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:

The move away from Wikia:

• 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:

• Transformers Wiki:Ads

The Bookworm database-crash:

• Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central
• Project:Bookworm Crash
• Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2

The server move:

• Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2

	Community Portal Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33

Quotes

This discussion was moved from Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central#Quotes.

Quotes now seem to look like this:

Freedom is the right of all sentient beingsOptimus Prime

when IIRC before the crash they look like this:

“	Freedom is the right of all sentient beings	”
—Optimus Prime

Now, it seems we can get the second result using the {{bigquote}} template instead of the basic {{quote}} 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? --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. --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 {{bigquote}}? -Derik 01:48, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Ahhh, my mistake! I coulda sworn I'd seen quote in use longer! --abates 01:55, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Why I don't like "quote":

1. It's ugly.
2. It's bigger than bigQuote. That seems to defeat the whole point.
3. Single guillemots don't get used as quotation marks in English and so they don't parse as quotation marks.
4. It's incredibly ugly.
5. 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 - 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. --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. -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.

"Farewell Optimus prime," [Starscream] whispered to himself. "Time for Endspark."Starscream, Ghosts of Yesterday 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 {{bigquote}} looks even worse. -Derik 02:53, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Rule four suggests it should look like this:

'Farewell Optimus prime,' [Starscream] whispered to himself. 'Time for Endspark.'Starscream, Ghosts of Yesterday p280

although you could also use ‘ and ’ maybe? --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.

'Farewell Optimus prime,' [Starscream] whispered to himself. 'Time for Endspark.'Starscream, Ghosts of Yesterday p280

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 {{quote}} HTML in short order, so don't bother.) -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.,

Farewell Optimus prime," [Starscream] whispered to himself. "Time for Endspark.Starscream, Ghosts of Yesterday p280

There you go, simple and doesn't involve guillemots that don't parse for anyone. - SanityOrMadness 05:01, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

What a lovely mix of smart and dumb quotes you have created. -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... - SanityOrMadness 07:24, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

I prefer the old style quotes. Nobody can make me use the new ones. --FFN 06:09, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

I agree, for all the reasons that SanityOrMadness listed above (especially points 1, 2 and 4)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. —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.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. --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?) -Derik 22:46, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Would making them simply underlined be too subtle? --abates 23:15, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

I worry it's too subtle. What about this?

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...-Derik 23:30, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Aw, what's wrong with the pink? I think that one's clear enough. 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). --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. -Derik 01:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Eh, blinking's fine. Not that of a biggy for me. --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! --abates 02:15, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

I think the feature is great? But yes, I hate the blinking. - 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. - Starfield 10:17, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

There is potential for that. I agree that sometimes redirects are okay... *shrug* -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 [[Bumblebee (G1)|Goldbug]] or [[Hot Rod (G1)|Rodimus Prime]] 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. --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". - 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. --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 [[Bumblebee (G1)|Goldbug]] is incorrect because there was no "Bumblebee" in the story. - 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. --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. - 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. --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. - 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. -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. -- 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. --Jeysie 21:14, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
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. --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 sandbox. Please feel free to comment or edit it or add reasons for/against. - 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.
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.
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? 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. -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. 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. - Jackpot 00:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

...I don't remember anymore. -Derik 00:31, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

At least remember to curse the name of Bookworm for three to seven generations. - 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. --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. - 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.) —Interrobang 01:54, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Then maybe this is a good moment to correct it? 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. —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. 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. - 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.) -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). —Interrobang 16:13, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Or Sideways (RID). -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) —Interrobang 19:19, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Disambiguating by fiction has been argued. It doesn't work/help. --Jeysie 19:52, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

*bump* So, I like Geewunling's proposal. Objections? - 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. - 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 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. --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.--Rosicrucian^Talk 21:00, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

Ayep, same here. --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.--Rosicrucian^Talk 22:34, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

Ditto on my notebook and tower unit. --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.) -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.--Rosicrucian^Talk 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? --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. - SanityOrMadness 18:28, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

And FF 1.5.10 behaves as-FF2. - 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? - 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.) --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. --Jeysie 16:21, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

We'd need to either upgrade to MediaWiki 1.14 or install the extension to get the new users log. It would be very useful, I'm thinking. --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.) -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.--Rosicrucian^Talk 20:42, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

This is what I'm looking at. It's kinda fugy. Anyone else want to take a whack at it? -Derik 21:16, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm also working at templating the comics images:

• {{MarvelUScover}} (Marvel US G1), {{HMcover}} (Marvel Headmasters mini) and {{MarvelG2cover}} are maxed out.
• I think I've got all the extant & relevant images for {{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 {{MarvelUSinterior}} and {{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. - SanityOrMadness 21:58, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Propose a visually compact way of doing so.  ;) -Derik 22:10, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

