User talk:Interrobang/Archive 0 - Revision history

Sabrblade at 01:05, 18 January 2024

2024-01-18T01:05:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:05, 18 January 2024
Line 57:		Line 57:

	==Beast Wars timeline==		==Beast Wars timeline==
	Hello, I've start a article [[Beast ~~Era~~ timeline\|here]] by using some temporary file I write before, maybe you can help with that! ;D --[[User:TX55\|TX55]] 04:47, 05 November 2007 (UTC)		Hello, I've start a article [[Beast Wars timeline\|here]] by using some temporary file I write before, maybe you can help with that! ;D --[[User:TX55\|TX55]] 04:47, 05 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Graphy ==		== Graphy ==

Cyberlink420 at 22:24, 27 October 2022

2022-10-27T22:24:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 27 October 2022
Line 260:		Line 260:
	Sorry for the inconvenience. I thought "Witwicky" could use a little disambig-uation. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 23:28, 26 April 2009 (EDT)		Sorry for the inconvenience. I thought "Witwicky" could use a little disambig-uation. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 23:28, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
	:The problem with that (and frankly, 99% of the disambiguation templates we maintain) is that nobody will go to those pages looking for "Witwicky". Because if they were looking for it, they'd be typing "Witwicky" in the search box in the first place. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 23:31, 26 April 2009 (EDT)		:The problem with that (and frankly, 99% of the disambiguation templates we maintain) is that nobody will go to those pages looking for "Witwicky". Because if they were looking for it, they'd be typing "Witwicky" in the search box in the first place. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 23:31, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
	::All their pages should probably link to [[Witwicky]] somewhere. I don't have a better idea where. The page is, more a less, a big disambiguation page. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 23:38, 26 April 2009 (EDT)		::All their pages should probably link to [[Witwicky (surname)\|Witwicky]] somewhere. I don't have a better idea where. The page is, more a less, a big disambiguation page. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 23:38, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
	:::Three options I can think of: 1) make a link out of the last part of their names; 2) say they're "part of the [[Witwicky]] family"; 3) make a "see also" section. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 23:41, 26 April 2009 (EDT)		:::Three options I can think of: 1) make a link out of the last part of their names; 2) say they're "part of the [[Witwicky (surname)\|Witwicky]] family"; 3) make a "see also" section. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 23:41, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
	::::1) sounds the best even if it would look a little ugly to have half their name linked. I would put it in the italicized continuity note rather than their bolded first instance of their name. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 09:13, 27 April 2009 (EDT)		::::1) sounds the best even if it would look a little ugly to have half their name linked. I would put it in the italicized continuity note rather than their bolded first instance of their name. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 09:13, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
	:::::That actually works out pretty nicely. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 11:00, 27 April 2009 (EDT)		:::::That actually works out pretty nicely. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 11:00, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

Cyberlink420 at 22:44, 4 November 2021

2021-11-04T22:44:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 4 November 2021
Line 144:		Line 144:
	::::As far as I've heard, all G1 means is "everything before G2." --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)		::::As far as I've heard, all G1 means is "everything before G2." --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Then what do we call the original toyline and cartoon series? Because they aren't the same thing as the Japanese sequel series. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)		:::::Then what do we call the original toyline and cartoon series? Because they aren't the same thing as the Japanese sequel series. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Okay, I see your point now. Still, having, for example, [[Bombshock (G1)]] and [[Bombshock (ROC)]] doesn't seem quite right to me, as they're both considered to be G1 characters. I'm not sure what was wrong with using (Autobot) and (Decepticon). --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)		::::::Okay, I see your point now. Still, having, for example, [[Bombshock (G1)\|Bombshock (G1) and Bombshock (ROC)]] doesn't seem quite right to me, as they're both considered to be G1 characters. I'm not sure what was wrong with using (Autobot) and (Decepticon). --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::The ROC guy is a G1 character in the loose sense that he's in the same continuity family. I don't see what the big issue is, as we have both the disambig template and the continuity note to clarify matters for the reader. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)		:::::::The ROC guy is a G1 character in the loose sense that he's in the same continuity family. I don't see what the big issue is, as we have both the disambig template and the continuity note to clarify matters for the reader. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

