|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | | __NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
|
| |
|
| This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages: | | 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.com/invite/N99Bygq our Discord server.] |
|
| |
|
| '''The move away from Wikia:'''
| | Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages: |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints]]
| |
|
| |
|
| '''Our policy on having ads in the wiki:''' | | {{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content= |
| * [[Transformers Wiki:Ads]] | | <div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div> |
| | | * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]] |
| '''The Bookworm database-crash:''' | | * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]] |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central]] | | * [[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]] | | * [[Project:Bookworm Crash]] |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2]] | | * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]] |
| | | <br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div> |
| '''The server move:''' | | * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]] |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2]] | | <br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div> |
| | | * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]] |
| {{chapters
| | <br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div> |
| |title=Community Portal Archives
| | * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]] |
| |content=*[[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive1|Archive 1]]
| | <br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div> |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive2|Archive 2]] | | * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]] |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive3|Archive 3]] | | <br/> <div class="list-header">'''Wiki Technical Information:'''</div> |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive4|Archive 4]]
| | * [[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]] |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive5|Archive 5]] | | }}<br/> |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive6|Archive 6]]
| | <!--BEGIN ARCHIVE NAV INCLUDE--> |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive7|Archive 7]]
| | {{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}} |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive8|Archive 8]] | | <!--END ARCHIVE NAV INCLUDE--> |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive9|Archive 9]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive10|Archive 10]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive11|Archive 11]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive12|Archive 12]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive13|Archive 13]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive14|Archive 14]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive15|Archive 15]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive16|Archive 16]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive17|Archive 17]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive18|Archive 18]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive19|Archive 19]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive20|Archive 20]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive21|Archive 21]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive22|Archive 22]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive23|Archive 23]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive24|Archive 24]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive25|Archive 25]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive26|Archive 26]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive27|Archive 27]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive28|Archive 28]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive29|Archive 29]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive30|Archive 30]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive31|Archive 31]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive32|Archive 32]]
| |
| * [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive33|Archive 33]]
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| | |
| == Quotes ==
| |
| {{note|This discussion was moved from [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central#Quotes]].}}
| |
| | |
| Quotes now seem to look like this:
| |
| | |
| {{quote|Freedom is the right of all sentient beings|Optimus Prime}}
| |
| | |
| when IIRC before the crash they look like this:
| |
| | |
| {{bigquote|Freedom is the right of all sentient beings|Optimus Prime}}
| |
| | |
| Now, it seems we can get the second result using the <nowiki>{{bigquote}}</nowiki> template instead of the basic <nowiki>{{quote}}</nowiki> template that is currently populating most of the pages.
| |
| | |
| I'm of the opinion that the bigquote look is much more pleasing to the eye and it also seemed to be the norm before the crash. Should we change the quotes to bigquotes on individual pages or just have someone with template knowledge make a change there? --[[User:Bluestreak7|Bluestreak7]] 23:29, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Discussion on [[Template_talk:Quote]] suggests that bigquote is the old style and quote is the new style. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:37, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Mind you I didn't ''ask'' anyone before swapping styles-- the intention was to give people a chance to evaluate the new look, but we only had it for a few days before the crash... so I don't think anyone noticed. :p
| |
| ::It's my opinion that the old quote template took up too much space-- which is find for a single quote at the top of an article when you want to make a big thing of it, but I thought ''most'' uses of the template would look nicer with s smaller visual footprint. (Plus the html is more contextual.)
| |
| ::Some people seem to dislike the chevron-style quoting... it's consistent with what, at the time, were our new reference templates-- also lost in the crash. The real appeal, to me, is that it lets you put quotes ''inside'' the quote template (such as an exchange between characters) without looking weird. The way we ''used'' to do that was multiple quote templates in a row, which (being oversize already) resulted in a massive on-screen footprint.
| |
| ::If the consensus is to switch to the bigQuote format for all quotes instead of the smaller one, I guess that's the community's perogative... but I'm gonna argue against it until that decision is made.
| |
| ::I ''like'' bitQuote-- it's great if you want a quote to be a big thing. Most of the time you don't. When you do-- why not just use <nowiki>{{bigquote}}</nowiki>? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:48, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Ahhh, my mistake! I coulda sworn I'd seen quote in use longer! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:55, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Why I don't like "quote":
| |
| ::#It's ugly.
| |
| ::#It's '''bigger''' than bigQuote. That seems to defeat the whole point.
| |
| ::#Single guillemots ''don't get used as quotation marks in English'' and so '''they don't parse as quotation marks'''.
| |
| ::#It's '''incredibly''' ugly.
| |
| ::#And finally-if-slightly-tangentially, there's a conscious effort, it seems, to change all "bigquotes" to "quotes", which defeats the whole point of having two templates.
| |
| ::Definite vote to revert - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 11:35, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| I vote against the revert. I do not like the old quote style, as noted on the above-linked discussion page. All we need to do is change the guillemots to quote marks and it's fine by me. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 04:08, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| In accordance with the general wishes of the community, the quotes have been changed from guillemots to standard quotation... though I think it looks terribly ''silly'' that way. You can see just how silly over at [[Template_talk:Quote]]. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 23:57, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Well, one day after updating the quote template, I finally ran into ''exactly'' the scenario I was talking about in regards to quotes within quotes. I need to quote this passage (which includes but is not composed exclusively of dialog) for an article.
| |
| {{quote|"Farewell Optimus prime," [Starscream] whispered to himself. "Time for Endspark."|[[Starscream (Movie)|Starscream]]|<u>[[Ghosts of Yesterday]]</u> p280}}
| |
| :That looks absolutely retarded. The guillemots may have been ugly-- but they were at least ''clear''. And none of the user suggestions (including [[User:Abates]] idea of using multiple parameters for a series of quotes) applies here-- because the text is ''inline''.
| |
| :You all suck. Does anyone have any suggestions ''other'' than guillemots to make that look less retarded? Because <nowiki>{{bigquote}}</nowiki> looks even ''worse''. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:53, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::[http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp Rule four] suggests it should look like this:
| |
| {{quote|'Farewell Optimus prime,' [Starscream] whispered to himself. 'Time for Endspark.'|[[Starscream (Movie)|Starscream]]|<u>[[Ghosts of Yesterday]]</u> p280}}
| |
| ::although you could also use ‘ and ’ maybe? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:33, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::I have restore the guillemots as an ''optional flag.'' (style=2) The entire ''point'' of using a non-english quotation mark was to avoid conflicts with English quotation marks, so the guillemots seem like a good fallback position when there is a conflict.
| |
| {{quote|'Farewell Optimus prime,' [Starscream] whispered to himself. 'Time for Endspark.'|[[Starscream (Movie)|Starscream]]|<u>[[Ghosts of Yesterday]]</u> p280|style=2}}
| |
| :::This necessitated html and css changes, so some quotes may look funny for the next 24 hours or so until the pages de-cache. (They'll preview properly, and if you save them they'll look right... but left on their own they will re-cache with the updated <nowiki>{{quote}}</nowiki> HTML in short order, so don't bother.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 03:50, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Uh, why not take the easy route. '''Leave out the opening and closing quotation marks when you post''', and the template fills them in. i.e.,
| |
| {{quote|Farewell Optimus prime," [Starscream] whispered to himself. "Time for Endspark.|[[Starscream (Movie)|Starscream]]|<u>[[Ghosts of Yesterday]]</u> p280}}
| |
| ::There you go, simple and doesn't involve guillemots that don't parse for anyone. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 05:01, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::What a lovely mix of smart and dumb quotes you have created. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 05:46, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Given the use of a monospaced font, it doesn't make sense to use "smart" quotation marks anyway... - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 07:24, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :I prefer the old style quotes. Nobody can make me use the new ones. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 06:09, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::I agree, for all the reasons that SanityOrMadness listed above (especially points 1, 2 and 4)[[Special:Contributions/81.108.237.26|81.108.237.26]] 13:44, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::I completely don't care about this discussion, but I must take the time to point out that it's "guillemet". "Guillemot" is a bird, which is decidedly not relevant to this discussion. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 03:49, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| I don't think the normal quotes show up properly in IE6 and a normal quote overlaps an image on http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Protoform so that needs to be fixed or bigquote restored.[[Special:Contributions/81.108.237.26|81.108.237.26]] 11:08, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :That's a note, not a quote. The site unfortunately has plenty of problems in IE6, mostly caused by Microsoft's crappy rendering engine. A few of them linger in IE7 too... We really need to come up with a replacement for the messageboxes which doesn't lose the right-hand edge for one thing. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:48, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| == Redirects while editing ==
| |
| | |
| Go to [[User:Derik/Sandbox7]], hit edit, then ''preview''. (Hitting shift-refresh might be required to clear out your CSS cache if the effect isn't apparent.)
| |
| | |
| Links to redirects are highlighted ''in preview mode only''. If it's not highlighted, you know you're pointing to an actual page rather than a redirect. Should probably make it easier to just ''guess'' on a lot of links while still being assured you're picking valid ones.
| |
| | |
| (Pink is a terrible color to use for this. Any suggestions on how this should be styled? Sparkle-background?) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:46, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Would making them simply <span style="text-decoration: underline; color: blue">underlined</span> be too subtle? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:15, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::I worry it's too subtle. What about <span style="text-decoration: underline;border-bottom: 3px double; color: blue;cursor: help;" title="I'm Rick James bitch, and ''this'' is linking to a redirect!">this</span>?
| |
| ::If that's too subtle I could break out the sparkling text and have the wiki chant "Septus, Dominus!" every time you mouse over it...-[[User:Derik|Derik]] 23:30, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| Aw, what's wrong with the pink? I think that one's clear enough. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 00:39, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| Not bad. At least this way it'll be easier to catch the redirects, applying changes when necessary. Although pink... I think it'd be better if the color was a different contrast if it's in the colored section of the templates (as in the episode/comic templates). --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 01:34, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Abates suggested underlining... since the redirects ''only'' show up that way when in preview mode, I think it'd be a good idea to have multiple visual indications. (I don't think the previous/next links on the comicnav, for example, will change color... because they already ''have'' a color set. If you have multiple indicators (color underline, etc...) chances are at least one will remain noticable no matter what happens.
| |
| :Does anyone hate the blinking? (It's a firefox-only style.) Normally I HATE anything that blinks because its distracting, but the whole point here is to be able to easily spot the redirects. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Eh, blinking's fine. Not that of a biggy for me. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 02:08, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::It's only in the preview and not in the saved pages, so the blinking is ok so far as I'm concerned! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:15, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::I think the feature is great? But yes, I hate the blinking. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:03, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| This might be a good time to mention this, but just because a link is pink and flashy doesn't necessarily mean it is a mistake needing fixing, right? It is sometimes OK to use redirect links. If you are talking about Goldbug it is OK (and preferable in my opinion) to link to [[Goldbug (G1)]] and let the redirect do the work. I think having it stand out so much would tend to have editors feel the need to clean them all out. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:17, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::There is potential for that. I agree that sometimes redirects are okay... <nowiki>*shrug*</nowiki> -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:44, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| How about "safety orange" or yellow? Those are universal "danger/warning" colors. (And less puke-inducing for me than pink). I don't mind the blinking either, considering that the idea is that the indicator is ''supposed'' to annoy the hell out of you until you change it. (FWIW, the whole thing works fine in Opera 9.63, too.)
| |
| | |
| As for Starfield's comment, eh, I just don't see it 99% of the time. If I wanted to link to something like Goldbug or Rodimus Prime, I would do <nowiki>[[Bumblebee (G1)|Goldbug]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[Hot Rod (G1)|Rodimus Prime]]</nowiki> instead. About the only time I could see it useful is if you were doing linking related to a spoiler (like Longarm Prime vs. Shockwave, for instance), but even then you'd still only need to do it for a month at most. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 16:15, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :I don't personally see the sense in manually redirecting to Hot Rod when you are talking Rodimus Prime when there is perfectly valid actual redirect to use. You aren't talking about "Hot Rod". It is like word-linking that way, like you are trying to fake out the reader. "Rodimus Prime" is that character's name in that point of the story. I always thought that was the primary purpose of having redirects, and search boxes were secondary.
| |
| :Plus there is the added benefit of when you use the "what links here" page, you see what pages link to "Rodimus Prime", which is interesting information that is lost if everything links to "Hot Rod". - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 17:53, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Because it's the same character. We say "Spike" or "Daniel", but link to their full name. If someone refers to Bumblebee as a "giant yellow Volkswagon robot" in something, we might use that phrasing in the synopsis, but we'd still link to Bumblebee, not to "giant yellow Volkswagon robot" as a redirect. Etc. It's not a fakeout, it's just using the proper contextual name in the text, but cutting out the middleman for the actual link.
| |
| ::Redirects can make linking easier for editors who don't know immediately what the proper link might be, so we don't end up with accidental duplicate pages (or as a shorter way to link to something like an oft-used section link), but on the whole I think it's mostly useful for searches.
| |
| ::In short, while not all redirect linking is something to worry about, per se, I don't see anything wrong with encouraging editors to hunt down the correct linkage, even in those sorts of edge cases. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 18:19, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::"Goldbug" was a character in the comic [[Used Autobots]], the character was ''not'' "Bumblebee". In that way, it is different than using Spike's full name, or even [[Peter Parker]] vs [[Spider-Man]]. I think a link on the [[Used Autobots]] article to <nowiki>[[Bumblebee (G1)|Goldbug]]</nowiki> is incorrect because there was no "Bumblebee" in the story. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:36, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::And yet, Bumblebee and Goldbug don't have separate articles, because we treat them as being the same character. *shrugs a little* I don't ''care'' either way, really, and wouldn't consider it worth worrying about if someone linked to Goldbug, I just don't see that as more correct. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 18:47, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::Bumblebee/Goldbug is the same character. That is ''why'' I think it is OK to link to "Goldbug", even more correct to do so when you are talking about Goldbug. "Goldbug" is not a nickname for "Bumblebee", Goldbug is that character, at that point in the story. The article could be named "Goldbug (G1)" with Bumblebee redirecting to it or "Bumblebee/Goldbug", but for our, somewhat arbitrary, naming rules. I don't disagree with the naming rules, but just because the article is called "Bumblebee" doesn't mean that that always linking to "Bumblebee" is correct. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 19:00, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::And yet, even if you link to Goldbug, when you click on the link, you still end up at a page titled "Bumblebee (G1)". Is the little "redirected from" note really that crucial a difference? (Especially since the intro mentions the Goldbug change right at the top anyway.) It just seems like a difference that makes no difference to me. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:05, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::Yes, when you link to Goldbug, you end up at the right spot, so why the big push to not link to Goldbug when you are talking about Goldbug? And yes, in some way I like seeing "redirected from", it lets me know that Goldbug is just as correct but the title is called "Bumblebee" out of convenience. And don't forget about the "What links here" feature. It is a little useful being able to sort out the Goldbug references. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 19:19, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::Someone requested I link-fix a bunch of minor variants of Hot Rod/Rodimus Prime ot all point to "Hot Rod (G1)". Instead I split them, pointing to "Hot Rod (G1)" and "Rodimus Prime (G1)" as appropriate-- in case we one day decide to split the articles like we do Megatron/Galvatron.
| |
| ::::::The same principle applies. A split is ''unlikely'', but this way if we ''do'' split the articles, all the links are already pointing to the appropriate destination, instead of having to sort through 500+ incoming links ''by hand'' (that's abotu the number Hot Rod has...) to figure out which need to go where. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 10:57, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::::::''Is the little "redirected from" note really that crucial a difference?''
| |
| ::::::::For me, yes, it kinda is. It lets me know that the powers-that-be have decided that "Goldbug" is heavily subordinate to the character of Bumblebee, that they are well and truly one and the same, that there's not some other Goldbug article out there that I'm missing. That in itself is a significant bit of information, even before I've started reading the text. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 20:09, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| I think that the "What Links Here" issue is a fair point. But IMHO if you need the little "redirected from" note to tell you're in the right place instead of just by reading the intro, you're either lazy or the intro needs rewriting. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:14, 22 April 2009 (EDT)<br>
| |
| Edit: Realized I should mention that I'm liking the blinky thingy so far... it used to be annoying having to click through every new link I was adding to make sure it was the proper direct link instead of a redirect. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:18, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :We should have one standard for linking or not linking to redirect pages. I much prefer being able to link to redirect pages and not get reverted, but I would go along with the other way if that is the standard. I started a draft proposal for a standard to be added to the style guide at my [[User:Starfield/Redirect linking|sandbox]]. Please feel free to comment or edit it or add reasons for/against. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:51, 8 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| ==Franchise identifier consistency==
| |
| At the moment, we have 34 "G1" articles with an identifier of a specific Japanese sub-franchise to distinguish them from articles on usually Western/G1 material. We also have about 9 "G1" articles who use a different kind of identifier, on basis that the Japanese continuities are G1.<br>
| |
| This already led to a bit of moving around with the Grandus article between (G1) and (ROC) when the Animated guy was introduced. To prevent that happening with the Dai Atlas, Sky Garry and possibly Cancer articles, I'd like to have the community make a decision on how to deal with the (G1) identifier vs the (Headmasters), (Masterforce), (Victory), (Zone), (ROC) and (OC) identifiers vs whatever else can be/is used as identifier.<br>
| |
| My preference would be to use the Japanese sub-franchise identifiers. Simple and in line with the whole "from the (Japanese franchise) portion of the G1 continuity" on top of those pages. For convenience, here's a list of the moves it would mean:
| |
| *Sandstorm (Autobot) -> Sandstorm (G1) (Note: we have a SG Sandstorm now, so (Autobot) it can't stay anyway.)
| |
| *Sandstorm (Decepticon) -> Sandstorm (OC)
| |
| *Falcon (Predator) -> Falcon (G1)
| |
| *Falcon (Micromaster) -> Falcon (OC)
| |
| *Ricochet (G1 Autobot) -> Ricochet (Headmasters)
| |
| *Metrotitan (G1) -> Metrotitan (Zone)
| |
| *Grandus (G1) -> Grandus (ROC)
| |
| *Star Saber (G1) -> Star Saber (Victory)
| |
| *Joe (Micromaster) -> Joe (ROC)
| |
| *Circuit (Action Master) -> Circuit (G1)
| |
| *Circuit (Micromaster) -> Circuit (OC)
| |
| *Convertor (Micromaster) -> Convertor (OC)
| |
| *Convertor (Recyclon) -> Convertor (G1), but I'm in favour of leaving this one as (Recyclon) because all other Recyclons with an identifier use (Recyclon).
| |
| Thoughts? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 03:48, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :Sky Garry etc... all fall under (G1.) Widest possible identifier when there's no conflict.
| |
| :This confuses people because we use specific franchises for UT characters... but the UT has SO MUCH name overlap it'd be pointless-- no one would have the (UT) identifier even if it was standard. G1 has little enough name overlap internal to itself we can make (G1) the default.
