Editing MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive44

{{archive_nav
|from=January 1, 2010
|to=February 28, 2010
|notes=}}

== Casepack assortments? ==
[http://botriot.jemmagic.com/transformershasbro1986.html Check it out.]  '86-'90 Hasbro Toy Fair catalogs.  The main thing of note to me is exactly how many of each toy came in a case (A case of Battlechargers had *twelve* of either one!) and that Gnaw was part of the Predacons' case pack.  Did we know that before?  All of this stuff should probably be documented somewhere on the wiki, shouldn't it?  [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 19:26, 7 January 2010 (EST)
:Blah blah blah whatever, now we have a way better scan of [[:Image:Proto_broadside.jpg|Broadside's prototype toy]]. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:00, 7 January 2010 (EST)

==Various questions/remarks==
# I don't think the ''Universe'' matter above ever got 'solved', just silenced to death after Interrobang started disagreeing. Since I'm still in favour of disambiguing 2003 and 2008 regardless of overlap, I'm bringing it up one last time to see what others think.
# Continuity identifiers (those italicized lines on top of ever page): What exactly is our policy on how they are to be written? Firstly, there's a lot of variety I like to see killed off in favour of consistency. Do we note all continuities/continuity families the subject appears in or merely the first, and in the latter case, how specific should it be? Secondly, while I do understand the need to note a specific sub-continuity as the fiction of origin (i.e., something like "''Victory'' portion of G1"), I hold doubts on the necessity to note the continuity version of origin (i.e., "Dreamwave portion of G1") that some editors do. It seems too specific to me, but if not, then what are the limits for noting stuff like that? Note the version of origin only if that's the only one the subject is confirmed to exist in? Thirdly, the Generation 1 continuity family: for the most part, the article notes are written as "from the G1 contnuity family" but some have started to specify G1 as part of the G1 continuity family, leading to notes like "the G1 portion of the G1 continuity family/continuity fmaily of the same name". Maybe there ought to be some discussion about how we want to see these cases dealt with.
# Wondering this as a result of some recent edits: is it possible for the TFwiki to acquire and put up (as primary source pages) the scripts of the G1, BW etc. cartoons? I think it'd be a great addition to the wiki and would make sourcing a lot easier.
# What is our policy regarding erhm... the featuring of featured articles? Are nominations a monthly thing or can a new article become featured regardless of whatever unit of time? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 13:33, 11 January 2010 (EST)

===Universe===
I'll just weigh in on the first of your questions. I vote for adding 2003 or 2008 to ALL Universe tags (with a possible exception where the tag is already two words, such as "Universe Micromaster") [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:34, 11 January 2010 (EST)
:Me, I don't think adding the years is necessary unless there is overlap. Disambiguation is not a tool to indicate to the user the franchise of origin - that's done by on-page text.  Disambiguation is a way to keep separate characters with the same names. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:54, 11 January 2010 (EST)
::I agree with abates on this. Adding the years to every disambig tag is just needlessly creating extra work for ourselves. Disambiguation is only to provide unique identities for pages, not provide information in and of itself. Thus, if there's only one character with a given name between the two versions of Universe, then we only need "Universe" as the disambig (assuming we need to disambig at all). It's the job of the text on the page to tell the user which version of Universe the character comes from. --[[User:Tigerpaw28|Tigerpaw28]] 15:28, 11 January 2010 (EST)
:::I guess I just look at it as there's a Universe (2003) franchise and a Universe (2008) franchise, but there ISN'T a Universe franchise. It's not a question of overlap for me, but of those being the franchise names. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 22:59, 18 January 2010 (EST)

===Continuities===
As far as I know, we do list all of the continuity families something/one appears in.

I would note that IDW, Dreamwave, etc. actually are sub-continuities of their own, AFAIK, so I don't think listing "Dreamwave portion of G1" is necessarily incorrect if that's the only place a character/thing appears in.

"G1 portion of G1" seems odd, though... I'm assuming the person really meant "Sunbow portion of G1" or "Marvel portion of G1" or somesuch? --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 15:31, 11 January 2010 (EST)

:There are different portions of G1 other than G1. There is also the G2 portion of G1 for example. I think "G1 portion of G1" means "The franchise originally known as 'The Transformers' portion of the 'Generation 1' continuity family". - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 19:09, 11 January 2010 (EST)
::Yes I know, like I said, thought, I'd think that would properly be "Sunbow/Marvel/The Transformers cartoon/comic portion of G1", then, not "G1 portion of G1". "G1 portion of G1" strikes me as being at best redundant (since we usually leave it out if someone's in more than one G1 continuity), and at worst not specific enough in terms of info. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:31, 11 January 2010 (EST)
:::What about the toys? There is a G1 portion of G1 toys as opposed to G2 portion of G1 toys etc. Also what about things like Dreamwave? Isn't that also the G1 portion of G1? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 20:08, 11 January 2010 (EST)
::::Let me put it this way, if it makes things clearer: the problem for me with ever using "G1 portion of G1" is that "G1" as a term can refer to several different separate continuities. So you end up with the question of "G1 portion of G1. Great. ''Which'' version of G1 is that first usage referring to, exactly?" --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 20:28, 11 January 2010 (EST)
:::::[[Generation 1 (franchise)]]. Which includes, under "Continuations and addenda" Dreamwave, IDW, Devil's Due, Universe "Generation 1 Series" etc. Under the Wiki's current classification system, there aren't many "versions" of G1. On the franchise level, there is what is listed in [[Generation 1 (franchise)]] and on the continuity family level there is what is listed in [[Generation 1 continuity family]]. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 20:54, 11 January 2010 (EST)
::::::Saying something is from "Generation 1 (franchise)" doesn't tell me squat on its own. Just for some examples, Devcon is from the Sunbow part of G1. Impactor is from the Marvel part of G1. Grindcore is from the IDW part of G1. Etc. Like I said, "G1" is not a continuity on its own, it's a term that refers to several different continuities.
::::::The only time I could see "G1 portion of G1" ever being remotely useful is if it's a toy-only character, and even then I'd probably want to spell out "G1 toyline" or somesuch. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:17, 11 January 2010 (EST)

I would say we definitely need to specify continuity versions in cases where a character only belongs to one. Otherwise, it could be limited to a broader scope. It depends on how specific we want to be. --[[User:Tigerpaw28|Tigerpaw28]] 15:28, 11 January 2010 (EST)

Would be nice to have some sort of guide to writing the things, as [[Help:Franchise identifiers]] is not very helpful in that regard.