NexusShard17 at 12:13, 27 August 2018

2018-08-27T12:13:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:13, 27 August 2018
Line 172:		Line 172:
	Well, in the past DAY (all of these are consecutive edits - i.e., no-one else edits in-between):		Well, in the past DAY (all of these are consecutive edits - i.e., no-one else edits in-between):
	*[[Dirge (G1)‎]] - three edits in three minutes (including two edits in a minute)		*[[Dirge (G1)‎]] - three edits in three minutes (including two edits in a minute)
	*[[Acid Storm\|Acid Storm]] - three edits in four minutes		*[[Acid Storm (G1)\|Acid Storm]] - three edits in four minutes
	*[[Rainmaker]] - three edits in four minutes		*[[Rainmaker]] - three edits in four minutes
	*[[Autotransforming‎]] - four edits in three minutes (including two edits in a minute)		*[[Autotransforming‎]] - four edits in three minutes (including two edits in a minute)

TimeLord11: /* AllSpark */

2018-06-21T20:01:50Z

AllSpark

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 21 June 2018
Line 159:		Line 159:
	#It originally went just to the "movie thing"		#It originally went just to the "movie thing"
	#Wait... the "movie thing"'s two words, and I just went through and removed all one-word links to the "movie thing" anyway.		#Wait... the "movie thing"'s two words, and I just went through and removed all one-word links to the "movie thing" anyway.
	#You're petitioning to have ~~[[AllSpark (Movie)\|~~All Spark (Movie)]] moved back to ~~[[AllSpark (Movie)\|~~All Spark]], and the dimension's at [[Allspark]] (one word, no cap "S"). Since that leaves the "Animated thing" as the only "AllSpark" (one word, cap "S"), shouldn't that get the redirect all to itself? - [[User:SanityOrMadness\|SanityOrMadness]] 13:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)		#You're petitioning to have "All Spark (Movie)" moved back to "All Spark", and the dimension's at [[Transformer afterlife\|Allspark]] (one word, no cap "S"). Since that leaves the "Animated thing" as the only "AllSpark" (one word, cap "S"), shouldn't that get the redirect all to itself? - [[User:SanityOrMadness\|SanityOrMadness]] 13:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
	:No, because "AllSpark" has been used to refer to the All Spark. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)		:No, because "AllSpark" has been used to refer to the All Spark. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Saix: replaced: [[Acid Storm (G1) → [[Acid Storm, → (85), * → * (2)

2016-02-27T09:55:52Z

replaced: [[Acid Storm (G1) → [[Acid Storm, → (85), * → * (2)

Show changes

Abates: /* Megatron (BW) */

2012-12-09T21:42:00Z

Megatron (BW)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:42, 9 December 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Also, the Classics category does not belong in the Generation 1 category. The Classics Mini-cons aren't from G1, nor is Leo Prime. --[[User:FortMax\|FortMax]] 17:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)		Also, the Classics category does not belong in the Generation 1 category. The Classics Mini-cons aren't from G1, nor is Leo Prime. --[[User:FortMax\|FortMax]] 17:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

	:Every new iteration of G1 has added unique characters. In DreamwaveG1, we got [[The Fallen]], [[Gravitas]] and the other ancients, [[Backbite]] and his assassin team, etc. The IDW comics have given us a bunch of new humans and even a [[Calabi-Yau\|named spaceship]]. ''Classics'' is likewise a G1 continuity because of its core cast and overall theme. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]]		:Every new iteration of G1 has added unique characters. In DreamwaveG1, we got [[The Fallen]], [[Gravitas]] and the other ancients, [[Backbite (G1)\|Backbite]] and his assassin team, etc. The IDW comics have given us a bunch of new humans and even a [[Calabi-Yau\|named spaceship]]. ''Classics'' is likewise a G1 continuity because of its core cast and overall theme. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]]

	::I ''think'' I read in some report out of BotCon that the Classics Mini-Cons are going to be considered part of a G1 universe. Can anyone confirm that? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 17:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)		::I ''think'' I read in some report out of BotCon that the Classics Mini-Cons are going to be considered part of a G1 universe. Can anyone confirm that? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 17:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Khajidha: /* Preview Bastard? */ link fixing