| |
| :So it's inconsistent--but it's at least ''consistently'' inconsistent. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 06:55, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Diver, Planet X, Hydra, maaaaybe Overlord... No, we're not consistently inconsistent either. And now I'm only looking at G1 West vs Japan. With BW, we do seem to be consistent in acknowledging its Japanese sub-franchises in identifiers. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 07:20, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::What's this "widest possible identifier," Derik? Didn't we go through that huge "Swarm (G1)" debate (which seems to have been ''completely lost'' in the Bookworm crash, fantastic) to cement the franchise-of-origin rule forever and ever amen? The only question here is: What counts as a separate franchise? To my mind, ''Zone'' bears about the same relationship to G1 as G2 does. And, as the Swarm debate established, G2 is never ever G1 as far as parentheticals are concerned. The UT example has nothing to do with what you said and everything to do with our one simple rule. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 00:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::...I don't remember anymore. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:31, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::At least remember to curse the name of Bookworm for three to seven generations. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 00:59, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::Side note: Actually, the bit of the discussion that was on my User Page subpage isn't lost. I just didn't upload it anywhere because we never actually determined a good permanent place to move it to, so I didn't know ''where'' to upload it to. After a quickie Google search, it turns out there's still a good cache file for the Insecticon Swarm talk page, too. Anyhoo. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 02:19, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::Hey, whatever you can find and restore, please do. The biggest value of preserving a debate like that is never having to go through it again. I'd say you should re-make your Sandbox and its Talk page exactly as they were before. I don't think a more "permanent" place is necessary; it's an aborted experiment, so it can stay on an "experimental" page. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 03:11, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::I'm for moving those pages. Except for "OC" since it's based on a bad translation of a Japanese title. 合体大作戦 (''Gattai Daisakusen'') means "Great Combination Operation". Everybody who knows this, including me, just has been too lazy to correct it. (And Derik, the punctuation for a sentence is out of the parentheses. I'm not sure why you consistently make that mistake.) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 01:54, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::Then maybe this is a good moment to correct it? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 03:55, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::Well, problem is that "Operation Combination", as incorrect as it is, is what the majority of English people know it as. And then what to have the disambiguation parentheses as? "(GCO)"? I would prefer to have it as "Gattai Daisakusen", but my opinion of forgoing unofficial translations is decidedly unpopular. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:13, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::Then it depends on what this wiki cares more about: helping people find information or providing them with the correct information. By what you're saying, I'd say Operation Combination should become a redirect to the correctly named article. And from there, I don't think (OC) is going to be anymore clear on what continuity it represents than (GCO) or (GD). I don't think many will immediately guess "OC" stands for Operation Combination, and that's also not the point of identifiers. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 08:21, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::I'm in favor of using the Japanese sub-franchise names. I checked Beast Wars and we are using the sub-franchise names for that, (BWII), (BWN) so this would be consistent. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 08:51, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::Except as someone (Interrobang?) keeps pointing out-- that's problematic in itself. There was no BWII Toyline. There was a BWII cartoon... and a Beast Wars Toyline. Japan considers all 4 BW series paer of 1 toyline franchise, much like Generation 1. (This argument hasn't received a lot of traction, but I'm bringing it up because it seems relevant.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 10:19, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::FortMax brought it up at least twice. One could argue that since we focus on fiction, we should base our disambiguation system on it, but I dunno how to reconcile that with [[Cryotek (RID)]]. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:13, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::Or [[Sideways (RID)]]. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:34, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::::Sideways at least got a RID bio. All Cryotek gets is a quote. (And what if they have RID fiction with Cryotek in it? RID and BM are in two different continuity families which means we have to split the articles and argharghargh) [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 19:19, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::::Disambiguating by fiction has been argued. It doesn't work/help. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:52, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::::::<nowiki>*bump*</nowiki> So, I like Geewunling's proposal. Objections? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:14, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::The Wiki calls Headmasters, Beast Wars II, etc. "franchises." I didn't know the weren't until just now. It seems useful enough to do so, even if it isn't 100% historically accurate. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 19:07, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| == Technical question: Firefox and history pages ==
| |
| | |
| Is anyone else running the latest version of Firefox and having trouble with the history pages? I'm running Firefox 3.0.10 and when I look at, say, the [http://tfwiki.net/w2/index.php?title=Optimus_Primal&limit=500&action=history Optimus Primal history page], Firefox locks up for half a minute while it runs the javasript to hide half of the radio buttons. It does it on two different computers running the same version of Firefox, but I don't have the same problem on Wikipedia or Wikia. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:56, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Oh wow, that ''was'' a pretty nasty stutter I got when I tried to reproduce your issue. Same version, same results.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 21:00, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Ayep, same here. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 22:02, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Issue also reproduced on my home PC, which has more get up and go than my workstation, with Firefox 3.5 beta 4.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 22:34, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Ditto on my notebook and tower unit. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 23:06, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::...interesting. Why just firefox? (Clearly the 500+ items are an issue here-- but Safari has no problem with 500 items.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 23:26, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::I'd be curious to know as well. I specifically tried it again with the beta release because it uses a different (and supposedly more efficient) Javascript engine.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 23:30, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::And why only here and not on Wikipedia? Is there that much of a change in the Javascript between MediaWiki 1.12 and 1.14? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:32, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| Dropped down to Firefox 2...20 there to test, and clicking the radio buttons doesn't take very long, but the page DOES lock up for a while on initial load. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 18:28, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :And FF 1.5.10 behaves as-FF2. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 18:38, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Bad images ==
| |
| | |
| My scanner is a piece o' crap. Is it better to upload dark and grainy pictures with a "badimage" tag or just put up a "picsneeded" tag? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:38, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Depends. With recent comic stuff, I think "pics needed" would be better, as there's a good chance that someone else will have the issue (or can find scans, *cough*). I replaced all the Defiance ones, for instance. If you have in mind specific scenes you would have scanned, you can always leave a suggestion in the picsneeded tag or on the talk page.
| |
| :On the other hand, for stuff that's old or rare, where it might be a choice between a bad image or never having an image, IMHO a bad image is better than nothing.
| |
| :(If you ever replace your scanner, I recommend the Canon MP210. I use it with Irfanview, and god I love the thing. Prints like a charm, too.) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 22:00, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == New User Template ==
| |
| | |
| I remember... someone before the crash (FortMax maybe?) suggesting the idea of a template we can stick on the talk pages of new users to welcome them. I rather liked the idea, so I started a mockup idea here: [[User:Jeysie/NewUser]] Any ideas for a pic, info to add/change, etc?
| |
| | |
| Also, I noticed we don't have a New Users log enabled the way Wikia does... if we do create this sort of thing, having that sort of log would be helpful. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 16:21, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :We'd need to either upgrade to MediaWiki 1.14 or install [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Newuserlog the extension] to get the new users log. It would be ''very'' useful, I'm thinking. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:35, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Screencap templates ==
| |
| | |
| Er... you know we can ''edit'' the text that appears on the file upload screen. Anyone got a list of screencap templates?
| |
| | |
| (I think you might even be able to set them up for one-click adding.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 20:37, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :They are all listed at [[Transformers Wiki:Images]], to my knowledge. I added all the ones I knew of.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:42, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::[[User:Derik/Sandbox7|This]] is what I'm looking at. It's kinda fugy. Anyone else want to take a whack at it? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:16, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| I'm also working at templating the comics images:
| |
| *{{tl|MarvelUScover}} (Marvel US G1), {{tl|HMcover}} (Marvel Headmasters mini) and {{tl|MarvelG2cover}} are maxed out.
| |
| *I ''think'' I've got all the extant & relevant images for {{tl|MarvelG2interior}} - although I can't absolutely swear to it
| |
| *I'm currently working as and when I have the chance on moving the Marvel US G1 interiors and HM interiors to {{tl|MarvelUSinterior}} and {{tl|HMinterior}} from a variety of copyright tags and the absence thereof (including the ones that lost their descriptions in the Bookworm Incident)
| |
| Like I say, the covers are maxed out, but there's always the chance that other interiors will be uploaded (Walky's done a few recently), and it would help if they were added too. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 21:58, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Propose a visually compact way of doing so. ;) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:10, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| {|border cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5" width="100%"
| |
| |-
| |
| !width=50%|General
| |
| !width=50%|Comic Cover
| |
| |-valign="top"
| |
| |width=50%|
| |
| *<span title="Hasbro/Takara Copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{hastak}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| *<span title="Interior Panel Copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{comicinterior}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| *<span title="Cover Copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{comiccover}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| *<span title="Screencap Copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{screencap}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| |width=50%|
| |
| *<span title="Marvel US G1 Cover copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{MarvelUScover|(description)|(issue number)|(issue title)|(artist list)|(last two digits of publication year)}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| *<span title="Marvel Headmasters Cover copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{HMcover|(description)|(issue number)|(issue title)|(artist list)}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| *<span title="Marvel US G2 Cover copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{MarvelG2cover|(description) |(issue number) |(issue title) |(artist list) |(last digit of publication year)}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| |-
| |
| !width=50%|Screencap
| |
| !width=50%|Comic Interior
| |
| |-valign="top"
| |
| |width=50%|
| |
| *<span title="Title Card Copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{titlecard}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| *<span title="G1/Sunbow Copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{G1cap|(imagedescription)|(episode name)|(last digit of premiere year originally aired)}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| *<span title="Robots In Disguise Copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{RIDcap|(imagedescription)|(episode name)|(last digit of year originally aired)}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| *<span title="Beast Wars Copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{BWcap|(imagedescription)|(episode name)|(last digit of year originally aired)}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| *<span title="Beast Machines Copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{BMcap|(imagedescription)|(episode name)|(year originally aired)}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| *<span title="Transformers: Animated Copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{TFAcap|(imagedescription)|(episode name)|(year originally aired)}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| |width=50%|
| |
| *<span title="Marvel US G1 Interior copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{MarvelUSinterior|description=|issueno=|storytitle=|pageno=|panelno=|panelnos=|script=|line-art=|pencils=|inks=|colours=[[Nelson Yomtov]]|letters=|help=|year=(last two digits of publication year)}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| *<span title="Marvel Headmasters Interior copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{HMinterior|description= |issueno= |storytitle= |pageno= |panelno= |panelnos= |letters= |help=}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| *<span title="Marvel US G2 Interior copyright" style="padding:0 .5em;"><charinsert><nowiki>{{MarvelG2interior|description= |issueno= |storytitle= |pageno= |panelno= |panelnos= |script= |pencils= |inks= |colours= |letters= |help= |year=(last digit of publication year)}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>
| |
| |}
| |
| ...I don't know about visually compact, exactly, but considering how many image templates we have, I'm not sure "visually compact" is possible... --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 23:06, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Well, it's something to work on. Unfortunately the '''charinsert''' plugin doesn't have any way to display s short piece of text while inserting a long one.
| |
| :There's a rabid wolverine scrabbling around the back of my brain licking carnival pennies... I feel like when he comes down off his ''filth high'' he might have some ideas about Stupid CSS Tricks to make that less loathesome. (Failing that we could do something with Javascript, but it'd be a bitch to update so that's a last choice.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Yeah, it's pretty much the opposite... you can stick a description in the tooltip, but the actual text has to be visible. I honestly can't think of any way to do it in pure CSS without messing up the clickability of it.
| |
| ::I guess we ''could'' just link to the plain vanilla templates with no parameters, but I kind of want to encourage people to be as thorough as possible with their info.
| |
| ::I think we could also use a way to include a link to each template's page in case one needs to read the instructions. But I had trouble coming up with a way that's brief, clear, and won't get mistaken for the inserto-text link. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 01:53, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Addendum: We could go for a fake form with OPTION or a CSS-based drop-down list, but I think those would both need JS. (Admittedly the CSS based drop-down would need less JS, and only for the style, not the functionality.) <small>(Why do I always have extra thoughts right ''after'' hitting the "submit" button?)</small> --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 01:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::What about the Boilerplate plugin that was suggested a while back? Would that be more suitable for this sort of thing? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:04, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::No, unfortunately... it only works for articles, not on file pages. (At least, if there is a way to get it to work on file pages, I couldn't figure it out.) Although I still think we should give that extension a whirl at some point, it won't help out with this specific thing. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 02:07, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::My Wolverine stopped tripping long enough to say "<nowiki>{{MarvelG2}}</nowiki>:<span class="tt1_fuxChar"><charinsert><nowiki>{{MarvelG2interior|description=|issueno=|storytitle=|pageno=|panelno=|panelnos=|script=|pencils=|inks=|colours=|letters=|help=|year=(last digit of publication year)}}</nowiki></charinsert></span>."
| |
| ::::He is a filthy, FILTHY beast, and the hackiness of that CSS shames me. (And it's still not ideal code anyway.)
| |
| ::::I think Javascript is a likely fate here. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 03:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Upload Preview ==
| |
| | |
| Over at [[Template_talk:Screencap#Since_we_got_derailed.|Template talk:Screencap]], Mr. Bates (or possibly Doug-- I can't keep them straight) suggested we look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Upload_Preview Upload Preview script]-- a pure javascript solution to the lack of previews during image upload (which the MW software doesn't naively support.)
| |
| | |
| The script is currently available for anyone who has the [[User:Derik/kired tools|kired tools]] plugins installed. Please report your thoughts, and if there are any problems or conflicts. If user response is positive, I'm going to recommend the relevant code be added to the Wiki's common.js file. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 14:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :It works great - very handy (I was the one who suggested it, BTW) --[[User:Abates|abates]] 05:59, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::I finally figured out why I have such trouble telling you and Doug apart.
| |
| ::I'm actually trying to tell "apog," "apog" and "abates" apart under the impression they are ''two'' people. '''No wonder''' I'm confused. -[[User:Deceptitran|Deceptitran]] 12:37, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::With no reported problems from the ppl running Kired Tools, this plugin has been moved to the common file, and is now loaded for all Wiki users.
| |
| :::So if anything unexpected breaks tonight please report it here, since the preview script will be the likely suspect. (But we don't expect it to.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 23:53, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == (comic issue) vs. (issue) ==
| |
| | |
| Is there any protest against eliminating (comic issue) as a disambiguation parenthetical? Near as I can tell, it's totally redundant with the shorter, simpler (issue) parenthetical. (again, unless there's a "Child's Play (socioeconomic issue)" article that I'm unaware of...) -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 10:52, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :No protest here. I was planning on doing it someday. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:58, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == ROTF spoilers from novelizations and other adaptations ==
| |
| | |
| So, is information from the novelizations off-limits until the movie is in theaters, or what? (If so, we need to protect the hell out of a bunch of pages) --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 22:58, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :It was discussed [[Talk:Revenge of the Fallen (franchise)|here]] and decided that no, they are not off limits, but please date the spoiler tags on character pages to a week after the film comes out. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 23:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::I've been stubbing in articles where I feel it's appropriate... but I've also been tailoring my content to avoid major spoilers-- more to have the infrastructure in place and ready to fill in then the movie drops.
| |
| ::(And realistically speaking, there's going to be a flood of detailed spoilers, including lists of every fatality and major surprise on the 10th-- the film premieres in Japan 18 days before it does here.)
| |
| ::Incidentally, I don't ''trust'' the tie-in novels. Characters vanish suddenly, details are glossed over or changed... I harbor a suspicion that certain plot details are being kept out of the books-- or at least obscured-- to prevent fans from being 100% certain about anything. The climax of the two movie adaptions I've read so far are ''different'', they have '''noticeably''' divergent outcomes. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:12, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::I do not want '''''any''''' novelization and adaptation spoilers on character pages or other related articles. Stuff from adaptations should stay on their respective articles. Most of my work on the wiki at the moment is updating and maintaining movie articles, so it would be a personal inconvenience to me if I had to avert my eyes every time I come across the ''Revenge of the Fallen'' movie sections of character articles. Not only that, but there will be people who will wander onto this wiki with the intention of refreshing themselves on the movie or to read prequel stuff leading up to ROTF, but have no intention of reading up on plot points of the movie itself. And, as Derik says, novelizations and adaptations often differ wildly from the final movie script.
| |
| :::I think it's more than bloody fair to expect that we only post ROTF-related stuff on the day of the movie's release around the world, not before. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 00:59, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::That'd apply to the British Isles contingent? UK and Ireland are getting general release June 19. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 02:48, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::That's a good question. (I have no opinion, I'm spoiling myself by reading the novel.)
| |
| :::::IIRC, back during Animated season 2 we were observing a 1-week moratorium on character-page updates, which more-or-less covered the biggest broadcast markets.
| |
| * 10th - Japan premiere
| |
| * 24th - US Premiere
| |
| * 26th - UK Premiere
| |
| :::::Since the period we're talking about is just a 16 day span, I assume the same idea applies-- hold off until the 26th (possibly plus a few days) out of respect for other TF-fans. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 03:23, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::As Lonegamer ''just said'', it's out here in the UK on the 19th. And the rule for TFA S2 seemed to be that "as soon as it was first aired in English, be it in the UK, US or Canada (all three had 'world premieres in English' at different points), go for it". - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 10:02, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::I think that the modifier in that situation, though, was the fact that as soon as said Animated episodes had aired in English ''anywhere'', high-quality encodes of them were promptly available to download for anybody anywhere who wanted them, making it all pretty much fair game. Information could be added, and editors would not be left unable to verify that information, as they could download and see the episode themselves. The movie won't have that - US editors simply wont know if what anon IPs add is true or not, because they won't be able to see the movie to verify it and will have to operate on good faith, which is laudible, but we saw how well that worked with the Dubai Animated debalce and "Animated Waspinator". While I'll be seeing it opening day here in the UK, I know that I, personally, wasn't planning to add anything about it to the wiki until it screened in the US. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 11:03, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::What Chris said. "Airing in English" was a polite euphemism for "we can see it too." It doesn't apply for a 2-and-a-half hour theatrical movie. American fans will still be in the dark until the 26th, and as far as I'm concerned the wiki should honor that. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 11:04, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::''While I'll be seeing it opening day here in the UK, I know that I, personally, wasn't planning to add anything about it to the wiki until it screened in the US.''
| |
| :::::::::''American fans will still be in the dark until the 26th''
| |
| :::::::::Can I take it that the UK and US premiere dates above are switched?--[[User:Apcog|Apcog]] 14:02, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::It's now been said '''thrice''' in this thread that the UK/Eire date is the 19th. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]]
| |
| :::::::::::Beg your pardon, then. It was late, and I wasn't paying close enough attention.--[[User:Apcog|Apcog]] 13:08, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::::::::::Damn Americans think they're the centre of the Universe. If I was President of the US, I'd invade the UK and Ireland to protect American Transfan interests. 14:56, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| I read the novel and have this to say: As much detail as is in it, there's no doubt its different. First of all: there's alot more detail so that means some of the slower parts are probably shorter in the movie (novels often do that anyways so no problems there) and also: in one chapter it leads up to fight and then on the very next chapter all of a sudden Devestator appears and is fighting already as if he's been there the whole time (meaning they skipped a chunk of that fight)So as is obvious, there will be differences.--[[User:Chipmonk328|Chipmonk328]] (or was it 9?)<<not that it matters
| |
| | |
| ==Forgive my attitude but==
| |
| what the flying f***! What happened to my account. I made one, I even remember what it looked like. Where is it and why can't I login and my username no longer exsists! What..the..hell. I've not signed in for a long time but I still go here regularly and everything, don't tell me you autodeleted my account! I mean, I’ve been here when it was at Wikia, I moved with you guys here and even made a new account here! Hell, my old accounts on Wikia all got deleted, so please don’t tell me you guys stooped to their level and deleted my account as well! I’ve done nothing wrong, aside from giving the appearance of being inactive because I’ve not logged in within awhile, but so what? What right does that give you to delete my account? (and if by some means it does give you the right to do so, please provide a link proving that)--[[User:Chipmonk328|Chipmonk328]] (or was it 9?)<< not that it matters
| |
| :[[Transformers Wiki:Bookworm Crash]]. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 15:59, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| Thank you. I'll just make a new account then.-sighs- Forgive if I bothered any of you with what I just said.--[[User:Chipmonk328|Chipmonk328]]
| |
| ::Don't worry, incoherent rage is the '''proper''' response to the Bookworm crash... you're just slowpoking. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 13:17, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Main page ==
| |
| | |
| [[Image:Mainpage_analytics-06-05-09.png|thumb]]
| |
| I'll just leave this here...
