MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

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:

	Specific Discussion Subjects
Moving From Wikia: Arriving Leaving Complaints New Ad Policy: Ads Bookworm Database-Crash: Damage Control Central Project:Bookworm Crash Leaving Take 2 Server Move: Arriving Take 2 Relicensing: Relicensing Dealing With Vandalism: Vandalism GoBots Sister Wiki: Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki Wiki Technical Information: A Not So Brief Summary of the Horrible Things That McFly and Co. Have Done To Keep This Wiki From Melting Down

Voice Actors listed on separate episodes

Why don't we have voice actors listed on separate episodes? Also does anyone know if Transformers: Portal came out yet? west james/notirishman (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2017 (EST)

I don't think there's been a specific discussion, but since it's rare for characters to have different voice actors in different episodes, it would cause a lot of clutter for not a lot of gain. If someone wants to see who voiced a particular character, they can generally just go to the character's page. --abates (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2017 (EST)

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transformers:_Portal Rudimentary since there is next to no coverage in English. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2017 (EST)

Yeah, that's true. And regarding Transformers: Portal, they did actually start making episodes. west james/notirishman (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2017 (EST)

Vote on "other versions of character" sections

So the "example versions" of these sections has been up for a while now with nothing being done about them, so we should probably decide one way or the other whether we're using them. I definitely feel very strongly that these sections at the bottoms of articles would be very positive for accessibility and people being able to quickly find other versions of the character that they've been reading about — after all, there's no real difference between Demolishor, Demolishor, and Demolisher, and they are inarguably the same "character" in a way that Demolishor (ROTF) isn't. There's three options for what we can do:

• Jalaguy's galleries
• My "see also" bullet-lists
• Keep things as they are and just have users rely on the disambiguation pages

I vote for the bullet lists, since they're unobtrusive and can still be used when a character has no images available. This Allspark post by M Sipher sums up my feelings pretty well. Anyone else? --Riptide (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2017 (EST)

I vote keep things as is. While the current system isn't perfect, I think this sort of disambiguation is best left to the...disambiguation pages. It is why they exist. Having a separate section for a DIFFERENT form of disambiguation at the bottom of the article opposing the regular disambiguation links at the top makes no sense to me. I think a better option would be to improve the "new user utility" of the existing disambig pages. --Xaaron (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2017 (EST)

I say keep things the way it is. For the same reason Xaaron stated above. I think those "Other versions" sections should only be for characters with different spellings. west james/notirishman (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2017 (EST)

I'd prefer to keep things as they are. If we have to go with one of those two though I prefer the bullet-lists for being less obtrusive. Omegatron (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2017 (EST)

I think I would like the bullet list version if it was slightly more eyecatching, like in a template box of some sort:

as a rough example. --abates (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2017 (EST)

Ooh, ooh, yes, I like this. It fixes the one reservation I had with the bullet list, which was eye-catching-ness.

And I maintain that disambiguation pages really don't severe the purpose that this proposal was originally intended for - helping the uninformed user find about other-continuity versions of the character they've just read about. The link to a disambiguation is very easily glossed over (who can honestly say that they read through every header note and template before beginning the intro paragraph?), and they're set up entirely for their primary purpose, which is getting you from the search box to the right article. If you want to find alt-universe versions of a character, you'd have to manually dig through the list to see which are actually the same guy and which are different guys with the same name. You could rework disambig pages, but that'd make them worse at their primary job. An end-of-article list of alt versions of the specific character hurts nobody and helps the uniformed reader sort through the morass to other content they'll be interested in. The way I see it, there's no downside. Jalaguy (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2017 (EST)

I'd also like to quickly add that I solicited feedback on the proposal from TFWiki Tumblr followers a while back (on the basis that they're reasonably likely to be in the "got-into-TFs-relatively-recently" demographic that this is intended to help), and got plenty of "yeah, this would be helpful for me" feedback. The proposal will help people, and I don't see what harm it could possibly do, so...? Jalaguy (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2017 (EST)

Ooh. Yesyesyes to this. --Riptide (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2017 (EST)

I like the idea of a shortcut it will save a little time. But it also may reduce traffic, because people won't look at other interesting pages in the disambiguation. The gallery is a little cluttered. In any case, I also made made my own version:

—The Liege Decado (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2017 (EST)

I dig this one with the double Dinobots; we only need one, and the image is very immediately clear at that small size (well we could probably crop it tighter and brighten it a bit but still). I ABSOLUTELY think we should have this given the name-reassigning/changing that this franchise is nostrils-deep in that makes Disambig pages not terribly ideal for finding these kind of doppelgangers. --M Sipher (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2017 (EST)

I like this idea of using a template. I've made my own that could be used for bigger charcters, while LiegeDecado's can be used for smaller characters. Just an idea though.

west james/notirishman (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2017 (EST)

Personally, I think that if we do this bullet point image, we should use the Crisis on Infinite Hot Rods image from RG1, as it probably best illustrates the concept we're dealing with here (maybe crop it a little bigger or something). It probably wouldn't hurt to link to the disambiguation at the bottom, either, something like this....

I strongly prefer the look of the gallery version. It's a perfect visual cap-off at the bottom of the page, it's attention-getting in a way that neither looks like clutter nor will be overwhelmed by large Notes sections, and it gives you a visual to compare all these different versions, which is information in itself. The bullet template strikes me as very strange, showing unrelated character X alongside a list of versions of character Y. The images convey the information much more strikingly. -- Repowers (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2017 (EST)

Maybe we can do both?

