn't directly serve up them. [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] ([[User talk:Jalaguy|talk]]) 19:26, 3 April 2022 (EDT)
::Interestingly, I can't seem to find a prior community portal discussion about this matter, though I know it has come up on the Discord server more than once, to the conclusion Jalaguy mentioned. [[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]]) 19:35, 3 April 2022 (EDT)
:::Just to clarify, I thought of "official creators using it" as a quick example in favor of the category, but now I can totally see how it sounded like trying to influence canon too much. Regardless, I'd still be down for having the category if we agreed on it being useful for any other reason. -- [[User:Fritz|Fritz]] ([[User talk:Fritz|talk]]) 19:51, 3 April 2022 (EDT)

== Category for trans characters ==

We had a productive conversation about the no established gender thing on the wiki discord and it made me realize that there should be a transgender category for the five established trans characters that there are so far, Arcee (who has established trans characterization on two different pages), Howlback, Arcadis, Anode, and Lug. Jalaguy mentioned that this has been discussed and people thought it was a good idea but it hasn't happened, so I just thought I'd ask for go-ahead on this. I figured that transgender rather than just trans could be a good word to use for this, due to them all being people who have gender. The term trans is merely more broad and could cover different kinds of transness than that or aesthetic stuff that is similar to gender, but we have no confirmation of being there yet in canon. Thus I think transgender would be the most accurate and desirable term here, and the umbrella trans can always be tacked on later if we need to. --[[User:Causeway|Causeway]] ([[User talk:Causeway|talk]]) 5:40PM 3 April 2022 (PDT) (edited 5:48PM PDT for clarity)
:Seconded. -- [[User:ComfyBlanket|ComfyBlanket]] ([[User:ComfyBlanket|talk]]) 5:53 PM, 3 April 2022 (PDT)
::Since there are no objections, I'll go ahead. :3 -- [[User:Causeway|Causeway]] ([[User talk:Causeway|talk]]) 4:19AM, 11 April 2022 (PDT)

==Streamlining disambig headers (revist)==
So I remember this conversation from last year about streamlining the disambiguation headers. I checked back on the talk page discussion (link to said discussion archive here https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive69#Streamlining_disambig_headers) to see what happened and even though there was a lot of people who liked the idea with some who did not, it did not seem like it went anywhere. I thought I'd see if anyone else would like to revisit this idea as I feel like this would streamline things more, especially for Movie and Aligned and maybe a bit of UT especially for the guys who show up in all 3 shows or those don't have other bots who are completely different sharing the same name within the trilogy. -- [[User:ComfyBlanket|ComfyBlanket]] ([[User:ComfyBlanket|talk]]) 9:01 PM, 12 April 2022 (PDT)

== Disambig tags and suites for Masterforce paired pages ==

We need to balance out our page titles for ''Masterforce'' human + transtector character pairs. Right now we have among extant pages and tentative redlinks:

Bullhorn (G1), Cab (human), Cancer (G1), Clouder, Ginrai (human), Shūta Gō, Lightfoot (G1), Minerva (human), Ranger, Road King, Wilder (G1)

Bullhorn (robot), Cab (robot), Cancer (robot), [something], Ginrai (robot), Goshooter, Lightfoot (robot), Minerva (G1 robot), Ranger (robot), Road King (robot), Wilder (robot)

I propose either we do human gets no species tag with the robot getting a species tag as the splinter page:

Bullhorn (G1) | Bullhorn (G1)/robot

or the human does get a species tag to equally balance with the robot:

Bullhorn (G1)/human | Bullhorn (G1)/robot

This would eliminate the need to have any longer-within-parentheses tag like "Minerva (G1 robot)" which would be affected by future continuities which may not yet have happened. [[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]]) 15:55, 22 April 2022 (EDT)
:I would prefer either the human gets the "default" continuity tag with no further disambiguation or (human)/(robot) (with needed variations for disambiguation). The slash system is ugly to me. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 15:59, 22 April 2022 (EDT)
::I'm of the opinion that the slash option for both feels the most fair. While the human versions were the first and thus feel the most deserving of the "default" tag, the robot versions are likely to become more commonplace and relevant as newer fiction dips its toes into using more Japanese characters. On a similar note, it was decided not to give the "BW" tag to either BW Silverbolt out of fairness, so while a similar "human/robot" concept could be implemented, there is the problem with Minerva having an Animated counterpart who is also a robot, Cancer having an Animated counterpart who is also a human, there being a Kre-O Bullhorn who is also a robot, a G.I. Joe Lightfoot who is also a human, and an IDW Wilder who is also a human. "Minerva (Headmaster)" also doesn't work for the G1 robot since the human was a Headmaster too. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 16:29, 22 April 2022 (EDT)
::The slash system may not be entirely visually pleasant, but I consider having "Minerva (G1 robot)" in parentheses worse. In my proposal, all transtector characters would be unified symmetrically as "(robot)". [[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]]) 17:47, 24 April 2022 (EDT)

Here are three proposals to unify the namespaces:

Possibility 1: humans get nothing and robots get slashes

Bullhorn (G1), Cab, Cancer (G1), Clouder, Ginrai, Shūta Gō, Lightfoot (G1), Minerva (G1), Ranger, Road King, Wilder (G1)

Bullhorn (G1)/robot, Cab/robot, Cancer (G1)/robot, Doubleclouder, Ginrai/robot, Goshooter, Lightfoot (G1)/robot, Minerva (G1)/robot, Ranger/robot, Road King/robot, Wilder (G1)/robot

Possibility 2: both humans and robots get slashes

Bullhorn (G1)/human, Cab/human, Cancer (G1)/human, Clouder/human, Ginrai/human, Shūta Gō/human, Lightfoot (G1)/human, Minerva (G1)/human, Ranger/human, Road King/human, Wilder (G1)/human

Bullhorn (G1)/robot, Cab/robot, Cancer (G1)/robot, Doubleclouder, Ginrai/robot, Goshooter, Lightfoot (G1)/robot, Minerva (G1)/robot, Ranger/robot, Road King/robot, Wilder (G1)/robot

Possibility 3: both humans and robots get parentheses

Bullhorn (G1 human), Cab (human), Cancer (G1 human), Clouder, Ginrai (human), Shūta Gō, Lightfoot (G1 human), Minerva (G1 human), Ranger (human), Road King (human), Wilder (G1 human)

Bullhorn (G1 robot), Cab (robot), Cancer (G1 robot), Doubleclouder, Ginrai (robot), Goshooter, Lightfoot (G1 robot), Minerva (G1 robot), Ranger (robot), Road King (robot), Wilder (G1 robot)

Thoughts? [[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]]) 01:12, 12 June 2022 (EDT)
:Isn't Option 1 one basically just a slightly different version of what we're already using and what you're proposing to change in the first place? Anyway, like I said above, Option 2 is the most fair between the human and robot depictions (as Option 1 feels like we're saying "The human versions are the more important versions" when it's the robot versions that are more likely to get any representation in future comic appearances), and it reduces the amount of multiple-word parentheses tags that we usually dislike using and try to avoid as best we can (which is the exact opposite of what Option 3 is proposing). Though, drop the "/human" from Clouder and Shūta Gō since their names already differ from "Doubleclouder" and "Goshooter". No need to complicate those two. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 08:45, 12 June 2022 (EDT)

==Transformers: Armada (Trading Card Collection)==
I recently discovered that Fleer published a Trading Card collection in 2003 for Transformers Armada.
I've documented everything I could find about it - including an Energon (preview) Scorponok card I got from a local retro game store.
[[Iacon0/Sandbox]]
Is it alright if I roll this out? [[User:Iacon0|Iacon0]] ([[User talk:Iacon0|talk]]) 12:52, 1 May 2022 (EDT)

== WFC/FOC Reenergized Server Project info? ==

Info: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLO5yzrWE9yVT56Rgxl9oqntVysxWr2k7e

Basically, it brings back the multiplayer servers for the Cybertron games, PC and PS3. Should this be talked about in the pages for those games? (ROTDS and ROTF aren't online at the moment, and 360 versions won't have support) [[User:Trashatron|Trashatron]] ([[User talk:Trashatron|talk]])}
:It's not official, so no, it shouldn't. --[[User:Flicky1991|flicky]][[User talk:Flicky1991|1991]] 14:54, 27 June 2022 (EDT)

== Handling of "former GoBots" and "former Diaclone" characters on the wiki ==

So recently we've been seeing multiple characters that had previously been portrayed as dimension-hoppers from non-Transformers realities, but using Transformers designs — [[Bug Bite (GoBots)]], [[Burn Out (Diaclone)]] and [[Lift-Ticket (Diaclone)]] — appearing as "normal" Transformers ([[Bug Bite (G1)]], [[Burn Out (Diaclone)]], [[Lift-Ticket (Diaclone)]]). There's some heavy dispute over whether we should put them on the same page or split them out (e.g. "since the GoBots Bug Bite isn't ''originally'' from a G1 universe, he shouldn't go on the G1 Bug Bite page), so I thought we should probably have a centralised place to put together a comprehensive set of standards.

My take, personally, is that GoBots and Diaclone are *not* continuity families, they're their own properties that happen to cross over with Transformers, and so shouldn't be split on that basis. I feel that Burn Out and Lift-Ticket, regardless of them being portrayed as Diaclone mecha in their initial appearance, are the same basic concept as the likes of Road Rage and Tigertrack — "Transformers versions" of existing Diaclone toys and decoes. It helps that [[Spin-Out (G1)]] inherently blurs the lines, having first appeared as a "normal" Transformer ''before'' he was portrayed as a former Diaclone mech.