| |
| | |
| (I'll check in after work and see if anyone has thoughts, I sure do.)
| |
| | |
| Number are per-individual-link BTW-- so two separate links to the same location have their clickthroughs tallied separately. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 13:16, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| : In which we learn nobody clicks anything! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:21, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::The numbers on the page ''should'' add up to 100%. It's just that a few links get vastly more traffic than the others so they show up as 0%. That might represent a few hundred clicks-- the Main Page ''is'' our most frequented page. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:12, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::And people are obviously clicking on [[Kup (G1)]] as the page has gained a thousand hits and jumped 30 places in the Popular Pages list in the last week or so. Any idea what time frame the data covers? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:20, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::That was pretty much my thought, too. XD Although it is kind of interesting that some of the categories/continuities/series sections seem more popular than others... it's just hard to tell which ones, since the number pop-ups are in weird spots.
| |
| ::I also notice that the "images" link in the Editing Tips is popular... and that apparently the fake disambiguation links get some clicks. XD Speaking of which, we really should write up some more of those to replace the rotating ones that got lost in the crash... --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 13:26, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::I may have sternly directed people to our Images policy page. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 13:49, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::It's the most common thing people get wrong, so it's also our most thorough policy document.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 14:05, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::About 8% of clicks on the main page are to our "anyone can edit" but up top-- which just takes people to anchors within the page. (The Editing tips section and the Holy Grails section, which do not themselves then collect a lot of clicks.)
| |
| :::::This leads me to think that people who click on these things do ''not'' get what they want/are expecting. We should look at changing those links somehow.
| |
| :::::Another 8 % of clicks on the main page are on the "home" logo in the upper left (which takes you... back to the main page) and the "main page" link in the nav toolbar.
| |
| :::::If there's agreement, I'd like to set it so that the "Main Page" link in the navigation on the left is grayed out when you're on the main page, so it's clearer that "you're here." (The link would still be usable, it'd just have this visual indicator.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:10, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::We could simply de-link the "anyone can edit" links... they just seemed like a good way to get people to actually read our policies and what we need. Or maybe we could link that text directly to [[Help:Contents]] and get rid of the "Editing Tips" box altogether?
| |
| ::::::I agree with the "Main Page" link being disabled when you're actually on the Main Page. It's pretty easy to do via CSS, and you can also change the cursor to be a regular arrow in CSS to further de-emphasize the links and say, "Hey, dude, you're already ''at'' the Main Page."
| |
| ::::::Although I had actually thought that 8% of clicks was to the Recent Changes page, which would have made more sense to me. The oddness of where the stat boxes are in relation to the actual page links does make it hard to analyze. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 16:45, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::AS FAR AS I CAN TELL (which in a few cases - the continuities box especially - is less than 100%), these are all the numbers >1.0%:
| |
| :::::::*Logo (goes to Main Page): 4.0%
| |
| :::::::*"Navigation" sidebar:
| |
| :::::::**Main Page link in sidebar: 4.0%
| |
| :::::::**Recent changes: 5.3%
| |
| :::::::*Fake disambig:
| |
| :::::::**"anyone can edit" (goes to "editing-tips" subpage): 4.0%
| |
| :::::::**"add to" (goes to "holy-grails" subpage): 4.0%
| |
| :::::::*Categories:
| |
| :::::::**Characters: 1.8%
| |
| :::::::*Continuities:
| |
| :::::::**Live-action film: 1.4%
| |
| :::::::**Full Series Info: 4.0%
| |
| :::::::*Also, the cumulative links to the ROTF page appear to be >1%, even if no individual link is.
| |
| :::::::Thoughts on that... firstly, the links TO the main page ON the main page need to be nerfed. Not greyed out, killed. The logo can be just a logo, and the main page link can be replaced or removed. Secondly, there is no way in hell we should delink the stuff in the fake disambig, but redirecting to other places may be a better idea - take the "editing tips" box and turn it into a full page, linked from there (And from the ET box). Not quite so sure on "add to" - a list of stubs that we want filled out, perhaps? The "Holy Grails" box is too specific for 99.9% of potential editors, I expect. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 19:32, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Useful Extensions ==
| |
| | |
| Now that we have a working server again and more control over the techie side of things, I wonder if we should start up a list of extensions to install that might be useful.
| |
| | |
| My own picks:
| |
| | |
| *[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Newuserlog Extension:Newuserlog] to keep track of new users so we can give them a [[User:Jeysie/NewUser|friendly greeting]]. As opposed to our current status of new people not usually getting much of a "greeting" unless they screw up. :>
| |
| *[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:MultiBoilerplate Extension:MultiBoilerplate] to provide a drop-down menu of skeleton codes for new pages. I find this ''incredibly'' useful on my own wiki for being able to easily keep different types of pages all laid out the same, by inserting full page structures into new pages so you can then just fill in the information. For example, [http://trinsic.alienharmony.com/Template:D20RulesPlayercharacterpage here's one structure page] I use to give an idea of the sort of code you can inset.
| |
| | |
| :Mine:
| |
| :*[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Title_Blacklist Extension:Title Blacklist] blocks creation of pages depending on a regular expression.
| |
| | |
| :I will note that Newuserlog is built into MediaWiki 1.14.0, but we haven't discussed upgrading the software yet... --[[User:Abates|abates]] 19:25, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Honestly, those "friendly greetings" drive me spare. I'd really rather not have them.
| |
| ::Suggestions:
| |
| ::*[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:KeepYourHandsToYourself Extension:KeepYourHandsToYourself] (prevents users or anons editing User:* pages other than their own.) [Beta] - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 19:47, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::I'd be fine with blocking anons-- but I ''have'' been known to reach out and tweak someone's user page from time to time.
| |
| :::(Not that we've really had a problem with either.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 20:02, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Why do they drive you spare? Giving new users a heads-up regards our policies ''before'' we have to slap a nastygram user notice on their page seems like a good idea to me. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:54, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::They drive me spare getting them while doing IP-edits. And chances are you'll get them again, and again, and again... -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 20:02, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Oh! No, no, no. I didn't mean doing them automatically on all new users, I was thinking, like, putting the greeting ''manually'' only for new ''registered'' users. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 20:09, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Rise of the Chevy Autobots==
| |
| Allright, I finally got around to putting this up. This is everything I have saved from the "Rise of the Chevy Autobots" online game - flash files, HTML, etc. It comes to nearly 60mb.
| |
| | |
| [http://www.obscuretf.com/ChevyAutobotGame.zip Chevy Autobots]
| |
| | |
| Unfortunately, I am most likely missing the last week or two of the story, but I figure it's better than nothing. --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 14:18, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Monzo- I luvers you...
| |
| :And AFIK the defeat of Mainframe himself never got a news update-- the epilogue was provided by the game itself. So you ''should'' have the most up to date version.
| |
| :Uh, I suppose there might have been a "he's weakening, keep at it" update, but that's pretty content-null. It'd be nice to know the date Mainframe went down... but again, it looks like you've got 99% of everything preserved here. :)~
| |
| :And now we can properly cite the Chevy Autobots being allspark mutations! (Or at least a result of Chevy's experimentation with Energon as an alternative fuel source.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 14:27, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Possible Relicensing? ==
| |
| | |
| So, Wikipedia is moving from the GFDL to a Creative Commons license, which will make it incompatible with most Wikia sites from then on. (Presumably; I haven't heard if Wikia at large or any of its individual wikis--like the old Transformers one-- are making the same transition.) Should TFWiki consider switching, too? Pretty much everyone outside the Wikipedia/Wikia family goes with CC, which is a lot simpler in a lot of ways than the GFDL.
| |
| | |
| [[wikipedia:GFDL#Compatibility with CC-BY-SA|Apparently, GFDL-licensed wikis can only make the change before August 1, 2009]]. And unlike them, we probably wouldn't have to worry about having added any content from non-wiki GFDL-licensed things, at least. And it would completely eliminate legal copying/pasting between this wiki and its rival. --[[User:Fleb|Fleb]] 17:47, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :I would support this, at least tentatively. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 19:16, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::On the surface, at least, it looks like a good move. It keeps the same free-info spirit, but is incompatible with Wikia's license ''and'' any info-quoting or copying from us further requires attributing the wiki, if I'm reading it right. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:18, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Hmm. I thought about bringing this Creative Commons thing up awhile back, but I'm not Legal Smarts (S-M-R-T) enough to fully understand it. Perhaps our staff should comment on this? The final decision is probably theirs. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 04:06, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::I don't really have much to say, other than it sounds like a good idea. If nothing else, the legal terms of the GFDL are nightmarish at best and I'd be happy to never think of them again. --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 14:02, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| IANAL, but [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update based on Wikimedia's page,] it ''looks'' like "relicensing" the site is just a matter of changing all the text that mentions "GFDL" now. The one requirement is that we're using [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html version 1.3.] [[Transformers Wiki:Copyrights]] doesn't specify a version, and neither does the edit page or the footer, so that's probably okay. <small>(''[[Transformers Wiki:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.]]'')</small> --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 18:30, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::One thing that's confusing me, looking again at that - Wikipedia's new licensing structure seems confusing in that all non-imported-under-a-CC-licence content will still be dual-licensed under the GDFL. If we adopted that, Wikia could import from us, but we couldn't import from Wikia. CAN the GDFL be dropped completely? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 19:31, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Oh, definitely. The dual-licensing is just ''Wikipedia's'' own, weird thing to keep the Free Software Foundation loyalists from bitching and Leaving Forever. (Those CC-only things should actually "poison" individual pages so they're not truly GFDL-licensable anymore without reverting, so they'll probably eventually drop it completely.) --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 22:05, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| Which CC license would we use? Seems like [[wikipedia:Creative_Commons_licenses#Original_licenses|from the Wikipedia CC page]] that a by-nc-nd license would be what we're after? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 19:16, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :It would be [[wikipedia:Share-alike|CC-by-sa]]. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:23, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::That looks like a good idea to me. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Definitely By-SA -- If we do a No-Derivatives, how would we even edit any of our own pages? --[[User:Fleb|fleb]] 22:05, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Seems I misunderstood how the licensing applied. :) --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:44, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ===ARE we going to relicence?===
| |
| So, are we going to do it, is it being investigated, or are we going to just leave it until the grace period expires and we have to stick with the GDFL after all? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 17:09, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :I vote we do it. Anyone else? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:14, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::It seems to be a less onerous license, and one which we have a window of opportunity to switch to. I'd say go for it.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:18, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::+1 vote in favor of relicensing. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::: -1, I'm against it unless we find a copyright lawyer. The GFDL provides no provisions against re-use in commercial projects. While I'm all for 'Hasbro' poking around on this wiki and recycling bios/names/ideas/what-have-you, if someone else decides to redistribute this content for commercial purposes (for example, selling an iPhone/Android app that's basically an offline cache of the wiki,) I want to make sure that we're not on the hook for it. I get that Hasbro is turning a gleefully blind eye to us as long as we're just trying to stay alive as a volunteer effort, but if we end up attached to someone's attempt to profit off of our work, which is in itself a derivative work of at least a dozen various IP holders, the resulting storm of litigation would shut us down within hours. (And no, I am in fact the 'least' qualified person around to give advice on this situation. I'm just a paranoid freak.) --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 12:07, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::...I have no idea what you just said. Literally. It seems vaguely like you're trying to argue against using the GDFL on the grounds that someone could resell the wiki content. But we're ALREADY using the GDFL and talking about '''changing''' to a [[Wikipedia:Creative Commons licenses|Creative Commons licence]] (Which includes the option for a -nc flag, although no-one here has proposed that as yet that I can see - and given that we carry ads, we may not be allowed to use a -nc flag. That's one I'd like a lawyer's opinion on).
| |
| :::::[And could you login just to prove that's you? You posted that as an anon] - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 13:45, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::Yeah, under our current GDFL license, the content of this wiki can '''already''' be sold. Staying with the GDFL won't fix that.
| |
| ::::::On that note, I will say I'd actually prefer to change to the non-commercial version of the Share-Alike CC license myself, but I had gotten the feeling that there was that only one specific CC license you could switch to. Was I mistaken on that? --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 14:08, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::They specifically mention CC-BY-SA 3.0, so you're probably right about -nc not being an option, I suppose. For the avoidance of doubt, the GDFL section on relicensing follows in its' own section, [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html the GDFL as a whole is here], a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ summary of CC-BY-SA 3.0 is here] and the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode full CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence is here] - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 14:25, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::Hrm. I guess that's something we should ask... someone? Who's in charge of all this wiki relicensing as a whole?
| |
| ::::::::But for what it's worth, we could use an -nc flag despite the ads, if it's allowed:
| |
| ::::::::{{quote|'''Can I still make money from a work I make available under a Creative Commons licenses?'''
| |
| | |
| Absolutely. Firstly, because our licenses are non-exclusive which means you are not tied down to only make a piece of your content available under a Creative Commons license; you can also enter into other revenue-generating licenses in relation to your work. One of our central goals is to encourage people to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work.
| |
| | |
| Secondly, the noncommercial license option is an inventive tool designed to allow people to maximize the distribution of their works while keeping control of the commercial aspects of their copyright. To make one thing clear that is sometimes misunderstood: the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you (the licensor). So if you choose to license your work under a Creative Commons license that includes the “noncommercial use” option, you impose the ”noncommercial” condition on the users (licensees). However, you, the creator of the work and/or licensor, may at any time decide to use it commercially. People who want to copy or adapt your work, "primarily for monetary compensation or financial gain" must get your separate permission first.|[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_still_make_money_from_a_work_I_make_available_under_a_Creative_Commons_licenses.3F Creative Commons FAQ]}}
| |
| ::::::::Of course, we obviously actually can't outright sell the work ourselves either, but that answer does seem to mean that, even if showing ads technically counts as "commercial use", we can still use an NC license. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 14:31, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::Well, if the GDFL only allows us to go to CC-BY-SA3, and not CC-BY-SA-NC, it's kind of a moot point. Which is annoying, since the -nc version DEFINITELY seems more desirable, since it would absolutely lock Wikia out from copying us if true) - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 14:33, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::I decided to send off the following e-mail to the GDFL folks' contact e-mail:
| |
| ::::::::::{{quote|Greetings. I'm one of the editors on a Mediawiki-based wiki dedicated to the Transformers franchise: http://tfwiki.net/
| |
| | |
| We are currently discussing the prospect of also switching from the GDFL to the CC-BY-SA3. However, we were wondering if the CC-BY-SA3 is truly the *only* BY-SA that can be switched to, or if CC-BY-NC-SA3 would also be possible. Since our wiki is obviously based off writing about copyrighted material, it would help us greatly in remaining on the franchise's parent company's good side if we could ensure that our content cannot be sold.
| |
| | |
| Your answer on this would be much appreciated.
| |
| | |
| Signed,<br/>
| |
| Liz Calkins}}
| |
| ::::::::::With any luck I'll get an answer I can pass along. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 14:55, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ===GDFL section 11, relicensing===
| |
| '''11. RELICENSING'''
| |
| | |
| "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration" (or "MMC") contained in the site means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site.
| |
| | |
| "CC-BY-SA" means the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license published by Creative Commons Corporation, a not-for-profit corporation with a principal place of business in San Francisco, California, as well as future copyleft versions of that license published by that same organization.
| |
| | |
| "Incorporate" means to publish or republish a Document, in whole or in part, as part of another Document.
| |
| | |
| An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.
| |
| | |
| The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing.
| |
| | |
| ===Derik causes problems===
| |
| What is the actual difference between these liscences? Is there a breakdown somewhere?
| |
| | |
| The explanations I hear online are "They're exactly the same, only CC-BY-SA is worded clearer!"
| |
| | |
| Is there a more substantial difference?
| |
| | |
| Regardless, I'm going to suggest TFWiki, in addition to whatever base license we adopt, add a <small>(God help me)</small> '''signing statement''' making clear that our legal ability ''to'' license the content on this wiki extends ''only'' to our own value-added contributions, and not the content which is copywritten by Hasbro.
| |
| | |
| A '''fundamental''' problem with the GFDL (originally a license intended for creating collaborative ''software documentation'') and CC-SA (a license for artists to release their work while still retaining some control of ''how'' it is used) is that '''both''' licenses operate under the assumption that the people collaborating to produce this content '''own''' the content they're uploading. If they produced it, they have the right to give ''other'' people the right to use it.
| |
| [[Image:Second generation reuser.jpg|thumb|250px]]
| |
| ...we didn't produce Transformers. We don't have the right to distribute Screencaps-- '''our use''' of those screencaps falls under "fair use," anyone wishing to re-use screencaps posted on this wiki is not '''granted the use of them''' via our ''release'' of the screencaps... they are claiming fair use from Hasbro again. Even our ''article text content'' is a melange of "we can claim ownership" and "derived fromHasbro to such an extent that we cannot claim ownership over it" (moreso than Memory Alpha, because for many obscure characters, their entire bio is nothing but a rephrasing of their tech-spec. The amount of 'value added' work done by us in relation to hasbro's copyright on the original text is very low.)
| |
| | |
| And that's even '''separate''' from McFeely's concern that someone could create an "offline TFWiki" as an iPhone app-- citing their right to use our content under GFDL-- and then never paying Hasbro a dime. In that scenario-- we are the 'leak' for Hasbro's lawyers to plug by shutting us down. Adopting a "NC" (non-commercial use only) license just means they couldn't ''charge'' for it... they could still create a ''free'' downloadable or java app (Transformer tech-spec viewers are fairly popular as mobile downloads, apparently) with the same result. Besides-- a NC license would ''technically'' mean that Hasbro's own people couldn't use the Wiki as a resource anymore. (At least, under sufficiently draconian lawyers, like Disney's.)
| |
| | |
| Equally undesirable, IMO, is someone who '''has''' a TF license via Hasbro, like a book company, that might decide to cheap-out on their content and simply re-present wiki articles-- under GFDL from ''us'' for our contributions and fully licensed from ''Hasbro'' for the portion of the content that ''they'' own. I don't fucking '''want''' TF guidebooks cheeping out liek that-- and I'm '''really''' uncomfortable with any part of our user-generated content becoming primary source material. That's how [[Wikipedia:Daken|Daken]] got created!
| |
| | |
| A way around ''that'' might involve a ''second'' license on our content that's '''dependent''' on a commercial producer having the TF license. (This sounds murky, but I think it can make sense...)
| |
| | |
| ...
| |
| | |
| <nowiki>*scrolls up*</nowiki> Um, wow. That's a lot of text.
| |
| | |
| Basically what I'm saying is;
| |
| # As long as we're updating our license, I think we should take the time to make it the '''right''' license, one that;
| |
| ##Allows users to freely contribute.
| |
| ##Allows ''creators'' to freely play.
| |
| ##Reflect that a good deal of our content (particularly graphics) is not owned by us.
| |
| ##Respects Hasbro's legal and business needs vis-a-vis copyright.
| |
| ##Recognizes that TFWiki ''is'' used as a resource for commercial products. (Share-and-share-alike is good, but it can have some ''bad'' consequences on 'child' derived works, rendering them uncopyrightable.)