Basically it seems to boil down to: W is an X from the Y portion of the Z continuity family, where Y can be the cartoon/comic level, or the franchise level if they're in more than one medium, or left out if W appears in more than one franchise.  It'd almost be helpful to write a java wizard to generate them. "Which continuity family is the character/object from?" "Tick all franchises the character/object appears in" etc. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:23, 11 January 2010 (EST)
:We do have [[Help:Style guide#The continuity-note]] which gives an overview.
:Of course, we also have [[Help:Example character article]] which states we're only supposed to use the continuity family of origin, so... I'm not sure if that's something we need to fix on some articles, something that only applies to character articles, or something we ought to look into changing to reflect new tendencies. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 18:57, 11 January 2010 (EST)

:Dear God '''NO''' we do ''not'' need to have those top-notes list every single franchise/continuity something appears in. That is inviting pure clusterfuck right there right at the top of the page. JUST their first appearance, using "from", thank you very much. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 19:06, 11 January 2010 (EST)
::My only problem with that is that it might be potentially confusing to those folks not "in the know", especially in some of the things with sparse fiction sections where it might not be obvious that some of the headings are different continuity families instead of different franchises within the same family. Perhaps some change in wording to make it clear in the continuity notes that said notes only indicate the initial origin? --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:31, 11 January 2010 (EST)
:::How much more simple and clear can you make "FROM"? --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 20:10, 11 January 2010 (EST)
::::Because "from" can just mean "exists in". It's perfectly fine to say, for instance, that Paradron is "from the Generation 1" and "from the Shattered Glass" continuities at the same time, because it does "come from" both in terms of existing in both. Saying "that originates from" might make it more clear. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 20:20, 11 January 2010 (EST)
:::::I think that falls under "severely overthinking it for a too-low lowest common denominator". --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 20:22, 11 January 2010 (EST)
::::::I guess I naturally overthought it, then, as I've always read it as being "exists in", as was surprised to find out it only refers to the origin continuity. And judging from the fact that several editors have been listing multiple continuity families in the notes, apparently plenty of other people have been reading it that way too. Something that's an obvious way to read things for you isn't necessarily the obvious way to read it for everyone else. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 20:36, 11 January 2010 (EST)
::::::Addendum: Plus... "Blackarachnia who was a major player in Beast Wars, Beast Machines, and Universe can have her franchises summed up as "the Beast Era portion of the Generation 1 continuity family." Dunno if I'm just reading this the wrong way, but if we only list something's franchise of origin, why would we ever need to "sum up" anyone's franchise'''s''' plural? --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:38, 11 January 2010 (EST)

I'm going to use a point raised above as a springboard for my thoughts:  In reference to the "''from the [[Generation 1 (franchise)|Generation 1]] portion of the [[Generation 1 continuity family|continuity family of the same name]]''" formulation, Jeysie wrote, "Saying something is from 'Generation 1 (franchise)' doesn't tell me squat on its own.  Just for some examples, Devcon is from the Sunbow part of G1. Impactor is from the Marvel part of G1."

First of all, it ''does'' tell us something, which is that the character ISN'T from BW, BM, ''Universe,'' ''Alternators,'' ''Classics,'' ''Kiss Players,'' or any of the other franchises under the G1 continuity family.  True, the G1 franchise itself is pretty widespread, and you could be way more granular if you wanted to drop to the level of specific series.  The question is, do we want to, as a rule?  For example, by that logic, the continuity-notes that currently say "''from the [[Armada (franchise)|Armada]] portion of the [[Unicron Trilogy]] [[continuity family]]''" are also insufficient, since there was a cartoon, a Dreamwave comic, a Panini comic, the toy pack-in comics, and the ''Linkage'' manga.  I know that ''Linkage'' in particular presented a LOT of new characters, and there are other, more "mainstream" characters who only appeared in the DW comics because of its "More Than Meets the Eye" mini.  Do we really want to sift through all of those and figure out which series they ultimately "belong" to?  Does it even make sense to say, "''[[Clench (Armada)|Clench]] is a [[Decepticon]] from the [[Armada (Dreamwave comic)|Dreamwave]] portion of the [[Unicron Trilogy]]''" just because he didn't happen to appear in the other ''Armada'' series?  To me, it doesn't.  The "''from _FRANCHISE_ portion of _CONTINUITY FAMILY_''" formulation is pretty clear and easy to follow, can apply universally, and has had a good precedent set on the UT-character pages.

In fact, I've been halfheartedly pondering actually going through all the G1 character-pages and making their continuity-notes conform to that structure, since the way most of them are written right now is kind of nonsensical, saying "G1 continuity family" but linking to the franchise-page: "''from the [[Generation 1 (franchise)|Generation 1]] [[continuity family]].''"  That's like calling [[Megatron (Armada)|this guy]] "''[[Cyclonus's Armada|Armada]]'' [[Megatron (G1)|Megatron]]".  Unpacking the statement into "''the [[Generation 1 (franchise)|Generation 1]] portion of the [[Generation 1 continuity family|continuity family of the same name]]''" helps it fit the style-guide-friendly mold and even educates people about the fact that there ARE two senses of term "G1", which is knowledge that could use disseminating.

Now, that all having been said, the one point on which I ''don't'' know where I stand is the origin/encompassment question.  For example, [[Sideways (RID)|Sideways]] has a monstrous continuity-note because it tries to account for the whole spread of his appearances.  But if, as Siph suggests, we were to limit ourselves to the single point of origin, then it would say, "''from the [[Robots in Disguise (franchise)|Robots in Disguise]] continuity''" and stop right there, massively underrepresenting the character's scope.  I'm not sure where the balance lies.

- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 20:00, 18 January 2010 (EST)
:Sigh. I really don't get why this so hard to understand.
:There are several different continuities that are all technically "G1". Therefore, if a character is from a single G1 continuity, then it's more helpful to use the specific identifier for the G1 continuity you're talking about, rather than the generic "G1".
:Meanwhile, if a character is from more than one G1 continuity, then you'll be dropping the "portion of" anyway, so you wouldn't need "G1 portion of G1" there either.
:So, like I said, "G1 portion of G1" seems to me to be either too generic or redundant.
:...plus, that wasn't even my main point anyway; the bit I discussed with Sipher was.
:I do agree that I fix "Generation 1" "continuity family" to "Generation 1 continuity family" whenever I happen to edit a relevant page. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 23:43, 18 January 2010 (EST)
::''Meanwhile, if a character is from more than one G1 continuity, then you'll be dropping the "portion of" anyway, so you wouldn't need "G1 portion of G1" there either.''
::Untrue.  Consider [[Spittor (BW)|Spittor]], who exists in two different continuities (3H-BW and IDW-BW) within the G1 continuity family.  Two separate origins and everything.  Yet that in no way stops us from still putting "Beast Era" into the continuity-note.  The "G1-franchise portion of the G1-family" formulation is applying the exact same principle; the only difference is that the family happens to take its name from that franchise, so it ''looks'' redundant even though it isn't.  In my ideal world, we would be saying "the G1-franchise portion of the Primax family," but I have a feeling that's a little too obscure, even for us.  Though I did see Walky using "Primax" casually in that sense recently, so maybe the time is nearer than I dare hope.....?
::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 02:44, 19 January 2010 (EST)
:::Not untrue at all. The Beast Era is either a specific continuity within the G1 continuity family, or its own continuity family within the G1 continuity family, depending on how you want to look at it. So it actually still perfectly fits my claim that you should be indicating which specific G1 continuity you're referring to; it just happens to be one of the G1 continuities that doesn't use "G1" as a term.
:::And on the flip side, folks like Cliffjumper who show up in multiple non-Beast Wars G1 properties still have the "portion of" bit dropped in their notes. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 10:52, 19 January 2010 (EST)
::::I think the reason Cliffjumper doesn't have a "portion of" bit is because it's actually jammed up into its continuity-family bit.  People think they can link to the G1 franchise and just ''say'' "continuity family", and that'll cover both bases (which you seem to agree is actually nonsensical and should be corrected).  But where we disagree is that you think the right answer is to just change the link to the G1-family, dropping the G1-franchise altogether because you don't think it's specific enough to be useful.  And I say you're demanding a level of specificity from the "portion of" that no one else has ever asked for, in practice or in discussion.  I tried to use BW as a counterexample, but you say it's somehow fundamentally different, which I don't think is worth arguing over.  Instead I'll point out ''Armada'' again:
::::Despite encompassing FIVE unconnected continuities (cartoon, DW comic, Panini comic, toy comics, and PS2 game), our standard is to write, "''from the [[Armada (franchise)|Armada]] portion of...''"  Every ''Armada'' character-page that I know if is written that way.  But by your logic, that phrase should be dropped entirely, and we should say nothing more than that the character is from the UT.  However, as Starfield and I have tried to explain (and as TigerPaw28 and Abates and general precedent implicity support), letting the "portion of" rest at the franchise level ''still conveys worthwhile information,'' no matter how many separate continuities might live inside it.
::::Now, I happen to support a franchise-ONLY position, where TigerPaw23 and Abates advocate a sliding scale from series to franchise, depending on how broad the character is spread.  I've explained my misgivings about that option, but I'm not vehemently opposed to it if consensus swings that way.  However, the franchise-is-worthless-if-it-contains-multiple-continuities position is something I ''do'' strongly disagree with, and as far as I can tell you're the only person to ever suggest it.  (Normally I wouldn't harp so heavily on how much apparent support exists or doesn't, but I think the "worthwhileness" of information is at its heart a matter of taste, and community sentiment counts for a lot in making that kind of decision.)
::::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 17:12, 19 January 2010 (EST)
:::::"And I say you're demanding a level of specificity from the "portion of" that no one else has ever asked for, in practice or in discussion."
:::::Er, hardly. In fact, my original confusion was not realizing we even had any "G1 portion of G1" pages, because every "portion of" page I've managed to come across did in fact list the specific continuity, as in "[[Lazarus|Dreamwave]] [[John Kelly|portion of]]", "[[Goldbug (IDW)|IDW]] [[DJ (G1)|portion of]]", "[[Circuit Breaker|Marvel]] [[Emirate Xaaron|portion of]]", etc. Therefore, the entire point of that aside was that we should be fixing the small number of outliers that don't do it that way, to match how we do it most of the time.
:::::So, yay. Apparently this is case ''n''+1 of people saying they don't know what I'm talking about, despite the fact that I'm talking about how we do something the majority of the time. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:42, 19 January 2010 (EST)
::::::....But the examples you just linked to are all based on a precedent we both agree is bad: the nonsensical mashup of franchise and family at the end of the continuity-note.  Please look at [[Wheeljack (Armada)]].  There, the franchise (''Armada'') is logically separated from the family (UT) via the "portion of" bit.  Apply that same model to your average G1-character page (the ones currently with a nonsensical ending and no "portion of" bit), and what do you get?  ''So-and-so is a such-and-such from the [[Generation 1 (franchise)|Generation 1]] portion of the [[Generation 1 continuity family|continuity family of the same name]].''  Nonsense: eliminated.  Consistency across the wiki: maintained.  As you point out, maybe sometimes it makes sense to replace the franchise with a specific series for a very limited character, such as the ones you linked to.  I have my reservations, but I can see where you (and others) are coming from.  But eliminating the franchise altogether goes AGAINST all established precedent, since even the nonsensical precedent still contains the franchise in its linking. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 18:21, 19 January 2010 (EST)
:::::::"But eliminating the franchise altogether goes AGAINST all established precedent, since even the nonsensical precedent still contains the franchise in its linking."
:::::::Actually, you're the one going against precedent by saying that we should change the way we already do the majority of G1 articles that need "portion of".
:::::::On top of that, G1 is weird in that there's a continuity family, franchise, and several incompatible continuities all called by the exact same thing, as well as G2 and Classics and Beast Wars and whatnot. So even if your point is relevant, I still would call on [[Help:Ignore all standards|Ignore all standards]] here, because G1 can use the IMHO slight break from convention to gain the vast extra clarity said break gives, rather than trying to use the same exact term to mean fifty different things because it's pedantically correct.
:::::::Especially since the reason all of the characters I linked to are limited is because, well, I can't think of any G1 character I've stumbled upon offhand that had "portion of" in their note that didn't only show up in that one continuity. (Devcon and Nightbird, for instance, don't have the "portion of" part in their notes, despite originating in the Sunbow cartoon and migrating.)
:::::::Further, I would think you would remember that part of the reason we have "generation 1" "continuity family" all over the place is because those continuity notes were written before we even had a "generation 1 continuity family" article, so "Generation 1" had to be linked somehow, so that's not necessarily proof that that's the more correct method.
:::::::The ''only'' case I could really see off the top of my head for "G1 portion of G1" is if we used "G1" in the same way as Beast Era, in the sense of a continuity family within a continuity family, for characters who appear in multiple G1 continuities but no Beast Wars continuities. But even then I'd probably still prefer to leave it at just the main continuity family, the way it is now for most of those characters. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:01, 19 January 2010 (EST)
::::::::Well.  Suffice it to say that I disagree this is a case for "ignore all standards."  I think you overstate the "weirdness" of the G1 case; the only functional difference between it and ''Armada'' or ''Energon'' is that we don't have a good independent term like "Unicron Trilogy" for the continuity family.  (If only "Primax" were more widespread...)  As I stated above, I think the "clarity" you seek would be HELPED by calling out the two "G1"s by default, in that it would educate people about them instead of hiding them away and fostering ignorance.  But ultimately, like the idea of "worthwhile information," it becomes at this point a matter of taste.  I'm sorry we went through all the bullshit of trying to reason it out if it was going to end on nothing more than the aesthetic merits of putting links to two pages called "G1" in a single sentence. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 19:30, 19 January 2010 (EST)
:::::::::We'll have to disagree strongly on using the same term repeatedly--instead of using nice, specific terms--being somehow more "clear". I really don't see how the very vague and unhelpful "G1 portion of G1" would be better than than naming the specific G1 continuity someone's from--especially since, as I said, most of the G1 characters I can think of who use "portion of" only appear in that one continuity to begin with, so it makes even ''more'' sense to just state that up front.
:::::::::The hypothetical I named above is the only exception I can think of off-hand where it might possibly be helpful, and even then I don't really think it would be helpful enough to be worth the bother of changing everything.
:::::::::And it's not "aesthetic merits". It's the fact that a continuity note is supposed to tell which continuity someone's from, and the generic "G1" doesn't, because that term refers to more than one continuity. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:48, 19 January 2010 (EST)
::::::::::I've stated my case sufficiently at this point that there's just nothing more for me to add.  I think we can both consider our opinions officially registered.  I'm going to step away for a while, and I hope some other people will bring their viewpoints into the discussion too. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 19:56, 19 January 2010 (EST)
:::::::::::I can't follow the debate.  I will say that 'G1 portion of G1' sounds awful and should never be used.  Where that puts me, I'm not sure.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 20:20, 19 January 2010 (EST)

