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

Relicensing discussion:

• Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing

	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 Archive 34

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)

Only direct link between the Ghostbusters Cartoon and the G1 Transformers cartoon is Frank Welker sounded like one of his TF roles when he voiced a ghost from time to time. I a am sorry for my wanton linking and it will not happen again. --Liberal Noob 22:57, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

I meant which pages on the Ghostbusters wiki would benefit from having links on them to our wiki. I'm curious, because I regard myself as reasonably familiar with Ghostbusters, and I can't think offhand of any references to Transformers in it. Perhaps in one of the cartoons? --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)

Seems like there's a few other connections in terms of voice actors (Tara Strong, Frank Welker, Maurice LaMarche etc) as well. I think linking between the two sites is a good idea. --abates 23:37, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah I had noticed that too as I looked around here the last few days. Never knew how much Ghostbusters and Transformers had in common.Devilmanozzy 23:40, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

While I'm broadly in favour of this, could you maybe change "Starscream's Ghost" to "Starscream's ghost" - I understand you want to keep the ghost theme going but the first is a link to an unrelated episode of the cartoon series, rather than the character himself. --Emvee 07:02, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

OK Emvee, I fixed the link on the Ghostbusters wiki as you requested. Devilmanozzy, Star Wars also has a lot in common with Transformers. --Liberal Noob 14:52, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

We know, we got named an official friend of Wookiepedia about a week into the Project: Bookworm Crash. If we hadn't been scrambling to pick up the pieces, our pages would probably reflect this more. (I assume we'll integrate more when Clone Wars starts up again, since we love to attention-whore ourselves that way.) -Derik 23:56, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Here is an obscure crossover from The Real Effing Deal. - Starfield 00:09, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Quick Links?

You know, now that I think about it, one thing Wikia actually did do right was having some "Quick Links" on the sidebar. I find myself missing being able to quickly get to the main continuities/series without having to search or click to the Main Page first. (Especially now that there's lots o' ROTF toys to keep tabs on...)

Nothing extensive necessary; just one linkie thingy with a fly-out menu for our six main continuities and the full series list would probably work nicely. --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)

Could we make so that they're fly-out menus, but that they only fly-out if you actually click on the title? That would save room while avoiding things jumping out when you're waving the cursor around. --abates 22:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

I think having a link on the sidebar for Revenge of the Fallen would be good too. While the Community portal and Recent Changes links are great for us Editors, they're not likely to be used much by casual visitors. We should be using the menu to draw attention to major articles. While I'm thinking about it, we could probably change the Main Page link to read "Transformers Wiki"... --abates 04:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Would anyone object if I went ahead and popped a link to Revenge of the Fallen in the navigation menu? I'm thinking between "Main Page" and "Community portal". --abates 18:44, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm not of the upper brass but given the increasing coverage of ROTF as we come down the wire, it'd make the most sense. --Lonegamer78 19:00, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

We need a new adspace

The TFwiki on our new server is doing super mega amounts of bandwidth! (Note I've broken up the OPtimus Prime (G1) page, because, dude, that thing was a monster.) So, uh, I think we need to add a new adspace. One that's *above* the fold, since the ones we have are shoved down in the corner where no one can see them. What advertiser would want to dump loads of money on those? What I'm proposing is a 486x60 banner-shaped ad up above the "article/discussion/edit/history/delete/move/watch" links, nestled in between the Teletraan 1 image and the personal toolbar. (You know, OUTSIDE of the content.) If this is a terrible idea, I will also accept $5 donations. --ItsWalky 11:14, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I've no qualms with that. That was one of the "acceptable" adspaces, if I recall from the old discussions.--Rosicrucian^Talk 11:18, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Long as they don't dance or talk or sing, that'll work. Are we actively pursuing advertisers these days? -- Repowers 11:22, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, "actively pursuing advertisers" is somewhat incompatible with our current ad setup. To put an ad on our site now, that requires signing up with Project Wonderful and bidding. This is good for us because it's mostly automated. If we were to set up a "real" in the traditional sense, we'd need a full-time ad pursuer to fill those spots. The best we can do in our current situation is to try to convince Big Bad Toy Store and its ilk to sign up for Project Wonderful. --ItsWalky 11:33, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

IIRC, above-the-article is what we wanted Wikia to switch back to. I have no objection. -Derik 12:20, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Works for me. How does Ant handle TFU.info's advertising? Hooper_X 12:35, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Doesn't bother me... but can we either put it under the personal bar, or somehow make it so the personal bar would wrap? Otherwise, I'm staring at the top of my screen and realizing that I'd have an annoying horizontal scroll bar afterwards whenever I'm logged in.

I have to admit I'm kind of befuddled that we're apparently doing so much more traffic after the move than we were before, to the point of having all those initial problems because we weren't expecting it. Did the new server somehow improve our traffic, it is sheer coincidence that traffic increased for other reasons, or was it more like the old server wasn't keeping track of bandwidth or anything, so we had no idea how we were actually doing? --Jeysie 12:38, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Hosting with Bookworm was cheap. I mean, he was doing it at-cost. Or would have, if he ever invoiced us. Now that we've moved on, we're purchasing hosting from people who actually want to make money off us. --ItsWalky 12:41, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, the money's part of it, but I was also thinking about how most of our initial operational troubles seemed to stem from having more traffic to deal with than we realized we were going to have, to the point of even having to run a caching setup I'm guessing we weren't running on the old server. --Jeysie 12:45, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

The way Bookworm had his servers set up, it was difficult for him to separate out what was our traffic versus what was other traffic on the same server. He gave us an estimate which turned out to be wrong. --ItsWalky 12:55, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Aah, OK. Wasn't sure if it was something we needed to worry about or not. --Jeysie 13:29, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I was kinda expecting this :( I'm cool with more banners, and I think you should beg us for money now and then. We may be able to help when we can. --FFN 13:15, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Caching is what most mediawiki installations do. We happened to start off on the most resource-intensive wiki software imaginable, and any stats from Bookworm were not only inaccurate based on whatever he was doing in the logs, but also because back then, the wiki was constantly crashing. You get zero hits per hour when it's down, and no stats in the world would help clear that up. I'm still tweaking the hit stats, and it'll be at least a week before I can start extrapolating growth numbers, but suffice it to say, we're going to go over our current bandwidth limit before the month is out, and while we won't get shut down, we will get billed for overages. Think of it like a normal cellphone plan instead of a pre-paid one. --McFly 11:47, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, that's mainly what I thought Walky meant. Nestled between the personal bar and the article tabs seems like fertile ground for a banner ad.--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:39, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I've got the ad code ready to go, whenever we can edit the CSS or whatever to make room. Here is our awesome new placeholder "please bid here" graphic: [1] --ItsWalky 13:48, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Looks good so far. Potentially odd question: are these particular dimensions popular with Project Wonderful?--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:55, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

The Leaderboard (700ishx90) and the Big Box (300x250) are the most popular sizes, but those would really ugly up our page. --ItsWalky 15:58, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

And now it has its first client! That was fast.--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Ahhh, Dreamland Chronicles is awesome. I spent a week a few months back reading through their archives after following an ad on our sidebar. --abates 02:20, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

One interesting thing looking at the Project Wonderful stats is that our ad hits are stabilizing now, and they're stabilizing fairly high relative to where they were when the site was still spotty. That's got to look good for advertisers, and if the site holds up to the abuse that the film debut is going to subject it to that's only beneficial to us in the end.--Rosicrucian^Talk 02:48, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

This = bad

Uh, I'm using Monobook, and as a result of this, the watchlist/preferences/etc bar has somehow ended up at the bottom of the page, just above the About Transformers Wiki/Powered by MediaWiki/etc... - SanityOrMadness 10:36, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

I got that on a couple of pages, too, and alt+F5ing didn't work. How I fixed it was I signed out and viewed those same pages as an anon. The userbar went back to where it should be, and it stayed there when I logged in again. - Magnus Maximus 10:49, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Tried that, didn't work.