—The Liege Decado (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2017 (EST)

If we did it as a gallery in a template like this, the picture of the Rodimuses is unnecessary and it'd look much better without it. --abates (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2017 (EST)

I still don't see the value doing these things in addition to the disambig pages, instead of improving the disambig pages to better convey the same information. Having both doesn't feel "new reader friendly". Having two different types of disambig for a character, in two different locations, makes it MORE likely a new reader will spot one and not the other, or not understand the difference between the two disambigs without greater study...which just isn't a good set-up to help them find info quickly and easily. Why can't the disambig page just be renovated to list:

--> Here's Slag (G1)

-- --> Here's the characters based on Slag (regardless of name)

--> Here's the other uses of Slag unrelated to Slag (G1)

And as a matter of aesthetics, I think using the same basic template for this that we use for when people screw up or something is missing is a bad idea too. When I see boxes like that on a page, I automatically think "stub" article, and my instinct is to do something to remove them. --Xaaron (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2017 (EST)

The problem with that approach is that it risks making the disambigs worse at their main job. If you are looking for Slag the rando nameslap guy, that's just made it a whole lot harder on the person. And since disambigs are geared around names, not characters, you'd end up with weird situations - under your approach, Hot Rod (disambiguation) and Rodimus (disambiguation) would basically end up being the same page twice. Disambigs are primarily a functional tool, they exist to act as a signpost to get people from point A to B. I would wager that almost nobody is clicking through to disambig pages from character pages, because that's not really what they're for, and they call no attention to themselves, an easily glossed-over link at the very top of the article. The point of this proposal is to facilitate wiki-walking and exploration, to be a "you might also be interested in" section. We could change disambigs to lean more in that direction, but that's gonna make disambigs poorer signposts. I just don't see what there is to lose here. Disambigs will still exist as the same name directories they always have. The person who, for some reason, is searching for Classics Mini-Con Thunderwing will still get there. But the person who just read about G1 Thunderwing and wonders if they've been in other continuities doesn't have to manually click through a list every Thunderwing to find out which ones are nameslaps and which ones aren't.

I do agree that the template approach could do with a newer design to differentiate it from needs work templates though, that's a really good point. Jalaguy (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2017 (EST)

I see disambiguations most often when I'm searching for a character, and I usually end up clicking on a lot of links. But that's on purpose, an helps me explore. These menus would be a nice shortcut—it's sort of like narrowing down the dismbiguation to a similar set of characters. the disambigs are great, the template would just be adding on. Also, it may look like less of an error box if it has a white background. —The Liege Decado (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2017 (EST)

The more images added to this thing, the uglier and clunkier it looks. -LV (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2017 (EST)

Agreed. I think we should use the Rodimus one Repowers created. You know, the one with just text. It would take up less space, be less intrusive but create a shortcut for users trying to look for another version. west james/notirishman (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2017 (EST)

I like that version as well, though with some formatting to ensure that a longer list doesn't wrap around the image (since that looks really ugly). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2017 (EST)

Also, not everyone who'd get one of these yet HAS an image, or one good enough to use. Aligned Wreck-Gar, for example. --M Sipher (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2017 (EST)

I made a sandbox with a template, go ahead and edit it. —The Liege Decado (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2017 (EST)

BUMP! Anyone still interested in this? Someone removed the one from Slag (G1) along with some other edits. I have restored this gallery for now, but if we are going to do this we need to get it going. --Khajidha (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

You look familiar...

---

Other versions of Wreck-Gar have appeared in other continuity families, including:

• Wreck-Gar, the Junkion Autobot from Generation 1.
• Wreck-Gar, the worthless wreck/walking pile of garbage from Animated.
• Wreck-Gar, the Junkion from the Aligned continuity family.

For more information, see Wreck-Gar (disambiguation).

How do people feel about this take? --Riptide (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

Works for me, I suppose. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (EDT)

Still opposed to the idea. Same reasons as last year. --Xaaron (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (EDT)

Thinking more on this, would it be better if it matched the other templates we have for navigating between similar articles?

	Versions of Wreck-Gar
Generation 1 Animated Aligned For more information, see Wreck-Gar (disambiguation).

--abates (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2018 (EDT)

So, since Riptide thought to tell the AllSpark she was going to implement her version today unless anyone stopped her, I feel the need to do more than just re-sign my previous objection.

Using two different, somewhat-overlapping versions of a disambiguation list is not intuitive for new visitors. Having the disambig link at top and this box at the bottom scatters information that should be all together in one place. Further, the difference between "Characters named Slag" and "Characters derived from the traditional Slag character template" is a very nuanced distinction that visitors won't immediately understand. I can easily see people finding one of the two disambigs and not the other, then getting confused when they're sure some other form of Slag exists but they're not finding it in that disambig (of 2). I mean...disambigs are an index. You don't have multiple competing indexes for the same resource.

If people do insist on implementing this, though, I strongly suggest using a different template format than the one we use for stubs, warnings, and broken content. That template format is a bad thing when you see it anywhere else on this wiki. An informative resource link like a disambig should look different. --Xaaron (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2018 (EDT)

I don't like that a lot - it's not very eyecatching or informative - but it's better than nothing. --Riptide (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2018 (EDT)

This is... well, it's not exactly furniture-shuffling, but it is buying furniture that we don't need. It's a solution that's looking for a problem. Saix (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2018 (EDT)

Just to clarify my position: I don't really see the need for these. I only restored the one that was removed as this discussion had not reached a clear conclusion. --Khajidha (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

I legit don't get the arguments against some implementation of this. It's an exploration-y "you might also be interested in" thing, not a technical index thing like disambiguation pages. I've had casual users saying "ooh, yes, that would be helpful" to me. Like I've said in the past, dismabigs are very bad at helping you find all the other continuities a character has appeared in, and making them better at that would make them worse at their main job of getting you to the right page after a search. I mean, geez, if suddenly a bunch of people turn up confused on talk pages we could undo it all again if we wanted. That being said, I do kinda agree with Xaaron's point about the template style. Jalaguy (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