For the GoBots characters, I'd frankly be tempted to go even more radical and just merge ''all'' of them — put all the [[Cy-Kill (disambiguation)|Cy-Kill]] cameos on one page, like we do for other external property characters. Even in the edge cases like [[Fracture (Movie)|Fracture]], there's the precedent of her actually being intended as just ''being'' the GoBot. It feels a lot simpler to me than the headache of having Bug Bite, the white Bumblebee who appeared in G1 stories, and Bug Bite, the ''other'' white Bumblebee who appeared in G1 stories, having separate pages on a technicality. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 19:57, 29 July 2022 (EDT)
:Hard disagree on GoBots. By virtue of covering the Scioli comic in full, we have a GoBots continuity family to put them in. I say keep the ones who are explicitly GoBots at (GoBots), and put the ones who are Transformers (or ambiguous) at their respective continuity families. Basically, what we're doing for Bug Bite, do for all of them. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 20:23, 29 July 2022 (EDT)
:I don't agree on movie-Fracture in specific and the mass-merge of ''all'' GoBots-based characters in general. Fracture's a movie-universe character who premiered in a movie-based toyline and appeared in movie-timeline fiction. "The toy was originally conceived as" holds very little water there in light of all the rest of that. I'm not wild about merging characters from different continuity families (aka "major franchise umbrellas", the point of that divide was always less "fiction-detail based" and more "real-world Hasbro/Takara starting over based" as an organizational tool), as that leans heavily towards the Wikipedia style "just lump 'em all together" manner that... doesn't really work for our scope. There's SG Bug Bite and Crasher too, I don't think they should go under a giant singular page for the character concept.
: But ''in general'' I agree with keeping stuff like Lift-Ticket and Burn Out together because the distinction is really too nitpicky to be useful. If we get an EarthSpark Lift-Ticket who is a red Hoist-like bot, then they can go on a separate page because "new major franchise umbrella" gives a decent degree of separation. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 20:25, 29 July 2022 (EDT)
:: Oh, well, the SG GoBots are an obvious exception. If it's a "mirror universe" I feel like it should never share a page because the point is that it's the opposite.
:: That said, there are other nuances I admit I skimmed over — stuff like Wings Universe Cop-Tur, who's based on the original but is a secret genius and a good guy, I'm not sure he should be merged in. At the same time, though, splitting the Bug Bites feels disingenuous, and I'm not sure whether there's a good middle ground between "split 'em all" and "merge 'em all". --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 20:44, 29 July 2022 (EDT)
:::I also agree there isn't really a good middle ground. But here's the thing: If GoBots wasn't a factor and it was just G1 and Cyberverse, we wouldn't be having this conversation. At the end of the day, they're from another IP, but they're also genuine Transformers characters, and thus they should remain split like other Transformers characters. And that includes treating the genuine GoBot incarnations as separate entities. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 20:51, 29 July 2022 (EDT)
:::I am, honestly, not sold either way on splitting/merging re: the "very distinctly the Tonka GoBots who originated from the Tonka GoBots franchise". I feel that there are '''''definitely''''' some bots that should not be merged with the Tonkas, by virtue of being from different continuity-families/hub-franchises (bots from the live action movies and Cyberverse, for example, should really stay separate). I'm less concerned about "in-fiction origin" because that's a clusterfuck all its own since 1984 best just left alone and we already disregard that for like Nebulans and stuff anyway, though I'd also argue that like, it should be taken into consideration the diff between an homage and an iteration (I'd argue ''Timelines'' Cop-Tur is the former and probably shouldn't be merged). But even just looking at them from the real-world staggered integration of the franchises, GoBots ARE a weird edge case (whaaat, something Scioli was involved in got weird? ''nnnoooOOOOOooooo'') and it kinda feels off to not treat them as a separate thing given their ultimate origins. But like, they are, functionally, "G1" characters as far as "how they were brought to TF" goes in the real world, and I'm not convinced that splitting out WFC Bug Bite is really a good idea or terribly helpful. So like, I dunno. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 02:06, 30 July 2022 (EDT)
::::And then there's the ''very'' unique case of GoBots Stretch having been given a retroactive backstory of being born in the world of Transformers Animated before he crossed dimensions and became a GoBot. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 02:23, 30 July 2022 (EDT)
:::::If anything, Stretch is a Transformer pretending to be a GoBot.
:::::The criteria that keep this wiki running and readable have always had some smudgy bits, and if you stare too long at any of them pretty soon all one sees is the smudge, not the dividing line or even the story itself. Cyberverse and Prime are each ''basically'' a retelling of G1, and if they didn't have a few features we've accepted as clear dividers from "real" G1, they could have gone within G1 just as much as the IDW comics have. The divisions are necessary to keep information from being a useless, unstructured, unnavigable mess; hopefully we can draw the lines in a way that comes to require the fewest exceptions later. '''My thoughts''': when there's a Bug Bite whose origin is explicitly "I'm not a Transformer, I'm hiding among them, creatures like myself find Transformers to be nauseating uncanny valley aliens," then that's a pretty extreme division, more extreme than many others we've been holding up for years without controversy, and should stay very much separate from any other Bug Bites who are just plain ol' white car Transformers. The various Cy-Kill cameos in G1 and Armada should stay separate, just because that's how we handle other hi-and-die cameos across firm storyline borders (Animated Overlord, SG Krok). I agreed at first with splitting the Burnouts/Lift-Tickets, but if it is really causing a huge dilemma I do not object to re-merging them. Each pair exists within the G1 storytelling universe. It is not essential that we build 2 different pages for G1 universe Lift-Tickets where one of them is a Diaclone mech and the other looks just like it and comes from someplace called Diaclone. We could paper that over with a "Note" explanation. The really important part is that both the Burn-Out and Lift-Ticket cases must get the same resolution. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 05:10, 30 July 2022 (EDT)
:I vote for split. I regret ever pushing for merging similar concepts around the time of ''Ask Vector Prime'' because a decade ago this wouldn't have been a question, it would have been settled with "obvious they're different characters." [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 20:38, 29 July 2022 (EDT)
:Strongly in favor of putting the Diaclones back together so long as they remain essentially G1 guys. Especially since we now have ''two nigh-identical Burn-Out pages that differ only by which sliver of fiction section they possess''. Moderately in favor of putting all the dumb Cy-Kill cameos together because, like, it's only moderately funny to split out Cy-Kill (Armada) on a technicality. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] ([[User talk:ItsWalky|talk]]) 20:47, 29 July 2022 (EDT)
:: I'm going to stay out of the Bugbite / Fracture question. I'm too involved on the creative side. I think Walky nails it about Burn-Out & Lift-Ticket. And probably the Cy-Kill cameos too. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] ([[User talk:Jimsorenson|talk]]) 21:11, 29 July 2022 (EDT)

:I have to ask: if this is a concern, why did we split out the Cloud articles a month ago. Because they also are clearly designed to look like G1 characters, and aside from some minor changes in personality and dimension hopping stuff (which also applies to these three examples here), are near-identical in fiction to their Generation 1 counterparts. What makes them different from Bug Bite, Burn Out, and Lift-Ticket? [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 11:29, 30 July 2022 (EDT)
::Lead Cloud translator here. As we discussed in-depth at the time, the Cloud characters do nothing *but* dimension hop and frequently cross over with the Japanese Generation 1 cartoon continuity and their own G1 incarnations, rendering them nigh unintelligible when buried in A-list G1 articles. The Cloud issue was one of logistics and readability, not one on the philosophy of intrinsic "G1-ness," as I believe was said at the time. I would also argue something on the scale of Cloud is a different discussion entirely from the current topic of merging two one-paragraph articles. 

::On a most practical level re-merging a thoroughly deliberated and reasonably large scale split from a couple months ago just strikes me as kind of a waste of community resources.

::For those that missed it the impetus was translating the other 80-90% of the prose and the discussion can be found [[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal#Splitting_Cloud_characters|here]]. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 11:40, 30 July 2022 (EDT)

Had a brainwave about a potential way to handle the GoBots characters—as a compromise between "treating them like full Transformers characters" and "treating them like external properties", use the GoBots page as a "hub" for the others. I've mocked up a couple of sandboxes for [[User:Riptide/Sandbox:Cy-Kill|Cy-Kill]] and [[User:Riptide/Sandbox:Bug Bite|Bug Bite]]. Any thoughts? --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 19:16, 31 July 2022 (EDT)
:If we absolutely have to (which I still really don't agree with) I'd prefer this over full fledged merging. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 20:02, 31 July 2022 (EDT)
:I think this is a good compromise. The important thing is that there's a clear delineation between the dimension-hopping GoBots and native Cybertronians, and I think this fits the bill. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 20:03, 31 July 2022 (EDT)
::I still don't like the idea of rolling in the ''Cyberverse'' Bug Bite or any other not-G1-franchise iterations on the GB character concepts (like movieverse Fracture), even in the proposed super-abridged-and-linked-to-main-article format. For the appearances within the franchise of TF-origin, sure, I think this works. Cy-Kill's multiverse of murder... ehn. I'm not really feeling strongly either way but like we got hi-then-die charcater micropages aplenty, I don't think Cy is something terribly unique to not get them. Like... we got a page for "the many deaths of Optimus Prime", I feel like "the many deaths of Cy-Kill" could probably stand to be its own thing if we REALLY wanted to hammer the point of how stupid and hack it is home. Which, come to think about it, I kinda DO. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 20:42, 31 July 2022 (EDT)
:::Ah, see, Fracture was something I was specifically thinking of here — I thought it would work to accomodate both the original intent and how she's been tied back to Crasher in <s>Jim's nonsense</s> fan-targeted media while still respecting the practical reality of Fracture as her own, movieverse character. That said, I do understand your reluctance, so if the majority is against this I'm not too fussed. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 11:22, 1 August 2022 (EDT)
:::Yeah, it feels like "Bug Bite, the white Bumblebee" is its own Transformers thing at this point. He may have originated as a GoBots transplant (both in real life and in fiction), but that doesn't automatically make every iteration of Bug Bite a GoBot, any more than every subsequent iteration of Lockdown or Lugnut is considered an Animated character. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 04:34, 1 August 2022 (EDT)
::::I appreciate the work Riptide put into this and like the writing / presentation style employed... and I just still don't think it's necessary. Between disambigs and "You Look Familiar...", we already have ways to cope with characters who look alike across different continuities but who aren't the same character. Most of these transplanted GoBots are absolutely not the same characters as each other - most of the Cy-Kill cameos, Cyberverse Bug Bite. There is no need for us to build a new way to unite those cross-continuity characters when nothing unites them more than the "basic concepts" that we've kept separate on hundreds of other name / appearance reuses. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 08:43, 1 August 2022 (EDT)
::I adore this brain blast, over and above what I proposed below (as it actually accommodates, in Cy-Kill's case, say, the ''Armada/TransTech/Animated'' cameos), and think the fact that people on both sides of this polarising issue aren't immediately opposed to it makes it strike me as a really good compromise. I still would prefer the ''Diaclone'' pages to be merged with their G1 counterparts, but whether or not it's a full merge or just the "main article" structure here, the intro phrasing proposed with Cy-Kill and Bug-Bite is perfect in my opinion. The key thing for me is that, when people look up info on Cy-Kill or Burn Out, they still find a pointer to the relevant information at the exact point they'd expect it to be, and not only that, but they can chart the entire conceptual history of the character on one page (I know the disambigs theoretically do the same, but in practise Jo's approach is much more effective). Assuming the same policy isn't applied to ''Uprising'' appearances, I still think something should be done about those—but otherwise I'd be very happy with this. —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 06:16, 1 August 2022 (EDT)

So as I understand it, the consensus is that Diaclone characters should share a page with their G1 counterparts, and that — at least for the moment — GoBot characters should be left as-is, with White Bumblebee's G1 adventures split between the GoBot and G1 pages? Would appreciate some more input before we begin implementing this. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 19:09, 2 August 2022 (EDT)
:I still don't like the Diaclone thing but clearly I'm outvoted. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 19:48, 2 August 2022 (EDT)
:More or less. I'm fine with rolling G1 WFC Bug Bite in with the explicitly-GoBots one in the manner test-bedded above on the same grounds as the whole "Nebulan/Cybertronian" deal with Targetmaster gun-bots we've done forever; I think the proposed format both works with the way we've handled disparate depictions between different fictions within the same franchise chunk for a very long time now while noting the important real-world issues with these transplanted characters. And it's not like the combo page would be anywhere near big enough to make a split-out necessary. But I'm willing to table that for the moment while moving ahead with rolling the Diaclones back in. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 20:15, 2 August 2022 (EDT)
::I agree with this completely. —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 08:11, 3 August 2022 (EDT)
:Diaclone characters should share pages with G1 counterparts who are also canonically said to be Diaclone-y. If we ever get a "Gobots Universe Bug Bite" that would be merged too - but just "white car Bug Bite" should not. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 07:21, 3 August 2022 (EDT)

==Proposal re: G1 pages==
I'm not expecting anything other than a hard "no" on this from the vast majority of editors, but a few people impelled me to post it, so here goes. In particular, I think this perspective is one held by many casual readers of the wiki. As I said over on [[Talk:Burn Out (Diaclone)|Burn Out's talk page]], I think both camps feel a sense of "''obviously'' these are (not) the same character", depending on whether they're coming from a strictly in-universe perspective or not. I want to put that whole discussion into an even broader perspective. Plus, I think the list of characters below is an interesting resource in its own right.

For ages, the wiki's had it so G1 appearances of characters originating in ''Robots in Disguise''—such as [[Sky-Byte (RID)]]—just get put on those pages. My understanding is that RID was considered something of a special case, because of how it was originally conceived as an in-continuity G1 thing, and remained such in Japanese continuity. For a less-prominent example, see also ''[[Power Core Combiners]]'', which similarly lists the IDW G1 appearances of [[Smolder (PCC)]] and [[Steamhammer (PCC)]] just on those pages. Again, this was a special case, because PCC was never concretely established as being a live-action movieverse thing or a G1 thing (which makes sense, because in Hasbro's eyes at the time, that wasn't a distinction that mattered to them).

There are other areas on the wiki that take a continuity-agnostic approach; I think it's just character pages that are handled so strictly. Check out [[Noisemaze Mass Production Type Version]]—which honestly ''is'' a character page in every way that matters—for a recently-made-relevant-again example. For many bigger-picture concept pages, a similar approach is used to great effect: [[Transformation]], [[Scanning]], [[Energon]], [[Protoform]], [[Spark]], [[Living metal]], [[Mini-Con]], [[Energon mutation]], just to grab a few random examples.