In fact, it's worse than I thought, because I didn't notice at first that the page/discussion/edit tabs have gone wandering too, and are floating around the place (the "discussion" and "edit" tabs are currently in the middle of this edit box, and I can't see the others anywhere). - SanityOrMadness 10:58, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

THE PROBLEM IS IN common.css.

The following CSS borks monobook. This is why you should use the specific stylesheets for each skin, NOT the common file:

#p-personal {
   position: relative;
}
 

#p-personal .pBody {
   float: right;
}

#p-cactions {
   position: relative;
}

#content {
   margin-top: 16px !important;
   position: relative;
}

-SanityOrMadness 11:30, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

The new ad space at the top of the page, which was fine yesterday, is now looking screwy in Firefox, with the ad behind the top of the Autobot symbol in the logo and the tabs at the top of the bar. Like so:

--KilMichaelMcC 16:43, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Works fine for me in 3.0.10 and 3.5b99, both after clearing cache.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:47, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

I made some CSS modifications in response to SanityOrMadness's issue, which may cache improperly. Try a hard refresh/clearing your cache. --Suki Brits 16:51, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Okay, clearing my cache fixed it. --KilMichaelMcC 20:19, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Is it working?

So, between the new banner and our ad display stats in general being much better since the server stabilized, does this mean that we're taking in what we need to?--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:57, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I think so! We're averaging about $5 a day, which means $150 a month. Our hosting is... $80-ish? But how much of that $150 we'll have to spend a month remains to be seen, since we're going to be doing a lot more than our monthly allotted bandwidth. And there's a movie yet to premiere! So, uh, we'll have a better idea once the month is over. --ItsWalky 15:00, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

An update, while I'm skimming this page. We had to pay $80 in bandwidth overage fees, so the bill for June was $160. We're basically covering our rent now, assuming things keep at their current speeds. --ItsWalky 10:50, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

Assuming we ever end up with more money than we need, David, I suggest you cover yourself in gold. 14 caret gold. --FFN 16:42, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

If anyone's getting covered in gold, it's McFly and Scout! --ItsWalky 16:51, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, but I can actually imagine you as the World's Biggest Man, resplendent in gold and jewels, laughing maniacally. --FFN 03:28, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

I second McFly and Scout being covered in gold. Also what rate are we paying for extra bandwidth? --abates 04:42, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

I would prefer to be draped in gold, personally. If you can arrange that, it'd be swell, thanks! (Covered in gold is more of a Bond villain thing to do, after all.) As for the bandwidth rates, we're paying for a 1024MB Slicehost installation. Feel free to look it up, I'm not comfortable spilling numbers all over here. --McFly 10:36, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Consolidate front page?

Man, that front banner is huge! Can it be smaller? And when we make it smaller, can we stack up the top-most two boxes next to it like so? --ItsWalky 15:58, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

The cropped image shown, of course, is just a placeholder. --ItsWalky 16:00, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

That looks about as clunky as Wikia's frontpage, IMO.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:05, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, it's not fine-tuned or anything. Thing is, either that banner's going to be cut down or removed entirely. It's huge, it's bandwidth-wasting, and it pushes all our real content down off the page. What's your choice? --ItsWalky 16:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm probably knee-jerking based on the placement of the boxes. I guess it could be made to work if it's finessed a bit. It's not like we're running a ginormous ad there like Wikia was suggesting.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:31, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I dunno, personally I like this new idea. It reminds me of how our franchise navs look: Logo on the left, linkage on the right. Plus, yeah, unlike Wikia, our content on the right of the logo will actually be... content.

As for logo ideas, why don't we make a few different options where it's the TFWiki.net logo over a pic of a single character? We could have one for Prime, Megatron, Starscream, Jazz, etc. using the <OPTION> thingy. --Jeysie 16:37, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

As long as the site-name logo thing itself is HUGE. I really want to make sure the URL is shoved in your face. Branding continues to be important as we war against Wikia for Google prominence. --ItsWalky 16:40, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

If branding's important, why not change the actual on-every-page logo to use the actual TFWiki.net logo? And put TFWiki.net in the page <title>? - SanityOrMadness 11:01, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Alternately, each one could be a group shot from a different franchise, with the font altered to match. Play up how many different continuities there are, eh?--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:00, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

This image to the right is what I'm now thinking. And it should probably have movie characters predominantly, at least for the next few months. --ItsWalky 17:04, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm inclined to agree with sticking with the movie characters now, considering it's almost two weeks till the US premiere/release. --Lonegamer78 17:19, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

That's pretty darn good. Brings a lot more info above the fold, and the layout's pretty clean. The white background is good too, so any other images in the rotation should follow that example.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:21, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

How do we make it done? The table markup on the frontpage is foreign to me. I'll upload the new image itself... --ItsWalky 17:32, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Since Derik doesn't seem to be about yet, I'll have a go with it. Hmm. --Jeysie 17:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)--Jeysie 17:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Actually, we're really going to have to do something like your first example above, with the Continuity/Category tables underneath each other instead of side-by-side, because trying to fit the logo and the two tables all side-by-side looks hideously awful on a 1024px-wide screen. I tried just simply having the smaller logo, the text notices under it, and the two tables on the right, but it looked kind of... eh. --Jeysie 18:04, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Mrr. OK, I made an attempt at tweaking, although I think it's going to need some external CSS tweaks at least, if only to center the Continuities table. --Jeysie 03:44, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Looks okay, but the jarring thing about it is that the red and blue boxes aren't the same width, though they share a column.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:19, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

That's something Derik needs to tweak in the Featured box template and/or external CSS... I can't do it just by editing the page itself.

Also, yea or nay on the link buttons? It just seemed a little more "Click me!" than the paragraph o' links. --Jeysie 16:49, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

I dig 'em. Good design decision, IMO. --Rosicrucian^Talk 16:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Quite aside from anything else... what's the point in liking to tfwiki.info with an image link. It just about made sense as a text link, but is only going to confuse people who click on the Autobot symbol and end up back where they started. We need to cut down on main page-to-main page links, not obfuscate where they link to. - SanityOrMadness 17:30, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Visual consistency. (And the mouseover text indicated it was an "alternate URL".) But, I tried tweaking it again. --Jeysie 17:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

It's fixed! Huzzah!--Rosicrucian^Talk 20:46, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

I realized I was just approaching it the wrong way. Eheh. --Jeysie 21:15, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm a little ambivalent towards the "new" logo, just because I think it's a little bland, although I'm sure it's a work in progress. I am all for putting "TFWIKI.net" in the header and all over the fucking place as a branding effort, though. On a slightly related note, I'd consider flipping the "current series" in said box, so ROTF is closer to the center of the page and Animated is on the outside - if we're really trying to bring in ROTF traffic, having that logo front and center is probably a pretty smart idea. I also like the idea of a rotating logo box - maybe we even jigger it so that it links directly to the article for whoever's in it - like the Go! Boxes, but focused entirely on core characters (More Fallen, Movie Optimus, etc., less Irwin Spoon and Dinobots Strike Back). Stick with primary Movie-verse guys for now, and then in a month or so when the hype dies down, we can start to shuffle in some sufficiently advanced and significant articles (making sure that the characters are both important to the fiction and that their articles are nearly, if not entirely complete). Hooper_X 11:17, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

That sounds like a good idea. I'm down with that. --FFN 17:00, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

I has new idea for what module ought to be above the fold, and more ROTF promotiony stuff. --Jeysie 21:15, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Sure, I'd go for it. --ItsWalky 21:26, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Considering how crowded and text-heavy the front page is, I think the best way to draw attention to the banner is to surround it in as much empty space as possible, something like this, especially as the new banner's white background assimilates the page's whitespace so easily. - Magnus Maximus 03:10, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure how that's really different than it is now, other than putting the site notice at the top... which I kind of hate doing, because that pushes all of the content stuff down. The site notice is temporary anyway.