:Responding to Jackpot and Jeysie, and un-indenting as it's getting too far in. 
:FWIW, my original reasoning for "use the specific series for characters limited to that single series" was that using just the franchise could end up being misleading, incorrectly implying that the character shows up in more than one part of the franchise. Now that I've thought it over, I don't think it's all that likely for someone to make that misinterpretation.
:Reading the different arguments, it boils down to Jackpot wanting to stress the franchise and primary continuity family of origin. Jeysie is advocating pointing out the specific sub-continuity of origin. Since the point of the ''continuity'' note is to point out the continuity of origin, then we should be a specific as we can be. A compromise between Jeysie and Jackpot's ideas would work best. For a character who comes from a single sub-continuity (say, [[Auggie Cahnay (G1)]]), Jeysie's method would be best. But for a character who exists across multiple sub-continuities in a given primary continuity, it becomes almost impossible to say any one sub-continuity takes precedence. So we use Jackpot's method of primary continuity family and franchise. 
:And throw out the Beast Era stuff. It just makes the system more complicated and unclear when you introduce another level of breakdown that only exists in a single case.  --[[User:Tigerpaw28|Tigerpaw28]] 21:36, 19 January 2010 (EST)
::I think that's a pretty accurate summation of our argument, and like I said above, the compromise is something I could live with.  I'm wary of the strange places we might end up if we make it a policy to drill down to the smallest applicable unit of continuity (is Motormaster's [[Roller car]] "from" DW-G1 since that's the only fiction it's ever appeared in?), but if people are comfortable dealing with those sorts of oddities when they come up, then I don't think it's a huge deal. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 01:05, 23 January 2010 (EST)
:::Well, considering that the compromise is how we already do it (since all G1 folks I've seen that are in more than one non-BW continuity just omit the "portion of" anyway, rendering the whole matter moot), it works for me as well, so long as we fix the few inconsistent ones as we come across them (which was my whole point to begin with...) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 01:34, 23 January 2010 (EST)
::::That is.... not the same conclusion I got out of what Tigerpaw28 wrote.  But I'm not going to argue this all over again. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 03:34, 23 January 2010 (EST)
:::::If you actually look at how we do it now, most of the G1 characters who have "portion of" come from a single continuity, like I said. And I just checked through, and... most of the "G1 portion of G1" things I turned up in a search ''also'' only exist in one continuity, just like I suspected (Shockwave's the only exception). Meanwhile, most of the characters I've come across who exist across multiple continuities just omit the "portion of" anyway.
:::::Ergo, we already do it according to the compromise except for those few random exceptions. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 10:23, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:Well, with this franchise being what it is, we are going to have the occasional character that won't conform to any given "regular" way of doing things. But we really should not be adapting every single character article to accommodate that less-than-one-percent. We can look at Sideways and figure out how to tone him down a bit. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 20:07, 18 January 2010 (EST)
::I agree that there will always be outliers, and we'll never have a perfect system.  But those outliers can be illustrative of broader principles, and this is one of them:  There is a tendency for the continuity-notes to drift beyond the franchise of origin; Jeysie's point about how "Beast Era" is subtly used here and there in lieu of "Beast Wars" is a valid one.  It's unclear what exactly the continuity-note is meant to convey in that regard, and the word "from" is ambiguous.  If we really want to stick to origins, then maybe "originally from" or "native to" or "who first appeared in" or something would be better phrasing.  I don't ''like'' those options, since I prefer the brevity of a single word, but they would get the point across.
::Actually, it occurs to me that rather than trying to wrangle the continuity-note into a coherent sentence, maybe it should be in a [[Transformers Universe (Marvel comic)|Transformers Universe]]-style infobox.  '''''Allegiance:''' Decepticon, '''First appearance:''' Dreamwave ''Armada'' comic, '''Continuity family:''' Unicron Trilogy.''  Hm?
::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 20:36, 18 January 2010 (EST)
:::Try out what I got on Sideways' page now. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 20:51, 18 January 2010 (EST)
::::That's an excellent solution for his particular case. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 21:00, 18 January 2010 (EST)

===Scripts===
Scripts are coverd by copyright, and I suspect putting them on the wiki in mass quantities would be asking for trouble... --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:54, 11 January 2010 (EST)
: Plus it'd involve stealing content from other sites.  The Wiki does not aim to have an archive of primary sources, just descriptions thereof.  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:57, 11 January 2010 (EST)
::I doubt it'd necessarily involve stealing. I wouldn't have asked if I could find scripts on other sites. It was the legal/copyright side I was mostly concerned about. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 01:43, 12 January 2010 (EST)

===Featured Articles===
Right now I think FA tags mainly only get slapped on articles that are going to be used as the monthly feature. I'd like to see some sort of marker for articles that are especially complete/well done regardless of usage on the front page, though, to serve as examples, and as pages we consider especially informative/representative of their continuities for readers. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 15:31, 11 January 2010 (EST)
: Whenever a page is completed (and if it's lengthy enough), I put the Featured Tag at the top.  See [[Tarantulas (BW)|''Beast Wars'' Tarantulas]].  (And see [[Strika (BM)|Strika]], too, for an article that's not terribly long but complete.)  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:59, 11 January 2010 (EST)
:Just a suggestion, but is it possible to add a second FA holder on the front page that randomly displays an article marked FA? That way, we can have a monthly FA for whatever relevance it might have then and still get other articles that are not less deserving of a highlight featured. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 01:43, 12 January 2010 (EST)

== Tech Specs ==

Alright, don't get too cheesed if this has been talked about already, but I gotta ask: Why don't we list the technical specifications for each character? I've always thought that tech specs is an interesting part of every character, and we seem to include pretty much every other information of a character on their page. I mean, the [[King]] has his tech specs listed on his page, why not other characters? I understand that the King's specs are probably included because they're just funny, but seeing his tech specs list on his page shows that they can work well on the wiki's pages. Was it decided at some point that we wouldn't list their specs for some reason or another at one point? --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] 00:49, 14 January 2010 (EST)
:We tried once, but it was ugly and took up too much space.  There's even a template, but we've taken all our uses of it off our pages.  The customary TFU.info link below each toy entry solves this information gap for most characters.  The King has TS numbers on his page mostly because there's so little information about him.  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 01:12, 14 January 2010 (EST)
:What ItsWalky said. The arguments against are that TFU.info makes a tech spec listing on the TFwiki mostly unneeded (mostly, because merchandise also gets tech specs and TFU.info doesn't feature information about merchandise) and that currently no one has (been able to) come up with a layout for tech specs that doesn't uglify the pages. So, I guess that if you could propose a good way to list tech specs, listing them can be taken in reconsideration, but only then. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 01:23, 14 January 2010 (EST)

== Sandbox clearout ==

Brought it up on [http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=51208&st=1860 the Allspark] to positive response, but I'll just raise it here before acting upon it. Sandboxes should be for work-in-progress articles that will then be integrated into the wiki - not, as we've been seeing of late, for new users to muck about it mushing together a stupidly long list of what toy they've repurposed to be someone from 1984 instead of doing some actual ''contributions''. Deletions will be performed, oh yes. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 21:15, 14 January 2010 (EST)
:Sorry. I've put mine up for deletion. Won't happen again. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 22:14, 14 January 2010 (EST)

:Agreed, 100%.  Sandboxes, like user pages, are not carte blanche.  They have a little more leeway than regular articles, but should still be wiki related. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 03:39, 17 January 2010 (EST)
:Is there a way to search for them? I'm embarrassed to say I think I have one that I can but a delete tag on but I forgot where I put it. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 12:52, 2 February 2010 (EST)
::[http://tfwiki.net/w2/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=&namespace=2] [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:01, 2 February 2010 (EST)
:::Or if you want to search for just your own userpages, go to [[Special:Prefixindex]], stick your username in the search box, and select "User" in the dropdown. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 13:40, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== Didn't the caption text used to be larger? ==