| |
| ##Attempt to make sure we're not the '''only''' resourced used by those products
| |
| | |
| No existing license (that I'm aware of) actually reflects the special needs of media fandom wikis. and the degree of disconnect isn't small-- it's legally significant, and it inhibits our ability to control what happens to our content to protect both our own interests and those of Hasbro.
| |
| | |
| I think we can do that without breaking our brains ''or'' hiring a lawyer-- but it requires acting with intention. Like-- forming an exploratory committee seriously peck the problem apart. The upshot might be... well... considerable. We're hardly the ''only'' wiki in this position, and taking the hammer out a standard approach stands a decent chance of being adopted elsewhere. (That's kinda meta-benefit to TFWiki, but it's certainly reputation-building. In terms of "moral authority" a lot of people seem to feel like TFWiki is the place that did things ''right''; our approach to WP:NPOV, leaving Wikia, stance on spoilers, our protective attitude towards the brand, etc... at least I keep running into references to TFWiki in the ''weirdest'' places, and they're almost always complimentary in terms ''not'' just related to our content.)
| |
| | |
| Is anyone ''else'' with an interest in (or at least tolerance for) copyright law interested in doing this '''right'''? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:37, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Actually, there's no reason whatsoever that Hasbro couldn't use the wiki as a resource under a NC license. They just wouldn't be able to sell any of the exact content of the wiki, if that makes sense. It's the difference between being able to look up that Optimus Prime did some obscure thing in a certain episode, and quoting the wiki article for Optimus Prime verbatim.
| |
| :Plus, AFAIK, all CC licenses allow for the licensees to make individual exceptions, meaning that even if Hasbro ''did'' want to verbatim print some part of the wiki for some reason, we could make an exception for them to do so.
| |
| :And personally I don't see any big deal with someone giving copies of the wiki away as a free resource, at least in a legal sense, seeing as how the wiki is basically a free guide to Transformers. As long as we're given credit and it's made clear that it's not in any way an official product, it's exactly the same practical result as someone surfing to the wiki itself on their iPhone browser or whatever, just made more convenient. (The only difference is that we don't get the pageviews for ad revenue if people read our material elsewhere, but that's our problem to deal with, not Hasbro's.)
| |
| :Having said all that, a license that allows for protections on things like screenshots and scans would be useful.
| |
| :However, that's not something that could be handled before August, I don't think. Personally I'd rather change to some sort of CC license now as an interim measure, and then change again later down the road if a better CC license or other license becomes available.
| |
| :Otherwise, we may end up locked into a GDFL license we can't change away from anyway, even if we do later come up with something better. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:51, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::''Actually, there's no reason whatsoever that Hasbro couldn't use the wiki as a resource under a NC license. They just wouldn't be able to sell any of the exact content of the wiki, if that makes sense.''
| |
| :::I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that CC-NC also stipulates that any ''derived'' work must also be CC-NC. So if they rewrite any portion of our content-- or re-create a diagram we created-- that's a derived work they can't include in a comercial product. And since the license actually says that any CC-NC ''element'' caused the entire ''resulting work'' to be CC-NC, that means that if (for example) IDW did photomanip work on a CC-NC image from here and threw it in as an image on a monitor for ''Spotlight: Brunt''-- the entirely of ''Spotlight: Brunt'' would fall out of copyright. Anyone could copy it, alter it, and legally distribute copies of it.
| |
| :::What are the odds of a singe identifiable sentence lifted from the wiki ever making it into a TF guidebook by accident? If so-- the entire book is now CC-NC, legal to pirate.
| |
| :::At least, that's my ''understanding'' of how CC-NC works-- and I ended up having to '''read''' the entire damn license for a software thing I was working on two years ago that used a PHP-library that was CC-NC. It's the '''same''' license, right? It's not like CC-NC is "made for wikis," it covers a ''wide range'' of products. Am I wrong on this? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:37, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Clarification-- I'm actually referring to CC-SA3 in the previous section, not CC-NC. but since we're considering ''moving'' to a license that '''would be''' SA3, the scenario still stands.
| |
| ::::[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ It's right there in plain english]. <tt>If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.</tt> If any of our content leaked into an official product, that product would suddenly be creative-commons and freely distribuitable.
| |
| ::::...why do you think the "free information" people have been braying for the license change? This is a stealth copyright-subversion scheme. as accidental direct lifts from Wikipedia (or any product derived from wikipedia content) slip into comercial products, they will become '''legally contaminated''', and then contaminate anything that uses content FROM them. It's ''better'' than the Public Domain, because derived works based on the public domain are copyrightable... derived works based on CC-SA are ''not'', they are inherently "free." -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:51, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::Well, once again, the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ license outright states] that "Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder." So again, even if Hasbro or another licensee wanted to sell any wiki-based work, we could just waive the Share-Alike and Non-Commercial aspects for them alone. So that's not a problem/issue.
| |
| :::::And again, I'd rather just make the switch now, then we can always switch again if we find something better down the road. Rather than trying to be hasty about it to fit it in before August, so we don't get locked into the GFDL for good.
| |
| :::::Further, it's not like we don't already have all of the potential problems you state under our current license anyway. Doesn't the GDFL already require you to release any derivative material under the GDFL license too? --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 18:58, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::"The Copyright holder" in this case is every person who has ever edited an article on this wiki, or Wikia before we moved.
| |
| :::::::Did you collect thousands of legal proxies that allow you to speak for them? ''You'' can't just legally decide to 'wave a copyright,' nor can a steering committee. The copyright has to be waived by the ''holder''.
| |
| :::::::And what the waiver notice is really saying is "you can shortform a separate license understanding independent of this liscence as long as you deal directly with the person who owns the copyright on the work." That's ''always'' true, it's not a CC thing. You'd have to get a list of every person who's ever edited an article and get them all to agree to waive their rights for Hasbro, which you so casually hand-wave over.
| |
| :::::::Maybe a better question-- if the primary reason to switch licenses is this "SAS" clause tyhat infects all derived work-- and we want to ''exempt'' Hasbro from that clause... why are we even switching?
| |
| :::::::I'm not even against switching licenses... I just think it should be a ''thought out'' decision, not a casual one. '''This''' discussion has basically consisted of ''"Everyone is switching, it's a good idea u wanna?" "LOL, sure why not!"''
| |
| :::::::There are actual not-irrelevant legal ramifications of this decision-- and I'm not sure it's in our best interests ''or'' Hasbro's best interests to do this. Can we actually ''look'' at what we're signing off on before putting it to an up-and-down vote? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:56, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::Well, I can't speak for everyone else, but my end of the discussion is more like, "We only have a month and a half to make the decision, the CC switch looks like it wouldn't add any problems that don't already exist under the GDFL, it might give us some ''benefits'' that don't already exist under the GDFL, and the CC seems to be less binding anyway, so we can switch easier down the road."
| |
| ::::::::Furthermore, considering how we're already going to be able to switch to the new license without requiring everyone's sign-off anyway, I don't see why we can't just put the waiver for Hasbro and their licensees into the switch from the get-go.
| |
| ::::::::Then on top of that, if you want to get absolutely technical, since Hasbro and their licensees are the copyright holders for all this stuff to begin with, they get an automatic waver on our derivative work anyway, because we don't have the legal right to lock them out of their own copyright. All we can do is lock non-Hasbro-licensees out of our take on Hasbro's copyright.
| |
| ::::::::So, hey, if someone here can get a lawyer to knock out a good alternative in a month and a half, go for it. Otherwise, seeing as how '''the GDFL we're under already ''has'' all the problems you're complaining about''', I see no reason that switching would at least put us any worse off than we are already. All of your alleged problems either already exist anyway under the current GFDL license, or aren't actually problems. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 20:12, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::''I don't see why we can't just put the waiver for Hasbro and their licensees into the switch from the get-go.''
| |
| :::::::::Because then you're committing a legal offense against both the copyright holders ''and'' the FSF? That's actually worse than your last suggestion.
| |
| :::::::::I'd be a '''lot''' more confident in your judgment about the legal ramifications of the switch if you didn't keep suggesting things that were illegal. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 20:48, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::"Then on top of that, if you want to get absolutely technical, since Hasbro and their licensees are the copyright holders for all this stuff to begin with, they get an automatic waver on our derivative work anyway, because ''we don't have the legal right to lock them out of their own copyright.'' All we can do is lock non-Hasbro-licensees out of our take on Hasbro's copyright."
| |
| ::::::::::As in, I already know that part, thanks.
| |
| ::::::::::As for the FSF part, I'm not sure how it's a legal offense against the FSF to insitute a waiver during the switch that the ''new license already explicitly allows as being possible''.
| |
| ::::::::::I'd be a lot more interested in your rebuttals if you sounded like you read not only what I already wrote, but what the legal articles themselves say. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 20:58, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::::In any case, like I said, if someone here can afford to ask a lawyer about this, I've got no objections to that. But I have to admit you haven't said how staying with the GFDL solves any of your concerns, seeing as how AFAIK said concerns all exist under our current GDFL too. *shrug* --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:03, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::::''I'm not sure how it's a legal offense against the FSF to insitute a waiver during the switch that the ''new license already explicitly allows as being possible''.''
| |
| :::::::::::# You don't have the legal right to act as the proxy of everyone who's edited this wiki by declaring a waiver in any circumstance.
| |
| :::::::::::# You intend to muddy those legal waters by making the acceptance of this waiver a rider on the license switchover-- the FSF debated for almost a ''year'' before finally deciding the two liscences were close enough to make the switch-- '''they''' have the legal right to determine what new licensing is and is not permissible under GFDL. That's like taking a EULA for a piece of software, agreeing to it, then declaring, "And now I'm going to make unilateral revisions to it without the other side of this contract's knowledge or agreement-- but they're totally legally binding and I can grant myself extra rights with them." And that's even ''aside'' from making them an an accessory of your unlawful claim of proxy over the thousands of editors who've created content. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:16, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::::#We're already making a claim of proxy over the editors by being able to switch the license to begin with.
| |
| ::::::::::::#The whole point is moot anyway, because way I see it, we ''have'' to effectively give Hasbro a waiver on using anything on this wiki in their own commercial copyright, because we don't have any copyright powers over their content anyway. I don't see how we could legally force Hasbro to have no control over their own copyright to begin with, just because we wrote about it under a share-alike license, because we never had the copyrights to begin with! And that exact same problem already exists under the GFDL we're already under.<br/>Again, the only right we have at all is to keep non-Hasbro-licensees from using our content in certain ways.
| |
| ::::::::::::#In short, you're the one being silly by making the claim we have the right to ever lock Hasbro out of their own copyright to begin with. You can't be unlawful by having people give up rights they don't actually have anyway. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:54, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::::And, as beautifully Machiavellian as Derik's contamination scenario is, it still wouldn't negate "fair use" anyway in the case of such a small "lift". - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 19:44, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::But this isn't ''about'' fair use. It's about people who've read Lawrence Lessig's book and attended Disinfocon having a pissing contest and trying to upend how Copyright works.
| |
| :::::::See how casually you said it? Suddenly instead of ''us'' claiming fair use use of Hasbro's intellectual property-- Hasbro is having to claim fair use of ''our'' property. And fair use is never ''proven'' until it's challenged-- so ''any'' instance of "fair use" derived work ''massively'' weakens Hasbro's copyright on their own material-- because anyone ''wanting'' to claim their work is now SA3 is is now free to do so... and the burden is shifted onto ''Hasbro'' to hire lawyers and prove it's ''not''.
| |
| :::::::That kind of mad-cow subversion tactics would normally make me grin like an idiot-- but just because I approve of malotov-wielding free-culturists are planning the legal equivalent of the World Bank Protests '''doesn't mean I want to be stuck in the middle of it.''' -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:56, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :#Derik causing problems? ''Never...'' :p
| |
| :#'''It's a binary choice - the GDFL3 licence ONLY allows us to change to CC-BY-SA3 and THEN ONLY if we do it before the 1st of August, 2009.''' The only way we could change in any other direction would be to track down every user who's ever contributed and either get them to relicense their contributions or excise their contributions and derivatives thereof from the wiki. Given that, thanks to Mr Bookworm, we don't even HAVE a complete list of contributors...
| |
| :#I think you're getting Daken mixed up with Erista (thank you Eric J. Moreels...) there
| |
| :#McFly, not McFeely.
| |
| :#The main point is number 2 - we don't have the freedom to custom-design a licence. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 17:51, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Sure we do! It just has to be a license that doesn't violate any of the GFDL or CC-BY-SA3 requirements! That's not hard, I do object-oriented programming! Same basic principle!
| |
| :::(In all seriousness, from a legal standpoint, you'd probably set up sort of "type-coercion comfort trap", which is like a Dan Brown novel written by a lawyer with a minor in game theory. I'd want to get a lawyer to ''check'' it-- I know a few-- but I'm fairly sure you ''could'' do it, legally.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:37, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::I'm a tad confused about what you're saying - the GDFL and the CC-BY-SA are both designed to ''limit restrictions'' on the (re)use of work. If you're ''adding more restrictions'' than either specifies (i.e., if I licence my work to you under the condition that you must give a copy to anyone who fulfils condition X, and must not give a copy to anyone who ''doesn't''; you can't then impose condition Y, which means ''not only that'' you restrict who you give a copy to ''to a subset'' of group X will receive a copy from you, but that ''you DO give copies to'' a subset of group ''Not-X''...), then you're in breach of the basic licence, ja? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 19:44, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::You offer s separate license with GFDL+ (or CC+) permission for new content (generated after the date) for specific commercial purposes. On the date of adoption, the two liscences are exactly equal, but as time goes on, the GFDL/CC+ becomes increasingly attractive, because it offers a commercial reuser a ''better'' legal foothold on their own material. You are giving them ''more'' rights to the material, provided they operate according to certain restrictions. They ''could'' always choose to license the content under vanilla GFDL (or whatever,) but that ''gives up'' the increased privileges they have for the post-adoption material.
| |
| :::::The beauty is that such a liscence need not differentiate as to ''what'' part of the material is eligible for one liscence but not the other... it's a ''diffuse'' legal benefit over the content that their lawyers would ''force'' them to choose-- but '''we''' are not forcing them to choose; the content remains accessible under GFDL, as the GFDL requires, but we offer incentives of ''increased'' re-usage rights for newer content in exchange for restricted action.
| |
| :::::...this isn't going to make any sense without a chart, is it? There are force-gradients involved. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:33, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| Okay Derik, simple basic question - if Creative Commons licences are so set for copyright Armageddon, how come Memory Alpha (one of the biggest wikis on the internets, and one which many ST creatives - including the writers of this year's movie [who also happen to write Transformers movies] - have freely admitted to using) has always been under a CC licence without Viacom/Paramount/CBS imploding? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 21:04, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :Because Memory Alpha is licensed under <tt>Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 Generic license</tt>. Note the absence of the "Share and share alike" clause, which in the source of the Copyright Armageddon I'm ranting about. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Okay, Derik. Bottom-line it for me. How likely is this to result in Tina Turner forcing me to fight in a cage with a brutally strong man with the mind of a child?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 22:04, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Well, Tina Turner is signed with Virgin, and so was The Verve, whose "Bitter Sweet Symphony," got the band sued out of existence due to a 3-second sampling they claimed was "fair use," but Mick Jagger felt was a big enough use to be a copyright violation. The courts agreed, and for a 3 second sample, they lost all rights tot he song and Jagger is now listed as the songwriter.
| |
| :::So I'd say the odds of Tina Turner smacking you around for not paying attention to this important and non-trivial legal issue involving copyright are in the range of at ''least'' 30-35% if we plow ahead heedlessly. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Asking for permission to post links==
| |
| | |
| I'm the current Bureaucrat at [http://ghostbusters.wikia.com Ghostbusters Wiki], and there was interest in placing links to articles on this wiki to Ghostbusters wiki articles, and likewise placing links on Ghostbusters wiki to articles relating to content which has been brought up. I don't know a great deal of your wikis past dealings, other than wikia apparently kept your old wiki's content when you moved. Anyways, the wiki would rather reference to your present wiki than the one currently at wikia. We are hoping you wouldn't mind the links to our characters on pages related to the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Race_with_the_Devil Race with the Devil] article. [http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/wiki/User:Devilmanozzy Devilmanozzy] 02:10, June 8, 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :Can you give a few examples of articles on your wiki which would benefit from having links to this site? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:37, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::IIRC it's whatshername's assistants-- the ones from the Earthforce story (Running with the Devil?) that Wildman based on the RGB models.
| |
| ::(I personally have no problem with the links. Though I think this guy added 'em once, misformatted, and they got reverted.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 13:06, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::That wasn't Nozzy but Liberal Noob, while not logged in. I told the original guy to take a step back and mind their P's and Q's before we start crosslinking, especially since it was an anonymous IP at the time. But yeah, he wants to crosslink with Race the Devil and Susan Hoffman.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 13:43, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Only direct link between the Ghostbusters Cartoon and the G1 Transformers cartoon is [[Frank Welker]] sounded like one of his TF roles when he voiced a ghost from time to time. I a am sorry for my wanton linking and it will not happen again. --[[User:Liberal Noob|Liberal Noob]] 22:57, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::I meant which pages on the Ghostbusters wiki would benefit from having links on them to our wiki. I'm curious, because I regard myself as reasonably familiar with Ghostbusters, and I can't think offhand of any references to Transformers in it. Perhaps in one of the cartoons? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:55, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Thanks for the replies on this matter. A good user Liberal Noob had requested that I would more address this, apparently the mod needed to say something and form a partnership in order to have links posted related to one anothers material. To answer the question of what articles would be hyperlinked, I believe he was planning on linking to the animated pages for Peter Venkman, Egon Spengler, and Ray Stantz. Thats what I understand is being requested to being linked to.[[User:Devilmanozzy|Devilmanozzy]] 19:42, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::We're not wondering which pages on our wiki would link to your wiki. We were wondering which pages on your wiki would need to link to our wiki. We didn't know there ''were'' any Transformers references in any Ghostbusters media, and thus didn't know you'd need to link to us from your wiki. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:59, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::[[Race with the Devil]], [[Susan Hoffman]], [[Starscream's Ghost]], [[Horri-Bull]], and a few others. Links will be on is a article on [http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/wiki/Ghostbusters_Cameos Ghostbusters Cameos]. Note I believe that the section will be better built soon.[[User:Devilmanozzy|Devilmanozzy]] 20:21, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::Seems like there's a few other connections in terms of voice actors ([[Tara Strong]], [[Frank Welker]], [[Maurice LaMarche]] etc) as well. I think linking between the two sites is a good idea. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 23:37, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::Yeah I had noticed that too as I looked around here the last few days. Never knew how much Ghostbusters and Transformers had in common.[[User:Devilmanozzy|Devilmanozzy]] 23:40, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::While I'm broadly in favour of this, could you maybe change "[[Starscream's Ghost]]" to "[[Starscream (G1)|Starscream's ghost]]" - I understand you want to keep the ghost theme going but the first is a link to an unrelated episode of the cartoon series, rather than the character himself. --[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 07:02, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::::OK Emvee, I fixed the link on the Ghostbusters wiki as you requested. Devilmanozzy, ''[[Star Wars]]'' also has a [[Darth Vader|lot in common]] with ''Transformers''. --[[User:Liberal Noob|Liberal Noob]] 14:52, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::::We know, we got named an official friend of Wookiepedia about a week into the [[Project: Bookworm Crash]]. If we hadn't been scrambling to pick up the pieces, our pages would probably reflect this more. (I assume we'll integrate more when Clone Wars starts up again, since we love to attention-whore ourselves that way.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 23:56, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::[http://www.therealeffingdeal.com/blog/dan-akroyd-ghostbusterhero/ Here is] an obscure crossover from [[The Real Effing Deal]]. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 00:09, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Quick Links? ==
| |
| | |
| You know, now that I think about it, one thing Wikia actually did do right was having some "Quick Links" on the sidebar. I find myself missing being able to quickly get to the main continuities/series without having to search or click to the Main Page first. (Especially now that there's lots o' ROTF toys to keep tabs on...)