To draw attention to one last point, which I predict will resonate a lot with people who already agree with me and not at all with people who don't: any and all ''Beast Wars'' or ''Beast Machines'' original characters are exempt from this issue—despite, on a real-world level, there not really being any difference between those franchises and the likes of ''Armada'' or ''Animated''. It's just the lore connection that keeps it tethered, despite the wiki treating it as its ''own'' continuity family in basically every other way that matters.

My specific proposal is this: '''for characters originating ''outside of G1'', don't keep separate G1 pages.''' Treat those characters as we do Sky-Byte, ignoring the "continuity family" divide, and put the appearances on the page where they're most relevant. Here are the salient benefits of this approach:
*Have all the information on many popular post-G1 characters in the place where most casual readers would expect to look.
*Cut the Gordian knot of the GoBots/Diaclone debate.
*Finally ditch all those (BWU) pages consisting of a single sentence and a duplicated toy entry.
*Fewer redundant toy writeups which need to be maintained in parallel.
*Far, far fewer awkward paragraphs in Notes sections talking about "continuity transplants" like those are a real thing.

Here is a list of pages which I think would be affected, sorted by continuity, just from an hour or so of searching:
*'''''Diaclone''''': [[Lift-Ticket (Diaclone)]], [[Burn Out (Diaclone)]]
*'''''GoBots''''': [[Bug Bite (G1)]], [[Crasher (G1)]], [[Cy-Kill (G1)]], [[Leader-1 (G1)]], [[Rest-Q (G1)]], [[Cop-Tur (G1)]] (!)
*'''''Armada''''': [[Hot Shot (G1)]], [[Red Alert (IDW)]], [[Demolisher (G1)]], [[Tidal Wave (G1)]], [[Sideways (RM)]] (!), [[Treadshot (IDW)]]
*'''''Energon''''': [[Steam Hammer]], [[Doom-Lock (BWU)]], [[Avalon (BWU)]]
*'''''Cybertron''''': [[Override (BWU)]], [[Ransack (IDW)]], [[Wing Saber (BWU)]], [[Cannonball (G1)]], [[Signal Lancer (G1)]], [[Shortround (BWU)]]
*'''Movies''': [[Barricade (IDW)]], [[Black-Out]], [[Reckage]], [[Hatchet (BWU)]], [[Breacher (G1)]], [[Terradive (G1)]], [[Hailstorm (G1)]], [[Skipjack (BWU)]], [[Sea Spray (BWU)]], [[Fearswoop (BWU)]], [[Depthcharge (BWU)]], [[Rav (BWU)]], [[Evac (BWU)]], [[Drydock (BWU)]], [[Photon (BWU)]]
*'''''Animated''''': [[Bulkhead (G1)]] (!), [[Lugnut (TF 2010)]], [[Lockdown (G1)]], [[Slipstream (G1)]] (!), [[Oil Slick (G1)]], [[Lightbright (G1)]], [[Lickety-Split (G1)]]
*'''''TransTech''''': [[Ego (BWU)]]
*'''''War for Cybertron''''': [[Contrail (BWU)]], [[Sigil (BWU)]], [[Halogen (G1)]], [[Gauntlet (BWU)]]
*'''''Prime''''': [[Knock Out (G1)]], [[Breakdown (IDW)]], [[Airachnid (G1)]], [[Predaking (Kingdom)]], [[Ser-Ket (BWU)]], [[Rot Gut (BWU)]], [[Twinstrike (BWU)]], [[Gaidora (BWU)]], [[Budora (BWU)]], [[Darksteel (BWU)]], [[Vertebreak (BWU)]], [[Grimwing (BWU)]], [[Blackbeak (BWU)]], [[Judora (BWU)]]
*'''''Rescue Bots''''': [[Medix (G1)]]
*'''''Robots in Disguise''''': [[Strongarm (G1)]], [[Thunderhoof (BWU)]], [[Bisk (BWU)]], [[Paralon (BWU)]], [[Quillfire (BWU)]], [[Scatterspike (G1)]], [[Ped (BWU)]], [[Psychobat (BWU)]], [[Headlock (G1)]], [[Springload (BWU)]], [[Transit (G1)]], [[Fracture (Cybertron)]], [[Snitch (BWU)]], [[Razorgrille (BWU)]]
*'''''Cyberverse''''': [[Shadow Striker (G1)]], [[Croaton (G1)]], [[Meteorfire (G1)]], [[Wildwheel (G1)]]
*'''''Transformers Online''''': [[Doomwings (G1)]], [[Ursa Major (G1)]], [[Astral Knight (BWU)]], [[Psychic Shortstop (BWU)]], [[Wrath Thunder (BWU)]], [[Deep Blue (BWU)]]
*'''Mini-Cons''': (deep breath) [[Synapse (BWU)]], [[Black Out]], [[Twirl (G1)]], [[Steamhammer (BWU)]], [[Sky Blast (G1)]], [[Sureshock (G1)]], [[Flat-Out (BWU)]], [[Six-Speed (BWU)]], [[Zapmaster (BWU)]], [[Crumplezone (BWU)]], [[Cannon (BWU)]], [[Bulge (BWU)]], [[Bomb (BWU)]], [[Shot (BWU)]], [[Crack (BWU)]], [[Thunderblast (BWU)]], [[Wreckage (BWU)]], [[Bonecrusher (BWU)]], [[Broadside (BWU)]], [[Tankor (BWU)]], [[Caliburn (BWU)]], [[Torque (BWU)]], [[Bilge (BWU)]], [[Search (BWU)]], [[Refute (BWU)]], [[Kingbolt (BWU)]], [[Starcatcher (BWU)]], [[Clench (BWU)]], [[Run-Over (BWU)]], [[Deepdive (BWU)]], [[Astro-Sinker (BWU)]], [[Snow Cat (BWU)]], [[Draft (BWU)]], [[Screw (BWU)]], [[Aston (BWU)]] (deep sigh)
*'''Other''': [[Terrastar (BWU)]], [[Hyperborea (BWU)]], [[Alchemor (BWU)]], [[Minion of Unicron (BWU)]]
I assuredly missed some, so feel free to edit the lists above to add any other characters that would be affected by this proposal which are omitted!

Again, the vast majority of these are from ''Beast Wars Uprising'', which does have some weird lingering cases that would need further individual discussion, I think: [[Clobber (BWU)]], [[Apex (BWU)]], [[Offshoot (BWU)]], [[Cybaxx (BWU)]], [[Overbite (BWU)]], and [[Terrorcon (BWU)]]. But for the most part, I really don't see any reason why there should be all these tiny nothing pages; the only reason all those Mini-Cons were not called Mini-Cons is that in the ''Uprising'' universe, Mini-Cons are called Micromasters instead (which is the lore equivalent of "[[Barricade (G1)]] doesn't look like he's made of knives"). This is even ''less'' an irreconcilable lore detail than, for example, the organic/robotic split for Targetmasters and the like. My main goal with sharing this is to revisit the ''Uprising'' policy, because from where I'm sitting, it's resulted in exactly the same horribly inconvenient setup as the ''Diaclone'' stuff. A different, specific policy there would deal with most of the examples above, and I'd be very happy; what I've suggested is just a one-size-fits-all policy.

The weirdest victim of this stated policy, I think, is that of [[Bulkhead (G1)]], who technically originated with Animated, but whose appearances in G1 media have all drawn specifically from the ''Prime'' version. [[Slipstream (G1)]] is in a similar situation. I guess my proposal here would be to actually split the G1 content across the various pages: [[Slipstream (Animated)]], [[Slipstream (WFC)]] and [[Slipstream (Cyberverse)]], depending on which specific version is being depicted. That means all of the Bulkhead appearances would actually go on the ''Prime'' page. I really don't feel strongly on this detail, though. [[Cop-Tur (G1)]], as mentioned in the above discussion, is another edge case. One more strange case ''not'' listed above is that of [[Emissary (IDW)]], who homages the ''Robots in Disguise'' character but genuinely has what I'd consider to be a radically different portrayal, likely inspired as much by the ''Titans Return'' figure as anything.

To be clear, I consider G1 a special case because of how it's a catch-all label for anything that isn't Hasbro's newest ground-up reboot du jour. Like it or not, G1 usually doesn't actually mean "G1" any more, it just means ''Transformers''. I absolutely wouldn't want to start merging anything from other continuity families—that way pure madness lies. But I think this proposal has clear-cut criteria for inclusion, and would feel more consistent with other areas of existing wiki policy. To give a specific, relevant example: I don't think [[Fracture (Movie)]]'s appearances should be folded onto her merged ''GoBots'' page as some have suggested, ''but'' I do think her toy writeup should be on both without any "blah blah repurposed" hedging, and likewise for the other movieverse characters based on redecos designed by [[Joe Kyde]] contemporaneously with Classics and Universe with specific G1 characters (mostly Micromasters) in mind, some of which were even intended to be released as part of the ''Universe'' toyline. These being: [[Fracture (Movie)]], [[Big Daddy (Movie)]], [[Jolt (Movie)]], [[Grindcore (Movie)]], [[Breakaway (Movie)]], and [[Crankcase (Movie)]]. [[Mudflap (Movie)]] and [[Inferno (Movie)]] are basically the exact same but nobody ever talks about that.

Finally, I think [[Gigatron (G1)]]/[[Overlord (G1)]], [[Zaptrap]]/[[Kuwagatrer]], and [[Rotorbolt (Timelines)]]/[[Skyklik]]/[[Fumes]] should prrrooobably be revisited? In the former two cases, they exist due to niche media establishing them as separate individuals within the same continuity, but we already have precedent for dealing with that—see [[Hot Shot (G1)]]. I will concede that the Rotorbolt situation is quite funny.

I understand that the wiki is structured the way it is for good reasons, but the post-[[Evergreen]] state of the franchise is one where most writers are plucking characters from anywhere in the franchise's history without any significant changes to their depiction. The existing policy will only become more cumbersome as time goes on, in my eyes—I know for many editors, the list of pages above is a horrible scary list of Exceptions, but from where I'm sitting, they feel more like exceptions as they already stand? —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 07:25, 30 July 2022 (EDT)
:As someone who is basically sympathetic to your goals and not knee-jerk opposed to the idea, this:
:::"Slipstream (G1) is in a similar situation. I guess my proposal here would be to actually split the G1 content across the various pages: Slipstream (Animated), Slipstream (WFC) and Slipstream (Cyberverse), depending on which specific version is being depicted."
:is the worst thing I've ever read. Just, why? --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] ([[User talk:Jimsorenson|talk]]) 08:14, 30 July 2022 (EDT)
::I was mostly being glib, I don't have a good answer there! Just wanted to draw attention to the fact that it ''would'' be a problem with the proposal. It's also been pointed out that all of [[Lockdown (G1)|Lockdown]]'s appearances are visually based on the ''Revenge of the Fallen'' toy! —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 08:56, 30 July 2022 (EDT)

:Absolutely not. There's so much here that's based on false assumptions/incorrect information that I absolutely refuse to take any of this seriously. Concepts are on the same page because they are just that: concepts. There's so much to pick apart here but because I have important things to do, I'll just say that right now, the only reason why there was ''ever'' any confusion over Power Core Combiners is because fans took behind the scenes information from the company overly literally. You actually look at the one piece of information about the toyline (the brief history provided directly by Hasbro the club) and it makes it abundantly clear that it was always meant to be movieverse; I even argued back at the time about Smoulder and Steamhammer being put on that page, and the only reason why it's still that way is because the argument just fizzled out. And once again, I really have to ask: why the hell are we pushing forward merges based on "vibes" when we still keep the Sideways' (someone who is actually said in fiction to all be the same guy) apart based on moronic, petty reasons? [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 09:01, 30 July 2022 (EDT)