Okay, look at it this way. If I am reading an article about character named "Skrankotron (Hoodaddy)" and I see a link to "Skrankotron (disambiguation)" I would find it most likely that anything on that page is another version of this character. If I am really into Skrankotron I would click on it and follow the links to my hearts content. Yeah, this franchise sometimes has "name-drop" characters who are nothing like the "archetype", but they are few and far between and getting less common. If there are characters that are blatantly derived from the same archetype (like the Slag, Slug, Slog examples) put a big honking note on there like "Characters basically identical to Skrankotron have sometimes been called Skrilloplex or Sharomus Magnus" with links to those pages. I don't see why you would need a secondary disambig on each character page when the disambiguation pages should be doing this already. I do see the point of putting a "for similar characters see "Skrankotron (disambiguation)" link on Skrilloplex and Sharomus Magnus, though. --Khajidha (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

Demolishor. Scourge. Broadside. Knockout. There's plenty of characters whose names have been nameslapped multiple times, and it hurts nobody to add a little widget saying "hey, these are the name reuses (or differently-named characters) that ARE basically the same guy". I mean, Jalaguy literally asked the TFWiki Tumblr's followers - probably the best metric for polling casual viewers we've got - and got an overwhelmingly positive response. With that in mind, how can you say it wouldn't be useful for casual readers? --Riptide (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

Yeah, chaotic disambigs like that are what inspired me back when I first brought up this proposal. Situations where there's a big list of name uses and the only way to work out which ones are versions of the character you're interested in is to manually click through to each article in turn. No harm in doing that legwork ahead of time for the curious user, surely? Jalaguy (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

My opinion, and what seems to be Khajidha's, isn't that we're against doing this at all. It's about doing this separate from the existing disambig page, linked at opposite ends of an article. Isn't there a way to accommodate doing this form of disambig, but doing it ON the disambig page, like when we added the "Major Optimus Primes" image references? --Xaaron (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

See, I don't see the point of that. Like, what would that involve? A note on the disambig page that "only X, X and X are versions of X character"? Why put it there instead of on the page for, say, Prime Knock Out, so that someone reading about that character can see "oh, I've finished reading the information on Knock Out, but I see that he also appeared in G1 and Animated". --Riptide (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

That's what the disambig pages already do, and specifically for Knock Out too. Are you concerned people won't find this information unless it's on the same page as the character's article? Because (correct me if I'm wrong), but it feels like we're arguing over the difference between "seeing it" and "clicking the disambig link and then seeing it". --Xaaron (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

Yep, Xaaron, we are in agreement on all of that.--Khajidha (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

Listen, don't consider this a vote, but the disambiguation pages don't simply do that. They just contain a list of characters with the same name. Like I've got a video about Nemesis Prime dropping this weekend, right? So while doing my research I naturally checked the disambig page for him and his "evil twin" archetypes with different names. And on them, it says things like he "should not be confused with Scourge." Except - yes, they absolutely should be confused with him, because they are the same thing that had it's name changed. All the disambigs do is disambiguate the name - they don't disambiguate the actual character. "Sharpshot" should be confused with "Shrapnel." Hardshell should be confused with "Bombshell." Outback should be confused with "Fallback" because they're the same thing, but instead they're thrown in at the end of the disambig page under "see also," set on the same level as "characters whose names sound a bit like this one" who they genuinely shouldn't be confused with. There is a distinction between "character" and "name" that the disambiguation pages are not making, and that's what this is intended to address. - Chris McFeely (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

I feel like updating the disambig pages would be a better solution than creating a second disambig template that goes at the end of the article where most people wouldn't see it. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

I completely agree with Chris. And I completely agree with Dark T. --Xaaron (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

I didn't see this until now but I agree that revamping the disambiguation pages in these cases would be a better solution. Omegatron (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2018 (EDT)

Rename User

I was thinking about activating this extension since every so often it comes up that someone wants to change their username but can't. Does anyone have any objections? I'll ask in the thread on the AllSpark too, as soon as I can get the AllSpark to actually load (is it broken for anyone else?) --abates (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2017 (EST)

It’s been broken for me almost all day (Also, been wanting change my name for a while) Jcbynum1 (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2017 (EST)

I'd be all for it; been trying to consolidate my usernames across most fandom-based platforms for a while now. I can't see the harm, especially if it's admin-initiated. Doc Chloroplast (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2017 (EST)

Just to clarify in case there's any confusion: the RenameUser extension won't allow users to rename themselves directly - rather they'll need to ask an admin to rename them. --abates (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2017 (EST)

No reason not to allow this, is there? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2017 (EST)

I say go for it. -west james/notirishman (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2017 (EST)

I've just renamed Notirishman to test it and it looks like it worked perfectly, so thumbs up! --abates (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2017 (EST)

Allspark Forums down

PSA to all interested: Alas, the Allspark's server is currently down and our server company doesn't do standard maintenance on weekends. You can try this temporary site in the interim and check back on Monday to see if the site is back up. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2017 (EST)

Is this the holy grail for Famicom How to Manga: Transformers Mystery of Convoy?

I have found this on TF RAW page:

Famicom How to Manga: Transformers Mystery of Convoy at TF RAW

Is this one of the items in the holy grail section?

EDDIE-X (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Samoa Joe

Hi! I'd like to start a page for Samoa Joe (Nuufolau Joel Seanoa, voice of Power of the Primes Predaking), but I don't have clearance to do so. How can I get this clearance?