| |
| | |
| Nothing extensive necessary; just one linkie thingy with a fly-out menu for our six main continuities and the full series list would probably work nicely. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 03:03, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :I think notably M.Sipher *really* hated that because any time a cursor went within a parsec of the menu, it would pop out in an annoying manner. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 04:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Wasn't just Sipher - it drove me nuts too. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 09:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Well, in that case, maybe just an extra sidemenu then, kind of like the "Campaign Navigation" box on [http://trinsic.alienharmony.com/Main_Page this sidebar]? I just figured that a fly-out menu would save space, but an extra link sidebar would work for me too.
| |
| :::But I'd definitely like something. As Abates points out below, we don't currently have any sidebar links for actually ''browsing''. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 12:47, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Could we make so that they're fly-out menus, but that they only fly-out if you actually click on the title? That would save room while avoiding things jumping out when you're waving the cursor around. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 22:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :I think having a link on the sidebar for Revenge of the Fallen would be good too. While the Community portal and Recent Changes links are great for us Editors, they're not likely to be used much by casual visitors. We should be using the menu to draw attention to major articles. While I'm thinking about it, we could probably change the Main Page link to read "Transformers Wiki"... --[[User:Abates|abates]] 04:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| Would anyone object if I went ahead and popped a link to [[Revenge of the Fallen (film)|Revenge of the Fallen]] in the navigation menu? I'm thinking between "Main Page" and "Community portal". --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:44, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :I'm not of the upper brass but given the increasing coverage of ROTF as we come down the wire, it'd make the most sense. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 19:00, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == We need a new adspace ==
| |
| | |
| The TFwiki on our new server is doing super mega amounts of bandwidth! (Note I've broken up the OPtimus Prime (G1) page, because, dude, that thing was a monster.) So, uh, I think we need to add a new adspace. One that's *above* the fold, since the ones we have are shoved down in the corner where no one can see them. What advertiser would want to dump loads of money on those? What I'm proposing is a 486x60 banner-shaped ad up above the "article/discussion/edit/history/delete/move/watch" links, nestled in between the Teletraan 1 image and the personal toolbar. (You know, OUTSIDE of the content.) If this is a terrible idea, I will also accept $5 donations. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:14, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :I've no qualms with that. That was one of the "acceptable" adspaces, if I recall from the old discussions.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 11:18, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Long as they don't dance or talk or sing, that'll work. Are we actively pursuing advertisers these days? -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 11:22, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Well, "actively pursuing advertisers" is somewhat incompatible with our current ad setup. To put an ad on our site now, that requires signing up with Project Wonderful and bidding. This is good for us because it's mostly automated. If we were to set up a "real" in the traditional sense, we'd need a full-time ad pursuer to fill those spots. The best we can do in our current situation is to try to convince Big Bad Toy Store and its ilk to sign up for Project Wonderful. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:33, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :IIRC, above-the-article is what we wanted Wikia to switch ''back'' to. I have no objection. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:20, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Works for me. How does Ant handle TFU.info's advertising? [[User:Hooper X|Hooper_X]] 12:35, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| :Doesn't bother me... but can we either put it ''under'' the personal bar, or somehow make it so the personal bar would wrap? Otherwise, I'm staring at the top of my screen and realizing that I'd have an annoying horizontal scroll bar afterwards whenever I'm logged in.
| |
| :I have to admit I'm kind of befuddled that we're apparently doing so much more traffic after the move than we were before, to the point of having all those initial problems because we weren't expecting it. Did the new server somehow improve our traffic, it is sheer coincidence that traffic increased for other reasons, or was it more like the old server wasn't keeping track of bandwidth or anything, so we had no idea how we were actually doing? --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 12:38, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Hosting with Bookworm was cheap. I mean, he was doing it at-cost. Or would have, if he ever invoiced us. Now that we've moved on, we're purchasing hosting from people who actually want to make money off us. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 12:41, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Well, the money's part of it, but I was also thinking about how most of our initial operational troubles seemed to stem from having more traffic to deal with than we realized we were going to have, to the point of even having to run a caching setup I'm guessing we weren't running on the old server. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 12:45, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::The way Bookworm had his servers set up, it was difficult for him to separate out what was our traffic versus what was other traffic on the same server. He gave us an estimate which turned out to be wrong. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 12:55, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::Aah, OK. Wasn't sure if it was something we needed to worry about or not. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 13:29, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::I was kinda expecting this :( I'm cool with more banners, and I think you should beg us for money now and then. We may be able to help when we can. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 13:15, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Caching is what most mediawiki installations '''do.''' We happened to start off on the most resource-intensive wiki software imaginable, and any stats from Bookworm were not only inaccurate based on whatever he was doing in the logs, but also because back then, ''the wiki was constantly crashing.'' You get zero hits per hour when it's down, and no stats in the world would help clear ''that'' up. I'm still tweaking the hit stats, and it'll be at least a week before I can start extrapolating growth numbers, but suffice it to say, we're going to go over our current bandwidth limit before the month is out, and while we won't get shut down, we ''will'' get billed for overages. Think of it like a normal cellphone plan instead of a pre-paid one. --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 11:47, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Yeah, that's mainly what I thought Walky meant. Nestled between the personal bar and the article tabs seems like fertile ground for a banner ad.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 13:39, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| I've got the ad code ready to go, whenever we can edit the CSS or whatever to make room. Here is our awesome new placeholder "please bid here" graphic: [https://www.projectwonderful.com/imagewrapper.php?img=img/uploads/pics/20719-1244569575.jpg&rand=439981] --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:48, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Looks good so far. Potentially odd question: are these particular dimensions popular with Project Wonderful?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:55, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::The Leaderboard (700ishx90) and the Big Box (300x250) are the most popular sizes, but those would really ugly up our page. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 15:58, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::And now it has its first client! That was fast.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 01:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Ahhh, Dreamland Chronicles is awesome. I spent a week a few months back reading through their archives after following an ad on our sidebar. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:20, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::One interesting thing looking at the Project Wonderful stats is that our ad hits are ''stabilizing'' now, and they're stabilizing fairly high relative to where they were when the site was still spotty. That's got to look good for advertisers, and if the site holds up to the abuse that the film debut is going to subject it to that's only beneficial to us in the end.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 02:48, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| [[Image:Ptbar-notmeanttobehere.png|thumb|This = bad]]
| |
| Uh, I'm using Monobook, and as a result of this, the watchlist/preferences/etc bar has somehow ended up at the ''bottom'' of the page, just above the About Transformers Wiki/Powered by MediaWiki/etc... - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 10:36, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :I got that on a couple of pages, too, and alt+F5ing didn't work. How I fixed it was I signed out and viewed those same pages as an anon. The userbar went back to where it should be, and it stayed there when I logged in again. - [[User:Magnus Maximus|Magnus Maximus]] 10:49, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Tried that, didn't work.
| |
| ::In fact, it's worse than I thought, because I didn't notice at first that the page/discussion/edit tabs have gone wandering too, and are floating around the place (the "discussion" and "edit" tabs are currently in the middle of this edit box, and I can't see the others anywhere). - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 10:58, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::'''THE PROBLEM IS IN common.css'''.
| |
| :::The following CSS borks monobook. This is why you should use the specific stylesheets for each skin, NOT the common file:
| |
| <pre>
| |
| #p-personal {
| |
| position: relative;
| |
| }
| |
|
| |
| | |
| #p-personal .pBody {
| |
| float: right;
| |
| }
| |
| | |
| #p-cactions {
| |
| position: relative;
| |
| }
| |
| | |
| #content {
| |
| margin-top: 16px !important;
| |
| position: relative;
| |
| }</pre>
| |
| :::-[[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 11:30, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| The new ad space at the top of the page, which was fine yesterday, is now looking screwy in Firefox, with the ad behind the top of the Autobot symbol in the logo and the tabs at the top of the bar. Like so: [[Image:Top-ad-screwy.jpg|thumb]] --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 16:43, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Works fine for me in 3.0.10 and 3.5b99, both after clearing cache.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 16:47, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :I made some CSS modifications in response to SanityOrMadness's issue, which may cache improperly. Try a hard refresh/clearing your cache. --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 16:51, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Okay, clearing my cache fixed it. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 20:19, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| {{-}}
| |
| | |
| ==Consolidate front page?==
| |
| [[Image:Newfrontpage062009.jpg|thumb]]
| |
| Man, that front banner is huge! Can it be smaller? And when we make it smaller, can we stack up the top-most two boxes next to it like so? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 15:58, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| : The cropped image shown, of course, is just a placeholder. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:00, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::That looks about as clunky as Wikia's frontpage, IMO.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 16:05, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Well, it's not fine-tuned or anything. Thing is, either that banner's going to be cut down or removed entirely. It's huge, it's bandwidth-wasting, and it pushes all our real content down off the page. What's your choice? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::I'm probably knee-jerking based on the placement of the boxes. I guess it could be made to work if it's finessed a bit. It's not like we're running a ginormous ad there like Wikia was suggesting.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 16:31, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::I dunno, personally I like this new idea. It reminds me of how our franchise navs look: Logo on the left, linkage on the right. Plus, yeah, unlike Wikia, our content on the right of the logo will actually be... content.
| |
| :::::As for logo ideas, why don't we make a few different options where it's the TFWiki.net logo over a pic of a single character? We could have one for Prime, Megatron, Starscream, Jazz, etc. using the <OPTION> thingy. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 16:37, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::As long as the site-name logo thing itself is HUGE. I really want to make sure the URL is shoved in your face. Branding continues to be important as we war against Wikia for Google prominence. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:40, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::If branding's important, why not change the actual on-every-page logo to use the actual TFWiki.net logo? And put TFWiki.net in the page <title>? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 11:01, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::Alternately, each one could be a group shot from a different franchise, with the font altered to match. Play up how many different continuities there are, eh?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 17:00, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| [[Image:Newfrontpage062009b.jpg|thumb]]
| |
| ::::::::This image to the right is what I'm now thinking. And it should probably have movie characters predominantly, at least for the next few months. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:04, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::I'm inclined to agree with sticking with the movie characters now, considering it's almost two weeks till the US premiere/release. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 17:19, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| That's pretty darn good. Brings a lot more info above the fold, and the layout's pretty clean. The white background is good too, so any other images in the rotation should follow that example.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 17:21, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :How do we make it done? The table markup on the frontpage is foreign to me. I'll upload the new image itself... --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:32, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Since Derik doesn't seem to be about yet, I'll have a go with it. Hmm. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)--[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Actually, we're really going to have to do something like your first example above, with the Continuity/Category tables underneath each other instead of side-by-side, because trying to fit the logo and the two tables all side-by-side looks hideously awful on a 1024px-wide screen. I tried just simply having the smaller logo, the text notices under it, and the two tables on the right, but it looked kind of... eh. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 18:04, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Mrr. OK, I made ''an'' attempt at tweaking, although I think it's going to need some external CSS tweaks at least, if only to center the Continuities table. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 03:44, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::Looks okay, but the jarring thing about it is that the red and blue boxes aren't the same width, though they share a column.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 16:19, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::That's something Derik needs to tweak in the Featured box template and/or external CSS... I can't do it just by editing the page itself.
| |
| ::::::Also, yea or nay on the link buttons? It just seemed a little more "Click me!" than the paragraph o' links. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 16:49, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::I dig 'em. Good design decision, IMO. --[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 16:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::Quite aside from anything else... what's the point in liking to tfwiki.info with an image link. It ''just about'' made sense as a text link, but is only going to confuse people who click on the Autobot symbol and end up back where they started. We need to cut down on main page-to-main page links, '''not''' obfuscate where they link to. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 17:30, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::Visual consistency. (And the mouseover text indicated it was an "alternate URL".) But, I tried tweaking it again. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::It's fixed! Huzzah!--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:46, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::I realized I was just approaching it the wrong way. Eheh. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:15, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| : I'm a little ambivalent towards the "new" logo, just because I think it's a little bland, although I'm sure it's a work in progress. I am all for putting "TFWIKI.net" in the header and all over the fucking place as a branding effort, though. On a slightly related note, I'd consider flipping the "current series" in said box, so ROTF is closer to the center of the page and Animated is on the outside - if we're really trying to bring in ROTF traffic, having that logo front and center is probably a pretty smart idea. I also like the idea of a rotating logo box - maybe we even jigger it so that it links directly to the article for whoever's in it - like the Go! Boxes, but focused entirely on core characters (More Fallen, Movie Optimus, etc., less Irwin Spoon and Dinobots Strike Back). Stick with primary Movie-verse guys for now, and then in a month or so when the hype dies down, we can start to shuffle in some sufficiently advanced and significant articles (making sure that the characters are both important to the fiction and that their articles are nearly, if not entirely complete). [[User:Hooper X|Hooper_X]] 11:17, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :That sounds like a good idea. I'm down with that. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 17:00, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| [[Image:Boxswap.jpg|right|350px]]
| |
| I has new idea for what module ought to be above the fold, and more ROTF promotiony stuff. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:15, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Sure, I'd go for it. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:26, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| | |
|
| |
|
| Considering how crowded and text-heavy the front page is, I think the best way to draw attention to the banner is to surround it in as much empty space as possible, [[User:Magnus Maximus/Temp|something like this]], especially as the new banner's white background assimilates the page's whitespace so easily. - [[User:Magnus Maximus|Magnus Maximus]] 03:10, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :I'm not sure how that's really different than it is now, other than putting the site notice at the top... which I kind of hate doing, because that pushes all of the content stuff down. The site notice is temporary anyway.
| |
| :I was thinking we ought to make the movie stuff more prominent, rather than the continuity/category modules. I was also thinking of placing the banner, site notice, and external website links in one cell instead of two like it is now, which further creates whitespace... I just didn't think of that until after I made the layout change proposal pic.
| |
| :I do agree/think maybe we could stand to lose a few modules, though... maybe ditch the Categories module entirely, and consolidate the Holy Grails and Editing Tips somehow. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 03:32, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Oh yeah, you're running a 1024 desktop, aren't you? I changed my res to 1024, and you're right, it really doesn't look much different. But [http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3349/tfwikitemp1280.jpg this] is how it looks in 1280, and even that little bit of extra space makes a huge difference compared with how it is [http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4606/tfwikinow1280.jpg now] (in my opinion).
| |
| ::I agree about the notice, but I couldn't think where else to put it. Putting it under the banner (thus between the blue and grey boxes) made it seem wedged-in and out of place. Lesser of two evils, you dig?
| |
| ::I also agree about making the movie stuff more prominent, but the red and blue boxes are narrower, so they take up less of the horizontal space. I did think that maybe we could change the featured series box so that ROTF is ''on top'' of Animated instead of beside it, and shift that up next to the banner somewhat like it is on my temp page now. That also adapts to 1024 better, I think.
| |
| ::And yeah, losing some of the boxes would not be the worst thing in the world. - [[User:Magnus Maximus|Magnus Maximus]] 03:52, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Ehh... my problem with that idea is that, one of the reasons we redesigned the Main Page to begin with is because our greeting was so big that it was pushing useful content down below the fold. This sort of recreates that exact same problem.
| |
| :::But, I tried tweaking my Main Page design here: [[User:Jeysie/Main Page]] to give more whitespace. I figure that once the movie's been out for a while and we don't need to pimp it as much, we can replace the Featured Characters box with the Continuities box. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 11:50, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::I was looking at the front page right now and thinking about some things - I'm glad to see most of them are in line with what's already considered. :)
| | == Binder of Revelation Illustration Credits == |
| ::That said, I suggest taking TFA out of the featured series box, even if only temporarily, and using the [[:Image:Revenge fallen logo.jpg|logo from the franchise page]]. I feel it's more recognisable as the ROTF logo than the more colourful one we have there, plus we can make it a bit bigger. | | Okay, don't kill me here, I'm just hoping that the artists who contributed to the Binder fifteen-ish years ago get their proper due since it's out in the open now. I got in touch with the art director of the Binder of Revelation and have a fairly complete list of credits for who did what illustration. Since this isn't actually a published work, how do we go about giving proper illustration credits? Do we even credit anyone? Considering the document itself has no credits, I feel like it's worthwhile that the artists get recognized, even if we aren't putting any images up ourselves. [[User:MCRG|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG|talk]]) 21:37, 25 November 2025 (EST) |
| ::I also wonder if we should have "Transformers Wiki" written on there somewhere other than the site logo in the sidebar. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:11, 11 June 2009 (EDT) | | :I don't think this is objectionable info to note at the least. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 23:03, 25 November 2025 (EST) |
| {{-}}
| | ::For now, maybe put your raw info on a sandbox so we can get a better sense of it? Most of the Binder art I know of was by Ken Christiansen, for instance, so if all but a few pieces are by him, it would seem silly to list them all individually. But I'm guessing it's more varied than that. —[[User:The Wadapan|wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 00:26, 26 November 2025 (EST) |
| | :::It's a pretty wide spread, surprisingly. A lot of the pieces are tag team works where Eric Siebenaler did roughs and other artists did the finals, but it's around 5-10 artists without me checking the exact notes at the moment. I'll start getting that together.[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG|talk]]) 14:41, 26 November 2025 (EST) |
| | ::::All known credits added. On a side note, is it worth pointing out somewhere that the Binder itself is written in the style of a RPG manual instead of an actual franchise bible? It goes a long way in explaining why it was so quickly disregarded by other creative teams when comparing it to bibles from other franchises or just other series bibles within Transformers on the whole, and the pricetag attached to the project.--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG|talk]]) 15:23, 21 January 2026 (EST) |
|
| |
|
| :::: "TFWIKI.net - THE Transformers Wiki"? [[User:Hooper X|Hooper_X]] 07:49, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| | == What are we calling the new "Core" Transformers stuff? == |
| :::::I made up a [[:Image:Wikilogo big.psd|PSD template]] of just such a logo this morning. It's layered, so the transparent overlay of the Autobot leaders is optional.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:18, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::I definitely prefer the font of the current TFWIKI.NET logo to that one.