:Yeah, no, sorry, I think this is ultimately unhelpful and going to cause more accessibility issues than it solves. "The wiki sorts the brand into broad franchise-based chunks (G1/BW, UT, movie, etc), and characters are split up by which of those chunks they appeared in" is perhaps a little confusing to new readers, but it's ultimately fairly self-consistent and easy to navigate once you understand the basic concept; "The wiki sorts the brand into broad franchise-based chunks (G1/BW, UT, movie, etc), and characters are split up by which of those chunks they appeared in, with the exception of RID01 which shares its pages with G1, and any latter-day characters imported into G1, which go on the pages of their non-G1 incarnations" is very confusing and requires you to be deep in the sauce to understand which characters are and are not exceptions to the rule. I obviously think that flexibility of the system is a good thing — the RID/G1 merge, while less than ideal, is definitely the best way to solve a very unintuitive issue — but the more holes we poke in the tower the closer it comes to collapsing, if you catch my drift.
:Ultimately I think the occasional silliness of "Shadow Striker (G1) who is identical to Shadow Striker (Cyberverse)" and such is the price we pay for having any structure whatsoever. The more we make exceptions on the basis of ultimately arbitrary "well this one's SO similar" the less consistent the wiki overall gets, and the harder it gets to navigate. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 09:40, 30 July 2022 (EDT)
::Basically, this. And I don't even think that drawing the franchise-based chunk distinction is all that confusing given I think most people grok the idea that characters will pop up across sub-fictions of major multi-media franchises with varying levels of similarity to prior incarnations that are still "oh, it's a wholly separate storyline, okay". That's just how these things ''do''. (and like "multiverse" has kinda become a ''thing'' in other franchises the last several years) --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 10:00, 30 July 2022 (EDT)

:"We've always put RID guys appearing in G1 as still being the RID character, look at Sky Byte" - what other examples make this an "always"? There WERE two Sky Byte pages, for years. We only stopped having a Sky-Byte (G2) when its character model in the IDW G1 comic was explicitly based off the new T30 toy sculpt which wound up with like half of these separate articles duplicating each other. It was argued on that talk page for a long while. The only other case I can think of at all is Gigatron (G1), and we ''don't'' treat him like Megatron (RID).
:"We treat BW as a continuity family like Armada, it looks like we are showing favoritism to them" - we treat it like a franchise within G1, which is what it is. And we disambig by franchise, not by continuity family. "Chase (RB)", not "Chase (Aligned)" or "Chase (Prime)". This was one of the concerns I raised last year when we turned Victory, Masterforce et al into G1 because they had no separate box branding of their own, wait it turned out they did, welp whattaya gonna do, no backsies.
:'''Last but MOST''', I'd say that, yes, "lore connections" mean a great deal here, it is a feature not a bug. This is a fiction-centric wiki as surely as it's an English-centric one. We put character writeups first, above the toys. We give the toys the character names and say "his stickers", not "its stickers" and talk about how it represents the character, not about how many micrograms of silicon it contains. Separating characters because they come from different storyline eras / offerings is entirely normal and reasonable for us. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 09:43, 30 July 2022 (EDT)
::I don't disagree in general, but G1/IDW Gigatron DOES share a page with RID Megatron. [[Gigatron (G1)]] is the Overlord repurpose. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 09:49, 30 July 2022 (EDT)
:::Oof. Don't know why I clearly remembered them as being separate, but in any case I regret the error. Thank you.--[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 10:14, 30 July 2022 (EDT)
There's no way to organize something like this place without something somewhere seeming arbitrary. I think the existing structure is arbitrary in the best way that makes the most sense, and trying to "mitigate" that arbitrariness just creates different arbitrariness. A lot of this "but what if we redid all this to fix this particular thing" shuffling just relitigates why we already do the stuff we already do. so, like: no --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] ([[User talk:ItsWalky|talk]]) 09:54, 30 July 2022 (EDT)

== The Discord ==

Alright, seriously, we need to talk about this. It is beyond frustrating that a greater than 50% chunk of discussion about what big edits will happen on the wiki are happening on an app that people either aren't on or (in my case) aren't allowed on. I was told it was going to just to get voices onto things but that clearly isn't how it's working out. We need either some sort of archival dump of all these posts or something because I'm tired of getting into arguments where half the responses haven't even happened on the main site itself. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 07:45, 17 August 2022 (EDT)
: I think you're drastically overestimating how much discussion about big edits is happening on the Discord. No actual big decisions are getting made there, and we make it a point to repeatedly remind people that discussion for major changes needs to happen here before anything gets decided. But we also can't stop anyone from simply talking about things there the same way we couldn't stop discussion on the AllSpark thread when that was a thing, and having a public log of discussions from the editing channel is both infeasible and frankly unnecessary. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 09:09, 17 August 2022 (EDT)

==Designer bylines on toy writeups==

As those of us who have been tuning in to the [[Hasbro Pulse#Livestreams|Hasbro Pulse livestreams]] have no doubt noticed, one side effect of the unprecedented transparency of the current team on the ''Generations'' franchise is that we are now pretty consistently being blasted with a fire hose of toy designer credits. While there's been a scramble to record them on the designers' pages as best we can, this rapidly growing body of information is not doing the average reader a whole lot of good sequestered away on pages that require them to already know the designers by name. As such, I've put together a template to act as a designer byline for relevant toy write-ups, largely following the formatting of our existing voice actor template.

Documentation for the prototype template which I've named '''<nowiki>{{toydesigner}}</nowiki>''' can be found here:

*[[:Template:Toydesigner]]

And a variety of examples of implementation can be found here:

*[[User:AzimuthAcolyte/Sandbox/Toy credits demo]]

Is this something we would be interested in implementing?

Questions, concerns, suggestions etc are welcome. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 13:33, 22 August 2022 (EDT)

:I support adding this template, it's valid information and helps put names and faces in a historically anonymous industry due to the lack of credits in the products themselves.
[[User:MrRald|MrRald]] ([[User talk:MrRald|talk]]) 13:38, 22 August 2022 (EDT)
::I think this is a great idea. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 13:52, 22 August 2022 (EDT)
:::I really like it. The only possible negative is that unless a whole bunch of people are very dedicated to this (or one brave soul is ''extremely'' dedicated to it) we might end up seeing it only appear on a small handful of toy entries and most will never feature it. I vote for going ahead with it regardless.
:::While we are addressing the "designer credits" issue, can we also please find a better phrase to use on the designer pages than "Toys So-and-so is known to have had a hand in creating"? It's just so overwrought. I think "Design Team Credits Include:" gets the point across much more naturally.... --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 13:54, 22 August 2022 (EDT)
::::This is a fair point. Maybe something as blunt as "Known Design Work" mirroring the "Published Works" thing we use for writers/artists? -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 11:17, 25 August 2022 (EDT)
:Looks good to me. Hope we can scrounge together sources and lists for older design teams too. —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 15:05, 22 August 2022 (EDT)
::I can't see any reason not to do this. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 16:05, 22 August 2022 (EDT)
:I'm not a toy person, but that looks really cool! --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 16:23, 22 August 2022 (EDT)
Oh wow, I'm blown away by the universally positive reception here! If there are no concerns in the next few days I guess I'll get started rolling this out. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 11:17, 25 August 2022 (EDT)
:Alrighty it's been a fair bit with no further concerns, so I have pushed the template live to [[:Template:Toydesigner]] and will begin implementing it as I have time. Any and all help is appreciated, as this will of course be a huge job. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 16:13, 29 August 2022 (EDT)

== Wiki Toy Photo Quality Standards ==
So we know (and had long suspected anyway) that Hasbro designers are sometimes pulling Wiki photos for reference. That's great, but we've got some toy photography on here that's a good bit off from what the figures look like in reality for one reason or another. Is there any way to flag shots that are out of whack so that they might get tweaked or replaced? This issue comes to mind since, while I've been here more or less since the Wiki started, I don't recall there being a formal set of standards for photos since it just wasn't really a big deal before now. Oversaturation is my main complaint, since one user a long while ago was going through, taking existing shots into Photoshop and oversaturating the hell out of them without regard to the actual toy, and I've noticed some updated photography like [[Prowl (Magnaboss)]] that does basically the same. It's a larger photo, but that Prowl is definitely not blazing yellow in person. Apologies in advance and please disregard if this has already been discussed elsewhere or before.--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG|talk]]) 16:10, 24 August 2022 (EDT)
:For the record, my lighting set up is very warm, hence why Prowl's colours appear so bright. I haven't figured out the right balance in Photoshop to get the colours of figures to look spot on so figures either appear too bright or too dull in the finished product. -- [[User:Fanofcoolstuff27|Fanofcoolstuff27]] ([[User talk:Fanofcoolstuff27|talk]]) 17:30, 24 August 2022 (EDT)
::Oh, I'm not intending to put you on the spot, that's just the first example I had on hand of a wider issue that we probably need to start being careful about since it appears to be (hilariously) affecting actual figures now, like Titans Return PMOP or Legacy Iguanus. When it was the one guy tweaking things to be inaccurate "because it looked better", I could follow him and revert stuff, but I can't when there's nothing to revert in most cases.--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG|talk]]) 18:38, 24 August 2022 (EDT)
::I recommend ring lights, you can get some pretty cheap, they've good at spreading light out rather than heavy-focus, and they have adjustable brightness and warm/cool light settings: use "cool" (aka white/blue-tinted). Even before I got ring lights, I used "cool" light bulbs in the lamps. The problem is these are nowhere as common as the "normal" yellow-tinted bulbs, thus, go with the ring lights.
::As for "standards"... well, good luck with that. Every camera's a little different. Every MONITOR is a little different. Hell, I have a double-monitor setup with different models and they have small but distinct differences in brightness & etc; honestly I'm good with it since it lets me check how things may look to different people. But I think maybe a tag for photos that we are CERTAIN are too far off from final product (be they user-made or stock images) may not be a bad idea. Assuming we notice. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 22:44, 24 August 2022 (EDT)
:::Yeah, a tag we can throw on to a photo just to make it at least visible that it's incorrect would be useful. And would probably prompt a deco designer to gather some secondary reference material, assuming the tag's obvious. I like the idea.--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG|talk]]) 16:29, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
:::I've noticed that the quality of the UT stuff in the toys section flunctuates greatly-- for example, ML Starscream still uses the guidebook picture, and Superlink ver of the combining Optimus downright doesn't exist. I've started to collect UT toys since Hasbro has been updating UT stuff with more commitment and I have 0 faith in them doing it right, and most of the stuff I've gotten are the JP versions. For minor alterations like ML/ Armada Megs, is it worth uploading a completely new picture of ML Megatron onto his page? Another issue worth regarding discussing is "cartoon accuracy". Whilst Hasbro is indeed working on making more accurate figures, they obviously aren't 100% accurate, like 86 starscream using the commonly accepted G1 logo instead of the sunbow accurate one with the spike in the middle, and even from a sculpt and proportional standppint the ER mold is far from accurate compared to the sunbow model, let alone MP52. I actually cleaned up the page for TM2 Megatron because he deviates pretty heavily if you compare the CG model to the final toy, and changed the claim that Skids is "toon" accurate as he is blantently based on the original toy in deco. The same goes for Starscream, aside from the forearms and forehead hes blatently based on the T30 toy. I also had to edit that bit --[[User: Pixelmaster|Pixelmaster]] 3:31 HKT

==Reconsolidating some of our pages==
This is something I've been thinking about for a while, but I'd like to propose re-merging some of our excessively split articles back into something more manageable. It seems like that once a page is split out, a) we get a lot less editorial oversight, as the recent toy page trimming has revealed, b), stuff does not get updated nearly as often as they would be on their respective mainpages, and c) it makes information harder to find by pushing it behind a subpage that's not readily accessible. 