I was thinking we ought to make the movie stuff more prominent, rather than the continuity/category modules. I was also thinking of placing the banner, site notice, and external website links in one cell instead of two like it is now, which further creates whitespace... I just didn't think of that until after I made the layout change proposal pic.

I do agree/think maybe we could stand to lose a few modules, though... maybe ditch the Categories module entirely, and consolidate the Holy Grails and Editing Tips somehow. --Jeysie 03:32, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Oh yeah, you're running a 1024 desktop, aren't you? I changed my res to 1024, and you're right, it really doesn't look much different. But this is how it looks in 1280, and even that little bit of extra space makes a huge difference compared with how it is now (in my opinion).

I agree about the notice, but I couldn't think where else to put it. Putting it under the banner (thus between the blue and grey boxes) made it seem wedged-in and out of place. Lesser of two evils, you dig?

I also agree about making the movie stuff more prominent, but the red and blue boxes are narrower, so they take up less of the horizontal space. I did think that maybe we could change the featured series box so that ROTF is on top of Animated instead of beside it, and shift that up next to the banner somewhat like it is on my temp page now. That also adapts to 1024 better, I think.

And yeah, losing some of the boxes would not be the worst thing in the world. - Magnus Maximus 03:52, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Ehh... my problem with that idea is that, one of the reasons we redesigned the Main Page to begin with is because our greeting was so big that it was pushing useful content down below the fold. This sort of recreates that exact same problem.

But, I tried tweaking my Main Page design here: User:Jeysie/Main Page to give more whitespace. I figure that once the movie's been out for a while and we don't need to pimp it as much, we can replace the Featured Characters box with the Continuities box. --Jeysie 11:50, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

I was looking at the front page right now and thinking about some things - I'm glad to see most of them are in line with what's already considered. :)

That said, I suggest taking TFA out of the featured series box, even if only temporarily, and using the logo from the franchise page. I feel it's more recognisable as the ROTF logo than the more colourful one we have there, plus we can make it a bit bigger.

I also wonder if we should have "Transformers Wiki" written on there somewhere other than the site logo in the sidebar. --abates 07:11, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

"TFWIKI.net - THE Transformers Wiki"? Hooper_X 07:49, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

I made up a PSD template of just such a logo this morning. It's layered, so the transparent overlay of the Autobot leaders is optional.--Rosicrucian^Talk 12:18, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

I definitely prefer the font of the current TFWIKI.NET logo to that one.

Whatever we ultimately do though, surely we should use the same logo EVERYWHERE, including for the top-left logo, ja? (There's also the recurring thought that we have a G1 Autobot sigil for the top-left logo, but a G2 Autobot sigil for the favicon. I understand that the G2 favicon is unique, which was the main reason we went for it, but if we're thinking about branding...) - SanityOrMadness 12:37, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Logo

If we want to be movie-centric AND use the TFWiki.net logo extensively for branding reasons, shouldn't we change the Animated-based logo to something more like this? (NB: Quick mock to make a point, not intended to be actually used, and may clash with the Teletraan on the Monacobook skin). - SanityOrMadness 17:30, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

I think we do need to keep some visual distinctiveness. If we go too far into the grey look of the movie we end up with understandable confusion concerning its resemblance to this.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:59, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah. I'm really really fine with keeping our current page design/color scheme. The Wikia site is really gray, and I'd rather not veer to close to that. --ItsWalky 20:48, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

[Joke Suggestion] How about we make ours on fire? --FFN 04:27, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

It wouldn't actually be that hard to do... -Derik 12:08, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Featured-series box

vFeatured Series Movie | Toyline | Comics | Books Newest: Revenge of the Fallen issue 4 -6183 days until TF: Revenge of the Fallen! Cartoon | Toys | Comic | Books Newest: Endgame, Part II

Should we perhaps rebalance the featured-series box to be more like this? (Yes, I know there's a too-high gap between the two lines to the right of the TFA logo. It didn't preview like that, and I can't see why it's doing that.) - SanityOrMadness 14:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

That's pretty darn sweet-looking, IMHO. I tried swapping around my take on the Main Page to include a slightly modified version of it. --Jeysie 15:16, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

The way it is on the mainpage right now looks really great. Good density of info above-the-fold.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:19, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Or rather on Jeysie's test page, I see now.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:21, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Thing about including Main Page/featured-characters in it like that (which I just edited to increase the header-size to be visually bigger than the character names, and debold the character names themselves) is that if you separate that from above AND below with a line, you visually make it into a franchise by itself. TFA needs a stronger separator from ROTF than the ROTF stuff does within itself. - SanityOrMadness 15:39, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

vFeatured Series Transformers One "Hometown Heroes" "Legacy of Hope" "Waves of Guilt" "Everybody Dance, Ow! Core Rulebook Transformers One Sourcebook "Unnatural Disaster" "From Yesterday to Today" Transformers #32 Void Rivals #29 G.I. Joe #21 Energon Universe 2026 Special

How about this? - SanityOrMadness 15:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Works for me. I added it to my test Main Page with a few minor formatting tweaks. --Jeysie 16:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

That looks excellent to me! --abates 07:23, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

Are we doing to do this then? - SanityOrMadness 11:06, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Was wondering that myself. Any more tweaks or suggestions to add, or should we go with my mockup? --Jeysie 13:02, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

The mockup looks pretty solid to me.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:11, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

I say go for it! --abates 16:46, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Looking again at the featured-characters bit... is Sideswipe really the best choice for that fourth spot on row 1? I already changed Soundwave to Devastator, because the latter has been a LOT more prominent in promos for the movie, but I'm not sure who would be best for a fourth Autobot. Jetfire? Skids & Mudflap? (I'm not even sure if Ironhide is best for the third slot). - SanityOrMadness 18:54, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

I was trying to think of a balance between which characters were most prominent and which people were likely to be excited about... we could go for Optimus, Bumblebee, Jetfire, and Skids & Mudflap together in the last spot. --Jeysie 19:03, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Made that change for now, then. I think "prominence" should probably be the main factor, if we want to grab users. - SanityOrMadness 19:14, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Featured article

Now that the featured series box has been sorted... nothing against Kup, but do we have a movie/ROTF article that could possibly take the featured spot at some point between now and the 19th? - SanityOrMadness 17:57, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

The Fallen is at Featured Article status. --Jeysie 18:07, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

And has been the Featured Article for awhile at A Certain Other Place. I'd rather not mirror them in that respect, personally.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:22, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

In that case... I've got no idea. None of the rest are at FA status, and I can't think of which one would be most relevant to pick on for cleanup. --Jeysie 18:31, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Surely the three most obvious non-Fallen articles "to pick on for cleanup" are Optimus Prime (Movie), Bumblebee (Movie) and Sam Witwicky, ja? - SanityOrMadness 18:51, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Simmons might be mroe fun.  ;)