Did Derik mess with the text size settings, or am I imagining things? --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 17:04, 17 January 2010 (EST)
:I have done nothing with caption text on thumbnails.  Also, they look the same size to me.  -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:13, 22 January 2010 (EST)
::Me too. They've always been slightly smaller than the main text. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:01, 23 January 2010 (EST)
:::I have no insight into this change.  -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 10:00, 25 January 2010 (EST)
::::I meant I was agreeing with you. The captions haven't changed size, as far as I can see. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 14:35, 25 January 2010 (EST)
:::::I have no insight into that either.  -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:03, 25 January 2010 (EST)

== Hasbro's Recent Mindscrew campaign ==

Hasbro seems to be up to a lot.
It seems almost like there is so much planned for 2010/2011 that It has become difficult to pick things apart.
we have the mysterious "battle Ops" bumblebee that dosen't seem to be part of the ROTF line, The enigmatic "Powercore combiners" that Look to be something else entirely, what may be a War for Cybertron franchise, and all this new unclassified stuff coming soon. How are we going to classify/categorize any of It? There really isn't enough information.
also ROTF isn't quite over just yet...
Now what?    [[User:SlamBolt|Danny LeFox]] 22:42, 20 January 2010 (EST)
:And this is why waiting for official product information is a good thing.  No need for us to speculate too much on what will eventually be revealed to us.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 22:44, 20 January 2010 (EST)
::Bingo! This is not some "Hasbro mindscrew campaign", this is fans getting information they shouldn't have and leaking. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 23:00, 20 January 2010 (EST)

== Toy Fair ==

Okay, so evidently Walky's going [http://shortpacked.livejournal.com/587753.html on behalf of the wiki]. Usually it's quite a coup for a website to be invited, as it results in scoops for them. However... we're not really a scoop site. So while this is cool and all, I'm wondering how we make it work for the wiki?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 23:24, 24 January 2010 (EST)
:Put the info in relevant articles? *shrug* [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 23:27, 24 January 2010 (EST)
::Same way we do the Q&A material.  Make up a namespace, put up some info.  It's a page I'll be putting together Saturday night.  (Sipher is also going.)  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:29, 24 January 2010 (EST)
::I figure a simple gallery with captions, split up into sub-headers based on series. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 23:33, 24 January 2010 (EST)
:::Yeah.  We're not gonna need or desire the metric buttload of photos other sites put up.  Something simple.  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:41, 24 January 2010 (EST)
::::That's cool. I was mostly curious, because as you said we really don't need to do what other sites do.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 23:50, 24 January 2010 (EST)
:::::Bring a list of retarded wiki questions!  Ask about what the difference is between Transformer "brothers" and Transformer "cousins"! [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 11:33, 25 January 2010 (EST)
::::::We already got [[Hasbro Q&A/December 2009#AllSpark.com|an answer to the relatives thing]]. Kinda. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 11:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)
:::::: Ooouu! Oouuu! Ask about the whole "sold Battle Beast rights to the Minimates people thing!"--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 11:40, 25 January 2010 (EST)

== Site backups ==

I was recounting the story of our March 2009 woes when I remembered - are we solid on off-site backups of the wiki? I mean, in addition to backups I ''presume'' our host is doing, are we also doing off-site backups of our own? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 20:17, 25 January 2010 (EST)
:So yeah, are we? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 11:10, 28 January 2010 (EST)
::Since nobody from site maintenance has answered, I recall on multiple occasions being told that both Suki and McFly have multiple, redundant backup solutions going on regular intervals.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:09, 28 January 2010 (EST)

== Live action ==
Hi there, I'm doing a project about certain stories and I have picked Transformers. I decided to do the most recent live action film and found that there are all sorts of comics that also help the story. Could any one help me with what order they go in as I have a list of all the titles of the movies, games and comics but I am completely lost! Thanks [[Special:Contributions/86.172.112.63|86.172.112.63]] 09:06, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:Yeah, it can be a little confusing! Basically, sticking just with the American comics by IDW, the stories go chronologically like this:
:*[[Defiance]]
:*[[Movie Prequel]]
:*[[Movie Prequel Special]] (collects two stories set during the prequel)
:*The first live-action movie
:*[[The Reign of Starscream]]
:*[[Transformers: Alliance|Alliance]] (partially occurs concurrently with Reign)
:*The ''Revenge of the Fallen'' movie
:*[[Transformers: Tales of the Fallen|Tales of the Fallen]] (various stories set at different points in the timeline)
:*The upcoming series "Nefarious"

:This is not ''quite'' the order they were published in, though; ''Defiance'' came out at the same time as ''Alliance'', but other than than, it's pretty much as it appears above.

:A little more confusingly, there is also the [[Transformers (Titan Magazine)|UK comic released by Titan]], which tried to work within what IDW was doing, first by telling some extra prequel stories set before the Transformers left Cybertron, and then doing one or two set after the first movie (these were collected and released by IDW in the US as a comic called "[[Transformers: Saga of the Allspark|Saga of the Allspark]]"). Titan wound up making a few contradictions, and essentially chucked it in and just did an alternate universe story instead (showing what would have happened if the Decepticons had won in the first movie). Most recently, they've returned to the "real" universe and done another prequel story about Skids and Mudflap's adventures before ''Revenge of the Fallen''. Again, it doesn't fit very well with what IDW have done.

:Okay, I hope that make some sort of sense! - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 09:32, 27 January 2010 (EST)

::Wow, thanks! So, this work that Titan done was very contradictory so am I right in saying that IDW cleared that up and reprinted it? Does the IDW reprint include these extra prequel stories you mentioned? The Tales of the Fallen stories are all during different times, could you place them in your lineup too? Thanks so much for your help! [[Special:Contributions/86.162.217.142|86.162.217.142]] 11:06, 28 January 2010 (EST)

:::No, the Titan work was unaltered and just reprinted as it appeared in the UK comic, contradictions and all. IDW collected the first eight issues of the UK comics, which comprised all six prequel stories (titled "[[Transformers Comic issue 1|Optimus Prime]]", "[[Transformers Comic issue 2|Megatron]]" and "Lost in Space" parts [[Transformers Comic issue 3|1]], [[Transformers Comic issue 4|2]], [[Transformers Comic issue 5|3]] and [[Transformers Comic issue 6|4]]) and the two stories set after the movie ("[[Transformers Comic issue 7|Starscream's Militia]]" and "[[Transformers Comic issue 8|Scorpion Sting]]"), in four issues (two stories reprinted per issue). They did not collect any more issues of the UK comic (which started doing it's alternate-universe story after "Scorpion Sting"). 