Obviously I understand that splits are necessary for the really long pages like [[Optimus Prime (G1)]], [[Megatron (G1)]], and soforth, but when you get down to like, [[Mirage (G1)]] or [[Hound (G1)]] or [[Hot Shot (Armada)]], there's barely anything of any significance on their main pages beyond Dreamwave or the odd IDW cameo. Are, for instance, [[Ravage (G1)/Marvel Comics continuity|Ravage]]'s Marvel adventures that major that they can't fit into the main page? Are [[Hook (G1)/toys|Hook]] or [[Warpath (G1)#Toys|Warpath]] really that inundated with toys that they need their own subpage? If it's a problem of just ''length'', then a lot of the subpaged articles or mainpage stuff like the storybooks could just be trimmed down into something more manageable—as I did with G1 Cliffjumper's Marvel section earlier this year. [[User:Grum|Grum]] ([[User talk:Grum|talk]]) 17:00, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
:I 100% agree with this. --[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 17:04, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
: Fully in favour. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 17:20, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
: Sub-pages should, on their own, be significantly sizable pages to justify making readers link-jump. A dozen toys does not strike me as remotely enough to justify a subpage split. Being ''in'' a major long-running fiction but mostly having appearances in a minority of installments that can be summed up in two sentences doesn't justify a split. New editing tools are fun and all, but just 'cuz you gotta new hammer doesn't mean you have to go hunting for anything that looks vaguely nail-like. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 18:18, 29 August 2022 (EDT)

== Incoming maintenance ==

Just a heads up, our host is going to be doing some maintenance in about an hour that may cause problems with the site, so if you have trouble reaching it and therefore cannot read this message, that's what it is. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 00:11, 23 November 2022 (EST)

== Foreign names ==

A dispute came up recently on the [[Megatron (ES)]] page. User:Kiké Prime has been providing Hungarian names for all the characters, but this one apparently is just "Megatron". Cyberlink420 removed it. I disputed it, pointing out that not listing it leaves the implication that we do not know the name of the character in the language. Despite having my reversion again reverted, I still find deliberately leaving blanks in our name lists odd. I am thus bringing the matter here for further discussion. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 12:16, 5 December 2022 (EST)
:My understanding has always been that we only add foreign names if they are different from the English name. Per pages like [[Megatron (G1)]], this includes examples where the name is the same, but is spelled with a diacritic or using a different alphabet. So "Megatron" wouldn't be different enough to justify inclusion, but examples like Mégatron, Megatrón, Мегатрон and メガトロン would. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 13:10, 5 December 2022 (EST)

== Nonbinary Character Category ==

So, we now have another nonbinary character (who actually used their pronouns during the media no less), [[Nightshade (ES)|Nightshade]] from [[Transformers: EarthSpark (franchise)|Earthspark]] (Nightshade at time of posting doesn't have a page yet)! The other fully for certain fully intentional one is [[Screwball]] from [[Beast Wars: Uprising]] while [[Acid Storm (Cyberverse)|Acid Storm]] was at least an out of media by writer retcon of animation, and [[Overlord_(G1)#Ask_Vector_Prime|Overlord's]] gender is somewhat nebulous on where that fits beyond being gender expansive due to being [[Source:Ask Vector Prime/Facebook#December 23, 2015|"what some would call genderfluid"]] but that at least puts us at three. Given that we have a trans category now we thought it best to at this point suggestion a nonbinary category for the sake of users (including gender expansive people) easily finding nonbinary characters on here. Obviously adding Nightshade will have to wait until they have a page but any thoughts on this yea or nay? [[User:Causeway|Causeway]] ([[User talk:Causeway|talk]]) 18:28, 8 December 2022 (EST)
:I forgot about Screwball. I think with three confirmed examples, even without the edge case of Overlord, that's probably enough to justify one. Care will have to be taken, however, to only include confirmed examples and not use it as a dumping ground for any character whose gender has never been explicitly identified. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 18:37, 8 December 2022 (EST)
::Authorial intent and all, but I can say that if I had the option to go back and rewrite it I would have used the term non binary for Overlord. I feel like Acid Storm is more of an edge case; it’s what one person said on their account to justify it. Whenever Acid Storm actually says something they’re animated with a female face; it’s not done at random.[[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 18:47, 8 December 2022 (EST)
:::Acid Storm changes from masculine male to feminine female and back. Gender-fluid, sure, but definitely non-binary? As for Overlord, in the Legends manga Mega gives Overlord a female-presenting face - is there a pronoun change during that time? Would we have more candidates for inclusion in a Gender-fluid category first? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 20:17, 8 December 2022 (EST)
:::::Thank for the notes folks, that does help to piece this together! Just want to note that a pronoun change is not necessary for a gender being experienced in fluidity to be the one expressed or what have you, so unless the Legends manga actually has some sort of statement about Overlord's fluidity that kind of puts us back with an umbrella term of nonbinary (which we are unsure as not having read the Legends manga if that would work for that Overlord so we can't speak to where/if Overlord falls under gender expansiveness beyond the fact that Overlord's presentation changes depending on the binary bond partner right?). Acid Storm is an edge case yes but if we do count the edge case that they are we think it is worth noting that for Acid Storm what Catt said was specifically that changing expression is just something they do, and "any pronouns" work for Acid Storm, no statement about the binary. Of course, we only see two faces which are the two different Seeker faces that were otherwise delineated by gender, but at this point we're getting into the opt-in thing of 'x person is genderfluid and thus considers themself nonbinary' or 'z person is genderfluid and only considers themself as under the multigender umbrella'. Which we don't have detail on really if Acid Storm is genderfluid as how they know themselves right? Because that's just a thing that was written in the Female Transformers page because of (no blame being given, it's understandable) the user finding that to be the term that fit best? Feel like we've ended up just pointing out an need for just a gender expansive category instead but ah well. [[User:Causeway|Causeway]] ([[User talk:Causeway|talk]]) 21:46, 1 January 2023 (EST)
::::::We seem to have killed this with a non-solution for the nonbinary category by pointing out that gender expansive is more certain than saying genderfluid. If we count Nightshade, Overlord, and Screwball, is that a go on nonbinary, or should we just have a gender expansive category at this point that would also be one trans characters use? For people wondering what gender expansive means you can find a definition here https://www.diversitystyleguide.com/glossary/gender-expansive/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/08/gender-expansive-mean/ [[User:Causeway|Causeway]] ([[User talk:Causeway|talk]]) 23:18, 6 February 2023 (EST)
:::::::Respectfully, I think needing to invoke a glossary suggests the term is so little-used in common parlance that it would not be useful for our needs and style. We don't have a category tag at the bottom of a bunch of BW characters saying "tetrapods" or "perissodactyls" (we ''do'' talk like that on [[Popular beast alternate modes]], maybe a grouping ''page'' would be a better approach? Just a thought...). If we are looking for a category tag I think it would be better to find the term that unambiguously covers the largest number of candidates, without a need to rely on edge cases, maintaining both accuracy and readability. I see three characters that could sensibly go in a Gender-fluid tag, one that could go in a Non-binary tag (meaning we wouldn't make the latter). We may be facing a case where there are few enough disparate examples that there isn't one single category tag that usefully unites them. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 07:55, 7 February 2023 (EST)
::::::::With the most recent block of EarthSpark episodes having further explored Nightshade's character and introduced a new nonbinary character in the form of Sam (this also saw the term nonbinary used in the show for the first time), we have been discussing the topic of introducing a Nonbinary characters category on the Discord. Doing some research, AVP also confirmed the Tigerhawk of Primax 496.22 Alpha (the Beast Wars cartoon continuity) to be nonbinary, so that's another character to justify that category. It's been suggested by an expert on the matter that we could introduce a "Gender expansive characters" category as an umbrella category, with Genderfluid characters, Nonbinary characters, and Transgender characters existing as subcategories as a way of future-proofing our coverage of gender expansive characters, while also ensuring we don't lump every gender expansive character together into a single broad category and hopefully making these concepts easier to navigate for casual readers. - [[User:Archforce|Archforce]] ([[User talk:Archforce|talk]]) 17:26, 4 March 2023 (EST)
:::::::::In sequence you replied to my post of Feb 7 but seem to have side-stepped the part where I questioned the usefulness of a category tag that will not be widely understood. Also, creating such a category exactly ''is'' "lumping them all together into a single broad category." So is that approach desirable or not? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 17:43, 4 March 2023 (EST)
:::::::::: They said the word nonbinary in the show. In a show full of nonbinary rep. And then nonbinary characters exists outside of that show, and it would not be a dangerous bet to expect this to continue. But people are born with an innate understanding of what an Alpha Primax 9384u743 is, or Transmetals, or Powermasters, but not what a nonbinary person is so yeah maybe we are going too far on this website for nerds who want to learn more about things related to Transformers (like nonbinary characters). We have a category called council members. Literally for any character who has served on any council. I did not understand what "council members" actually refered to before I clicked on it, assumed it was more specific than it was, but in fact it took me two seconds to figure it out. A non-binary category and/or gender-expansive category would surely be the same. And as Archforce says, make these concepts easier to navigate. Or if that was too long, what Walky said. Seriously. You also appear to misunderstand what is meant by lumping together. Because putting all non-binary people in a non-binary category is accurate, and is something I and at least some others want, putting all non-binary people on a transgender page would be a misrepresentative "all of these are the same thing right?". Gender-expansive on the other hand comes from someone familiar with the matter, and as a non-binary person myself, as someone who has researched gender representation in media at an honours level (to flex some credentials that yeah I could be making up), I agree with what is being said on the Discord. Gender expansive as an umbrella provides the room to not lump everyone together while recognising yeah there is something shared in any act of gender that is not one of cisgender conformity. Having transgender and nonbinary characters on the same page while called out as two seperate subcategories I again think helps casual readers navigate based on this. [[User:Bumblebee2000|Bumblebee2000]] ([[User talk:Bumblebee2000|talk]]) 18:40, 4 March 2023 (EST)
::::::::::Not using the best useful terms because they're not understood by enough people is extremely self-defeating. I reject that line of thinking. (also, like, c'mon, the first complete article for this wiki was gaddang Robot-Master, not Optimus Prime, so I think we can say the words "gender expansive" even if someone hasn't heard of them) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] ([[User talk:ItsWalky|talk]]) 17:49, 4 March 2023 (EST)
:::::::::::Thank you all for the discussion! To clarify regarding aesthetics (because gender is aesthetics, we can give recommendations on stuff to read re that), the term gender expansive does not in fact cover everybody, merely all the bots we're talking about it in this instance and likely future unless we get canon transformers fiction that actually uses a variable alien aesthetic system that isn't gender but is something similar. To put this another way: not all human societies' aesthetic category concepts and formulation of individual and collective context for self such as pronouns, names, expressions, (to use Leslie Feinberg's words for navigating transness and gender itself, the 'poetics,' not just construction) etc. used or uses those in a way that neatly fits modern Western gender constructs with a large number of examples both from outside Europe and within it. In a similar vein some xeno aesthetic spectrum folks (like some of ourselves, and yes we're getting very obscure here the gender parallel is xenogender) and speculative fiction/sci-fi about aliens live or navigates the idea of aesthetic structures that are not gender at all but merely overlap or parallel. 
:::::::::::Transformers fiction has really only touched on the subject of the alien aspect of the bots' gender or lack thereof when trying to portray that something is there by e.g.; parallel with the embodying and living of their various modes such as when Lodestar speaks to having weapon retrofit dysphoria in the 2021 annual (yes, the 'embodying and living' is something we're borrowing from Gayle Salamon on how she frames gender), their unique histories, the December 23rd 2015 AVP gender answer having a note about continuities where the concept of gender is barely relevant, and possibly that time 'gal' got put in quotations (it's still unclear what Maggs meant by that but that's okay). So rest assured that while gender expansive is a broad category- it only future proofs us until alien terminology or narrative that is clearly shown in replacement of when gender would otherwise be used in a story actually happens in canon. Which would be incredibly exciting, but isn't where we are right now. [[User:Causeway|Causeway]] ([[User talk:Causeway|talk]]) 19:11, 4 March 2023 (EST)
:::::::::::But we are nonetheless at a special point in time in the transformations of transformers, that the categories genderfluid, nonbinary, and gender expansive would be useful for. <3 [[User:Causeway|Causeway]] ([[User talk:Causeway|talk]]) 19:15, 4 March 2023 (EST)
::::::::::::Gosh that felt good to dedicating an afternoon to doing, thank you for the help! We feel that [[Editor|Chief]] ought to be included in the gender expansive category, and given the entry regarding Tigerhawk that was mentioned here, Spittor arguably also could be [[Source:Ask_Vector_Prime/Facebook#May_23.2C_2015|"In some universes where Spittor scans an organic alternate mode, his biological system conforms to female while his Cybertronian gender identity is male."]]. Chief seems fairly obvious? RE Spittor where his situation could be argued to break down is the cybertronian understanding of gender maybe not matching gender and anatomy as framed by humans but then that in itself still qualifies. [[User:Causeway|Causeway]] ([[User talk:Causeway|talk]]) 20:32, 5 March 2023 (EST)
:::::::::::: *shrugs* maybe the latter re Spittor and similar situations is just something to note in an eventual article rather than to throw in the category itself [[User:Causeway|Causeway]] ([[User talk:Causeway|talk]]) 20:45, 5 March 2023 (EST)
:::::::::::::I'm gonna say that I'm for Editor while Spittor is ultimately a way of just saying that his alt-mode is a female frog even though he's male. Ala Tigatron in the cartoon, Waspinator, etc. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 20:57, 5 March 2023 (EST)
::::::::::::::Thank you, that helps clarify things! :3 [[User:Causeway|Causeway]] ([[User talk:Causeway|talk]]) 21:47, 5 March 2023 (EST)