| |
| ::::::Whatever we ultimately do though, surely we should use the same logo EVERYWHERE, including for the top-left logo, ja? (There's also the recurring thought that we have a G1 Autobot sigil for the top-left logo, but a '''G2''' Autobot sigil for the favicon. I understand that the G2 favicon is unique, which was the main reason we went for it, but if we're thinking about branding...) - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 12:37, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Logo===
| | So... what should we call the new generically branded "Transformers" toys that have been showing up? (Prime Changers, Smash Changers, Tiny Turbo Changers, maybe more in the future). Should it be a separate new thing or maybe part of [[Transformers Authentics|''Authentics'']]? The Prime Changer [[Optimus Prime (G1)/toys#Authentics|Optimus]], [[Bumblebee (G1)/toys#Authentics|Bumbleebee]], and [[Megatron (G1)/toys#PrimeChanger|Megatron]] were previously added under ''Authentics'', while someone just started using "Transformers (2026)" for the Tiny Turbo [[Arcee (G1)/toys#Tiny Turbo Changers|Arcee]] and [[Elita One (G1)#Tiny Turbo Changers|Elita]], which got me thinking that we should probably figure this out soon.<br>From what I've gathered they all use "TRA Core" in their listing names, but their packaging design seems identical to current ''Authentics'' packaging design, also lacking a distinct subtitle and focusing on "Evergreen" characters to start off. Then again, Hasbro homogenizing all their packaging designs in the last year makes it hard to tell if this line is meant to be its own thing. Though it is notable that unlike prior ''Authentics'', this "Core" line is using bigger size classes and is available at bigger retailers like Target instead of dollar stores. –[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 18:24, 13 January 2026 (EST) |
| [[Image:TFwikilogomock.png|right]]
| |
| If we want to be movie-centric AND use the TFWiki.net logo extensively for branding reasons, shouldn't we change the Animated-based logo to something more like this? (NB: Quick mock to make a point, '''not''' intended to be actually used, and may clash with the Teletraan on the Monacobook skin). - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 17:30, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :I think we do need to keep some visual distinctiveness. If we go too far into the grey look of the movie we end up with understandable confusion concerning its resemblance to [http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/File:Monaco-logo.png this].--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 17:59, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Yeah. I'm really really fine with keeping our current page design/color scheme. The Wikia site is really gray, and I'd rather not veer to close to that. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:48, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::[Joke Suggestion] How about we make ours ''on fire''? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 04:27, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::It wouldn't actually be ''that'' hard to do... -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:08, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Featured-series box===
| | :I was JUST adding a section here and rather than rewriting...<br> |
| <div style="float:right">
| | :Okay just kinda checking in, because thanks to Hasbro's goddamn infuriating thing about not promoting/announcing anything other than the expensive collector crap, the load of sub-line-less not-''Authentics'' "Core" stuff hitting Targets (at least, has anything popped up at Walmart?) is a bit of a "how do we handle this" deal. Both "how much product is there" and "do we treat this as a separate line, as an extension of Authentics despite it not being a 'discount' store line, or what". I'm leaning towards "just list it as its own line with G1 characters unless pretty explicitly otherwise". --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 18:30, 13 January 2026 (EST) |
| {|width="50%",
| | ::Oh right, Walmart. Off memory they do have the ''Authentics''-styled [[Bumblebee (G1)/toys#MegaSting|Mega Sting Bumbleebee]] (could also be considered a "larger price point" I guess). No clue if any listings gave it a separate name like "Core" has. Walmart also has a bunch of merch stuff in ''Authentics''-style packaging like big head helicopters, Dancing Transformers and a giant RC Bumblebee. –[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 18:57, 13 January 2026 (EST) |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| {{Featurebox
| |
| |Featured Series
| |
| |color=#999
| |
| |id=featured-series
| |
| |content={{User:SanityOrMadness/featured-series}}
| |
| |view=User:SanityOrMadness/featured-series
| |
| }}
| |
| |}</div>
| |
| Should we perhaps rebalance the featured-series box to be more like this? (Yes, I know there's a too-high gap between the two lines to the right of the TFA logo. It didn't preview like that, and I can't see why it's doing that.) - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 14:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :That's pretty darn sweet-looking, IMHO. I tried swapping around [[User:Jeysie/Main Page|my take on the Main Page]] to include a slightly modified version of it. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 15:16, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::The way it is on the mainpage right now looks really great. Good density of info above-the-fold.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:19, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Or rather on Jeysie's test page, I see now.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:21, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Thing about including [[Main Page/featured-characters]] in it like that (which I just edited to increase the header-size to be visually bigger than the character names, and debold the character names themselves) is that if you separate that from above AND below with a line, you visually make it into a franchise by itself. TFA needs a stronger separator from ROTF than the ROTF stuff does within itself. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 15:39, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| <div style="float:right">
| |
| {|width="50%",
| |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| {{Featurebox
| |
| |Featured Series
| |
| |color=#999
| |
| |id=featured-series
| |
| |content={{:Main Page/featured-series}}
| |
| |view=Main Page/featured-series
| |
| }}
| |
| |}</div>
| |
| How about this? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 15:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :Works for me. I added it to my test Main Page with a few minor formatting tweaks. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 16:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::That looks excellent to me! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 07:23, 13 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Are we doing to do this then? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 11:06, 14 June 2009 (EDT) | |
| ::::Was wondering that myself. Any more tweaks or suggestions to add, or should we go with my mockup? --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 13:02, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::The mockup looks pretty solid to me.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 14:11, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::I say go for it! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:46, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::Looking again at the featured-characters bit... is Sideswipe really the best choice for that fourth spot on row 1? I already changed Soundwave to Devastator, because the latter has been a LOT more prominent in promos for the movie, but I'm not sure who would be best for a fourth Autobot. Jetfire? Skids & Mudflap? (I'm not even sure if Ironhide is best for the third slot). - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 18:54, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::I was trying to think of a balance between which characters were most prominent and which people were likely to be excited about... we could go for Optimus, Bumblebee, Jetfire, and Skids & Mudflap together in the last spot. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:03, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::::Made that change for now, then. I think "prominence" should probably be the main factor, if we want to grab users. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 19:14, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| {{-}}
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Featured article=== | | == Size of the page again == |
| Now that the featured series box has been sorted... nothing against Kup, but do we have a movie/ROTF article that could possibly take the featured spot at some point between now and the 19th? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 17:57, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :[[The Fallen]] is at Featured Article status. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 18:07, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::And has been the Featured Article for awhile at A Certain Other Place. I'd rather not mirror them in that respect, personally.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 18:22, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::In that case... I've got no idea. None of the rest are at FA status, and I can't think of which one would be most relevant to pick on for cleanup. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 18:31, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Surely the three most obvious non-Fallen articles "to pick on for cleanup" are [[Optimus Prime (Movie)]], [[Bumblebee (Movie)]] and [[Sam Witwicky]], ja? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 18:51, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::Simmons might be mroe fun. ;)
| |
| :::::And Megatron more enlightening, if someone wants to take a whack at his DS-game backstory. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:17, 14 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Looks like Primal Prime is the featured article at that other place, not The Fallen. In fact, it looks like their Fallen article has a cleanup tag, not a featured tag... - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 17:07, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::Yeah, someone replaced it a couple of days ago after noticing that their "The Fallen" article wasn't up to scratch. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:40, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::Any objection to us featuring our superior The Fallen article after all, then? --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 18:08, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::::Yeah, on the 24th, the Fallen's page is going up. ESPECIALLY if it's also up at Wikia. Our Fallen page has to supercede theirs, and burying it on the most important week of its life isn't gonna work in our favor. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:19, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| Hell, if we want to upstage 'em over at Wikia, just put [[Sideswipe (ROTF)|Sideswipe]] as one of the featured characters. I was over there just to see how far the site had gone downhill and it surprised me. They ''don't even have a page for Sideswipe'', it just redirects you to G1 Sideswipe. How sad is that?--[[User:AWT88|AWT88]] 00:13, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| | This page is getting pretty long again, so could someone archive the last year? [[User:Hilfam|Hilfam]] ([[User talk:Hilfam|talk]]) 12:03, 22 January 2026 (EST) |
| :How hard did you look? I wont link it for obvious reasons, but there IS a page for him. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 00:22, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::I think he got messed up by the fact that the Main Page links to "Sideswipe" without the parenthetical, which does indeed redirect to G1 Sideswipe.
| |
| ::Having said that, their proper ROTF Sideswipe page is still miserable compared to ours, as is the fact that they got the Main Page linking wrong.
| |
| ::Not only that... I also noticed that one of their registered users, while editing their Main Page, managed to change their Twitter link to our Twitter in the process. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 00:44, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Yeah I didn't look very hard (alcohol is a helluva thing), the link was what I went for. Obviously someone over there screwed up. You got a problem with it Cattleprod, kiss my shiny, metal ass.--[[User:AWT88|AWT88]] 01:29, 17 June 2009 (EDT) | |
|
| |
|
| ===Text Purging=== | | == Idea for a page? == |
| Next possible round of changes:
| |
| I've tweaked [[User:Jeysie/Main Page|my setup]] to remove the Categories module (is it really that useful?) and try to reduce/consolidate the Editing Tips/Holy Grails section.
| |
|
| |
|
| I also think we should do a purge of the Series box and stick to just the "major" series/franchises: Generation 1, Generation 2, Beast Wars, Robots in Disguise, Armada, Energon, Cybertron, Animated, the two movies, and Universe. (Possibly also Classics and/or Beast Machines). We have the comprehensive list linked to for anyone who really wants to look at everything. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:52, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
| | Perhaps a page discussing the various Transformers that have "base modes" as a third form, like Powermaster Prime, Motormaster, etc. It's a major recurring gimmick since G1. [[User:DrakeyC|DrakeyC]] ([[User talk:DrakeyC|talk]]) 09:09, 30 January 2026 (EST) |
| :The categories box is useful for two reasons: (1) In and of itself, it's useful. I certainly use it. (2) Without it, your mockup has an empty white space in the right column almost the exact size and shape of the categories box... - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 20:49, 15 June 2009 (EDT) | | :I think a general "[[base mode]]" article would make sense, yeah. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 10:19, 30 January 2026 (EST) |
| :I further note that, [[:Image:Mainpage analytics-06-05-09.png|per Derik's statdump]], it ''gets used''. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 20:53, 15 June 2009 (EDT) | | ::seconded. frankly shocked to learn there isn't one already --[[User:Arren1234 |Arren Meuchel]] [[User_talk:Arren1234 |(talk)]] 11:58, 30 January 2026 (EST) |
| ::Well, if you can suggest other ways to clean up our Main Page, I'm all for it. As it is, I agree with Walky that it's getting to be too much of a sea of text, and that struck me as being one of the least useful of the modules. I guess we could consolidate it somehow with the Continuities module as a sort of "Quick Links" box... | | :::I think base modes lend themselves better to a category page rather than a full-blown article. What would it even say? “Some Transformers have Base Modes. Here’s a list of all the toys, here’s a list of all the episodes/issues where a base mode appeared.” [[User:Cylasbreakdown|Cylasbreakdown]] ([[User talk:Cylasbreakdown|talk]]) 16:51, 4 February 2026 (EST) |
| ::We possibly could also get rid of the Editing Tips and Holy Grail modules, but I kind of hate doing that, as it's nice to try to encourage new editors to look at that sort of information. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 21:02, 15 June 2009 (EDT) | | ::::I don't see why not. We have articles specifically for [[Beast mode]], [[Super Mode]], [[attack mode]], and [[transportation mode]]. For such a prominent feature of Transformers since its early days I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be a specific write-up about city/base modes anywhere, and not even as single mention on the main [[alternate mode]] page. Closest I can find is [[Titan (group)#Alternate modes]]. —[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 18:01, 4 February 2026 (EST) |
| | :::::I attempted a [[User:MahXyme/Sandbox/Base Mode|sandbox for a Base Mode page]] long ago, but I stopped since I realized it would require an extensive amount of work to list all fiction usages & differentiate what counts/what does not count not (something I struggled with the [[Micromaster#The Transformers|Micromasters Transports]] assorments -[[User:MahXyme|MahXyme/MahXymal]] ([[User talk:MahXyme|talk]]) 17:53, 5 February 2026 (EST) |
| | ::::::Seems like a good start at least. I'd argue for listing "groups" of base modes (Micromaster Stations, Titans Return Leaders, etc.) rather than individual figures --[[User:Arren1234 |Arren Meuchel]] [[User_talk:Arren1234 |(talk)]] 20:36, 5 February 2026 (EST) |
|
| |
|
| ::Thing is, if I click on the first link in the Categories box because I want to find a particular character, I get a big confusing list of subcategories and... [[Mickey Mouse]]. If I'm a casual user looking for,say, [[Soundwave (G1)|Soundwave]], that doesn't help me much, because then I have to hunt through the subcategories for something that looks like it might lead me there. Yes, it's possible that I might notice the search box and use that instead, but that kinda takes away from the point of having that there in the first place.
| | Agreed on the organizational aspects. And, that sandbox is a good start, though yeah, it'd need a lot of work to go through all the toylines and make a comprehensive list. There's also the fact that certain toys with base modes are intended to link to others, some universal and some just one specific bot, so it may be tricky to document when that play feature is prevelant. [[User:DrakeyC|DrakeyC]] ([[User talk:DrakeyC|talk]]) 10:35, 18 February 2026 (EST) |
| ::Though technically I guess I'm complaining about the organisation of the Characters category rather than the box itself. :) --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:20, 15 June 2009 (EDT) | |
|
| |
|
| == Jokes? == | | ==About character name translations== |
| | Um... I'm new here. I have a question, and I'm not sure if this question falls under [[Help:Official info]]... |
|
| |
|
| It is sometimes very hard to find relevant information on this wiki among all the juvenile humor. It's a little off-putting for a casual user like myself. I know this wiki is about robots who turn into cars, but, c'mon... Maybe tone it down a bit?[[Special:Contributions/71.107.102.102|71.107.102.102]] 16:56, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| | That is, I want to add the translated names of some characters. But I want to know what basis this wiki uses to choose foreign translations. Must the foreign translations be ones used by Hasbro and/or TakaraTomy and their licensees in order to remain on this wiki? Can some of the names translated by fan Chinese translation groups be considered valid? Especially in cases where they were the first to provide a translation for a work (possibly the only one) and fixed certain character names. |
|
| |
|
| :No. [[User:Hooper X|Hooper_X]] 17:00, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| | There are also some characters (such as [[Sentinel Maximus]]) whose works may never be introduced by licensors in certain languages, but they do have a commonly used translated name. Should we include this translated name, or just keep it without a translation in that language? |
|
| |
|
| ::If you can point out specific instances where the humor is getting in the way of the information, we'll take those under consideration for adjusting, but on the whole we here tend to appreciate the humor. (Including this editor back when she was a newbie/casual reader.) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:04, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
| | For example, when IDW comic books were introduced in China, the translation team at the time translated [[Tarn (G1)]] as '''璇玑湖'''. So this would count as an authorized translation. However, because this translated name has nothing to do with the original meaning (as well as some other controversies surrounding that Chinese translation group), the more common and widely used Chinese translation for [[Tarn (G1)]] is the direct transliteration '''塔恩'''. '''璇玑湖''' has basically been abandoned. In this case, which translation should we choose? |
| :::As does the overwhelming majority of the readership, it seems. We've gotten praise from all circles for the "do not take it too seriously" approach, even from industry professionals. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 15:22, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Tech Upgrades ==
| | :I suddenly realized that 塔恩 could be used. The packaging of Blokees does indeed call him 塔恩. |
|
| |
|
| Since we're cracking 1.5 million hits per day, I'm running an alternate webserver for testing over on [http://tfwiki.net:8080/ port 8080.] It's *not* cached, so I expect it to be a smidge slower, but I'm also aggressively tweaking it for better content compression and lower memory usage. It probably doesn't matter *now,* but I suspect that as we close in on the movie, and then as the movie is released and the edits go up, we're going to need to squeeze out every last ounce of performance available to us. That said, can you guys try to break it via logging in/out, editing articles, etc.? It's all on the same database, so any changes made there WILL show up here (and vice versa,) but my major concern is that we don't have those damned login session problems and their ilk going forward. Thanks! --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 11:05, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| | Also, does the foreign name used in the product titles by the Hasbro official flagship store count? |
| :So... an "editing copy" on one server, and a cached copy on another? Because 99% of TFWiki readers aren't editors? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 11:53, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::Let's not overcomplicate it. Test on the new link, the software driving that will replace the existing (more resource intensive) software '''if it's any good.''' At this point, I want to find out if there are any bugs, and that's that. --[[User:McFly|McFly]] 16:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :I got a 405 error when I tried to upload an image on there, but otherwise it seems to be working great. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| =="Wikia wiki" boilerplate==
| | Uh, this question might seem a bit silly, or it might come across as a bit strange because I'm speaking English through a translator. But if the existing Wiki rules already cover this issue, please just tell me, thank you.[[User:Micheva|Micheva]] ([[User talk:Micheva|talk]]) 10:18, 12 February 2026 (EST) |
| Between FortMax, Skyjammer and myself, I believe all instances of "Teletraan-I a wikia wiki" etc have been removed from our webpages. Huzzah! Hopefully that will help our Google stats and suchlike, unless I am mis-remembering how those things work... --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 18:31, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| | :This is a fantastic question. I have no authority here so don’t take this as word of law, but I believe that Romanizations on this wiki (which I think is somewhat similar) are case-by-case. The first romanization of [[Deathsaurus (G1)|Deathsaurus]] was “Deszarus”, but the page is still titled “Deathsaurus” because that’s what the name actually is supposed to be. (Deathsaurus’ name issues are actually pretty interesting, at least to me, and I’d recommend reading the wiki article’s section on it.) Conversely, [[Jallguar]] IS the first romanization used, and the article title, but in that instance I suppose that there isn’t really any convincing reason to use any of the other romanizations we’ve gotten over the years since none of them actually mean anything (it’s just the Japanese word for Jaguar with an extra syllable inserted). I’m rambling. What I would do for foreign names is, stick with the first official translation used, unless you think there’s a compelling reason to use a different one (like what you said with Tarn), and in that case bring it up on the discussion page for the article in question or in the Discord server. [[User:Cylasbreakdown|Cylasbreakdown]] ([[User talk:Cylasbreakdown|talk]]) 02:43, 15 February 2026 (EST) |
| :*thumbsup!* --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 07:28, 13 June 2009 (EDT) | | ::They need to be translations used in official material. That's just the easiest line in the sand we can make. If different translations are used officially, we note them all, barring obvious typos and the such. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 05:22, 15 February 2026 (EST) |
| | :::Does the name used for the flagship store count? Those works that were not introduced have kept them without translations, right?[[User:Micheva|Micheva]] ([[User talk:Micheva|talk]]) 06:52, 15 February 2026 (EST) |
|
| |
|
| == Special:Imagelist ==
| | Some publications that contain many translations (such as the Chinese version of DW's MTMTE) I actually don't have the resources for, which is a pity. |
| | I have come to realize some issues. For instance, if the translation team used a certain translation term when translating a publication, but later discovered that this term was incorrect, they made the correction in their subsequent fan-based translations. However, since the publication was not re-released after its introduction, the translation term in the authorized merchandise could not be modified. Can we adopt the revised translation term provided by this translation team? |
|
| |
|
| Is there any way to strip out the deleted images from [[Special:Imagelist]]? It's kinda useless as things stand. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 20:11, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
| | There is another less rigorous question: Does THE translation given by the authorized Chinese translation and introduction team of Chris McFeely's TRANSFORMERS: THE BASICS count?[[User:Micheva|Micheva]] ([[User talk:Micheva|talk]]) 07:07, 15 February 2026 (EST) |
| | :THE BASICS, while incredibly informative, is not official, so no, it would not count. [[User:Cylasbreakdown|Cylasbreakdown]] ([[User talk:Cylasbreakdown|talk]]) 15:52, 16 February 2026 (EST) |
| | ::I reiterate, official material only. Mistakes are unfortunate, but that's how it goes and we can't presume unofficial translations will make it into official material. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 17:42, 16 February 2026 (EST) |
| | OK, I will do it this way. Strictly follow the official materials. |
|
| |
|
| == Anonymous users ==
| | And one more question: Can the translation names used by Hasbro's official store be used in this Wiki?[[User:Micheva|Micheva]] ([[User talk:Micheva|talk]]) 23:40, 16 February 2026 (EST) |
| | :Material from Hasbro is fine. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 01:50, 17 February 2026 (EST) |
|
| |
|
| Right, the movie goes wide-release in the UK on Friday (I think there may be some previews on Thursday). Thinking about the chaos that may result [and noting that Memory Alpha - much to Wikia's displeasure - disabled ALL editing between the first opening of ''Star Trek'' and its' wide release in the US.]... I think we should give serious consideration to disabling anonymous editing from at least the 18th to the 26th of June.