:::As for the ''Tales of the Fallen'' issues, they go like this:

:::*[[Tales of the Fallen issue 4]]
:::*[[Tales of the Fallen issue 3]] (some of this story occurs during the events of issue 4)
:::*[[Defiance]]
:::*[[Movie Prequel]]
:::*[[Movie Prequel Special]] (collects two stories set during the prequel)
:::*The first live-action movie
:::*[[The Reign of Starscream]]
:::*[[Transformers: Alliance|Alliance]] (partially occurs concurrently with Reign)
:::*[[Tales of the Fallen issue 6]] (occurs after Reign, but before the end of Alliance)
:::*[[Tales of the Fallen issue 1]] (takes place during the final issue of Alliance)
:::*[[Tales of the Fallen issue 2]] (takes place during the final issue of Alliance)
:::*The ''Revenge of the Fallen'' movie
:::*[[Tales of the Fallen issue 5]]
:::*The upcoming series "Nefarious"

:::Hope I'm continuing to make sense! - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 11:25, 28 January 2010 (EST)

::::You are indeed! Thanks ever so much :) Now...  Just to get hold of these comics! [[Special:Contributions/81.129.120.200|81.129.120.200]] 08:39, 29 January 2010 (EST)

Hey there, I've found out that the Nintendo DS game based on ROTF is split into two: The Autobots and the Decepticons. The Autobots is loosely based on the movie but the Decepticons has it's on story. I'm not sure where in the timeline it comes though, any help [[Special:Contributions/86.162.217.23|86.162.217.23]] 07:51, 11 February 2010 (EST)
:Ah yes, the video games can be confusing things. Most of the games, both for ROTF and the first movie, are split in two somehow - for the consoles, it just means there are two separate "campaigns" you can play off the one disc, but for the DS, they released two games for each movie, one for each faction. The Autobot games and campaigns do their best to simply reproduce the story of the movies, but the Decepticon games and campaigns aren't really part of the timeline, because they depict a world where the Decepticons win. :) In the case of the ROTF DS games specifically, since you bring them up, NEITHER really has a story - it's just the characters hopscotching around the world, performing random acts of heroism or terrorism, until there's a big fight in Egypt at the end. They essentially begin shortly before the ROTF movie, and then catch up to and run concurrently with it. Our ROTF video game articles aren't quite up to snuff, but check out [[Revenge of the Fallen (video games)|what we've got]] for details. Our articles on the [[Transformers The Game|first movie games]] are in better condition. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 08:19, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:::::Hello again! I've read the article on the console games and you're right, it seems like the game is a completely different story to the comics/films/other video games. Is this the same for ROTF? If so, I'll omit them from the project. Thanks [[Special:Contributions/90.196.99.212|90.196.99.212]] 13:55, 21 February 2010 (EST)
::::::Yes, that's basically the case. They're more like "alternate" version of the films themselves, rather than other stories that fit in and around the movies like the comics. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 14:10, 21 February 2010 (EST)

Hi! I read that War for Cybertron media was released at DICE and it got me thinking... Is this going to be a 'legit' part of the live action/comic/games storyline or will it be another alternate universe? If the former is the case, where will it fit in with Transformers 3 (if any info has been released.) [[Special:Contributions/217.42.11.100|217.42.11.100]] 11:08, 28 February 2010 (EST)
:Little true story information has been released, but everything we know indicates that ''War of Cybertron'' will have nothing to do with the live-action movie universe. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 11:14, 28 February 2010 (EST)

::Hi there, I've just been reading up on each comic series and I see you've put Defiance before the first movie. However, the [[Defiance]] article says it is a sequel to [[The Reign of Starscream]] and a prequel to the movie. I'm a little confused. [[Special:Contributions/86.133.18.28|86.133.18.28]] 09:14, 2 March 2010 (EST)

:::Okay, that's easy enough to explain. ''Defiance'' was released after ''Reign of Starscream'', and reveals a lot of information that directly leads into ''Revenge of the Fallen'' (the history of the Fallen and the Primes, the solar harvester, stuff like that). However, it ''takes place'' in the distant past of Cybertron, before the Autobot and Decepticon war starts - it's the earliest point in the timeline. Make sense? - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 09:19, 2 March 2010 (EST)

::::So, it's like a look into the future? [[Special:Contributions/86.133.18.28|86.133.18.28]] 09:32, 2 March 2010 (EST)
:::::Well, no, more of a look into the past. It's set on Cybertron millions of years ago, and shows how Megatron first met the Fallen and how Optimus learned he was a Prime, and things like that. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 11:12, 2 March 2010 (EST)

==So I don't forget==
Once non-watermarked pictures of them are available, we have got to add [http://blog.costumecraze.com/2010/01/new-sexy-transformers-costumes these] to the wiki.  Oh my baby jesus.  [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 08:44, 28 January 2010 (EST)
:Are those licensed products? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 09:32, 28 January 2010 (EST)
::What, no 'Con costumes? Seriously, how many fangirls would buy a Starscream costume? [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:24, 28 January 2010 (EST)
::: They wouldn't have faction symbols and such if they weren't.  The same company's making a SEXY COBRA outfit, too.  (But not a Baroness, oddly) [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 19:18, 29 January 2010 (EST)

==A new project to keep us busy==
I can't help but think that a lot of the... more heated discussions are coming up because this wiki really has hit the point where we're in a real "janitorial" phase... we're either doing minor cleanups or filling in small, specialized gaps. We probably won't have a big regular influx of NEW until late this year, if not 2011. Finding things to ''do'' is getting tricky. I myself have retreated mostly to toy photos and descriptors, but that's not everyone's bag.<br>
So let me propose this... something that I'd fiddled with myself for a bit, but also something I think we can all do. A great many of our character pages still have the same main profile from the Wikia days. This... is not all that good for google, really. Or our general image. And some of them, like the ''[[Transformers Animated (franchise)|Transformers Animated]]'' characters or the Mini-Cons who got FunPub bios, tend to show their "progressive" birth by having stuff added to the end as more information is revealed. Hell, I'm seeing it now with our ''[[Last Stand of the Wreckers]]'' cast.<br>
So... why don't we try and make a concerted effort to re-work many of these character profiles? [[Bulkhead (Animated)|Bulkhead]] is one I top-to-bottom re-did a few months ago, changing a somewhat awkward bio to something that flows far better and feels like a more complete image of the character (I hope).<br>
This seems like something the wiki could genuinely benefit from, that doesn't enter the realm of "change a few million links". --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 17:23, 29 January 2010 (EST)
:I retract what I said earlier.  THIS is a truly productive proposal.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 17:28, 29 January 2010 (EST)
::Well, if people are really itching for stuff to do, there's still a lot of characters missing fiction in their Sunbow and Animated sections, which are bits of the fiction that most editors should have access to.
::It'd also be nice if more of the people with access to TFCC stuff would pitch in on those sections. Shattered Glass has been whittling down the amount of missing information, but there's still lots of gaps in other areas, including stuff that's ages old. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:43, 29 January 2010 (EST)
:::I've been working through the ''charstubfiction'' for awhile now, and it's the first place I go to make new additions for the site. I've managed to take the first 200 from A to E down to A to L. w00t! Anyway, I just got on the club recently, and made an order for back issues of the comic, so I'll be helping out on ''Classics'' and ''TransTech'' more soon. But the biggest "problem areas" for fiction will remain the movie video games and, of course, the untranslated Japanese Robot Masters and Beast Wars series. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 09:38, 11 February 2010 (EST)
::::Yeah, I've been noticing your awesome work. :D If you could work first on filling in the Classics stuff, that would be really helpful... I don't have the Classics comics, and I don't have enough context to make a lot of sense out of the Classics prose, either, so it's the one major TFCC thing I can't help with. (The "Crossing Over" issue pages themselves also could use some love.)
::::And because I think it got lost in the Wheelie debate, if you did want to write up Rewind's Headmasters info normally and send it to me, I'd be willing to format it for you to post.
::::And yeah, there's always going to be some esoteric stuff that's incomplete unless we get lucky and get editors that happen to have it. I was more just noting that there's stuff I know people do have access to that's still not filled in either. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 10:46, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:::The problem there is that that is more... cataloging and going over specifics requiring the material. And it's not very creative. Profiles don't need so much of that, feels like a more creative outlet, and if I understand Google correctly, it keeps an eye on what's on the first "screen" or so of text, helping us even more. It's often easy to forget that stuff that's there could still use a lot of polish. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)
::::Well, just saying that, while I do actually think your idea is a good one (just one I'm not going to be much help on, as I tend to suck at writing intros), there's still plenty of other non-minor stuff that still needs doing, too. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 18:53, 29 January 2010 (EST)