== Adding an informative table to each character page ==
I was thinking about it since it's striking.. lack.. There should be a way to tell people in which and how many episodes/issues/movies each character appears in the continuity they belong to, their debut episode/issue movie, what aliases they have had and nicknames they were given by other characters, a more centered area for the voice or live actors, a link to their gallery pages(if they have any) and one to their disambiguation pages etc. The kind of information that one would prefer to find with greater ease, especially if they aren't members. And talking about their appearances, that should prove quite useful for future page edits, since we'll know exactly where to look especially when it's about latecomers or characters that don't appear on a regular basis. I just think it'd be useful. [[User:Darthrone|Darthrone]] ([[User talk:Darthrone|talk]]) 15:44, 2 February 2023 (EST)
:This kind of infobox was discussed at the very earliest days of this wiki, and it was decided that there was just way, way too much information for it to work... and this was in 2006, BEFORE the franchise exploded. TF is such a fragmented kludge of fictions from multiple sources and creators spanning 40 years that any major character would end up with one ultra-massive thing of dubious use (can't say I see the value in a "number of appearances" tally, aside from the headache of keeping that accurate over time and arguing "what counts"), or a billion splintered ones spread across the page for the different fictions. And "nicknames" is always a minefield as those tend to turn into a massive list of "someone called them this once" which is... not helpful. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 17:46, 2 February 2023 (EST)
::Even if it had been a day-1 thing, I don't see how this is more informative than our current style. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 17:58, 2 February 2023 (EST)
:::I'm for infoboxes, but the information you're asking for is far too abstract and meaningless in this franchise. (We are absolutely not doing "nicknames". No.) [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 18:09, 2 February 2023 (EST)

==The (BWU) tag==
I understand the reasons why [[#Proposal re: G1 pages|my previous proposal]] regarding the proliferation of (G1) pages for random newer characters was soundly rejected. However, my main motivation for raising it was that I find the huge quantity of (BWU) pages for "repurposed" Mini-Cons and bestial Transformers to be reader-unfriendly, so I wanted to make a case for making an exception for ''[[Beast Wars: Uprising]]'' cameos. ''Uprising'' was an obscure barely-canon multi-continuity-drifting web serial which we are very unlikely to get further instalments of, and most of the relevant characters are similarly very deep pulls who will assuredly not be appearing again in future stories, and who will otherwise be stuck with tiny stub-pages forever. Most of these are Mini-Cons (here Micromasters) or bestial Transformers (here Protoformers), with a few boats or Constructicons from "[[Derailment]]". In many cases, I perceive ''Uprising'' as having tried to give these toys a hint of fiction where previously they had none at all, much like [[Ask Vector Prime]] before it. It's a very different phenomenon to most so-called "continuity transplants" we've seen in other series (such as with, say, [[Hot Shot (G1)]]), which are instead rooted in the popularity of those characters.

I think the problem here is that strictly speaking ''Uprising'' is a "Primax" continuity, sure, but it lifts dozens of characters (let alone concepts) unchanged from later stories. Slavishly hewing to that label when it's such an intertextual melting pot has resulted in this unfriendly setup. It feels like a fair decision made at the time (was [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive64#Derailment & Uprising pages|this discussion]] the one?) but in my opinion the wiki's policy kinda fails here. If we get rid of the (BWU) tag, the (G1) back-ports remaining (a minority!) will be for more significant characters, often adapted more radically. Here's the list of tiny pages we could be rid of, just like that:

*'''''Energon''''': [[Steam Hammer]], [[Doom-Lock (BWU)]], [[Avalon (BWU)]]
*'''''Cybertron''''': [[Wing Saber (BWU)]], [[Shortround (BWU)]]
*'''Movies''': [[Reckage]], [[Hatchet (BWU)]], [[Skipjack (BWU)]], [[Sea Spray (BWU)]], [[Fearswoop (BWU)]], [[Depthcharge (BWU)]], [[Rav (BWU)]], [[Evac (BWU)]], [[Drydock (BWU)]], [[Photon (BWU)]]
*'''''TransTech''''': [[Ego (BWU)]]
*'''''War for Cybertron''''': [[Contrail (BWU)]], [[Sigil (BWU)]], [[Gauntlet (BWU)]]
*'''''Prime''''': [[Ser-Ket (BWU)]], [[Rot Gut (BWU)]], [[Twinstrike (BWU)]], [[Budora (BWU)]], [[Darksteel (BWU)]], [[Vertebreak (BWU)]], [[Grimwing (BWU)]], [[Blackbeak (BWU)]], [[Judora (BWU)]]
*'''''Robots in Disguise''''': [[Bisk (BWU)]], [[Paralon (BWU)]], [[Quillfire (BWU)]], [[Ped (BWU)]], [[Psychobat (BWU)]], [[Springload (BWU)]], [[Snitch (BWU)]], [[Razorgrille (BWU)]]
*'''''Transformers Online''''': [[Astral Knight (BWU)]], [[Psychic Shortstop (BWU)]], [[Wrath Thunder (BWU)]], [[Deep Blue (BWU)]]
*'''Mini-Cons''': [[Synapse (BWU)]], [[Black Out]], [[Steamhammer (BWU)]], [[Flat-Out (BWU)]], [[Six-Speed (BWU)]], [[Zapmaster (BWU)]], [[Crumplezone (BWU)]], [[Cannon (BWU)]], [[Bulge (BWU)]], [[Bomb (BWU)]], [[Shot (BWU)]], [[Crack (BWU)]], [[Thunderblast (BWU)]], [[Wreckage (BWU)]], [[Bonecrusher (BWU)]], [[Broadside (BWU)]], [[Tankor (BWU)]], [[Caliburn (BWU)]], [[Torque (BWU)]], [[Bilge (BWU)]], [[Search (BWU)]], [[Refute (BWU)]], [[Kingbolt (BWU)]], [[Starcatcher (BWU)]], [[Clench (BWU)]], [[Run-Over (BWU)]], [[Deepdive (BWU)]], [[Astro-Sinker (BWU)]], [[Snow Cat (BWU)]], [[Draft (BWU)]], [[Screw (BWU)]], [[Aston (BWU)]] (deep sigh)
*'''Other''': [[Terrastar (BWU)]], [[Hyperborea (BWU)]], [[Alchemor (BWU)]], [[Minion of Unicron (BWU)]]

There's a handful of ''Uprising'' characters that need a (G1) page anyway for non-''Uprising'' reasons; I'm totally ambivalent about where the ''Uprising'' content ends up for these: [[Tidal Wave (G1)]], [[Override (BWU)]] (!), [[Cannonball (G1)]], [[Black-Out]], [[Halogen (G1)]], [[Knock Out (G1)]], [[Gaidora (BWU)]], [[Strongarm (G1)]], [[Thunderhoof (BWU)]], [[Twirl (G1)]].

Finally there's a few weird cases that would merit individual discussion but would probably just need to keep their own pages: [[Clobber (BWU)]], [[Apex (BWU)]], [[Offshoot (BWU)]], [[Cybaxx (BWU)]], [[Overbite (BWU)]], and [[Terrorcon (BWU)]].

Here is a ([https://tfwiki.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=1&profile=all&search=%22from+the%22+%22continuity+families%22 probably non-exhaustive]) list of existing cases of multi-continuity drifting you should probably consider before weighing in:
* [[Buckethead]] (because of [[Source:Ask Vector Prime/Facebook#July 31, 2015|this Ask Vector Prime answer]])
* [[Drydock (TF 2010)]] (because of [[Source:Ask Vector Prime/Facebook#September 13, 2015|this answer]] which explicitly has him travel from one continuity to another)
* [[Drelnar Feh'd]] (because of [[Source:Ask Vector Prime/Facebook#September 17, 2015|this one]])
* [[Scorpia (G2)]], [[Autoceptor]], [[Deceptor]], and [[Kaltor]] (because of [[Source:Ask Vector Prime/Facebook#June 12, 2015|this one]])
* The [[Night Rescue Team]], [[Clear Skies Team]], [[Rapid Intervention Team]], [[Prehistoric Team]], [[Demolition Team]], [[Dirt Digger Team]], [[Heavy Load (Universe)]] and the [[Mobile Fortification Team]], and [[Detectas]] (because of [[Source:Ask Vector Prime/Facebook#September 28, 2015|this one]]).
**However, exceptions from these Mini-Con teams are [[Nightscream (Cybertron)|Nightscream]], [[Offshoot (Cybertron)|Offshoot]], [[Strongarm (Cybertron)|Strongarm]] and [[Knockdown (Cybertron)|Knockdown]], who all have separate (Cybertron) basis on the basis of receiving separate bios after being packed in with ''Cybertron'' Primus...
**...but then [[Liftor]] is all on a single page, despite his ''Classics'' bio.
**[[Snarl (Classics)|Snarl]], [[Sledge (Classics)|Sledge]], [[Wideload (Classics)|Wideload]], [[Knockdown (Classics)|Knockdown]], and [[Steel Wind]] already have ''Uprising'' content on their pages, but that makes sense as these were originally ''Classics'' guys.
* The [[Saurian Strike Team]] (because of [[Source:Ask Vector Prime/Facebook#September 28, 2015|this one]])
* The [[Minicon 8 Pack]] (because of [[Source:Ask Vector Prime/Facebook#July 24, 2015|this one]])
* The ''Dark of the Moon'' Mini-Cons [[Dualor (DOTM)]], [[Triceradon (DOTM)]], [[Rav (DOTM)]], and [[Catilla (DOTM)]], plus [[Ironlunge]], [[Reptix]], [[Sling (AOE)]], [[Gnashteeth]], [[Wedge Shape]], [[Brimstone (Universe)]], [[Apexus]], [[Gredator]], and [[Dragoyell]] (because of [[Source:Ask Vector Prime/Facebook#August 13, 2015|this one]])
** Weirdly, we ''separately'' have a page for [[Rav (BWU)]], but Catilla has Unicron Trilogy, movie, and ''Uprising'' appearances covered all on the one page!
* [[Galadria]] and [[Ramak]] (because of [[Source:Transformers: Spacewarp's Log#December 5, 2015|this post]])
* Am I to understand that [[Wind Sheer (RID)]], [[Skyfire (RID)]] and the [[Dimensional Patrol]] each have just a single page because (RID) ''is'' part of the G1 continuity family sometimes...?
* And I understand that [[Primus Vanguard]] cameos just go on their original pages because that's a weird thing kinda outside of G1 anyway (at least from an in-universe perspective, if not a real-world one).
* ''Diaclone'' examples like [[Burn Out (Diaclone)]], [[Lift-Ticket (Diaclone)]], and [[Chifumi Takahashi]] have been discussed to death.
* [[Monsterous]] was retconned to originally be from an Aligned universe (in [[Source:Ask Vector Prime/Guest column#October 21, 2015|this post]], though I can't actually find any mention of Uniend? EDIT: [[Source:Ask Vector Prime/Guest column#November 7, 2015|found it]]!)
* [[Primacron]] was apparently mentioned in ''[[Transformers Animated: The AllSpark Almanac II| The AllSpark Almanac II]]''.
* And [[Sentinel Supreme]] is just an Easter egg that everyone seemed to shrug about at the time.