| | == So when are we splitting the Legends World characters off? == |
|
| |
|
| Thoughts? Objections? Flames? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 22:26, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
| | It made sense to keep them together when ''Legends'' first started as Jungle Animals in Decidedly Non-Jungle Situations, and this wasn't worth pursuing before now since it'd be just moving the furniture around. But the lore got deeper and now with ''New Legends'' as ongoing fiction I think it's worth looking at again. As much as Legends World is treated as its own dimension, it is fundamentally just a location easily accessible from the JG1 timeline populated with clones* of Transformers from the wider continuity that exists around it. And when we write pages for duplicate characters who co-exist, do we not typically split them off? If that's the yardstick, several Legends Worlders interact with or refer to their JG1 selves, including Rattrap, Rhinox, Waspinator, Arcee, and T-AI. Leo Prime even moves in with Lio Convoy, and keeping those same dudes on the same page is complicating the already complex timeline presented by "[[Age of Primes (End of G1 Universe)|Age of Primes]]". — [[User:TheLastGherkin|TheLastGherkin]] ([[User talk:TheLastGherkin|talk]]) 12:44, 3 March 2026 (EST) |
| | <sub>*"clones" is a simpler term for these guys than "magically created lifeforms in a telepathic dream world based on real people from 300 years in the future" but same diff</sub> |
| | :It's always been strange to me that they weren't split off already. Having them on the same page is extremely confusing. I'd say go for it. --[[User:Arren1234 |Arren Meuchel]] [[User_talk:Arren1234 |(talk)]] 12:57, 3 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :Personally I think this might be overthinking things. I'd agree that it's not quite 1 to 1 with other cross dimension stuff, but functionally Legends Rattrap is a version of the Beast Wars character even if he is in this weird pocket dimension type thing, and ever single "native" to the dimension we see is basically just a comedic version of a pre-existing character. And we've always kept cross dimensional stories with versions of the same character on the same page (Universe, TransTech, et cetera). It makes things complicated, sure, but JG1 stuff has been like that for nearly two decades now. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 13:00, 3 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::For my money, there's just ''so much'' with the Legends idiots now, and there's going to keep being more of it, so we'd be best off siloing them into their own pages <s>and not having to think about them any more</s>. Universe and TransTech stories that had the characters interacting were generally one-offs or short runs. This is a Cloud or Galvatron II situation, to me. --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 13:45, 3 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :I am on the record as considering reader experience our prime directive and this would be such a drastic improvement to the readability of our coverage of the Legends rat's nest that I've been meaning to suggest it for years. Consider me emphatically in favor. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 20:12, 3 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :I think I'm also generally leaning towards "this is already complicated and it's just going to get more complicated so let's detangle this shit sooner rather than later." -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 20:19, 3 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::Fine with this idea. Are we using Japanese names since those characters have never shown up in material with Hasbro names? [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 20:31, 3 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :::That feels unnecessarily pedantic. --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 22:16, 3 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::::One could make the argument that it's too steeped in Japanese fan culture/terminology to use the Hasbro names, but I really only care about the human characters having Japanese names (because they're normal people living in Tokyo and wouldn't be named things like "T-AI"). [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 22:25, 3 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :::::Also, I think Roadbuster, Whirl, and Windblade can stay as they are, since all three are meant to be the main JG1 versions of those characters anyway. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 22:37, 3 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :::I'm theoretically in favour of Japanese names, since it would improve legibility of say, the time Rattle and Rattrap teamed up – and we're absolutely keeping Lio Convoy, since Leo Prime has gone through a textual name change – BUT: characters with toys, at least, had both the Japanese and Hasbro names on their packaging. It would be inconsistent to have Rattrap and Waspinator and Optimus Primal alongside Cheetus and — I can't think of another example, but I'm interrupting this train of thought because I CAN think of Optimus Minor being made Primal's son on the basis of Beast Convoy's western name. And how many minor guys like, I dunno, Build Boy, are named in dialogue? We could always title the article Wedge and slap a Noname-uncomfirmed on that bad boy like how we did with ''Shattered Glass'' in the distant past. |
| | :::Also, what are we feeling is best for a disambig? (Legends)? (LG)? (LW)? — [[User:TheLastGherkin|TheLastGherkin]] ([[User talk:TheLastGherkin|talk]]) 04:43, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::::Or we could go with the Kre-O approach of "major characters get their own pages, cameos don't" I GUESS — [[User:TheLastGherkin|TheLastGherkin]] ([[User talk:TheLastGherkin|talk]]) 04:53, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::::Minor is only called "Minor" in Legends, so he wouldn't get the full name. I vote (Legends). [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 05:01, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :::::I second the "(Legends)" motion. It's the name of the franchise these character debuted in, in the name of the world they live in, and it's one word. We don't put Masterforce characters at "MF", for instance, and "Legends" isn't even a compound word that ''could'' be abbreviated. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 16:32, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::::::Doing a cursory sweep we appear to have already used "(Legends)" for a [[:Category:Transformers Legends episodes|bazillion mobile game events]] such that it might be prudent to avoid that one. My two cents would be to either use the "(LG)" abbreviation from the packaging/story titles/etc or straight up spell out "(Legends World)" for absolute maximum clarity. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 17:50, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::::::I'm leaning towards LG: it's on every toy box and in the title of the vast majority of chapters. Plus, Deadlock uses it in-universe. And it's shorter! — [[User:TheLastGherkin|TheLastGherkin]] ([[User talk:TheLastGherkin|talk]]) 18:02, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :::::::"Legends" is also spoken in-universe countless times all throughout the Legends manga series, even in the most recent End of G1 Universe comic starring the green Lio Convoy. The reason "LG" is on every toy box is because it's part of each toy's ID number, which we have never let dictate any of our disambiguation tags. Otherwise, we'd be using "(BT)" instead of "(Binaltech)", "(MP)" instead of "(Masterpiece)", "(UN)" instead of "(United)", "(TG)" instead of "(Generations)", "(TAV)" instead of "(Adventure)", "(PP)" for Power of the Primes instead of "(POTP)", "(SG)" instead of "(Siege)", "(TCV)" instead of "(Cyberverse)", "(ER)" instead of "(Earthrise)", "(KD)" instead of "(Kingdom)", "(TL)" instead of "(Legacy)", etc. That [[Transformers Legends (mobile game)|Transformers Legends mobile game]] (which has been dead for over a decade, even) that "(Legends)" is currently being used for is a nonissue when "(Legends)" is ''also'' currently being used for things from the [[Transformers Legends (book)|Transformers Legends anthology book]], particularly [[Susan (Legends)]]. And "(Legends)" has already been in use for things from the Legends manga, too, like [[Groundshaker (Legends)]], [[Synapse (Legends)]], [[Duncan (Legends)]], and [[Plasma Energy Chamber (Legends)]]. It's no different from how we use "(RID)" for things from both the 2001 and 2025 franchises, "(Universe)" for things from both the 2003 and 2008 franchises, and "(Generations)" for things from both the pre-Combiner Wars toyline and from the series of Japanese guidebooks. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 00:37, 5 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::::::::Yes, the principle was always "least disambiguation necessary for titles". A particular disambiguation is fine to be used by different things. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 02:13, 5 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :::::::::Speaking personally I cannot say I am terribly invested in any specific disambig so if y'all feel that strongly about "(Legends)," so be it. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 15:00, 5 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :Historically I've leaned more in the direction of "this feels like putting these dumb animals on too much of a pedestal", given the meta-importance that page splits tend to imply to the wiki's audience, ''but'' I find the "these are functionally clones who exist within JG1 continuity specifically, not just 'normal' alternate versions of the characters" framing pretty compelling, so I'm surprising myself by saying I wouldn't be opposed to a split at this point. Making stuff like multiple Lios Convoy interacting less insane to write about is definitely a bonus too. [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] ([[User talk:Jalaguy|talk]]) 04:34, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::Oh, also, and I hope it would go without saying, but obviously the toys that technically represent Transformerised Legends World guys would need to go on both pages (which I think we're already doing anyway for cases like the Targetmasters that are actually technically Kiss Players and Beastformers and stuff). [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] ([[User talk:Jalaguy|talk]]) 04:41, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
|
| |
|
| :I've been advocating that for over a month. It's the same thing we did with Animated: material is blocked for anons until it comes out in America. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:51, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
| | Thinking about it more, the Galvatron II example is more presuasive to me; a suite style situation would be fine. As for names, I don't really care about T-AI but for any of the Transformers I think that's a bit much. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 08:08, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
|
| |
|
| ::I wasn't talking about blocking specific pages, though (in the way a load of ''Animated'' pages were semi-protected) - just a blanket ban on anonymous editing until ''at least'' the 26th (and I would prefer a week or two beyond that). - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 22:57, 15 June 2009 (EDT) | | Having gone through [[:Category:Legends World natives]] and [[:Category:Legends World humans]], if we apply the Kre-O Rule of Notability, that gives us the following: |
| | *'''Split:''' Airazor, Arcee, Big Convoy, Bighorn, Blackarachnia, Cheetor, Dinobot, Lio Convoy, Lio Junior, Megatron, Nightscream, Optimus Minor, Optimus Primal, Rattrap, Rhinox, Scorponok, Scuba, Scylla, Silverbolt, Stampy, Starscream, Tarantulas, Terrorsaur, Tigatron, Waspinator, Nightbeat, T-AI |
| | *'''Lump:''' Roadbuster, Whirl, basically every real person making a cameo |
| | *'''Small roles:''' Archadis, Armordillo, BB, Break, Bump, Colada, Diver, Drill Nuts, Gas Skunk, Guiledart, Heinrad, Ikard, Inferno, Longrack, Magmatron, Megastorm, Kobanzametarō, Prowl, Quickstrike, Rampage, Randy, Ravage, Saberback, Sling, Star Upper, Tasmania Kid, Transmutate, Venom, Wedge, Wolfang, Kelly, Kenneth Onishi, Koji Onishi |
| | *'''TBD:''' Botanica (doesn't have a write-up yet), Buzz Saw (does not appear in JG1 elsewhere), Savage and Noble, Tank Drones (do we split subgroups?) |
| | — [[User:TheLastGherkin|TheLastGherkin]] ([[User talk:TheLastGherkin|talk]]) 09:02, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :The Kre-O thing is because some characters (in fiction or toys) can't be exclusively slotted into G1 or movie buckets since they shift design cues between them. I think it's easier to just be consistent with the Legends gremlin people (other than real people cameos). Sensible to keep the sentient toys (Mini-Cons, Encore Big Convoy) and the three JG1 inductees (Roadbuster, Whirl, Windblade) on their respective character pages, I think. Like Wolfang/Howlinger, Buzz Saw exists in JG1 somewhere off-camera, since they got his toy. I don't think Tank Drone needs another page; it's a mass-produced bodytype that can cover instances across universes, not a specific person. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 09:19, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::I'm somewhere in the middle between "splitting them off the main article would help improve readability, yes," and "splitting them off entirely feels a bit too far since all of them are essentially just different versions of the main Beast Wars et al characters", so I think going the aforementioned route of suiting them would be the cleanest solution. Keeps them joined at the hip with the main versions that they're basically new versions of, while also giving them their own webpages to tidy up readability on the main pages. The Galvatron II analogy is very apropos in this case. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 10:01, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::Coming back to this with refreshed knowledge, Botanica is split, Buzz Saw is small roles (which is now also split), Savage and Noble are split both from Noble (BM) and from each other, and Rhinox/Tankor can go on the same page. — [[User:TheLastGherkin|TheLastGherkin]] ([[User talk:TheLastGherkin|talk]]) 18:02, 4 March 2026 (EST) |
|
| |
|
| :::I'd much prefer if it wasn't a total block. Block anons on all the movie char character articles, etc. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 23:02, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
| | So uh. I've come around on the split pages. However...I don't think completely removing any reference to them on the Beast Wars pages themselves is particularly helpful? Whether it be a suite or a "see this article for more information" I don't mind, but there should be some reference since like Sabrblade says, they are just comedic versions of the Beast Wars guys. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 07:37, 6 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :Maybe do the disambiguation like this? [[User:Cylasbreakdown|Cylasbreakdown]] ([[User talk:Cylasbreakdown|talk]]) 14:09, 6 March 2026 (EST) {{disambig3.5|the Beast Wars Maximal|his Legends World counterpart|Rattrap (Legends)|Rattrap}} |
|
| |
|
| ::::Block until a week after the movie's released in the States, namely the chara articles and the film page itself (who knows what poor soul will "unknowingly" put in spoilerific in the synopsis/trivia/notes/what-have-you). It's already difficult enough with the adaptation... --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 23:06, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| :::::I'm not just worried about spoilers, but about the casual vandalism associated with a sudden & short-lived spike in visitor numbers, which probably wouldn't be limited to the movie pages. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 23:10, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
| | Alright, I've decided that for now I'm just going to add a note and a link mostly because I have little patience when it comes to formatting suite links. It's going to be along these lines: |
|
| |
|
| ::::::If we do so, should we have a site-wide message like Memory Alpha? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 02:08, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| | {{note|Due to the unique nature of ''Legends'' place within JG1 continuity, we've opted to separate out this version of the character into its own micro-page. See [article link] for more details.}} |
|
| |
|
| :::::::At least I know we can use [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]], I'm not sure whether there is any other similar message. --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 07:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT) | | If anyone has any objections or comments, leave them below. Otherwise I'll just implement it tomorrow. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 19:28, 6 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :I don't think this is necessary, but this can be phrased in-universe if we really need it. (<nowiki>"In the [[Zamojin (species)|Zamojin]]-created [[Legends World]], its [[Character (Legends)|Character]]'s existence formed based on Character."</nowiki> or something around that.) [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 19:55, 6 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::Yeah, I like that much better. If nothing else it draws way less attention to itself. --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 21:55, 6 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :::Seconding Saix that this feels unnecessary, seconding Broadside that Saix's version is more straightforward if we must. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 22:12, 6 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::::My thinking is that treating them as completely separate from the regular versions is not really accurate/a bit "inside baseball. Like I said at the start, they aren't quite the same as different counterparts from another universe, sure, but they are still very specifically comedic versions of the Beast Wars characters, down to the fact that they briefly turn into them late in the series. It's why I find the Galvatron II comparison more compelling for accessibility reasons (frankly, the main Galvatron article could also use a note explaining why he's separate too). As for the wording, again I think the in-universe thing is a bit inside baseball, and not clear immediately to users who have no idea what Legends is. If people have suggestions for a better way of wording a precise explanation, I'm all for it, but I still think the intent of my suggestion is more accessible to readers. I'm also still very open to suiting the articles, but I've always struggled with the way templates work, so if anyone else is up for the task, I'm all for it. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 22:27, 6 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :::::If I'm being honest, I would prefer suites too, for all the reasons that have been given, and because the Legends World natives are stated by Leo Prime to be the "bunshin" (分身) of the normal BW characters, denoting an inherent connection between them: 君達レジェンズ世界のビースト市民は我らG1世界のビースト戦士の分身だ. 今こそ! その内なる野獣を全て呼び覚ますんだ. But if others feel that strongly enough against suites to overrule that preference, I can accept the little note proposal instead. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 00:01, 7 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :For what it's worth, I'd planned to give Legends World headings to characters who exist fictionally in that world, [https://tfwiki.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Rattrap_%28BW%29&diff=1899083&oldid=1898497 like so,] to cover their "fictional" appearances. — [[User:TheLastGherkin|TheLastGherkin]] ([[User talk:TheLastGherkin|talk]]) 05:58, 7 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::That was what I figured we would have as well in those cases; I know there's plenty of them who do show up fictionally or as toys just based on my memories. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 08:11, 7 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :While attempting to get into the endgame metaphysical hooey connecting the Legends World natives to the Transformers of JG1 on every individual character article still feels like it would do more harm than good intelligibility-wise to me, I will say that after sitting with it a while I would not be opposed to making some kind of centralized "Legends World native" article laying it all out in detail and then linking out to it everywhere. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 16:13, 7 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::I should clarify, my thinking is that there are bound to be users who will see images from the comics, recognize instinctively that they are comedy versions of the Beast Wars characters, and go to those pages and be confused why they aren't there. Yes, they could go to the disambiguation page, but I've always felt that we should optimize things for the least amount of clicking. What separates this from a Cloud type situation to me is that there are enough vagaries there that I understand the argument to split them out (the lore of that depiction of Cybertron, things like Grimlock's backstory); the Legends characters and a lot of the jokes around them exist solely in the context of either the JP Beast Wars and Beast Machines dubs (Silverbolt's depiction, Airazor and Nightscream's whole...thing, Depth Charge's fish gun thing being a character that can talk), or the BWII cartoon characters (Bighorn's infatuation with Scylla, Big Convoy being a teacher at a school as a comedic version of him as a military instructor). In-fiction, sure, they are kind of clones, but it's not the same thing as say, the Optimus Prime clone from the cartoon, because of the metaphysical stuff involved. I think that potentially presenting them as having no connection would not be fully honest. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 16:28, 7 March 2026 (EST) |
| | :::I don’t think we need a dedicated “Legends World native” page, the existing [[Legends World]] article already sums it up pretty nicely. We could direct people there. [[User:Cylasbreakdown|Cylasbreakdown]] ([[User talk:Cylasbreakdown|talk]]) 18:02, 7 March 2026 (EST) |
| | ::::Although, if such a page for the Legends World inhabitants were to be made, the in-story name used for those people is "Legends World citizen" (レジェンズ世界の市民 ''Rejenzu sekai no shimin'') with those based on beast-moded characters (as in, those who possess [[Beast Power]]) referred to as either "Animal-type citizens" (動物型の市民 ''Dōbutsu-gata no shimin'') or "Beast citizens" (ビースト市民 ''Bīsuto shimin''). --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 14:47, 8 March 2026 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| ::::::::Wow, some serious US-centric bias being spouted. If you don't want spoiled, then don't visit. It's now well established internet etiquette to avoid forums about a week before a film's release. Same should apply here. Or..... wait til the DVD is released before unlocking movie edits, just in case you're stuck in Outer Mongolia at the time of the cinema release. Anonymous editing should be blocked, if only to stop the inevitable trolling and vandalism. [[Special:Contributions/82.7.126.27|82.7.126.27]] 14:07, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| | == Out of date MediaWiki == |
| :::::::::Er, no. For one, the 24th is the '''world''' premiere, meaning the vast majority of countries are getting it on that date, not just the US.
| |
| :::::::::For two, we need to be able to monitor all edits made to ROTF articles to make sure they're accurate and factual, and we can't do that if most of the wiki's regular editors haven't even seen the movie.