And Megatron more enlightening, if someone wants to take a whack at his DS-game backstory. -Derik 19:17, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Looks like Primal Prime is the featured article at that other place, not The Fallen. In fact, it looks like their Fallen article has a cleanup tag, not a featured tag... - SanityOrMadness 17:07, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, someone replaced it a couple of days ago after noticing that their "The Fallen" article wasn't up to scratch. --abates 17:40, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Any objection to us featuring our superior The Fallen article after all, then? --Jeysie 18:08, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, on the 24th, the Fallen's page is going up. ESPECIALLY if it's also up at Wikia. Our Fallen page has to supercede theirs, and burying it on the most important week of its life isn't gonna work in our favor. --ItsWalky 18:19, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Hell, if we want to upstage 'em over at Wikia, just put Sideswipe as one of the featured characters. I was over there just to see how far the site had gone downhill and it surprised me. They don't even have a page for Sideswipe, it just redirects you to G1 Sideswipe. How sad is that?--AWT88 00:13, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

How hard did you look? I wont link it for obvious reasons, but there IS a page for him. - Cattleprod 00:22, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

I think he got messed up by the fact that the Main Page links to "Sideswipe" without the parenthetical, which does indeed redirect to G1 Sideswipe.

Having said that, their proper ROTF Sideswipe page is still miserable compared to ours, as is the fact that they got the Main Page linking wrong.

Not only that... I also noticed that one of their registered users, while editing their Main Page, managed to change their Twitter link to our Twitter in the process. --Jeysie 00:44, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah I didn't look very hard (alcohol is a helluva thing), the link was what I went for. Obviously someone over there screwed up. You got a problem with it Cattleprod, kiss my shiny, metal ass.--AWT88 01:29, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Text Purging

Next possible round of changes: I've tweaked my setup to remove the Categories module (is it really that useful?) and try to reduce/consolidate the Editing Tips/Holy Grails section.

I also think we should do a purge of the Series box and stick to just the "major" series/franchises: Generation 1, Generation 2, Beast Wars, Robots in Disguise, Armada, Energon, Cybertron, Animated, the two movies, and Universe. (Possibly also Classics and/or Beast Machines). We have the comprehensive list linked to for anyone who really wants to look at everything. --Jeysie 19:52, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

The categories box is useful for two reasons: (1) In and of itself, it's useful. I certainly use it. (2) Without it, your mockup has an empty white space in the right column almost the exact size and shape of the categories box... - SanityOrMadness 20:49, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

I further note that, per Derik's statdump, it gets used. - SanityOrMadness 20:53, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, if you can suggest other ways to clean up our Main Page, I'm all for it. As it is, I agree with Walky that it's getting to be too much of a sea of text, and that struck me as being one of the least useful of the modules. I guess we could consolidate it somehow with the Continuities module as a sort of "Quick Links" box...

We possibly could also get rid of the Editing Tips and Holy Grail modules, but I kind of hate doing that, as it's nice to try to encourage new editors to look at that sort of information. --Jeysie 21:02, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Thing is, if I click on the first link in the Categories box because I want to find a particular character, I get a big confusing list of subcategories and... Mickey Mouse. If I'm a casual user looking for,say, Soundwave, that doesn't help me much, because then I have to hunt through the subcategories for something that looks like it might lead me there. Yes, it's possible that I might notice the search box and use that instead, but that kinda takes away from the point of having that there in the first place.

Though technically I guess I'm complaining about the organisation of the Characters category rather than the box itself. :) --abates 21:20, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Jokes?

It is sometimes very hard to find relevant information on this wiki among all the juvenile humor. It's a little off-putting for a casual user like myself. I know this wiki is about robots who turn into cars, but, c'mon... Maybe tone it down a bit?71.107.102.102 16:56, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

No. Hooper_X 17:00, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

If you can point out specific instances where the humor is getting in the way of the information, we'll take those under consideration for adjusting, but on the whole we here tend to appreciate the humor. (Including this editor back when she was a newbie/casual reader.) --Jeysie 17:04, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

As does the overwhelming majority of the readership, it seems. We've gotten praise from all circles for the "do not take it too seriously" approach, even from industry professionals. --M Sipher 15:22, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Tech Upgrades

Since we're cracking 1.5 million hits per day, I'm running an alternate webserver for testing over on port 8080. It's *not* cached, so I expect it to be a smidge slower, but I'm also aggressively tweaking it for better content compression and lower memory usage. It probably doesn't matter *now,* but I suspect that as we close in on the movie, and then as the movie is released and the edits go up, we're going to need to squeeze out every last ounce of performance available to us. That said, can you guys try to break it via logging in/out, editing articles, etc.? It's all on the same database, so any changes made there WILL show up here (and vice versa,) but my major concern is that we don't have those damned login session problems and their ilk going forward. Thanks! --McFly 11:05, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

So... an "editing copy" on one server, and a cached copy on another? Because 99% of TFWiki readers aren't editors? -Derik 11:53, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Let's not overcomplicate it. Test on the new link, the software driving that will replace the existing (more resource intensive) software if it's any good. At this point, I want to find out if there are any bugs, and that's that. --McFly 16:38, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

I got a 405 error when I tried to upload an image on there, but otherwise it seems to be working great. --abates 20:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

"Wikia wiki" boilerplate

Between FortMax, Skyjammer and myself, I believe all instances of "Teletraan-I a wikia wiki" etc have been removed from our webpages. Huzzah! Hopefully that will help our Google stats and suchlike, unless I am mis-remembering how those things work... --Monzo 18:31, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

• thumbsup!* --FFN 07:28, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

Special:Imagelist

Is there any way to strip out the deleted images from Special:Imagelist? It's kinda useless as things stand. - SanityOrMadness 20:11, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Anonymous users

Right, the movie goes wide-release in the UK on Friday (I think there may be some previews on Thursday). Thinking about the chaos that may result [and noting that Memory Alpha - much to Wikia's displeasure - disabled ALL editing between the first opening of Star Trek and its' wide release in the US.]... I think we should give serious consideration to disabling anonymous editing from at least the 18th to the 26th of June.

Thoughts? Objections? Flames? - SanityOrMadness 22:26, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

I've been advocating that for over a month. It's the same thing we did with Animated: material is blocked for anons until it comes out in America. --Thylacine 2000 22:51, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

I wasn't talking about blocking specific pages, though (in the way a load of Animated pages were semi-protected) - just a blanket ban on anonymous editing until at least the 26th (and I would prefer a week or two beyond that). - SanityOrMadness 22:57, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

I'd much prefer if it wasn't a total block. Block anons on all the movie char character articles, etc. -Derik 23:02, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Block until a week after the movie's released in the States, namely the chara articles and the film page itself (who knows what poor soul will "unknowingly" put in spoilerific in the synopsis/trivia/notes/what-have-you). It's already difficult enough with the adaptation... --Lonegamer78 23:06, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm not just worried about spoilers, but about the casual vandalism associated with a sudden & short-lived spike in visitor numbers, which probably wouldn't be limited to the movie pages. - SanityOrMadness 23:10, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

If we do so, should we have a site-wide message like Memory Alpha? --FFN 02:08, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

At least I know we can use MediaWiki:Sitenotice, I'm not sure whether there is any other similar message. --TX55^TALK 07:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Wow, some serious US-centric bias being spouted. If you don't want spoiled, then don't visit. It's now well established internet etiquette to avoid forums about a week before a film's release. Same should apply here. Or..... wait til the DVD is released before unlocking movie edits, just in case you're stuck in Outer Mongolia at the time of the cinema release. Anonymous editing should be blocked, if only to stop the inevitable trolling and vandalism. 82.7.126.27 14:07, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Er, no. For one, the 24th is the world premiere, meaning the vast majority of countries are getting it on that date, not just the US.