To those who say the exception I'm proposing would be confusing, I submit these existing examples where we've apparently neglected to split something out as evidence that the only people this confuses are wiki editors like me wondering why they're not all that way. Maybe I'm just unaware of some aspect of the existing policy which accounts for all these cases? But is it really helpful to anyone to have a given toy's associated fiction squirrelled away somewhere separate you have to go into the disambiguation to find? We recently merged [[Chromhorn]] (another Sorenson job) on the basis that "There's literally no reason for these to be on different pages. They are the same thing." Can we not do the same for these Sorenson-penned cases that are basically going "look, the exact same guy shows up in multiple universes, alright?" And if the answer is no, will someone go through and split all these out? —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 18:27, 6 February 2023 (EST)

:I think my response to your earlier G1-import proposal still applies here: the more exceptions we make to our system for the sake of "accessibility", the harder the overall structure becomes to grok for a new reader, and thus ironically it all becomes ''less'' accessible. Why should ''Uprising'' Steel Jaw be at [[Steel Jaw]], but ''Uprising'' Bisk be at [[Bisk (RID)]]? Or, conversely, why should ''Uprising'' Steel Jaw be at [[Steeljaw (RID)]], but LBS Steeljaw be at [[Steel Jaw|Steeljaw (IDW)]]? Neither solution is good.
:As for the current list of exceptions, I'd argue everything you list from Buckethead to the DOTM Mini-Cons should probably be split. Galadria and Ramak are characters from outside media, so we don't split them across continuity lines. Wind Sheer and Skyfire have one page for consistency with the other RID guys. The source on Monsterous being Aligned is [[Source:Ask_Vector_Prime/Facebook#November_7.2C_2015|here]], but I would argue that's just giving an origin to the GoBot and so they should share a page anyway.
:Lastly - I object to you bringing the Chromhorn thing into this, as I don't think it's a fair comparison. Chromhorn wasn't making any exception to our categorisation system; it was one page saying "Chromhorn is a green variant of Insecticon from the UT" and another saying "Chromhorn Forest Type is a green variant of Insecticon from the UT", and the former was somehow a "repurposing" of the fictionless latter. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 20:24, 6 February 2023 (EST)
::Totally get the Steeljaw example—although it ''is'' crazy that we're currently disambiguating G1 wolf Steeljaw simply by [[Steel Jaw]]. You should post about the disambiguation tag policy change you suggested on Discord, I think a lot of people were thinking along similar lines there. Agree with your interpretation of the current policy as to which of the examples listed should be split and which shouldn't—although the more I think about the Primus Vanguard, the more I think those should technically be split too. While I guess the [[Time Warrior (AVP)|Time Warrior]]s are multiversal travellers like Drydock. RE: Chromhorn, I understand why it's technically different; I brought it up because I think it speaks to the tenor of ''Ask Vector Prime'' answers—in spirit, I think its aim was exactly the same as with the Mini-Con examples I've given.
::What do I mean by that? To match your Steeljaw example, from the opposite angle: say I'm your typical fan scrolling [[Transformers: Dark of the Moon (toyline)]], and I click on, say, [[Dualor (DOTM)]], wondering if he's ever shown up in anything. In their current state, I get my answer immediately. With the proposed split for consistency, I instead get a page telling me that Dualor (DOTM) is a dinosaur Mini-Con from ''Dark of the Moon'', some info about the toy, ''maybe'' ending with an inscrutable note about how he was "repurposed" as an identical guy. Now, there's ''already'' an unrelated [[Dualor (Armada)]], so we'd need to make a disambiguation page. We can see this already by looking at [[Snow Cat (Universe)]], which is barren (the very scenario AVP so often tried to address!), and doesn't even admit to the existence of [[Snow Cat (BWU)]] aside from a general Snow Cat disambiguation tag. In some existing cases like [[Steamhammer (BWU)]], we've mirrored a toy writeup, which needs upkeep in parallel; in others, like Snow Cat, we're asking the user to visit the other page to read about the toy ''anyway''. To my mind, this is inarguably less accessible. I don't understand arguments made about accessibility here which are predicated on readers having learned editing policy to begin with, and I don't think this proposal would actually make it any harder to learn the system.
::I regret not listing out all the individual members of those Mini-Con teams above, to better communicate the sheer number of pages that would need to be made (and pages that would need to be renamed, in case of conflicts) to create this inconvenience in service of a rule we've already been ignoring without issue. Nobody wants to do this work, and I think it's less that no-one cares, and more that some people think it'd actually make the wiki worse, and the rest don't particularly think it'd make the wiki better.
::What about just making an exception for Mini-Cons/Micromasters? I've talked about ''Uprising'', but obviously the vast majority of cases that theoretically need splitting aren't from ''Uprising'' at all. Could probably even do a generic template like "X exists in multiple continuity families, and is a Micromaster/Maximal/Predacon in those without Mini-Cons". Thus your Steeljaws and Bisks and Overrides go unchanged, no problems or ambiguity there! —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 17:09, 7 February 2023 (EST)
:Once upon a time, I probably would have pushed for something like this, but where we are now: I am not a fan of any push towards treating something differently based on how "relevant" something is or not. It goes against the very spirit this wiki was founded on, because that is what was happening to the Wikipedia coverage of Transformers where they were just getting rid of things wholesale because of "relevancy." I can understand the basic point behind this, but I feel that doing so would set a bad precedent that could be exploited in the future.
:I'd be fine with splitting most of these out. I've said it before elsewhere but by and large a lot of the inconsistencies were largely the result of different contributors adding stuff or splitting stuff without a general consensus, and they haven't been cleaned up afterwards. Also, a minor note, but the Liftor thing was mainly cause no one noticed at the time until I wrote up about the profile years after the fact. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 20:26, 6 February 2023 (EST)
::If I gave the impression "relevancy" was the main thrust of my argument here, I didn't mean to! Like, it goes both ways—would we be merging because ''Uprising'' is so irrelevant that we shouldn't devote all these random stub pages to it, ''or'' are we merging because it's sufficiently relevant that we shouldn't be hiding that content in stub pages nobody visits? Either is true! I'm arguing for convenience and clarity. —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 17:09, 7 February 2023 (EST)
::: This definitely feels like the strongest argument to the merge in my mind. The wiki is no stranger to niche pages, pages for nameless, fictionless, toyless nonentities. But I believe these fictionless toys and toyless fiction which are really the same thing would be a richer niche page for the merges. [[User:Bumblebee2000|Bumblebee2000]] ([[User talk:Bumblebee2000|talk]]) 20:36, 7 February 2023 (EST)
::: I really think that once again, this overrates the number of people who would be confused by this, and underrates the number of people who would be able to figure out where to go if they wish to find the information. Like, I hate to do the whole "I was able to figure it out" thing but I was a small child with a single-digit age when I first discovered the wiki and I was able to figure out pretty quick why it was laid out the way it was. I'm not saying there's no room for improvement; I think there's a lot of cases in which the way we have things set up now is kind of ridiculous. But in this particular case, I don't really see how merging things would be any more convenient than just leaving them the way they are and splitting out the cases that we never got around to. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (EST)

Just found some more pages that would need splitting under current policy: [[Crystal Widow]], [[Seawave]], [[Cradon]], [[Freefall (Kre-O)]], [[Liftoff]], and [[Epsilon Holdings]]. All due to ''Uprising'' and ''The Allspark Almanac''. Really hoping someone can propose a solution here that doesn't involve creating a billion pages and disambigs. --[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 09:24, 18 February 2023 (EST)
:We don't split businesses/locations/organizations, so Epsilon Holdings isn't one we need to consider. Kre-O doesn't really occupy a continuity family in our organization and I would just split the rest, especially Crystal Widow. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 09:28, 18 February 2023 (EST)

Noticed the ''[[Transformers: Earth Wars| Earth Wars]]'' stub templates on Mini-Con pages for [[Wheeljack Kunai]] and [[Bido]]. The game had previously added [[Gabu]], [[Zori]], [[Baru]], [[Bashbreaker]], [[Windstrike]], and [[Tricerashot]]. Following policy, these should ''all'' be split—see [[Giza (POTP)]] and [[Giza (Prime)]], although to be fair they're not the same animal at least. As always, I think the fiction for those toys should go on the pages for those toys. —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 12:39, 17 March 2023 (EDT)

Just finished going through documenting the preliminary bios for the [[Night Rescue Team]], [[Predator Attack Team]], and [[Mini-Con Council of Sages]], from when the ''Classics'' Mini-Cons were still going to be released as ''Cybertron'' two-packs, and it occurs to me that if ''all'' of those guys end up getting duplicate pages, the Unicron Trilogy pages would be where that information should probably end up. Right now it's all a bit of a mess, as some of those characters have (Cybertron) pages via the Primus bonus-pack-in, some don't, and others had their names changed from their would've-been ''Cybertron'' incarnations anyway. I've generally tried to stick to linking to the existing pages rather than redlinking—naturally I remain convinced that it'd be for the best if we didn't distinguish between ''Classics'' and ''Cybertron'' at all in this case and just kept all the relevant information for each of those Mini-Cons on one page per; I think [[Liftor]] is proof that this is in fact perfectly fine and much, much less of a headache for readers. See whatever the hell is going on with the page for the [[Night Rescue Team]], which names the patrol car as "[[Strongarm (Classics)|Strongarm]]/[[Strongarm (Cybertron)|Strongarm]]" as though that's something which makes any sense at all. Tangentially, I also reckon the material from these early bios (which evidently made it out via the official Hasbro website ''somehow'') should probably just be written up in fiction sections proper, along the lines of, say, cancelled Dreamwave issues...? —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 18:03, 23 April 2023 (EDT)
:The Cybertron Primus pack-in guys had bios written by Sepelak and Troop (who also wrote the bios for the Classics guys) that deliberately made them different characters for the Club website with little in common besides their physical appearances. It's not a case of "old rules" at all, it was something specific done at the time. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 18:28, 23 April 2023 (EDT)

==Wikia links still around?==
https://tfwiki.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Smelting_pool&direction=prev&oldid=109505
Are other archived "intermediate / obsolete" edit pages still pointing to Wikia? Or have they been somehow neutralized? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 21:52, 25 May 2023 (EDT)
:Not exactly sure what you're asking? I mean, the link is literally part of the text in that edit, so it wouldn't be removed. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 23:25, 25 May 2023 (EDT)
::Is that page (and presumably any other intermediate edit page from those years) still directing search engines to Wikia? Some years ago it was seen as pretty urgent that every last such link be removed, regardless of location. Not "gone from current pages," gone from ''everything''. As I recall, there were even refs to Wikia pre-struck-out on pages so people could only see them in mid-edit, but they were still boosting Wikia's rankings, and an admin had to create a bot to scrape them out of everywhere. If they still persist on hundreds of intermediate edit pages from those years, should those pages be totally erased, as they would be when randos insert porn or hate speech here? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 07:10, 26 May 2023 (EDT)
:::Historic page revisions are not indexed by Google, so they won't boost Wikia rankings. Those links will be present on any revisions before March 2008, as those revisions are from a backup imported from when the site was on Wikia. We still do have some Wikia links on live pages ([[Miscolorings based on the Generation 1 cartoon]] is an example) but those links will be marked nofollow as all external links are, so they should, in theory, not be boosting Wikia's ranking either. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 18:04, 26 May 2023 (EDT)