== When to push the Minor Edit button ==

I've always understood "This is a minor edit" to mean that an edit isn't going to affect the ''content'' of a page - it's a technical edit, fixing grammar or spelling or page formatting.  Other editors seem to select Minor Edit at random, however, seemingly as a subjective judgement that an edit is small or unimportant -- even when it's adding or changing content, which to my mind is never "minor".  Am I wrong on this?  And if not, is there a way we can make it clear what that little checkbox is for? -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 20:33, 1 February 2010 (EST)

:We could change the "This is a minor edit" text to "This is a [[Help:Style guide#Minor_and_major_edits|minor edit]]" maybe? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:59, 1 February 2010 (EST)

:I've always (or almost always) tried to go with your interpretation. The exception might be reverting a 'bad' edit.  Assuming that others feel the same way, anything that makes this clearer would be a good thing.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 21:00, 1 February 2010 (EST)

:I tend to only do minor edits if doing formatting/spelling fixes, rewording something so it says the exact same thing in a clearer manner, or adding categories. I also might mark a User Talk page edit minor if it's something directed to that person alone.

:But yeah, if you're actually removing or adding content, even a little bit, it's not minor. And what also bugs me is when someone makes a comment on a talk page outside of a userpage, in a spot where the discussion is relevant to everyone, yet marks it as minor. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:07, 1 February 2010 (EST)

:I tend to interpret "minor" as "not too groundbreaking", such as adding credits and dates. Regarding comments on talk pages, I tend to put it as a minor edit as well, since it's fairly small adding. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 22:14, 1 February 2010 (EST)

::Yeah, but if you're adding to a discussion, especially if it's something someone started polling for info/ideas, then they might miss there was actually a response if it's marked as minor and they usually surf with minor edits hidden. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 23:12, 1 February 2010 (EST)

::My problem is that people, often anons, hide stupid trivia edits behind it.  Trivia notes usually are recognizable by their 100-300 character length, but still.  If it's content, it's not minor. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 00:16, 2 February 2010 (EST)

:::As far as I know, "minor edit" usually refers to editing without adding information, such as grammar fixing, rephrasing, typo, formatting, adding captions, reverting (sometimes). IIRC, anon users don't have the "This is a minor edit" box to be click, the problem is the newcomers, especially those who don't know much about editing a wikipedia-system-based site. Sometimes it is just they for got to turn off "Mark all edits minor by default" in "my preferences" (which happened to me few years ago). I agree with Abates's "[[Help:Style guide#Minor_and_major_edits|minor edit]]" if it is possible. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 07:01, 2 February 2010 (EST)

== collist function in Google Chrome doesn't seem to work ==

Example [[List of humans from Generation 1 and 2]] - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:56, 2 February 2010 (EST)
:AFAIK collist has never worked in any browser other than Firefox. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 22:14, 2 February 2010 (EST)
::Ayep. Pretty sure FF is the only main browser at the moment with column-width CSS support. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 00:55, 3 February 2010 (EST)
:::I don't know.....it seems to work pretty well on my end.
:::And I'm using Chrome. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 01:54, 3 February 2010 (EST)
::::Which version of Chrome are you using?  I'm on 4.0.249.78 dev (36714), and collist isn't putting the lists into columns at all. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:44, 3 February 2010 (EST)
:::::.....The same one you are. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 08:11, 3 February 2010 (EST)

== Tabs ==

This might be a stupid question, but is there any way the tabs at the top of the page (Page/Discussion/Edit/etc) could be made to show up at the bottom of the page as well? [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:23, 8 February 2010 (EST)
:Why would you possibly suggest that? --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 11:36, 8 February 2010 (EST)
::Pages are long.  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:38, 8 February 2010 (EST)
:::Well, we need to push down the "Privacy Policy", "About Transformers Wiki" and "Disclaimers" links if we want to do it. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 11:50, 8 February 2010 (EST)
::::We do have code already in place that checks the length of a page, and displays either a square ad or a skyscraper ad depending on whether it's short or long. We likely could adapt that same code to put a second set of tabs on the bottom of long pages, but leave them off of short ones.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)
:::::I actually kind of like that idea.  [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 12:21, 8 February 2010 (EST)
::::::As do I. Simple but makes it a nice place. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:30, 8 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::Kinda related, is there some way the site navigation box (side of page) could move down with you as you go along the page? [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:36, 8 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::Technically you could maybe do that with <tt>position:fixed</tt> on the navigation box in question, but I'm not sure what it might do on older browsers, and I'm not sure how it'd interact with the side ad either.
::::::::I ''n''th an extra set of bottom tags, BTW. It'd be a nice little bit of extra utility.  --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 12:50, 8 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::::Yeah, I thought about ads AFTER I had posted that. I guess I was thinking more of something like "frames"... Never thought I'd miss THOSE. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 15:06, 8 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::::After a bit of experimentation... verdict is that it's not horrible, per se. However, you'd need to have the navigation/search/toolbox grouped together in the HTML to hook the CSS onto, and it ''would'' be annoying if your screen res is 1024x768 or smaller (as mine is), since the bottom of all that would get cut off. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 15:39, 8 February 2010 (EST)

When we were first drawing up the CSS, I proposed a floating sidebar as I'd found a kludge for it on a wiki customization site. It was not only panned, but vehemently so. In retrospect, I kind of agree that you don't want it following you around. Especially since that would kill the notion of the sidebar ads.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 23:07, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== ''Transformers 3'' disambiguation ==
Now that we know for sure that Transformers 3 will contain a Silverbolt (very liekly a new one to who we already have), what's the plan on disambiguating the movie-verse characters that debut in the third movie? (TF3) or are we going to wit for a more abbreviation friendly subtitle as per the example of (ROTF)? --[[User:G1MarvelBlaster|G1MarvelBlaster]] 09:31, 9 February 2010 (EST)
:Considering we likely won't even have any official information worth writing pages about until we also get a subtitle, I think waiting is the best course of action. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 09:53, 9 February 2010 (EST)

== Better "Newbie" Treatment? ==

Kind of wanted to address something that I've seen as a recurring issue--namely that we do tend to be lousy to new editors and non-regulars. I'd kind of prefer to take a "assume good faith" approach (or for the cynics, a "never attribute to malice what you can attribute to ignorance" approach).<br />
While there's several people here who do take the time to attempt an explanation to the newbies (the ones that aren't obviously spambots or vandals, I mean), there's too many other people who just throw up one of our user profile templates with no context, get revert happy with no edit summary explanation, and/or act outright insulting.<br />
Especially since even reading the help files and studying pages doesn't make you a perfect editor. I mean, I'd like to think I have a reasonable handle on editing now... but the earliest edits I did here make me want to cringe a little. Yet I got better, because folks didn't chase me off before giving me a chance to improve.<br />
Plus, I think many of our help files could use some rewriting anyway from the older editors who are really familiar with how we do things... some of them are a bit disorganized and rambling, and there's quite a few "unwritten rules" not really covered. There's also some info from various "why we do stuff a certain way on the wiki" discussions that could stand to get folded into the help pages. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 06:32, 10 February 2010 (EST)