--TomServo88 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Not necessary; someone beat you to it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Pete's Robot Convention 2018

Should we consider customization class POTP Shattered Glass Swoop or Double Pretender Gears as official figures or not since Pete's Robot Convention isn't endorsed by HasTak? They are using HasTak and Funpub molds (whom the latter lost the license) so I am not so sure. So should we list them under toys or in the notes like Action Master G2 Breakdown? -west james/notirishman (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2018 (EST)

Those are no different from any other unofficial fan customs repainted from official molds that we don't cover here. --Sabrblade (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2018 (EST)

Downtime

Our web host has to do some maintenance to mitigate the recently discovered CPU vulnerabilities. The Wiki will therefore unavoidably be unavailable for a period of time at 2am and 7am UTC on the 15th. --abates (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2018 (EST)

Merging the Alpha Trion pages (or: "Grandpa Convergence")

Considering that the Hasbro position going forwards seems to be using "member of the Thirteen" as Alpha Trion's primary role, I propose that we apply the same standards to him as we do our other Thirteen articles and merge the various versions into a single page. Considering that we've already had a pre-Aligned source that claims that all Alpha Trions are basically the same, I think it's a good idea to bend our rules and consider them the same sort of "general archetype" as the Fallen, Prima, et al.

The two main issues I expect:

• "He has a Shattered Glass version, so it'd be silly to have him one one page!" - So does Unicron. I figure we'd apply the same standards.
• "He was never a multiversal singularity!" - Neither were Amalgamous, Quintus or Alchemist, and we still combine their Aligned and IDW incarnations.

I'd also like to note that, as it stands, the Alpha Trion who is most notable for being one of the Thirteen doesn't get to have the Alpha Trion Prime Master on his page. Thoughts? --Riptide (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2018 (EST)

If we need to have consistency, I think it's simpler to just apply our standard organization to the rest of the Thirteen and the gods instead of forcing G1 A3 into a format that basically ignores 30 years of his history. Optimus Prime is basically the same guy across families and sometimes one of the Thirteen, but we're not merging them all. Saix (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2018 (EST)

Optimus's sitch is different in that he doesn't seem to be part of The Official List Of Thirteen, which is twelve dudes plus whatever a given piece of fiction wants the super special Thirteenth Prime to be. I don't think it'd be ignoring his history; the opening paragraph doesn't even have to mention his Thirteeniness, it can just say that he's one of the oldest living Cybertronians. --Riptide (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2018 (EST)

Having mulled this matter for some time, I have come around to Riptide’s position. Alpha Trion indeed has, on a relative scale, almost no variation in his characterization and design despite debuting long before multiversal singularities and continuing even afterwards. And as Riptide says, Hasbro blurring the lines between continuity families means that there is user-unfriendly thematic dissonance for us to not link G1-based Power of the Primes Landmine / Alpha Trion to Aligned Alpha Trion, who pioneered the concept. As for Shattered Glass Alpha Trion, he can just use a sub-page as is the case with Shattered Glass Primus and Unicron. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2018 (EDT)

Anyone? No one wants to comment further? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

I'm obviously still in favour. (And, you know, Trion WAS a multiversal singularity for a bit.) --Riptide (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

So are we doing this? notirishman (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2018 (EDT)

I'm against it. They're not literally the same individual, so they should have separate pages just like anyone else. NovaSaber (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2018 (EDT)

I don't think we can really do anything until we get more responses... BUT I am mentally disregarding any "nay" argument that doesn't address why Trion should be treated differently from Quintus or Amalgamous. --Riptide (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

Well, I'm not sure if this means much, but you get my vote, for reasons stated by yourself. notirishman (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

It seems to me that what we don't have is the opposite; a reason why Quintus and Amalgamous should be treated differently from Alpha Trion and any other never-was-a-singularity set of always-similar counterpart characters. NovaSaber (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2018 (EDT)

Well, then, is this a "merge Trion or split Quintus" debate rather than a "merge or keep the same" debate? (Though, again, AVP established that Trion was briefly a singularity...) --Riptide (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2018 (EDT)

Ideally I'd favor the split, but neither change should be made without a clearer consensus than seems likely. What I am saying is that if anything is to be changed, splitting Quintus makes more sense than merging Alpha Trion.

Merging the Alpha Trions on the basis of timey-wimey weirdness from when the Shroud was in-progress would be barely any more justifiable than merging Megatron with Cy-Kill because of Echoes and Fragments, and we're obviously never doing that.

And any argument against the significance of being a singularity is, to me, inherently an argument for more splitting rather than more merging. NovaSaber (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2018 (EDT)

Create a list of 3rd party products.

There are a lot of third party products that are better than the official products such as Alien Attack Dino or Unique toys Peru Kill Lockdown, but we don't have a list of those.If you go to Dino page in the section of toys you only find the official ones (Hasbro and Takara) but why don't we put also Alien Attack Dino. It´s just a suggestion and this will help to expand the wiki. Crosshairs (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2018 (EST)Crosshairs

TFWiki is a wiki about official Transformers products and media, and 'third party' toys aren't official. We have an article to cover the phenomenon, as we do many other TF-related fandom concepts like fan fiction or toy swapping, but TFWiki will never, ever document 'third party' toys in the way we do official ones. Jalaguy (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2018 (EST)

In fact, we have TWO articles examining the phenomenon at a broader level, but this wiki's focus always has been and always will be on official material. If you really want to look for examples, there's plenty of links on the Knockoff page. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2018 (EST)

Optimus vs. Malignus cardart

I previously posted this in the holy grails talk page, but since not many people are going to check that out, I'm reposting it here. Anyways, is this what you're looking for? I found it in a TFW2005 thread about rare Transformers. If any of you have found it already, then sorry... ShootingStar7X (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2018 (EST)

Unfortunately, it's the original art that's needed - the cards themselves are too low-quality. --Riptide (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2018 (EST)

I'd still say that this is a worthwhile image to have. --Khajidha (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2018 (EST)

Sometimes a low quality image is better than nothing at all! --DrSpengler (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2018 (EST)

As for the source of the image, here it is. Unfortunately, due to Photobucket now forcing its users to pay $399 yearly for third-party hosting, the image doesn't show up anymore. However, by viewing the source code using Internet Explorer, I managed to find the URL of the image. Although the image didn't display if I tried to view it on my PC, it managed to show up when I inputted the URL into my phone's browser! ShootingStar7X (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2018 (EST)