General	Comic Cover
<charinsert>{{hastak}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{comicinterior}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{comiccover}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{screencap}}</charinsert>	<charinsert>{{MarvelUScover|(description)|(issue number)|(issue title)|(artist list)|(last two digits of publication year)}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{HMcover|(description)|(issue number)|(issue title)|(artist list)}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{MarvelG2cover|(description)|(issue number)|(issue title)|(artist list)|(last digit of publication year)}}</charinsert>
Screencap	Comic Interior
<charinsert>{{titlecard}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{G1cap|(imagedescription)|(episode name)|(last digit of premiere year originally aired)}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{RIDcap|(imagedescription)|(episode name)|(last digit of year originally aired)}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{BWcap|(imagedescription)|(episode name)|(last digit of year originally aired)}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{BMcap|(imagedescription)|(episode name)|(year originally aired)}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{TFAcap|(imagedescription)|(episode name)|(year originally aired)}}</charinsert>	<charinsert>{{MarvelUSinterior|description=|issueno=|storytitle=|pageno=|panelno=|panelnos=|script=|line-art=|pencils=|inks=|colours=[[Nelson Yomtov]]|letters=|help=|year=(last two digits of publication year)}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{HMinterior|description=|issueno=|storytitle=|pageno=|panelno=|panelnos=|letters=|help=}}</charinsert> <charinsert>{{MarvelG2interior|description=|issueno=|storytitle=|pageno=|panelno=|panelnos=|script=|pencils=|inks=|colours=|letters=|help=|year=(last digit of publication year)}}</charinsert>

...I don't know about visually compact, exactly, but considering how many image templates we have, I'm not sure "visually compact" is possible... --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.) -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. --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.) (Why do I always have extra thoughts right after hitting the "submit" button?) --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? --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. --Jeysie 02:07, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

My Wolverine stopped tripping long enough to say "{{MarvelG2}}:<charinsert>{{MarvelG2interior|description=|issueno=|storytitle=|pageno=|panelno=|panelnos=|script=|pencils=|inks=|colours=|letters=|help=|year=(last digit of publication year)}}</charinsert>."

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. -Derik 03:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Upload Preview

Over at Template talk:Screencap, Mr. Bates (or possibly Doug-- I can't keep them straight) suggested we look at the 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 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. -Derik 14:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

It works great - very handy (I was the one who suggested it, BTW) --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. -Deceptitran 12:37, 18 May 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...) -- Repowers 10:52, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

No protest here. I was planning on doing it someday. —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) --FortMax 22:58, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

It was discussed 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. - 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. -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. --FFN 00:59, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

That'd apply to the British Isles contingent? UK and Ireland are getting general release June 19. --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. -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". - 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. - 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. --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?--Apcog 14:02, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

It's now been said thrice in this thread that the UK/Eire date is the 19th. - SanityOrMadness

Beg your pardon, then. It was late, and I wasn't paying close enough attention.--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.--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)--Chipmonk328 (or was it 9?)<< not that it matters

Transformers Wiki:Bookworm Crash. - 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.--Chipmonk328

Don't worry, incoherent rage is the proper response to the Bookworm crash... you're just slowpoking. -Derik 13:17, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Main page

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. -Derik 13:16, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

In which we learn nobody clicks anything! --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. -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? --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... --Jeysie 13:26, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

I may have sternly directed people to our Images policy page. --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.--Rosicrucian^Talk 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.) -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. --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. - 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:

• Extension:Newuserlog to keep track of new users so we can give them a friendly greeting. As opposed to our current status of new people not usually getting much of a "greeting" unless they screw up. :>
• 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, here's one structure page I use to give an idea of the sort of code you can inset.

Mine:

• 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... --abates 19:25, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Honestly, those "friendly greetings" drive me spare. I'd really rather not have them.

Suggestions:

• Extension:KeepYourHandsToYourself (prevents users or anons editing User:* pages other than their own.) [Beta] - 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.) -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. --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... -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. --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.

Chevy Autobots

Unfortunately, I am most likely missing the last week or two of the story, but I figure it's better than nothing. --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.) -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.

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. --Fleb 17:47, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

I would support this, at least tentatively. - 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. --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. --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. --Suki Brits 14:02, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

IANAL, but 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 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. (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.) --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? - SanityOrMadness 19:31, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Which CC license would we use? Seems like from the Wikipedia CC page that a by-nc-nd license would be what we're after? --abates 19:16, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

It would be CC-by-sa. --Jeysie 19:23, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

That looks like a good idea to me. --abates 20:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Asking for permission to post links

I'm the current Bureaucrat at 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 Race with the Devil article. 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? --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.) -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.--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:43, 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? --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.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. --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 Ghostbusters Cameos. Note I believe that the section will be better built soon.Devilmanozzy 20:21, 8 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. --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. --FFN 04:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Wasn't just Sipher - it drove me nuts too. - 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 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. --Jeysie 12:47, 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"... --abates 04:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)