== ROTB being a reboot - what should we do with that? ==

I don't necessarily hold an opinion on this issue, but according to an interview with the director of ROTB, Rise of the Beasts will be a reboot of the live-action movie franchise. Will this affect how existing articles are grouped and written? Or does the wiki just consider it a case of authorial intent? ([https://news.tfw2005.com/2023/05/27/transformers-rise-of-the-beasts-director-steven-caple-jr-confirms-rotb-set-in-a-rebooted-universe-484900 source]) [[User:Gigirassy|Gigirassy]] ([[User talk:Gigirassy|talk]]) 16:19, 27 May 2023 (EDT)
:The wiki is intentionally waiting for the movie's official release to make a stand on the matter. Regardless, even if the movie is a reboot it will not affect the wiki as much as you may be thinking it will; both movie series will simply be considered as two different continuities that are still part of the same continuity family overall (just like the multitude of G1 universes out there that are all in the same family). What may or may not happen is some characters may get splitted pages depending on if there's enough evidence for that, but for now all we can do is just wait and see. -- [[User:Fritz|Fritz]] ([[User talk:Fritz|talk]]) 16:56, 27 May 2023 (EDT)

== Adaptation notes ==

Can we figure out a way to format this information that isn't an ugly and intrusive note that fucks up the formatting? Like, convert them into storylinks or references. Collapsible notes. Something. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 15:06, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
:(also probably take a weed whacker to the insane number of images people try to stuff into those film sections but that's another discussion) [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 15:09, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
::I second that. Though we would also have to find a place to put the extra information those notes sometimes provide about how the adaptation differs from the source material. Like how [[Optimus Prime (Movie)#Transformers film|Optimus Prime]]'s notes on the 07 movie mention he kills Barricade in the adaptations when that doesn't happen in the movie itself. Or the very recent example of how ROTB [[Wheeljack (ROTB)|Wheeljack]] appears [[Mission at the Museum|in a book based entirely on the half of the movie he wasn't supposed to appear in]]. So how will we deal with that? -- [[User:Fritz|Fritz]] ([[User talk:Fritz|talk]]) 16:40, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

Against this. When it comes to an informational wiki, utility should be a higher priority than aesthetic taste. Speaking of aesthetics, however… [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 17:24, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
:We can be informative without haphazardly shoving "hey, here's some inconsequential adaptations you likely don't care about" into readers' faces. Not all information is created equal, as we've already established by hiding any VAs that the great majority of readers don't care about. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 17:41, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

I'd be against this. The notes make it clear that one thing is an adaptation of another, allow differences to be described succinctly without wholesale repetition of an entire story section, and I honestly think a mass of stoylyinks for every movie character in the first 3 Bay films after their write-up would be far more visually obtrusive and difficult to parse than the note that's already there, for example.[[User:AkibaSilver|AkibaSilver]] ([[User talk:AkibaSilver|talk]]) 22:31, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
:I'm gonna more or less agree with the above. Storylinks are ''absolutely'' a bad idea once you get beyond, like, two in a row. And I really don't feel like there's ever going to be enough adaptations of any one thing to justify a whole template, where "voice actors in a dozen languages" and "holy crap they redecoed/retooled/rereleased this toy THIS MANY TIMES" certainly can get hugely bulky. And honestly, if they're not a huge list, I like the easy discoverability of keeping them in a note below; hiding them whiffs of "we should de-prioritize the coloring books and not-current media on character pages" that we rejected from the get-go. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 00:56, 22 June 2023 (EDT)

== Images and formatting ==

Here’s something that baffles me; at least far back as the MP announcement of the Trainbots, there’s been a push by some to remove images from articles for reasons that mostly elude me. I agree that a lot of our older writeups have images that aren’t good, but what I don’t get is the removal of them from sections that only have one image. Sure, a lot of the time it’s for characters that have very minor roles in something, but I’ve always thought that McFeely’s way of making articles (by getting the best possible image of each character in every section whenever possible) is the gold standard for how we make articles. On a loosely related note; I’m not convinced by Sipher’s recent push to align images to the right; I think the alternating thing we usually have is much cleaner (aside from in toy sections). [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 17:29, 21 June 2023 (EDT)
: Opening a section with a left-justified image almost invariably fucks up the normal "flow" of how your eyes move when you reach the end of a line: you move down and ''left'' to the next line. Most of the time, left-justified images at the top of the section push that next line of text to the ''right'' of the header. It may look "better" if you unfocus and just look at the page as a blur, but if you're actually ''reading'' the text, it's a subtle but very there stumbler. If it's a section where there's a "voice actors" bit or a note template ''above'' the image where the end of that is ''definitely'' going to end up beyond the rightmost border of the image, that's fair. ''Every'' image doesn't have to be on the right. Alternating is fine within longer sections. But opening with left should be used sparingly and judiciously. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 18:24, 21 June 2023 (EDT)

==Two things sandboxed a while ago maybe we might consider==
*[[User:M Sipher/Sandbox:ToysBullets]]
*[[User:M Sipher/sandbox:ToypageAltmodesAdded]]
I mean I'm not gonna lie, these are both in the "oh my grodd so many pages" realm, and worse, they're not something we can really get a bot to do. But, Iunno, something to consider.<br>
The insignia bullet point thing on individual character pages, only so many characters have toys across multiple factions (most would have G1/G2 variants), so this doesn't feel as "important" an addition, but, well. Could be useful. Adding altmodes to the toyline page listings, however, I think there's a decent case for, especially when dealing with obscure toy-only characters in lines loaded to the gills with toys. It'll certianly help the "man I remember I had this cool toy what was its name" searches. And it involves tweaking considerably fewer pages. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 23:09, 27 June 2023 (EDT)
:I'm in favor of the first from a readability standpoint.  It just looks better.  On the alt modes, I worry it might open the door to edit skirmishes on some of the more vague vehicle modes out there (thinking specifically of Devcon that just came out, or things that are just indeterminate like Cybertron Menasor or Protoform Optimus/Starscream), that just "Cybertronic car/jet/whatever" isn't a common term people outside the Wiki would really think to search, and how specific we'd need to get a la "truck" versus "longnose truck" versus "Peterbilt 379 truck".  Hard to call, in my opinion.--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG|talk]]) 23:37, 27 June 2023 (EDT)
::The bullet points hit me a little weird at first but I could get used to them, I think it's a neat idea. And I can see the inclusion of alt modes in toy pages as something useful, though no doubt a lot of pages would have to be slightly rearranged to make room for them. Regardless, I'd gladly give a hand with some of the editing if either one gets approved. --[[User:Fritz|Fritz]] ([[User talk:Fritz|talk]]) 09:46, 28 June 2023 (EDT)
::: RE: altmodes on toyline pages... As far as "arguments" go, you get those ''anyway''. I think for these pages we can afford a bit of looseness ("red Lamborghini" for 1984 Sideswipe since there's a lot of sports cars (and two Lambos) in that line/assortment, "blue sports car" for Cyb Hot Shot since there are fewer "sports cars" in that line), giving enough for a quick ID'ing. Spacing... yeah, this will stretch the pages vertically a bit, but like, that's generally fine if the space has ''information'' in it. Plus it will likely mean we can add another pic to the right-hand side of many sections, letting us give a few more examples. And it'll beef up the absolutely anemic sections slightly. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 01:53, 29 June 2023 (EDT)
:So, anyone got any objections to these, other than "holy hell that's a lot of manual work"? If anything, it'd also be a good excuse to go in and find out what entries are in need of some sprucing up and getting to today's standards... properly sorting the features into cohesive paragraphs, moving release dates to bullet points, trimming excess or filling out light writeups, making sure links to other toys have the proper anchors, etc. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 21:32, 4 July 2023 (EDT)
::The faction symbols look neat, no issue there. ''Really'' dislike the alt-mode descriptions on the toyline pages; it's a huge amount of visual noise for very little informational gain, not even to mention the actual work involved. I honestly think they would be very error-prone as a rule, or at the very least lead to some extremely tiresome debates—for example, you've labelled Soundwave/Sideways as "Cybertronian" jets, but my understanding is that they're not Cybertronians at all...? Even until pretty recently, I often find myself clicking links on toy pages only to find that they've been broken by the epidemic of "/toys" splits (and then the subsequent merges now that that's being corrected!); so far as I'm concerned, if you're consistently able to click a link on a toyline page and immediately jump to a write-up with an actual image of the toy in question, that'd be far more useful than a brief indicator of alt-mode, especially considering most readers are going to know that Starscream probably turns into "a jet". Something else this has brought to mind for me, though—for the ''Cybertron'' toyline, could be nice to have extra faction bullets for the various Cyber Key types they came with! —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 14:53, 6 July 2023 (EDT)

==  Alternators/Binaltech headers on toy pages ==

It feels like something from the old days of the wiki that has become outdated by our modern standards. Binaltech is not its own toyline, it's just the Takara version of Alternators, as reflected by both lines [[Transformers: Alternators|sharing the same page]]. So I propose we stop using "Alternators/Binaltech" headers on toy pages. Keep "Binaltech" on characters that ''only'' have Takara toys and standardize to just "Alternators" on all pages with either only Hasbro toys or both Hasbro and Takara toys. To use similar examples, we only have "[[Fortress Maximus (RID)#Car Robots|Car Robots]]" and "[[Lockdown (RID)#Adventure|Adventure]]" headers on Takara-only toy pages, while all other pages have "Robots in Disguise (2001)" and "Robots in Disguise (2015)" regardless of if they have Takara toys or not. There's no "Robots in Disguise/Car Robots" or "Robots in Disguise/Adventure" headers. So can we please start using the same standard to Alternators? --[[User:Fritz|Fritz]] ([[User talk:Fritz|talk]]) 14:58, 29 June 2023 (EDT)

== Energon Universe coverage ==

With Void Rivals #2 due out next week, I think we need to start a discussion about how much coverage we give non-TF issues in the Energon Universe. This isn't like IDW where the shared universe element came years later; we're starting out on the ground floor, with Transformers part of the universe from the very first released issue. It's going to be closely involved with all the comics going forward, so I think we need to figure out if we're going to cover everything, and if not, what qualifies for coverage. For example, it sounds like Energon is going to be a recurring element in both Void Rivals and G.I. Joe. Is that alone enough to qualify, or do there need to be actual Transformers characters? I think we need to start asking these sorts of questions so we can figure out the scope of our coverage. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 23:39, 10 July 2023 (EDT)
:I'm fine with covering everything. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 23:42, 10 July 2023 (EDT)
:I am also in favor of covering it all, the universe has established immediately that Transformers seem to be intrinsic to it, and this way we can keep all reading to one wiki. [[User:McBaggins|McBaggins]] ([[User talk:McBaggins|talk]]) 23:46, 10 July 2023 (EDT)
::Agreed. They are presenting it as a shared, intrinsically connected universe - and yeah it's called the Energon Universe so that's very clearly transformery to us unless energon moves on from here to be a generic hasbroverse term, which we doubt. [[User:Causeway|Causeway]] ([[User talk:Causeway|talk]]) 23:52, 10 July 2023 (EDT)
:Yeah. I think "cover everything" is the best approach to begin with, and then if we want to discuss splitting things off at a later date we can do that. --[[User:Riptide|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide|talk]]) 00:00, 11 July 2023 (EDT)
:Nothing against a "cover everything" either. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] ([[User talk:Lonegamer78|talk]]) 00:53, 12 July 2023 (EDT)

==Stock image sizes==
Okay, I wanted to bring this up before going on a revertathon but... is there ANY need for HD stock imagery here? Frankly, 4000x2000 images at nearly a meg each seems like absolute overkill and just adding incrementally to server load (good god various Optimuses' toy pages are bad enough as it is, we prolly shouldn't be doing things to make that worse). We just need images big enough to be clear, we're not here to archive print-quality images. I've been sticking to a general 600px vertical with the odd 700px for bigger/more involved toys when doing pics, and like, that sure seems more than fine. Once you hit 1000px it feels real excessive. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 04:01, 3 August 2023 (EDT)