POTP artwork

In my personal opinion, the artwork used for the Power of the Primes packaging is absolutely stunning How would you guys like it if some of them became the header images on their respective character pages? Personally, I think yes, but I would like your thoughts on it. If you agree, tell me which ones do you think should get the treatment. -west james/notirishman (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2018 (EST)

I think it's tricky because the PotP artwork, while really nice, is always a representation of that specific toy. In my opinion, a good mainpic should be a clear representation of the character that isn't tied to a particular toy or incarnation. That said, I think all five Terrorcons' mainpics would be better as the PotP images (especially Rippersnapper - why is his mainpic just his alt-mode?) and Windcharger and Tailgate's too (as his IDW incarnation has entirely overshadowed his Marvel G1 version, methinks). The Wadapan (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2018 (EST)

I agree with the whole clear representaion part of being a good mainpic. And for the Terrorcons, their art have all of them (except good ol' Rippy) only in their beast mode, so that doesn't work if you show discontent of having their at mode as their main pic (which could work cuz they are unique to the character). And how about Dreadwind, Darkwing, Firestar, and Moonracer? Their main pics seem too G1-esque in my opinion. -west james/notirishman (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2018 (EST)

"Characters often have multiple bodies, so the main image should generally be their original "real world" form, and as full-body as possible. " --Khajidha (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2018 (EST)

POTP art shows the full-body. -west james/notirishman (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2018 (EST)

But it is not of their original forms. Except for Slash. --Khajidha (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2018 (EST)

Oh. Whoops. Didn't actually re-check the PotP artwork, so if it doesn't fix the alt-mode-only problem then there's no point. On a related note, I'm going to work on cropping proper-resolution Marvel profile artwork from Classics Vol. 8 to replace the fuzzy-looking ones we already have on here in the meantime. Do we have access to clean versions of the Legends game / collector card style artwork? Seems like another thing to look into. But yes, the Powermaster/Elita 1 etc mainpics that we have are the clearest representations of their designs I've seen. Just need better resolution, maybe.The Wadapan (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2018 (EST)

Really? Dreadwind and Darkwing just have G1 boxart... that looks exactly like the G1 toy. Blocky and all. Moonracer and Firestar just have their G1 cartoon models. That doesn't really scream "a clear representation of the character that isn't tied to a particular toy or incarnation". -west james/notirishman (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2018 (EST)

Doesn't matter because those aren't the guidelines. Those are Wadapan's opinions on what the guidelines should be. What I posted was taken directly from our Help:Example character article.--Khajidha (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2018 (EST)

With permission to change Dreadwind, Darkwing, Moonracer, Firestar, Tailgate, and/or Windcharger? -west james/notirishman (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2018 (EST)

Considering that 1) there's only the three of us discussing this and 2) such replacement is against the guideline I quoted, the answer is no. --Khajidha (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2018 (EST)

How is it against the guidelines? -west james/notirishman (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2018 (EST)

Because that artwork is based on the new toys and not on the character's actual first design.--Khajidha (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2018 (EST)

My bad, didn't realise we had such specific guidelines. Sorry to co-opt this thread, but I've uploaded the Classics version of Afterburner's TFU profile art as an example for how the others would change. They all seem fuzzy and washed-out to me at the minute. My questions are:

• Do we want to include the vehicle mode? It's been done previously on some pages, but not on others.
• Do people actually prefer how the newer version looks?

--The Wadapan (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2018 (EST)

Understood Khajida. I also didn't know we had such specific guidelines. -west james/notirishman (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2018 (EST)

Wadapan, the newer version definitely looks better, as for if we need vehicle mode, I'd say its not necessary, but I could be wrong. -west james/notirishman (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2018 (EST)

Listing the Thirteen

So, this is related to my Alpha Trion suggestion above, but I figured it's big enough to warrant its own section. In short: the way we present the members of the Thirteen right now is kind of a mess. It gives the impression that the "Multiversal Thirteen" list is the "true" version and that Aligned and IDW are weird aberrations, rather than the CoP list being the "official Hasbro-approved Thirteen" and the AVP list being a bunch of names created in the knowledge that the concept was soon going to be disposed of altogether - and while that's technically the correct way to do things under the "everything is canon" principle, it's kind of unintuitive and difficult, so I think we should apply the "but some canon is more equal than others" policy. Similarly, it acts like the IDW Thirteen are different to the Aligned Thirteen, when they have the same lineup; certainly, they're less different than the IDW Pretenders to the Marvel Pretenders.

As such, I've created a mock-up of a new version of the "Members" section of the Thirteen's page. My core intent was:

• Making clear that the Covenant Thirteen were the "official Thirteen" being used by Hasbro;
• Establishing that the Thirteenth Prime varies within uses of the Covenant Thirteen, but is always "special";
• Explaining that the true identities of the Multiversal Thirteen were ambiguous;
• Removing the redundant IDW list, which would be better served just explaining how the IDW Primes differ from the Covenant in the IDW fiction section.
• Not removing any information that isn't covered elsewhere on the page.

Now, if we were to use this as the Alpha Trion pages are now, we would have to say that the "core" Thirteen contain either Alpha Trion or Alpha Trion, which is patently ridiculous... so I also created a sandbox for an overview page for Alpha Trion, which - in the name of length - would link out to separate Generation 1 and Shattered Glass sub-pages as the Unicron page does. (I'd like to point out that Ask Vector Prime did establish that, for a short time, Alpha Trion was a multiversal singularity.)

Thoughts? Feedback? Whether my proposal is used or not, I do feel very strongly that the current Thirteen page is sub-optimal, and so I'd like to hear other proposals as how to improve it. --Riptide (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

From what I'm seeing so far of what you have done, I think that this will be better than the current setup, as the TFWiki is to inform, and tghis helps readers ease into the subject matter. While, I have nothing to add on, I can say this is a good idea with good execution. On another note, on your new Alpha Trion page is also good in my book. And one question, will we change the Template:Thirteen along with this? I presume 'yes', correct, because I see no reason why not? --westjames/notirishman (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

I disagree with your purpose(s), your reasoning, and your execution.