| |
| :::::::::So this has less to do with spoilers, and more with the entirely practical aim of being able to keep tabs on all ROTF edits effectively. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 14:19, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::Gosh, thanks, I'll take your advice under consideration.... wait, no, I really won't. If you have a problem with "U.S.-centric bias," you are in the wrong place: this is openly stated as a U.S.-centric wiki. We blocked anonymous edits to the new ''Animated'' episodes that for some damnfool reason were aired first in Dubai, until they were uploaded online for everyone to see. Our U.S.-based editors shouldn't have to stop working on a website that, to a large extent, ''they created'', just out of fear that some collection of I.P. numbers will thoughtlessly spoil the movie for them. Better to just anon-protect all the movie-related pages until after all the major markets have had their premieres. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 15:12, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| My vote is for blocking all anons from the movie-related pages for at least one week after the world premier, maybe two. I would not be opposed to a site-wide block, however. I really have no interest in cleaning up after a flood of one-timers and trolls and crap. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 15:23, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| | So, uh, [[Special:Version|this place is on MediaWiki 1.19.20]]. The 1.19.* branch went EOL back in '''''2015''''', and isn't even the last 1.19.* (which was 1.19.24). That dpesn't seem safe for y'all. |
|
| |
|
| ::Hey, I'm all for the lockage. But to stop the wave of trolls that will come. Not because Americans seem to think they have the <insert deity>-given right to subjugate the free speech of others who have the rare opportuity to experience something before the Americans do. That hardly ever happens. America gets everything first; cars, movies, fat, gadgets, first dibs on invasion etc. Thankfully they don't get irony first.[[Special:Contributions/82.7.126.27|82.7.126.27]] 15:38, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| | (For context, the current LTS is 1.39.17, which is the oldest supported branch. The most current version is 1.45.1.) {{unsigned|Hello Goodbye|2026-03-14T08:31}} |
| :::Did you even read the post where I pointed out the vast majority of TF fans, both US and non-US, won't be seeing the movie before the 24th, because the vast majority of countries in general aren't getting it until the 24th?
| |
| :::Basically, all TF fans not in the UK and Japan aren't going to be getting to see the movie before the 24th. It's not as if we're making editing wait because everyone else is getting the movie early and the US is the only country that isn't.
| |
| :::All of our Canadian, Australian, non-UK European, non-Japan Asian, etc. editors are likely equally glad we're waiting. Maybe you should stop and actually think before you go off spouting jerkass strawman accusations. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 15:46, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| :::Are you ''intentionally'' aiming for self-parody, or did you actually seriously just try to frame your potentially being locked out of our privately-run, privately-financed web site about giant alien space robots for a few days as a ''freedom of speech'' issue? 'Cause that right there is some serious comedy gold, sir. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 15:54, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| | == irc needed == |
|
| |
|
| :::I'm afraid there are no Internet Oscars for maudlin self-victimization, otherwise you'd be a shoo-in. Here we only talk about Transformers. You are free to start doing that any old time. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 15:55, 16 June 2009 (EDT) | | need an irc channel populated by at least 1 wiki admin. when i tried to register, the dnsbl identified me as open proxy and prevented registration. where i am from, dynamic ips and nat/network address translation is used alot so legitimate ips are mistakenly identified as such. there was no way to contact any admin about this until i lucked out. i suggest an irc channel on rizon because rizon provides cloak for all by default -- [[User:Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot|Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot]] ([[User talk:Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot|talk]]) 10:16, 7 April 2026 (EDT) |
| :::Hahaha, did he just equate being able to post to a wiki about cartoon robots for a few days... to the right to free speech? Man, and I thought education was bad over HERE! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:03, 16 June 2009 (EDT) | | :We have no intention of implementing an IRC channel due to the required amount of time needed to maintain and monitor it outweighing its uses. There are no shortage of other ways to get in contact with wiki personnel, such as through social media or our public Discord server. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 16:19, 15 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | ::social media and discord currently unavailable for me. irc can be a side method without needing much monitor and maintaining if one is willing to use it as that. only need 1 admin on it. if a channel not possible, have you or any other admin register on rizon irc using /msg nickserv register command and i will be able to send memo which they can later read using /msg memoserv read command and respond to using /msg memoserv send command -- [[User:Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot|Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot]] ([[User talk:Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot|talk]]) 10:52, 16 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | :::That still requires resources and time that we might not have to maintain and monitor an IRC channel just for a possible small number of users, which is not beneficial in the long run. When you say "social media and discord currently unavailable" for you, do you mean that your ISP is blocking certain sites? (We also have a Bluesky account.) --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] ([[User talk:Lonegamer78|talk]]) 08:18, 17 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | ::::connecting to rizon irc, registering and sending memos do not require any channel. why cannot any admins do this? i send memo to registered admin on irc, they can see it next time they login to irc -- [[User:Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot|Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot]] ([[User talk:Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot|talk]]) 04:47, 18 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | :::::I'm sorry, but who uses IRC in 2026? [[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]]) 06:04, 18 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | ::::::I mean I'm sure some small niche communities use it, but that's neither here nor there. The primary issue is that this wiki is a voluntary, in-your-own-time deal, even for the admins. Nobody's getting paid to do this, we all have other things going on in our lives. The Discord is itself something only some of us keep tabs on, and not even every portion of it. You're asking people who are already pretty stretched to keep track of something else just for you. I'm sorry, but that's not feasible. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 16:21, 18 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | :check what i said about memoserv. memoserv does not require much tracking, only logging in. can there not be 1 admin registered on rizon server? -- [[User:Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot|Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot]] ([[User talk:Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot|talk]]) 10:43, 19 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | ::You have already been told no and given reasons why by three different administrators. The decision is not going to change. Please drop the subject. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 12:14, 19 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | :how about this? no channels. 1 login to rizon server every 120 hours or higher intervals to see if i have sent any memos. possible? -- [[User:Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot|Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot]] ([[User talk:Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot|talk]]) 10:42, 20 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | ::I legitimately do not understand why you expect admins to bend over your request on building an infrastructure that you're tacitly admitting only you would use, lmao ([[User:FortressMaxxing|FortressMaxxing]] ([[User talk:FortressMaxxing|talk]]) 10:59, 20 April 2026 (EDT)) |
| | ::No. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 12:10, 20 April 2026 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| ===One derailment later...=== | | == When does controversy surrounding a figure prove worthy enough to mention? == |
| So, then, back on the subject... I still think we should do it. Mr Anon isn't making me think less of it as an idea. And yes, a [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] would be essential. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 21:33, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :So, we're all for blocking anons for a week after the 24th? --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 00:31, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::They're gonna get pissy, but sounds good to me. But what about the editors who can't log in, is that still a problem?--[[User:AWT88|AWT88]] 09:52, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Most likely. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 12:48, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| :::Which editors who can't log in? The problem with IE users not being able to log in was fixed when McFly fixed all the other problems on the site. I haven't heard of any reports of anyone else having the problem... --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| == "Transformers Comic" ==
| | Thinking about the whole Nexus and ss86 astro situation rn, it kinda feels like theyre the [[Elephant|elephants]] in the room that we probably have to acknowledge. However, they're not documented. Makes me wonder: any criteroa I should follow seeing these types of situations before its eligible to memtion here?[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 22:37, 27 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | :I think you need to stop giving overinflated importance to opinions you see online. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 22:42, 27 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | : Nobody cares, Moby. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 23:35, 27 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | :: ...I guess I'll take that as "never allowed" then.[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 23:40, 27 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | :What controversy is this supposed to be? [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 00:32, 28 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | ::The complaints about Nexus not being a combiner and the many, many criticisms of SS86 Astrotrain about inaccuracies/proportions etc. (Ok maybe the latter can somewhat be ignored because its just people critiquing his flaws once they got him in hand+stock images+they dont like how he looks compared to Siege).[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 00:52, 28 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | ::: People were whining about Nexus info from leaks before the post on Mark Maher's personal Instagram account and actual announcements by Hasbro confirming that yes, Nexus is a combiner frame compatible figure that can fit into the AOTP Superion, and yes, Nexus is going to be a full combiner later in 2027, we just don't know what that'll look like and I hope it's a full commander class combiner frame and four deluxe limbs (neither are confirmed as of this minute). The discourse over him not being a combiner is from stolen and unreliable info, so why add more fuel to a flame that people started themselves less than a week before the actual reveal of the Voyager figure? -[ [[User:Singularity|Singularity]] ([[User talk:Singularity|talk]]) 02:11, 28 April 2026 (EDT) ] |
| | :Is this just about the fact that SS86 Astrotrain looks like ass? If so... I'll be the dissenting voice here and say that yes, there should be space to maybe mention the general reception of a given figure into a toy section, ''as long'' as it reflects the broader evaluation of the community and doesn't just become an editor's sole personal gripes with a given toy. With SS86 Astrotrain, I do think the consensus is pretty settled at least (though I have no idea about what's up with Nexus Prime). ([[User:FortressMaxxing|FortressMaxxing]] ([[User talk:FortressMaxxing|talk]]) 01:00, 28 April 2026 (EDT)) |
| | ::Nexus complaints are mostly hes not a gestalt (source: prematurely released images) and his alt mode being a flying brick, though it has settled down a bit when people got their hands on him. I think the former may or may not be connected to why they had to post that pic that he had a torso mode (which is apparently not shown on the box or called out, much like Sideways' head swapping).[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 01:05, 28 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | :::You yourself said "source: prematurely released images" so why are you complaining over stolen pictures that had little to no context to them since they were leaks? Most if not all of the complaints about the figure being "not a gestalt" were dissuaded with the info given to us from the official reveal video (linked in the references of AOTP Nexus' article) and Mark Maher's post of Nexus wearing Superion (also linked in the references of AOTP Nexus' article). Also, "his alt mode being a flying brick" is a matter of taste. Nexus fits perfectly with my Diaclone Jumpstarter redecos as Topspin and Twin Twist are now combiners thanks to Titans Return. - [[User:Singularity|Singularity]] ([[User talk:Singularity|talk]]) 02:11, 28 April 2026 (EDT) ] |
| | ::::The Nexus Prime thing really feels like a matter of OP just not liking this one toy tbh, I really haven't seen a lot of people complaining about it ([[User:FortressMaxxing|FortressMaxxing]] ([[User talk:FortressMaxxing|talk]]) 02:20, 28 April 2026 (EDT)) |
| | :::::No, Im fine with Nexus. But yeah, whatever I saw was from illegitimate material floating around, and I probably just...didnt notice people had gotten over it (TvTropes and Emgo mentioning it probably further made me think so despute said sources being as reliable as [[Sideways (Armada)|Sideways]]. Now I feel like I raised this topic that I had no idea how to phrase and now have to live with it...[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 02:28, 28 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | :We are absolutely not mentioning every time some people somewhere bitch about a new toy that's months away. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 01:18, 28 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | ::Undeestood.(Sorry I brought it up)[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 01:22, 28 April 2026 (EDT) |
| | :Unless something is a big enough deal that it leads to toys being recalled, it's probably not worth mentioning on the wiki. (Also, that Nexus "controversy" is based on leaks, and you've been here long enough that you should know our stance on leaks.) -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 01:26, 28 April 2026 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| Okay, I've got three issues at present with the titling treatment of the Titan Movie comics:
| | == Toy entry idea: links to Hasbro Pulse and TakaraTomy Mall entries for modern new releases == |
| #Ambiguity - if you look at, say, [[Transformers Comic issue 9]], there's ''at least'' three Transformers #9s with no subtitle - [[DIS-Integrated Circuits!|Marvel G1 US #9]], [[Man of Iron!|Marvel G1 UK #9]], and [[Transformers Comic issue 9|Titan Movie #9]]; and currently the only one at "Transformers Comic issue 9" is the Titan Movie issue
| |
| #DO we go by issue, or by story? - We're all over the shop on this:
| |
| #*The Marvel US issues are all at the story titles, but these pages incorporate any "Transformers Universe" bio material
| |
| #*The Marvel UK issues almost all have multiple stories or parts of stories, and I think there may even be some issues with multiple UK-originated/non-reprint stories, and each story is at its' own page, ''which incorporates multiple issues'' (e.g., [[Time Wars]]), leaving aside editorial and other non-story material.
| |
| #*The Marvel G2 issues almost all have backups, sometimes nominal, sometimes not, and they're all at the title of the lead/non-"Tales of Earth" story (e.g. [[New Dawn]]).
| |
| #*The ''first'' Panini Armada issue is at the story title ([[First Encounter!]]), while the ''rest'' are at "Panini Armada issue X" (e.g., [[Panini Armada issue 2]]).
| |
| #*The IDW issues are at the issue title even where the issue is split into multiple, titled. stories (e.g. [[The Arrival issue 4]])
| |
| #The actual title of the Titan Movie issues - Titan Movie v1 #22-25 are actually titled ''Transformers: Universe'' #22-25 (mostly in reflection of it absorbing the cancelled ''Animated'' comic), but are still at "Transformers Comic issue XX"; while v2, titled ''Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen'' #XX, is at the truly bizarre "Transformers Comic 2.XX". Really, just because the letters page said 2.x once, rather than "Revenge of the Fallen (Titan) issue X", which is what's on the cover?
| |
| What are we doing with this? - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 21:17, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| :As I've said before, I do NOT favor consistency here. A one-size-fits-all approach will inevitably fail to encompass the widely variable situations with various comic series.
| | We have long linked to tfu.info pages at the bottom of toy entries, such as on "[[Shockwave (G1)/toys]]". How about we link to Hasbro Pulse and TakaraTomy Mall listings for modern toys when said listings go up? It may incite more contributors to remember to save snapshots of those relevant webpages on the Internet Archive when the official listings eventually get removed in due course. [[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]]) 02:56, 7 May 2026 (EDT) |
| :The Marvel US book are under the story titles because, for all intents and purposes, the story and the issue are one and the same. Likewise for most of Dreamwave's G1 run. Sure, we could move 'em all to "The Transformers issue 2 (Marvel US)", but what do we ''gain''? How is this any better than "Power Play!"? What is the benefit? Mere consistency is insufficient reason.
| | : I can get behind this, I'm usually first to add those individual websites from Takara Tomy when available, if that's a new mandate I can help. –[[User:MahXyme|MahXyme/MahXymal]] ([[User talk:MahXyme|talk]]) 16:56, 9 May 2026 (EDT) |
| :This is much, much less true with the UK comic, where stories were broken into two and even three parts, and multiple stories shared page space in the same issue. Now, I've heard rumblings to the effect that each UK issue should have its own page, and there's merit to that, insofar as each issue's contents are a mixed bag - minicomics, letters pages, and pieces and parts of various stories. It might make sense to have a page for each issue, basically a list of its contents, with ''See main article'' links to the entire story -- so, say, UK #88, #89, #90, or whatever, all link to a single page for "Target: 2006". | |
| :With G2, it absolutely makes complete sense to combine the two stories. The "backup" strips are such in name only; they are absolutely integral to the main strip, and neither can be read without the other. Separating "Tales of Earth" bits into their own pages is only going to confuse things and make them ''less informative''. Furthermore, the main strip clearly ''is'' the MAIN strip. It makes sense to cover the whole story under that strip's title. Our current system for G2 acknowledges this, while still distinguishing between the contents of each section. The alternative is to move each page to "Generation 2 issue 2" or whatever... and I don't see what we gain by doing this.
| |
| :The Titan comics should be moved to whatever the cover and indicia call them. If they're just ''Transformers'' or something equally generic, well, that's what parenthetical disambigs are for. Likewise for the ROTF reboot. A simple (Titan) should cover the bases well enough, yes?
| |
| :A recent trend has been issues with 2 discreet stories, such as the ''Animated'' books you mention. I've long been in favor of having a single page for the ''issue'' for such books, with ''See main article'' links to the individual stories within them - so "Animated: The Arrival issue 2" would be a list of stuff, with two prominent links within to pages about the two stories it contains. Still, I can understand if people see that as unnecessarily messy -- so long as they can agree that, since the stories are pretty much co-equal, it would make no sense at all to give one or the other naming precedence. | |
| :So, that's my take. Case-by-case basis FTW, baby. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 21:43, 16 June 2009 (EDT) | |
|
| |
|
| :Also, to address item #1 specifically... if we do stick with "Transformers" as the title, there should be a disambig note for Transformers at the top. Unless "Comic" is in the title, it shouldn't be in there. I'm thinking the article names should be "Transformers issue 1 (Titan)", etc., with the parenthetical at the end of the page title, rather than the middle.
| |
| :These books generally have stories from different continuities, don't they? That's a point in favor of separating the story content out from the containing issue. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 11:19, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Non-movie (Movie) characters vs. movie (ROTF) characters with the same name == | | == "Canceled media" template== |
| | With the recent creation of the "Canceled video games" category, I can't help but wonder: in the same way that we have a little template for canceled toys, shouldn't we also have one to add to the top of the page of media that was canceled and never saw an official release? Seems like it could come in handy! ([[User:FortressMaxxing|FortressMaxxing]] ([[User talk:FortressMaxxing|talk]]) 12:30, 12 May 2026 (EDT)) |
| | :I'm in favor. Plenty of canned comics and an entire dumped franchise in Transtech to justify it. [[User:MCRG|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG|talk]]) 13:00, 12 May 2026 (EDT) |
| | :Agreed. Definitely something that would be pretty useful for a lot of articles! - [[User:IGEBM13|IGEBM13]] ([[User talk:IGEBM13|talk]]) 22:04, 12 May 2026 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| Anyone else think we should, at the very least, have {{tl|disambig2}}s on pages like [[Jetfire (Movie)]] and [[Mudflap (Movie)]] to the ROTF characters of the same name? Yes, I realise users could go via the disambig page, but I see it as making things simpler & easier for newbies, and in that scenario one click is always better than two. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 22:20, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| | == Digging into the Beast Machines/Transtech Era == |
| :I think I'd cautiously support adding a <nowiki>{{disambig2}}</nowiki> for characters of the same name within the same continuity if there seems like a good chance for confusion. I'd oppose imposing it as an across-the-board standard though. (You're nto suggesting that though.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:23, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| | Just throwing a note in here that I'm getting in contact with some folks who were on the Transformers team during the Beast Machines/Transtech era, so I'll be adding notes, fleshing out some things, and adding design credits where I can. Like with the G2 ad creators, I'll post up the full emails on the relevant discussion pages as I get permission. [[User:MCRG|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG|talk]]) 13:04, 12 May 2026 (EDT) |
| ::I oppose it on the principle that multiple disambig templates on a page is ugly. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 22:47, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
| | :Nice, I'm excited to see where this goes! ([[User:FortressMaxxing|FortressMaxxing]] ([[User talk:FortressMaxxing|talk]]) 15:32, 12 May 2026 (EDT)) |
| :::Ugly, and you can get to where you need to go through the disambig. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 22:48, 17 June 2009 (EDT) | |
| :::::Here's the thing though - '''is it intiutive''' for a complete newbie, who came in via ROTF, to see "Optimus Prime (Movie)", "Bumblebee (Movie)" and "Megatron (Movie)" '''and not immediately conclude''' that the Jetfire article will be at "Jetfire (Movie)", rather than some incredibly obscure card-puzzle that even we don't have a final picture for?
| |
| :::::Hell, even take it a step up from "complete newbie" to someone who sat through Beast Wars/Machines or Armada/Energon/Cybertron, where characters changed bodies between series so that they had very little resemblance to their prior selves (in the UT's case, without any explanation). Those guys might assume that "Mudflap (Movie)" *is* Skids' twin even if he bears no resemblance to him. And it was a guy making that exact mistake and getting reverted by you last night that caused me to post this.
| |
| :::::I really think a BIG, prominent link DIRECTLY from the obscure (Movie) character to the prominent (ROTF) character is required. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 20:26, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |
| ::::As long as there's a link to the same-universe namesake in the intro, I see no need for an additional disambig template. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 01:21, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
| |