For two, we need to be able to monitor all edits made to ROTF articles to make sure they're accurate and factual, and we can't do that if most of the wiki's regular editors haven't even seen the movie.

So this has less to do with spoilers, and more with the entirely practical aim of being able to keep tabs on all ROTF edits effectively. --Jeysie 14:19, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Gosh, thanks, I'll take your advice under consideration.... wait, no, I really won't. If you have a problem with "U.S.-centric bias," you are in the wrong place: this is openly stated as a U.S.-centric wiki. We blocked anonymous edits to the new Animated episodes that for some damnfool reason were aired first in Dubai, until they were uploaded online for everyone to see. Our U.S.-based editors shouldn't have to stop working on a website that, to a large extent, they created, just out of fear that some collection of I.P. numbers will thoughtlessly spoil the movie for them. Better to just anon-protect all the movie-related pages until after all the major markets have had their premieres. --Thylacine 2000 15:12, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

My vote is for blocking all anons from the movie-related pages for at least one week after the world premier, maybe two. I would not be opposed to a site-wide block, however. I really have no interest in cleaning up after a flood of one-timers and trolls and crap. -- Repowers 15:23, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Hey, I'm all for the lockage. But to stop the wave of trolls that will come. Not because Americans seem to think they have the <insert deity>-given right to subjugate the free speech of others who have the rare opportuity to experience something before the Americans do. That hardly ever happens. America gets everything first; cars, movies, fat, gadgets, first dibs on invasion etc. Thankfully they don't get irony first.82.7.126.27 15:38, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Did you even read the post where I pointed out the vast majority of TF fans, both US and non-US, won't be seeing the movie before the 24th, because the vast majority of countries in general aren't getting it until the 24th?

Basically, all TF fans not in the UK and Japan aren't going to be getting to see the movie before the 24th. It's not as if we're making editing wait because everyone else is getting the movie early and the US is the only country that isn't.

All of our Canadian, Australian, non-UK European, non-Japan Asian, etc. editors are likely equally glad we're waiting. Maybe you should stop and actually think before you go off spouting jerkass strawman accusations. --Jeysie 15:46, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Are you intentionally aiming for self-parody, or did you actually seriously just try to frame your potentially being locked out of our privately-run, privately-financed web site about giant alien space robots for a few days as a freedom of speech issue? 'Cause that right there is some serious comedy gold, sir. -- Repowers 15:54, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm afraid there are no Internet Oscars for maudlin self-victimization, otherwise you'd be a shoo-in. Here we only talk about Transformers. You are free to start doing that any old time. --Thylacine 2000 15:55, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Hahaha, did he just equate being able to post to a wiki about cartoon robots for a few days... to the right to free speech? Man, and I thought education was bad over HERE! --ItsWalky 21:03, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

One derailment later...

So, then, back on the subject... I still think we should do it. Mr Anon isn't making me think less of it as an idea. And yes, a MediaWiki:Sitenotice would be essential. - SanityOrMadness 21:33, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

So, we're all for blocking anons for a week after the 24th? --Lonegamer78 00:31, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

They're gonna get pissy, but sounds good to me. But what about the editors who can't log in, is that still a problem?--AWT88 09:52, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Most likely. --FFN 12:48, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Which editors who can't log in? The problem with IE users not being able to log in was fixed when McFly fixed all the other problems on the site. I haven't heard of any reports of anyone else having the problem... --abates 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

It's not a case of being technically unable to log in. Its a case of NOT DESIRING to log in because people are at work or at school or where there are shared computers. When I was at school, I certainly didn't want to log in, and a few other people felt the same way. --FFN 04:09, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Ah! Of course. --abates 04:46, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

"Transformers Comic"

Okay, I've got three issues at present with the titling treatment of the Titan Movie comics:

1. Ambiguity - if you look at, say, Transformers Comic issue 9, there's at least three Transformers #9s with no subtitle - Marvel G1 US #9, Marvel G1 UK #9, and Titan Movie #9; and currently the only one at "Transformers Comic issue 9" is the Titan Movie issue
2. DO we go by issue, or by story? - We're all over the shop on this:
   • The Marvel US issues are all at the story titles, but these pages incorporate any "Transformers Universe" bio material
   • The Marvel UK issues almost all have multiple stories or parts of stories, and I think there may even be some issues with multiple UK-originated/non-reprint stories, and each story is at its' own page, which incorporates multiple issues (e.g., Time Wars), leaving aside editorial and other non-story material.
   • The Marvel G2 issues almost all have backups, sometimes nominal, sometimes not, and they're all at the title of the lead/non-"Tales of Earth" story (e.g. New Dawn).
   • The first Panini Armada issue is at the story title (First Encounter!), while the rest are at "Panini Armada issue X" (e.g., Panini Armada issue 2).
   • The IDW issues are at the issue title even where the issue is split into multiple, titled. stories (e.g. The Arrival issue 4)
3. The actual title of the Titan Movie issues - Titan Movie v1 #22-25 are actually titled Transformers: Universe #22-25 (mostly in reflection of it absorbing the cancelled Animated comic), but are still at "Transformers Comic issue XX"; while v2, titled Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen #XX, is at the truly bizarre "Transformers Comic 2.XX". Really, just because the letters page said 2.x once, rather than "Revenge of the Fallen (Titan) issue X", which is what's on the cover?

What are we doing with this? - SanityOrMadness 21:17, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

As I've said before, I do NOT favor consistency here. A one-size-fits-all approach will inevitably fail to encompass the widely variable situations with various comic series.

The Marvel US book are under the story titles because, for all intents and purposes, the story and the issue are one and the same. Likewise for most of Dreamwave's G1 run. Sure, we could move 'em all to "The Transformers issue 2 (Marvel US)", but what do we gain? How is this any better than "Power Play!"? What is the benefit? Mere consistency is insufficient reason.

This is much, much less true with the UK comic, where stories were broken into two and even three parts, and multiple stories shared page space in the same issue. Now, I've heard rumblings to the effect that each UK issue should have its own page, and there's merit to that, insofar as each issue's contents are a mixed bag - minicomics, letters pages, and pieces and parts of various stories. It might make sense to have a page for each issue, basically a list of its contents, with See main article links to the entire story -- so, say, UK #88, #89, #90, or whatever, all link to a single page for "Target: 2006".

With G2, it absolutely makes complete sense to combine the two stories. The "backup" strips are such in name only; they are absolutely integral to the main strip, and neither can be read without the other. Separating "Tales of Earth" bits into their own pages is only going to confuse things and make them less informative. Furthermore, the main strip clearly is the MAIN strip. It makes sense to cover the whole story under that strip's title. Our current system for G2 acknowledges this, while still distinguishing between the contents of each section. The alternative is to move each page to "Generation 2 issue 2" or whatever... and I don't see what we gain by doing this.

The Titan comics should be moved to whatever the cover and indicia call them. If they're just Transformers or something equally generic, well, that's what parenthetical disambigs are for. Likewise for the ROTF reboot. A simple (Titan) should cover the bases well enough, yes?