(1) "Official Hasbro-approved Thirteen" is nonsense. We don't list things by "most prominent", we list them chronologically. And, chronologically, the Multiversal Thirteen was the only Thirteen that existed for eight years. I strongly disapprove of any organization scheme that says "Oh, these guys were a thing once, but here's the more topically important guys you should be focusing on." This is for the same reason we don't put prominent fictions like IDW towards the top of pages, or put Revenge of the Fallen at the topic of the Fallen's fiction section, since waaaay more people saw the movie than ever read Dreamwave. The Thirteen, in particular, is such a confusing tale that laying things out chronologically helps explain how the concept unfolded.

(2) The true identities of the Multiversal Thirteen are only ambiguous under the most technical and pedantic viewing of the information. We were given a list of Thirteen characters. It would be hampering the information we were given to "Well, technically..." it to death.

(3) I agree with combining and generalizing the descriptions of the Aligned and IDW Thirteen.

(4) I don't remotely understand how it's "unintuitive and difficult" to understand the difference between the Multiversal and Aligned lists, and why it requires us to make exceptions to the rules. Please explain that better. --Xaaron (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

Actually, Xaaron does make a good point. However, I think it is general consensus that the Thirteen page needs to be improved for reader's ease and organization sake. This is where I think the rest of your plans should fit in. --westjames/notirishman (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

It's funny that you bring up the Fallen, because he's a case where we do break our rules - his mainpic is of his ROTF design rather than his Dreamwave design, because it's so absurdly more notable. I don't really see how you can argue that the internally-created-by-Hasbro list of Thirteen that has been used in two TV shows, a major comic series and one of Hasbro's flagship toylines is somehow equally or less important than the list of Thirteen that was created by a licensee as a bit of fanwank and was used for a few Facebook posts. Like, it doesn't even compare. We do ignore all standards in cases where it would make things clearer for the audience, and acting like the AVP Thirteen matter as much as the Covenant Thirteen does not make things clearer for the reader. --Riptide (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

Actually, I'm not arguing that the Multiversal are more/equally important, I'm arguing that "importance" isn't relevant. But regardless, what about something completely different instead of preserving the current basic set-up? Something closer to the multi-universal Wreckers page?

Keep the conceptual history at the top to maintain a chronological explanation of the concept as it developed. Then include Wrecker-style membership lists at the top of each Fiction section for Multiversal (and subcategories), Aligned, IDW, etc.

These member lists could include minimal or no descriptions of the individual Thirteen so they can be stacked two or three columns across like the Wreckers. I feel descriptions of the Thirteen were more important when they had little to no outside fiction to draw upon. Now that they're their own characters with their own toys, etc., descriptions aren't needed.

Is that a compromise we can build from? --Xaaron (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

Well, I certainly would want to keep the conceptual history in the first place - which is part of why I think we can afford to not put the member list in technical chronological order! I wouldn't be opposed to Wrecker-style membership lists in the fiction sections IN ADDITION to the general "Members" section, but I do feel like laying out who the "core Thirteen" are is... kind of important. I dunno, maybe you don't! --Riptide (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

I don't. I really don't. I disagree with even referring to them as "the core Thirteen". I think you're confusing "now" with "core". There isn't a core Thirteen, in my mind, just a current Thirteen for whatever fiction you're following. The reason my mind went to the Wreckers page is, just because there are a "core" Wreckers (the seven toys from Marvel UK's first story) and "current" Wreckers (IDW's more expansive team), doesn't mean either get preference over the others on the Wiki page.

And despite your insistence, even now Hasbro isn't sticking with a single "core Thirteen" list. They've already backed off from the Covenant, turning Optimus Prime into "The Arisen" for IDW. The Titans Return cartoon mentioned Sentinel Prime instead of following the Covenant. Even the Prime Master toys haven't managed to put out all 13 Thirteen. No version of the Thirteen listed by Hasbro since the Covenant of Primus has stuck with the CoP list perfectly.

I know you feel people are over-emphasizing the AVP-listed Thirteen (which is ironic, considering your opinions during the AVP period). But I feel you are over-emphasizing the CoP Thirteen, when even Hasbro isn't following that list precisely. --Xaaron (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

I feel like the "core Thirteen" are more cohesive than you're giving credit for. The Arisen and the POTP "whoever holds the Matrix" take are clearly reinterpretations of "Optimus as the Thirteenth"... and frankly, I think the mention of Sentinel is more a matter of poor research than indicative of Hasbro's feelings on the membership of the Thirteen. But, you know, we can't agree on everything. --Riptide (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

I do think that merging the Aligned and IDW sections is a good idea, as is making clear that they're the main "Hasbro approved" Thirteen. I think the "Multiverse" Thirteen should still have their own section separate from the "Other Members" section, I'm not sure what to name it though or whether it should go before or after the "Hasbro" Thirteen. I'm fairly neutral on the merging of Alpha Trion's pages, but if we do go through with that I think we should link out the Aligned section as a sub-page as well. Omegatron (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2018 (EDT)

Chiming in to digress and say I absolutely disagree with merging the Alpha Trions and think the idea of having the individuals have one article each regardless of continuity family was a terrible one. Saix (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

So, to be clear, you'd rather that, say, Vector Prime had separate "Vector Prime (Cybertron)", "Vector Prime (WFC)", "Vector Prime (G1)", and "Vector Prime (Transtech)" articles? --Riptide (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

Yes. I don't really consider them different from any other character in this respect. Saix (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

Huh, there is no way we can satisfy everyone, eh? and its hard to say whats best for the wiki as there aren't even enough people participating in the conversation to give an opinion. If you want my opinion, Riptide, I agree with the way you had it on the sandbox page, but that's just my opinion. I'm also on board for the Alpha Trion merge. If there's one thing I would change is to change 'Main members' and 'core members' to 'Current members,' as generally that is more clear-cut and to-the-point than 'core members.' --westjames/notirishman (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2018 (EDT)

So what's our verdict, eh? --westjames/notirishman (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

A revised proposal

So, I've taken the various bits of criticism into account, and revised my proposal - now as a full page, rather than just the one section. It's now not using "core members" and "other members", instead listing the two most prominent lineups, Covenant and Multiverse (with the Covenant one going first because it was the first to be fully revealed), and THEN other members; and on top of that I've added Wreckers-style lists to each separate continuity, so that everyone can know at a glance which lineup is in which universe.