:I kinda agree that this issue should be adressed, being kinda new here.[[User:Item42|Item42]] 15:42, 12 February 2010 (EST)
:: I always try to put something in as a guideline for these editors to follow, not just a deletion or "blankbastard" tag. Often, they are just eager to help and don't take the time to make sure of what they are doing. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 20:39, 12 February 2010 (EST)

:At the risk of sounding like an ass, there are frankly a lot of people out there whose help we probably don't ''want''.  Anons who drop by and change captions, badly, are unlikely to be secret wellsprings of useful information (or correct grammar).  They're more likely to put stupid notes or pointless quotes or other time wasters without adding meaningful content.  I have no problem with our template-slapping approach to these people, who are marching into our playground and breaking stuff without bothering to learn any of the rules.
:There are ''plenty'' of anons who drop by to add useful stuff, like foreign language titles and character names, and hey, y'know what?  Nobody gives them one ounce of grief.  The in-between cases, where someone just needs some guidance to get on the straight and narrow, are pretty rare. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 20:49, 12 February 2010 (EST)
::Considering I and some other folks have had to revert Detour several times from reverting actual information just because it was added by an anon, and there's been several other cases of regulars getting reprimanded for getting revert happy, and the incident Walky mentioned on Wheelie's talk page... it's not that simple. See Khajidha's comment too.
::Yeah, we do get a lot of people obviously just screwing around; they're not the ones I'm talking about helping here. I still see well-meaning folks getting slapped often enough that I think it's an issue, though. At least enough of one to get the rude and/or revert-happy folks on the same page as the more helpful editors.
::And even aside from all that, I think it's hard to argue that our Help pages do need at least some, well, help. I'd at least like to see more Example pages. When I considered creating the Example comic page, I eventually realized that I don't even know what the full skeleton of one is supposed to look like. (Which is part of why I've suggested installing and making use of the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:MultiBoilerplate MultiBoilerplate] extension for page templating, but anyhoo...) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:14, 12 February 2010 (EST)

== The Cybertron Chronicle ==

Since we have a fair few number of links to [http://cybertronchronicle.freewebspace.com/ that site], I thought I'd note that the webmaster apparently restructured his site a few days ago... so any links scattered in our articles are going to have to be fixed as we come across them. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 12:39, 13 February 2010 (EST)
:I think I've got them all.  It was just the interviews which were moved around. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 15:35, 13 February 2010 (EST)

== Donations? ==
[[Image:Donations TFWiki.jpg]]
Okay, whats up with that, when I clicked that "''donations''" button, I got an empty "page does not yet exist" thing. Someone please explain. [[User:Item42|Item42]] 09:46, 14 February 2010 (EST)
:Er. Are you using a skin other than the default, perhaps? Because there's no donations link on that page in the HTML at all for me, or anywhere else. You're also missing the "War For Cybertron" and "Revenge of the Fallen" links currently on the sidebar.
:We decided a while back we didn't need donations, so if you're using a different skin, it's possible it's from back when we were considering it, and the link to the donations page we never made only got removed from our default skin. Or something... --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 10:14, 14 February 2010 (EST)
::That's definitely our default skin (none of our other skins look like it) but that's the default sidebar and not our custom one. Item42: is that coming up all the time, or did it only come up on that one page? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:01, 14 February 2010 (EST)
:::It (the ''Donations'' thing) doesn't show up all the time,  just maybe that one time. I usually see the other buttons missing in that screen capture. Maybe this is one of  those [[Size class|Supreme]]-ly rare somehwat random and hard to explain errors that I should be glad got recorded? [[User:Item42|Item42]] 08:17, 15 February 2010 (EST)

== Who's dat talking 'bout the Wiki in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpyKAcaoK2U this video]? ==

LOL - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 14:00, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:I don't hear anyone talking about the wiki in said video. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 14:04, 17 February 2010 (EST)
::You aren't listening closely enough. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 14:05, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:::Unfortunately I do not share your miraculous ability to block out the other people talking and only listen for what you're talking about.
:::(Basically, I still can't hear anything, even after watching it twice in a row.) --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 14:09, 17 February 2010 (EST)
::::I hear it.  Something about "how the wiki's concerned."  Pretty much about how we disambig some of these guys.  Good to know that's the first thing that comes to some of our minds. --[[User:Bluestreak7|Bluestreak7]] 14:24, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:::::The "main" wiki-talker is Sipher, saying the simplest way to organize PÇCs here is to call them.... PCCs.  Walky is then heard agreeing.  So I'm afraid we can't chalk it up to awareness spreading to the greater masses.  --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 14:26, 17 February 2010 (EST)
::::::Finally caught it, now that I knew exactly what I was looking for. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 15:55, 17 February 2010 (EST)
::::::OK. I guess it isn't very "LOL". - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:32, 17 February 2010 (EST)

== gb.tfwiki.info ==

Redirects to the Wikia site.  We should probably fix that, and also fix *.tfwiki.net so that it does a 301 redirect instead of returning valid pages.  At the moment the search engines are crawling the site three times over.[http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.tfwiki.net] [http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aww.tfwiki.net] --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:32, 18 February 2010 (EST)

== March / April featured article ==

I'd like to nominate [[Jazz (G1)|Jazz]] for an upcoming FC.  The article's long enough that it's worthy, but it also needs enough additional work that it'd be a good project to tackle to get it ready.  In particular:
* I HATE the current main image - it's that puffy, double-over Pat Lee style that makes the character look like a fat hunchback.  I'm pondering replacing it with art from the Shout! G1 DVDs.
* The trivia desperately needs to be trimmed and reorganized
* The cartoon section is vastly incomplete.
For your consideration!  I will probably take these projects on myself in the next week or so, regardless. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 09:01, 20 February 2010 (EST)
:I slapped a bit of Binaltech in there. I don't think I can face doing another full G1 cartoon section again for a while, though. Abates, get on it! :) As for a main picture, I imagine there's probably a nice full-body shot of a non-puffy Jazz on the filecard that was included with his TFC reissue from a few years back. [[Kup (G1)|Kup]] uses his, for an example. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 12:18, 20 February 2010 (EST)
::Oh yeah, I've been thinking of tackling Jazz's cartoon section for a while! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:35, 20 February 2010 (EST)
:::If we can get it done before the end of the month, cool.  Otherwise, I think it's [[Tarantulas (BW)|''Beast Wars'' Tarantulas]]'s turn next.  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:05, 20 February 2010 (EST)
::::Beyond that, do we have any plans?  We've had multiple G1, BW, and movie featured articles.  Does anyone have a complete run of RiD?  I'm thinking Sky-Byte or maybe just ''The Fish Test'' as a future featured article. (By next year we should really really consider having our RiD articles up to snuff anyway; it'll be the 10th anniversary of the U.S. releases.)  [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 09:08, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::For purely selfish reasons, can I nominate The AllSpark Almanac for June?--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 11:18, 28 February 2010 (EST)
::::::Why not.  Though that's also when BotCon is, so we might want to feature a character from the set.  Though it's LATE June, so maybe July would be better for it.  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:40, 28 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::Looks like Jazz is in great shape now, if we're still looking for April.  Nice work, folks! -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 13:30, 28 February 2010 (EST)
::::::::Unfortunately, the Marvel section has to be almost entirely rewritten.  It's not nearly enough in depth.  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 15:47, 28 February 2010 (EST)