A recent trend has been issues with 2 discreet stories, such as the Animated books you mention. I've long been in favor of having a single page for the issue for such books, with See main article links to the individual stories within them - so "Animated: The Arrival issue 2" would be a list of stuff, with two prominent links within to pages about the two stories it contains. Still, I can understand if people see that as unnecessarily messy -- so long as they can agree that, since the stories are pretty much co-equal, it would make no sense at all to give one or the other naming precedence.

So, that's my take. Case-by-case basis FTW, baby. -- Repowers 21:43, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Also, to address item #1 specifically... if we do stick with "Transformers" as the title, there should be a disambig note for Transformers at the top. Unless "Comic" is in the title, it shouldn't be in there. I'm thinking the article names should be "Transformers issue 1 (Titan)", etc., with the parenthetical at the end of the page title, rather than the middle.

These books generally have stories from different continuities, don't they? That's a point in favor of separating the story content out from the containing issue. -- Repowers 11:19, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Personally I've been using "Comic issue" because that's what the pages were before I started adding to the wikli, and "issue 2." stuck with the former way of numbering things (and was easier to type...). If naming them after the title (so from #22 it's Transformers Universe or Transformers ROTF etc) would make more sense, I'd be happy to go with that.

As for whether or not to have specific issue or story pages, I'd say if we're going to have individual pages for each issue of IDW and Dreamwave miniseries (not to mention multi-parters in the cartoons), it wouldn't make sense not to for Titan. There's already a precedent that if we do this for post-Marvel comics. -- Charles RB 20:25, 19 June 2009 (GMT)

Non-movie (Movie) characters vs. movie (ROTF) characters with the same name

Anyone else think we should, at the very least, have {{disambig2}}s on pages like Jetfire (Movie) and Mudflap (Movie) to the ROTF characters of the same name? Yes, I realise users could go via the disambig page, but I see it as making things simpler & easier for newbies, and in that scenario one click is always better than two. - SanityOrMadness 22:20, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

I think I'd cautiously support adding a {{disambig2}} for characters of the same name within the same continuity if there seems like a good chance for confusion. I'd oppose imposing it as an across-the-board standard though. (You're nto suggesting that though.) -Derik 22:23, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

I oppose it on the principle that multiple disambig templates on a page is ugly. —Interrobang 22:47, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Ugly, and you can get to where you need to go through the disambig. --ItsWalky 22:48, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Here's the thing though - is it intiutive for a complete newbie, who came in via ROTF, to see "Optimus Prime (Movie)", "Bumblebee (Movie)" and "Megatron (Movie)" and not immediately conclude that the Jetfire article will be at "Jetfire (Movie)", rather than some incredibly obscure card-puzzle that even we don't have a final picture for?

Hell, even take it a step up from "complete newbie" to someone who sat through Beast Wars/Machines or Armada/Energon/Cybertron, where characters changed bodies between series so that they had very little resemblance to their prior selves (in the UT's case, without any explanation). Those guys might assume that "Mudflap (Movie)" *is* Skids' twin even if he bears no resemblance to him. And it was a guy making that exact mistake and getting reverted by you last night that caused me to post this.

I really think a BIG, prominent link DIRECTLY from the obscure (Movie) character to the prominent (ROTF) character is required. - SanityOrMadness 20:26, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

As long as there's a link to the same-universe namesake in the intro, I see no need for an additional disambig template. - Jackpot 01:21, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

And on that note, I added just such a line for Mudflap (Movie). It seemed especially appropriate for him, since he's an Autobot wannabe who precedes an actual Autobot of the same name. That having been said, though, I don't dislike the Template:disambigrotf template you cooked up, Sanity. It's a little unwieldy, but it's probably as succinct as such a thing could ever be. - Jackpot 00:46, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I did the same for Jolt, who had the wal-mart version for the first movie and it was deleted... I was told "that's what disambig is for." Cliffjumper prime 01:12, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, I'm generally in favor of intro-links because they allow for a bit more elaboration. If it's just a disambig, then we're presenting the characters as though they are definitively separate individuals with no connection to each other, even though in most cases there's just too little evidence to say one way or t'other. The absence of information is, itself, noteworthy. - Jackpot 02:57, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I favour user-friendliness over concerns about how ugly or pretty it makes things look. I think those of you arguing about how ugly it makes things look and disambig3 doing the job are working under the assumption readers are fairly knowledgeable about how this wiki operates. I find that attitude to be rather unhelpful and presumptive. --FFN 04:13, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Indeed. I still have a problem with not redirecting Optimus Prime (Energon)->Optimus Prime (Armada), Optimus Primal (BW)->Optimus Primal, Optimus Prime (ROTF)->Optimus Prime (Movie), etc. It seems almost wilfully inconsistent to not have an equivalent parenthetical available for every character in a series to aid in newbies' browsing & editing. - SanityOrMadness 09:01, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I don't like the expanded ROTF disambig box. I like how Charles RB did it on the Sideswipe (Movie) page. A little tack-on to the continuity note. Although in Sideswipe's case I think the pages could actually be merged. - Starfield 10:11, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

As opposed to assuming that every reader is retarded and can't figure out Jetfire (Movie) is not the same character as Jetfire (ROTF)? —Interrobang 13:43, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Go look at pictures of the UT Hot Shots and get back to us (NB: First example which leapt to mind, but by no means the only one).

It's not as if there isn't precedent for stuff without any real resemblance to each other to be randomly declared the "same character" in Transformers. Especially since "Jetfire (Movie)" is no character at all - SanityOrMadness 14:32, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Why on god's green earth would someone look at a page called "Jetfire (Movie)" and assume that they have NOT found Jetfire from the live-action movie series? Why would the expected, logical, inevitable response be, hey, there must be another guy by the exact same name in the movie series! ? That's like, the exact opposite of retarded. It's unretarded. It's logical. The truth of the matter, that there's two guys in the same continuity with the exact same name, doesn't make a damn lick of sense.

Assumption of prior knowledge is a rampant problem in this fandom. Around here we're supposed to be smarter than that, though! We should be able to step back from our microscopic inspection of things and say, "Hey, this whole deal really is retarded. Let's clarify it." Thus I am heavily in favor of liberal disambiguation. Not only does it make things clearer for the reader, it also increases the chances of the reader working their way into the obscure backwaters of the site -- which is what we want, is it not? If it makes the page look "ugly", well, that's OUR problem, isn't it? Why should the reader experience suffer because of a shortcoming on our end? Maybe we need to expand our diambiguation template options, instead of rejecting the notion on aesthetic grounds. -- Repowers 16:14, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I'd agree with not keeping this in the disambig. Though I see pages that had it outside the disambig section have been edited, so I presume it's now the policy to keep the information there? -- Charles RB 00:56, 20 June 2009 (GMT)

Well said. I agree without reservation.

And on that note, I'd not only like to see more liberal redirecting (really, if "Optimus Prime" appears in Energon there is no way on Xal's green Earth there shouldn't be a valid Optimus Prime (Energon) page, even if it's just a redirect), but ALSO a general desnarking of mainpics (not captions, the actual pictures themselves) - stuff like the "self portrait" on Grimlock (G1) or the Cyber-Slammers pic on Brawl (Movie) (why... I mean WHY?!) only - and I quote from {{desnark}} - "interfer[es] with the delivery of information on th[e] page." Have the pics on the page, sure, but NOT as a mainpic. - SanityOrMadness 17:49, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

That Cyber-Slammers pic will be removed over my fucking dead body. --ItsWalky 17:57, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Why?