(Well, I used MOST of the criticisms. I didn't take Saix's into account because there's no way we're splitting Vector et al into a thousand separate pages.)

How do people feel about this one? --Riptide (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2018 (EDT)

I like it. My only quibble is one I also have with the current set up: why are we not mentioning the Guiding Hand as a conceptual forerunner? Especially given how ALL 5 GH members have since been listed in one or another variant of the 13.--Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2018 (EDT)

The Guiding Hand as a concept came into existence long after the Thirteen did. I'd be willing to bring them up in the conceptual history section, but I'll have to give it some thought as how to integrate it. --Riptide (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2018 (EDT)

Guess I got confused by the older style art. --Khajidha (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2018 (EDT)

I like how you added the Guiding Hand. --Khajidha (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2018 (EDT)

Transformers Telephone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLnGA-s3LR4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWh_ZXmFyng http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm5080655

I think I've found 3 of them: Convoy, Hound and Starscream. From what understood from these videos, they're introducing themselves. I hope this is useful

HTTPS

This site is now available securely by putting https at the start of the URL thusly: https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Main_Page

Please test and let me know if you run into any issues. At the moment the only one I know about is that some actions (saving an edit, using the random page function) will throw you back to the non-secure site, but once the non-secure site is redirecting to the secure one, that should be fixed. --abates (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2018 (EDT)

Will switch on redirecting some time in the next few days. --abates (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2018 (EDT)

"Optimus Prime's involvement in the preceding events blah blah"

Do we honestly need those notes? They're an eyesore and telling readers they showed up in a coloring book adaptation isn't particularly illuminative. Saix (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2018 (EDT)

Context? --Xaaron (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2018 (EDT)

It saves us from writing up multiple sections that are basically duplicates of each other. --Khajidha (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2018 (EDT)

We don't need or do that either? Saix (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2018 (EDT)

We don't do that because these notes take care of it. If we remove the notes, we would need to add fiction sections for these coloring books and such that would simply duplicate the existing movie section. --Khajidha (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2018 (EDT)

Yeah, I mean, as petty as it seems to summarize coloring books, we really shouldn't start drawing lines in the sand as to what fiction is worthy of being documented and what is too small. Those notes in the G1 cartoon summary sections may look a little fugly, but they strike me as a decent compromise to include that info without having to give it its own section on some already bloated (Optimus Prime (G1)) pages. Plus, they're a little handy for reference since I know at a glance exactly where in the G1 cartoon summary section The Movie is, which conveniently bisects things when skimming, but that's just me. --DrSpengler (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2018 (EDT)

Right. The whole goddamn point of the wiki is to link out to a breadth of relevant information. And part of that information is all the fictional outlets available, including coloring books, kids' storybooks, etc etc etc etc. Sometimes those outlets are simply recaps of stories from "larger" media, so, in the interest of saving space, the note. --M Sipher (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2018 (EDT)

OJ Simpson

Is it ok to make a Page on OJ Simpson, since he was on The Transformers Universal Studios Tour page? I'm like scared about this right now. Energizer (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2018 (EDT)

He only really appeared in a single commercial that was BARELY Transformers related. I'd say follow the precedent set with Peyton Manning's Universal commercial during the Super Bowl and just use a Wikipedia redirect. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2018 (EDT)

Nobody wants a TFWiki article on The Juice more than I do, believe me. But I think Cyberlink is right (though I suppose Alex Karras gets a pass because the commercial he did was directly for Transformers and not just a promotion that incidentally included Transformers). --DrSpengler (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2018 (EDT)

I think you hit the nail right on the head there as to the criterion, Spengs.--Khajidha (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2018 (EDT)

And I'm going to Hell for the joke I'm wanting to make about the 8-piece Family Pac he's holding in that photo.--Khajidha (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2018 (EDT)

Thank you guys. I'm just relieved that this nightmare on the Juice is over. Energizer (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2018 (EDT)

Links to the GoBots/IDW Hasbro sister wikis on the main page.

I've brought this up several times on the Allspark forums, but it never gets any traction there, so I'm bringing this here. We need to have links from the main page to the two others that isn't some "disambiguation" gimmick that changes every time you reload the page. Escargon (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2018 (EDT)

Seconded. There's currently only a 1 in 21 chance of people seeing either link in the disambig box, assuming they even look at it. They definitely need their own dedicated links. I might even suggest going so far as to add a box for them in the side bar, perhaps between the Toolbox and the Advertisement. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2018 (EDT)

This isn't something that needs seconding, this is something that just needs to be done. I don't know why creating links to them wasn't one of the first things we did when the wikis were created, because as it is now, those wikis are basically unknown. Escargon (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

RID01/Car Robots names

I brought this up on the Allspark, but again, I'll bring it up here; our current write-ups for Legends and Unite Warriors stuff where RID 01 characters appear use the Japanese name, despite that going against our rules. The current justification-that Car Robots takes place in G1 unlike RID-doesn't really justify it, and as it is now, it just feels "weeaboo"-ish. Most of the western fandom that has any knowledge of RID01 is going to use the English names, and as it is now, it's just confusing. I do get things like Fire Convoy, Gigatron, and Brave Maximus being used, but we don't need Sky-Byte listed as "Gelshark". Escargon (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

There is also the fact that for the Unite Warriors toyline, as Takara used the Japanese names in Katakana and the Hasbro names in Latin script, for Baldigus they kept the Car Robots names in both Katakana and Latin Script instead of using "Ruination" et al in Latin script. Same goes for the two Legends LG-EX Black Convoy toys using "Black Convoy" instead of "Scourge" in Latin script. Granted, Legends Gelshark did use "Sky-Byte" in Latin script, but two-to-one Car Robots character toys kept the Car Robots name, and that toy did come before Sakamoto really got going with his Car Robots Continuation plot.