2012-02-21T13:39:16Z

Preview Bastard?: link fixing

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:39, 21 February 2012
Line 172:		Line 172:
	Well, in the past DAY (all of these are consecutive edits - i.e., no-one else edits in-between):		Well, in the past DAY (all of these are consecutive edits - i.e., no-one else edits in-between):
	*[[Dirge (G1)‎]] - three edits in three minutes (including two edits in a minute)		*[[Dirge (G1)‎]] - three edits in three minutes (including two edits in a minute)
	*[[Acid Storm]] - three edits in four minutes		*[[Acid Storm (G1)\|Acid Storm]] - three edits in four minutes
	*[[Rainmaker]] - three edits in four minutes		*[[Rainmaker]] - three edits in four minutes
	*[[Autotransforming‎]] - four edits in three minutes (including two edits in a minute)		*[[Autotransforming‎]] - four edits in three minutes (including two edits in a minute)

Deceptitran: BOT: replacing (2) links to "All Spark" with "AllSpark (Movie)"

2009-11-21T15:13:50Z

BOT: replacing (2) links to "All Spark" with "AllSpark (Movie)"

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:13, 21 November 2009
Line 159:		Line 159:
	#It originally went just to the "movie thing"		#It originally went just to the "movie thing"
	#Wait... the "movie thing"'s two words, and I just went through and removed all one-word links to the "movie thing" anyway.		#Wait... the "movie thing"'s two words, and I just went through and removed all one-word links to the "movie thing" anyway.
	#You're petitioning to have [[~~All Spark~~\|All Spark (Movie)]] moved back to [[All Spark]], and the dimension's at [[Allspark]] (one word, no cap "S"). Since that leaves the "Animated thing" as the only "AllSpark" (one word, cap "S"), shouldn't that get the redirect all to itself? - [[User:SanityOrMadness\|SanityOrMadness]] 13:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)		#You're petitioning to have [[AllSpark (Movie)\|All Spark (Movie)]] moved back to [[AllSpark (Movie)\|All Spark]], and the dimension's at [[Allspark]] (one word, no cap "S"). Since that leaves the "Animated thing" as the only "AllSpark" (one word, cap "S"), shouldn't that get the redirect all to itself? - [[User:SanityOrMadness\|SanityOrMadness]] 13:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
	:No, because "AllSpark" has been used to refer to the All Spark. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)		:No, because "AllSpark" has been used to refer to the All Spark. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Geewunling at 17:55, 12 November 2009

2009-11-12T17:55:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:55, 12 November 2009
Line 75:		Line 75:

	==Category changes==		==Category changes==
	Hey, Interrobang -- I wish you wouldn't make such sweeping category changes without posting a notice to the relevant talk page first, just to double-check things. For example, the discussion in [[Category talk:Siblings]] sort of went in a "let's have a general category for all relatives" direction without quite reaching consensus. Now that the siblings category is empty, it will be a lot more work to fill up a "has relatives" category if/when we make one, because we'll have to "rediscover" all the sibling articles. --[[User:Steve-o\|Steve-o]] 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)		Hey, Interrobang -- I wish you wouldn't make such sweeping category changes without posting a notice to the relevant talk page first, just to double-check things. For example, the discussion in "Category talk:Siblings" sort of went in a "let's have a general category for all relatives" direction without quite reaching consensus. Now that the siblings category is empty, it will be a lot more work to fill up a "has relatives" category if/when we make one, because we'll have to "rediscover" all the sibling articles. --[[User:Steve-o\|Steve-o]] 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Well, the discussion had been lingering around for ''19 months''. I assumed nobody particularly cared about the thing anymore. If you need the sibling articles, you can just look in my "User contributions". My editing sprees are mostly unbroken. [[User:Interrobang\|—‽]] 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)		:Well, the discussion had been lingering around for ''19 months''. I assumed nobody particularly cared about the thing anymore. If you need the sibling articles, you can just look in my "User contributions". My editing sprees are mostly unbroken. [[User:Interrobang\|—‽]] 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Yes, it had stagnated for a very long time. However, even a brief glance at that discussion shows that support was not there for a straight-up "delete". --[[User:Steve-o\|Steve-o]] 05:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)		::Yes, it had stagnated for a very long time. However, even a brief glance at that discussion shows that support was not there for a straight-up "delete". --[[User:Steve-o\|Steve-o]] 05:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 27 October 2022
Line 260:		Line 260:
	Sorry for the inconvenience. I thought "Witwicky" could use a little disambig-uation. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 23:28, 26 April 2009 (EDT)		Sorry for the inconvenience. I thought "Witwicky" could use a little disambig-uation. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 23:28, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
	:The problem with that (and frankly, 99% of the disambiguation templates we maintain) is that nobody will go to those pages looking for "Witwicky". Because if they were looking for it, they'd be typing "Witwicky" in the search box in the first place. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 23:31, 26 April 2009 (EDT)		:The problem with that (and frankly, 99% of the disambiguation templates we maintain) is that nobody will go to those pages looking for "Witwicky". Because if they were looking for it, they'd be typing "Witwicky" in the search box in the first place. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 23:31, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
	::All their pages should probably link to [[Witwicky]] somewhere. I don't have a better idea where. The page is, more a less, a big disambiguation page. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 23:38, 26 April 2009 (EDT)		::All their pages should probably link to [[Witwicky (surname)\|Witwicky]] somewhere. I don't have a better idea where. The page is, more a less, a big disambiguation page. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 23:38, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
	:::Three options I can think of: 1) make a link out of the last part of their names; 2) say they're "part of the [[Witwicky]] family"; 3) make a "see also" section. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 23:41, 26 April 2009 (EDT)		:::Three options I can think of: 1) make a link out of the last part of their names; 2) say they're "part of the [[Witwicky (surname)\|Witwicky]] family"; 3) make a "see also" section. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 23:41, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
	::::1) sounds the best even if it would look a little ugly to have half their name linked. I would put it in the italicized continuity note rather than their bolded first instance of their name. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 09:13, 27 April 2009 (EDT)		::::1) sounds the best even if it would look a little ugly to have half their name linked. I would put it in the italicized continuity note rather than their bolded first instance of their name. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 09:13, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
	:::::That actually works out pretty nicely. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 11:00, 27 April 2009 (EDT)		:::::That actually works out pretty nicely. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 11:00, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 4 November 2021
Line 144:		Line 144:
	::::As far as I've heard, all G1 means is "everything before G2." --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)		::::As far as I've heard, all G1 means is "everything before G2." --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Then what do we call the original toyline and cartoon series? Because they aren't the same thing as the Japanese sequel series. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)		:::::Then what do we call the original toyline and cartoon series? Because they aren't the same thing as the Japanese sequel series. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Okay, I see your point now. Still, having, for example, [[Bombshock (G1)]] and [[Bombshock (ROC)]] doesn't seem quite right to me, as they're both considered to be G1 characters. I'm not sure what was wrong with using (Autobot) and (Decepticon). --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)		::::::Okay, I see your point now. Still, having, for example, [[Bombshock (G1)\|Bombshock (G1) and Bombshock (ROC)]] doesn't seem quite right to me, as they're both considered to be G1 characters. I'm not sure what was wrong with using (Autobot) and (Decepticon). --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::The ROC guy is a G1 character in the loose sense that he's in the same continuity family. I don't see what the big issue is, as we have both the disambig template and the continuity note to clarify matters for the reader. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)		:::::::The ROC guy is a G1 character in the loose sense that he's in the same continuity family. I don't see what the big issue is, as we have both the disambig template and the continuity note to clarify matters for the reader. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:42, 9 December 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Also, the Classics category does not belong in the Generation 1 category. The Classics Mini-cons aren't from G1, nor is Leo Prime. --[[User:FortMax\|FortMax]] 17:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)		Also, the Classics category does not belong in the Generation 1 category. The Classics Mini-cons aren't from G1, nor is Leo Prime. --[[User:FortMax\|FortMax]] 17:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

	:Every new iteration of G1 has added unique characters. In DreamwaveG1, we got [[The Fallen]], [[Gravitas]] and the other ancients, [[Backbite]] and his assassin team, etc. The IDW comics have given us a bunch of new humans and even a [[Calabi-Yau\|named spaceship]]. ''Classics'' is likewise a G1 continuity because of its core cast and overall theme. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]]		:Every new iteration of G1 has added unique characters. In DreamwaveG1, we got [[The Fallen]], [[Gravitas]] and the other ancients, [[Backbite (G1)\|Backbite]] and his assassin team, etc. The IDW comics have given us a bunch of new humans and even a [[Calabi-Yau\|named spaceship]]. ''Classics'' is likewise a G1 continuity because of its core cast and overall theme. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]]

	::I ''think'' I read in some report out of BotCon that the Classics Mini-Cons are going to be considered part of a G1 universe. Can anyone confirm that? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 17:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)		::I ''think'' I read in some report out of BotCon that the Classics Mini-Cons are going to be considered part of a G1 universe. Can anyone confirm that? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 17:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)