No, really, why? The jokiness is stated, in an official policy, as being all right as long as it doesn't replace something more useful. The whole point of a main pic is that it's the ur-version of a character, the single most representative version. If you need a pic of the character to show off how it would look in most people's minds, it would be a strong candidate if not a shoe-in.

Other than you, WHO THE HELL WOULD THINK OF THE CYBER-SLAMMER FIRST?! - SanityOrMadness 18:22, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I don't see why the Cyber-Slammer image is anti-information. It's a perfectly good image of Brawl/Devastator! Just not one that you particularly like. And it's not just me. It's not like I put the image there! The only people I've ever seen speak out against the image are you and random anons. So there. --ItsWalky 19:24, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

The only problem I see with spare diambigs like "Optimus Prime (Energon)" is that if you're typing in "Optimus Pr" into the Search box, a list of "Optimus Pr*" pages is gonna come up. It's already a long list, limited by our software to 8 results. With the extra disambigs, potentially useful results might scroll off the list entirely.

As for the images... eh. We're not *that* rampant with the jokey images. More importantly, you can scroll down Grimlock's page and quickly see lots of pictures of him across various media. The main pic isn't significantly inhibiting the flow of information, IMO. For Brawl... we *could* use a few more full-body shots of him near the top of the page, last time I checked at least. -- 99.151.96.72 18:11, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Redirects are automatically flagged in several ways by the software - is there really no way to either exclude them from the search suggestions, or (preferably) just throw them to the bottom of the pile?

Yes, but every time I've suggested doing just that instead of the zealous (overzealous, IMO) purging of redirects, someone comes up with like 3 examples where "we really want this redirect to show up." And those 3 examples somehow outweigh the 3000 links you don't want in the search suggestion box. -Derik 20:26, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

And no, we're not "that rampant" - all the more reason that we shouldn't be doing it at all. Like I say, the whole point of a main pic is to show the single most identifable version of the character in one shot. The two examples I mentioned (I'm sure I could find more, but those are the two which stick in my head) are completely the opposite - a kid's-scrawl "self-portrait" from an obscure 5-page B&W Marvel UK backup, and a version of a character that barely resembles the movie/fiction model. - SanityOrMadness 18:22, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

WHERE WILL SOMEONE FIND A PICTURE OF GRIMLOCK IF NOT AT THE TOP OF THE TFWIKI ARTICLE?! -LV 20:09, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I withdraw my "ugly" comment now that we have the disambiguations melded into a single table. I just didn't want a tower of them. I see no reason for not doing it this way we're doing it now. --ItsWalky 16:29, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

"Wanted Pages" clean-up

The Wanted Pages list is cluttered with links to pages that... aren't wanted at all. There's a big chunk of that list that are actually just links from discussions, along the lines of: "I don't know if this is the right name for this page. How about we name it 'Alternate name 1' or 'Alternate name 2'?". There are also quite a few links that come from userpages, that do nothing but clutter up the list; "My favourite tv shows beside transformers are 'Beavis and Butthead' and 'Batman'."

All these unnecessary links make the Wanted Pages hard to navigate through at times... Creating pages that appear on that list is the main way I contribute to this wiki, but it's getting harder to do so when half the links I find there aren't necessary. However, it felt quite rude to just go into someone's userpage and edit what they had written about themselves, or change other people's words in a discussion. Would it be ok to actually go through these pages and tweak them a bit? Like just killing the links themselves? Or for something along the lines of the user's page, just changing the links to an outside site, such as Wikipedia?

Additionally, it'd be nice to encourage people not to create random links like this all the time... I'm sure if you put quotation marks around your suggested link name, people will understand thats a link you're suggesting, you don't actually have to create a link that goes nowhere. Any opinions? --Ascendron 14:50, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Bluestreak7's been doing this sort of thing already, so I don't see why it'd be a big deal.

If you're worried about userpages, and you see the person's still an active editor after checking their contributions, you can always just leave them a quickie note about the matter on their talk page. (If the person hasn't edited in a long time, I'd say just go for the change yourself.)

Plus, there's no particular reason why you'd need to actually change a person's words: you can either just remove the link, or create a piped link to the correct link, whichever is more appropriate.

Also useful would be going through and fixing any links that are spelling errors or alternate ways of linking to an already existing page or already "wanted" page. I try to do that myself from time to time, but they're not always easy to catch, especially if they're for people/things I'm not familiar with. --Jeysie 15:22, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Heh, I had no idea that my pet project had got any notice. One thing I have noticed is there is a good percentage of "wanted pages" that come from talk pages. Many times when editors are figuring out how to name the particular page they actually wiki-link to multiple choices. It would be nice just to put them in quotes or such. I think we'll all understand what it means when discussing possible titles. I'm hesitant in modifying these talk pages until we come up with some sort of standard. However, I'm not hesitant in removing dead links from user pages. Many users are now unregistered since the bookworm crash. All those are fair game in my opinion to remove any links. In the past few weeks we've gone from more at least 4866 to less than 4500. That's a good start. --Bluestreak7 22:32, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Doctor Braxis/Doctor B

Withered Hope has a redlink for the Go-Bots Dr. Braxis character, but apparently he is only identified in the actual story as "Dr. B." Two questions:

1) If I start the article, should it be as "Doctor Braxis" (what we know is his real name, and what the redlink already points to) or "Doctor B" (which, technically, is all he's called in TF fiction)? (such as Nick Fury vs. 'Nicholas')

2) How much non-TF info on the doc would be appropriate to include in said article? Especially as there's no GoBots wiki as there is for, say, Marvel, Star Wars, or Godzilla that I could provide an external link for...

I know that when it comes to crossover stuff, most every Wiki has their own policy on handling it, so I just wanted to check. Thanks in advance! Thanos6 04:54, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

I'd create it at "Doctor B". Then give the "Fiction" section that explains his role in Withered Hope. Then a "Trivia" or "Real world' or some such section that explains "This guy is Doctor Braxis, he was a bad guy from Go-Bots." I'd say err on the side of too much info and then we can edit it down. Hooper_X 09:09, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

OK, here's the first version of the article. Doctor B. Thoughts? Thanos6 05:55, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

I've done a bit of formatting. I have to wonder if we shouldn't just be treating the GoBots show as another branch of TF fiction. Hasbro owns the whole lot now, don't they? --abates 06:19, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

Proposal: Reorganizing movie character pages?

The general arrangement of the fiction sections for the movie character pages has... not annoyed me, per se, but made the back of my brain itch for a little while now. They take an approach of trying to present all the events that happen to a character in a chronological order, which is a laudible goal, and an approach taken in many, if not most other pages of the wiki, and one that in those other situations, I generally advocate. However, becuase there are so many different pieces of ancillary media for the movie, which take place before, during, after and aaaalll around the movie and each other, they're getting very muddled. The "Titan" seciton is often placed before the section for the first movie, since it begins in the past... but then has to summarize events, including its alternate timeline, which take place after the movie... before the movie's event have been related in the article. You follow me? Further, I feel that this approach tends to create the appearance of one cohesive timeline, and we all know that's just not true - there are innumerable discrepancies between the movie and the ancillary media, and - avoiding any spoilers - ROTF is one of the worst examples of key parts of the movie's backstory conflicting wildly with what the ancillary media has said. So, I think that a more divisive, clinical approach is necessary, and I've quickly knocked up this.