But the point is, the fact that the Japanese names were kept in Latin script for the Car Robots versions of the characters sounds to me like, from Takara's perspective, the English names of the Car Robots versions of the characters (the ones who exist in the same world as all of the Japanese G1 and Japanese Beast Era characters, as opposed to the RiD 2001 versions of the characters who occupy their own separate and unique reality) are their Japanese names.

As for the "weeaboo" thing, to me, what would be weeaboo-ish would be to refer to the characters as "Faiyā Konboi", "Gigatoron", "Bureibu Makishimasu", etc., or even to write their names in raw Katakana instead of Latin script, and that is unquestionably annoying. --Sabrblade (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

"First appearances" on IDW pages

As can be seen on "Last Stand of the Wreckers issue 1". Why did we stop doing this? It seems rather useful. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

Multiple co-brandings in headings

Increasingly in recent years Hasbro has been lumping multiple (sub)line names together, mostly under the Generations mega-banner. Now I’m generally of the philosophy that multiple indented headings are not necessary in cases of only 1 applicable toy (line) like Fortress Maximus (G1)/toys, Black Shadow (Victory), and Deathsaurus (Victory), but it occurred to me that unlike with the Prime Wars Trilogy most people probably have the mindset of Studio Series as its own thing first and not as a subset of Generations. And since we already do indented headings for movieverse characters who are in a dozen size classes, I’ve tried labeling Studio Series in cases such as Megatron (Movie)/toys, Jazz (Movie), and Grimlock (AOE) for easier user accessibility. What do y’all think of this approach? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2018 (EDT)

I'm not the greatest fan because it breaks from our norm. I say either change all of the Generations' sections to include subline imprints, or don't. I'm just a little OCD about it, that's all. And I think you should've put this post up before you made all your changes. --notirishman (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2018 (EDT)

Quidd

As some of you may know, Hasbro partnered with Quidd to make digital merchandise. How are we supposed to catalog this. Make a page for Quidd and put everything there? or add a digital merchandise section alongside the existing merchandise and toy sections that already exist. Victinoko (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2018 (EDT)

I don't know that we need a separate section for digital merchandise. Just stick it with the other merchanidse for now. If it turns out there's a ton of it, we can look at splitting it out. --abates (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2018 (EDT)

There already is a fair amount of Quidd merchandise. And there's more coming. But anyways, when we list them I think we should put the set it's in, the packs you can get them in, and how many coins it would cost to get those packs, and their set number. any other info would you need? also, would the format be

Quidd

(Set name here)

(Figure name here)

Info

Like how we do figures, or would we put the set name in brackets next to the 3d Figure/sticker/card name? Victinoko (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2018 (EDT)

Project Wonderful is shutting down.

https://www.projectwonderful.com/thanks.php

These are how we serve our ads, and so as of July 11, they won't be working anymore. Reprolabels has already reached out to me about it, and he's game with just paying us directly for the spot. We'll have to get in touch with TFsource for the skyscraper ad, and, uh, we'll have to figure out how to manage the money we're losing from the square ad that's been up for grabs. Get another regular advertiser locked in? I dunno.

We'll likely need folks who can get into the code for the main page template architecture or whatever, so we can do all this in the coming month.

HI.

--ItsWalky (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

I can make whatever changes to the skin are needed. --abates (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

Yay! I think the last time we touched the ad areas, Christine did it. It's been a while. --ItsWalky (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

IDW first appearances on character pages

Why are these being added? Are similar additions going to be made for other continuities? They seem pretty useless and silly to me.--Khajidha (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

Well this is awkward. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

That proposal was for making notes about first appearances on the pages of the fiction, not the characters. I have no opinion on that. --Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

Anyhow, M Sipher stated in the Allspark discussion thread that given the tendency of IDW continuity to show characters out of chronological sequence, it would be useful to list first real world appearances. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

It's been brought up on Twitter as a problem with "nerd wikis" in general to value in-universe event order over real-world reading/experience order to the Nth degree, often to the detriment of not-already-hugely-invested readers. While we do compare favorably to most (take note that Wookiepeedia wedges licensed video game events directly into a character's main timeline, like, right in the middle of the movie story), something as simple as finding a character's first appearance in real-world reading order shouldn't be a chore requiring digging and multi-link jumping. Generally any given chunk of Transformers media's diagetic and real-world chronologies have lined up pretty well and it hasn't been much of an issue, as most of the prequel/backfills are spinoff media and we split those into their own subsections. But IDW, particularly after "phase two" started, really bounces around its own timeline; the example given was that Grimlock's IDW writeup starts with a material published four years after his first appearance.

This seems like a thing the larger IDW character sections need, a simple "start here". Honestly we should probably take a look at the IDW-as-a-publisher/continuity pages and see about making the real-world publishing list a bit more easily-found/readable (it's kind of a morass of text). It's unlikely we'll need this for most of the fiction sections of character pages, since most fictions are relatively straightforward. But IDW is an exception. --M Sipher (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2018 (EDT)

Seems like that would be better served with an Appearances section with all entries in chronological release order. --Khajidha (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2018 (EDT)