I think that the movies should be the first thing on the page, just there, on their own. They are the core of this universe and its characters - they are the pieces of fiction around which all the others are written. Everything takes the movies as its starting point and works backwards or forwards from there. Making them the first thing on the pages frees us up to more freely explore past and future depicted in other media. Also, I'm in favour of just making sub-sections for "IDW continuity" (again, the discrepancy between what the IDW comics have shown and what is actually in the ROTF movie is prompting this line of thought), and describing the eventts of all of its comics in one, long section, rather than splitting in two like we had it before, is preferable. As a follow-on from this, Titan gets its own section, with a sub-section (a la "Marvel UK future timelines") for its alt. universe, rather than just a note, making the division between the stories a lot clearer. Also, it removes the need for odd notes like the one on Scorponok's page which has to mention that he only dies in the Titan comics and nowhere else - now, it should be obvious, because the continuity has been isolated instead of interspersed with all the others. The prequel novels are about the only thing I'm not sure on - I haven't actually read them, so I don't feel capable of making a decision, and have just put them under their own heading like this for now (after the movie, but before the comics since surely, more ordinary people on the street have read the books than the comics?). Could they potentially just be put under the "Movies" header, around the movies themselves, or do they feature any major conflicts?

Right, then. Thoughts? - Chris McFeely 09:06, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

I agree. How does Wookiepedia arrange all that ancilliary stuff I wonder? Drmick 09:15, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

As the person who has been doing the most work on the movie articles on this wiki: I am not really enthused with the idea of rearranging the articles and re-learning how to deal with them. A few months ago, I determined the layout of the fiction sections (with the exception of the Titan stuff) on the assumption it is in one rough continuity (continuity errors and contradictions and all), and nobody objected, probably because nobody cared very much about movie fiction at the time. In my mind, if you ignore the Titan section, from start to finish, it reads reasonably well. May I suggest we just fence off Furman's Crackpot Titan Continuity? --FFN 10:11, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

FWIW, I don't think the IDW Prequel comics from the first movie are supposed to be in-continuity with RoS/Destiny. (Or at least, I don't think Mowry used them as references, just the scripts for the movies, so if it all matches up it's kind of coincidental.) --Jeysie 10:28, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

IDW has stumbled over its own prequel material continuity twice, which is not encouraging. The Planetfall story contradicted the first prequel which established the Decepticons landing in America, and then The Reign of Starscream contradicted Planetfall by showing Starscream's crew getting to Mars via starship, not by transition form. --FFN 10:37, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

I remember at some point saying, verrrrrry explicitly, that there will be errors and contradictions and inconsistencies and multiple timelines in the Movie fiction -- I believe it was back when someone or other was arguing in favor of integrating Reign of Starscream et. al into the main movie summaries, and italicizing them like we do with the UK comics. It seemed like a bad idea then. Sounds like a bad idea now. Sorry if my protestations weren't fervent enough to register at the time.

In general, our approach is and should be to divide up a character's appearances by media source. There are exceptions to this rule (UK comics, Animated comics), but they should always be approached with caution. I don't think the multi-timeline-spawning film series is a good candidate for this approach. Derrick Wyatt knew what was going on with Animated, but I doubt that Michael Bay really gives a crap about Alliance or whatever else. -- Repowers 10:44, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

That's not really the issue, though, Rob. We already do have the fiction broken up by media source - I'm just advocating a rearrangement of the order in which that fiction is laid out in articles, to make the individual, splintering "continuities" a bit more individual. Really, I'm not expecting a conclusion right away - I'm raising this now so we can get a bit of discussion going before ROTF hits in the US. Because I gotta say, I think the sheer failure of the IDW ROTF prequel stuff to line up with any of the backstory in the film will help convince folks that this is a good reason to go down this road, but it will require you Yanks (and Aussies!) to see the film to decide first! - Chris McFeely 10:51, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

It boils down to... when reading RoS and Destiny, you're supposed to treat the movies as part of those comics' timeline, as they're intended to fit, not be deliberately AU like the Titan stories apparently are. Hasbro had certain elements be changed because they would clash with the movies, and so on, so there was at least some attempt to make it somehow fit together. The Movies are an integral part of the RoS/Destiny continuity.

However, apparently the converse isn't necessarily true: the movies may not treat RoS/Destiny as part of their timeline.

So... *shrug* Structure that as you will. And the IDW Prequel comics are off doing their own equally separate thing regardless. --Jeysie 11:00, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Don't forget about prequel novels. I prefer FFN's proposal but I would definitely mix in The Veiled Threat fiction as happening near the end of Alliance. IDW+films seem to make up the backbone of the continuity, but maybe that isn't fair to the Titan comic. To be honest, from what I've heard, I'm prepared to treat the ROTF film as a micro-continuity, at least for my own fanon purposes. The adaptations seem to match the prequel material fairly well. - Starfield 11:43, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Something to consider - the fact that The Veiled Threat, a novel from a writer(s) and a publisher who has nothing to do with IDW Publishing has taken pains to ensure it fits (more or less) within the continuity of The Reign of Starscream and Alliance suggest that somebody, somewhere, most likely Hasbro, wants us to consider the prequel material (excluding Furman's Alternate Universe stuff) as one single continuity, and to address contradictions and continuity errors as we come across them. That's my view of the movie articles and how we should do them. Without the prequel stuff, you'd just get several fenced off sections where "Stuff just happens", and that's why off-screen material exists, to explain or expand upon things that cannot fit into the movie or episode because they're too complex or too geeky for the audience. This wiki exists to tell people what happened off screen or why Bay's movies are so incoherent, and the way I see it, if we fence off Furman's UK alt-universe stuff, it more or less fits in together, and you get a decent story out of it. Sorry to ramble. --FFN 23:56, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Here's the simple answer-- document the movie as it's own thing, and in the IDW section, use the IDW movie adaption as a stand-in for the movie, with all the retcons, mucked-up timelines, etc. Best of both worlds. -Derik 00:41, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

I meant leaving the damn articles as they are, except for fencing off Furman's stuff. I'm not about to track down those adaptation comics to (essentially) tell an abbreviated version of the same story already detailed in the same articles. --FFN 06:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Representing the tfwiki at an IMAX premiere?

I've managed to get myself into an IMAX premiere or screening of Revenge of the Fallen tonight, and the promotors/Hasbro want to do a photo op/press thing with aussie fans. Should I like, hold up a sign that says "TFWIKI.NET THE TRANSFORMERS WIKI"? Or would that bring down unnecessary official scrutiny on us? --FFN 22:19, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, thanks for your advice, guys :/--FFN 23:01, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Do you have a "decaf" setting? --ItsWalky 23:18, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Well the promoter let us know at the very last minute so plans are rushed. I have to time manage this thing with the free time of other people I am probably going with. Because frankly, the only reason I'd want to do the photo thing for the promoter is to represent the wiki, and if I was given the go ahead by you, I would have endeavoured to turn up if at all possible. I hope you at least appreciated that dedication to the wiki. --FFN 23:25, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Oh, and another thing - we were invited due to our association with Ozformers, but instead of promoting Ozformers, I want to promote the tfwiki. --FFN 23:27, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Guess you know where your bread is buttered! --ItsWalky 23:34, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Hell, give of us a break, it hasn't even been an hour. I say do it, give us some representation, it might help us in the Google rankings and get us past the craptastic Wikia.--AWT88 23:05, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Not good enough, Jan. *folds arms* --FFN 23:14, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Doesn't Hasbro kind of know about us already, seeing as how they answer questions from us every other month and their licensees send us pics and stuff sometimes? It's not like they're not scrutinizing us already if they're gonna. --Jeysie 23:10, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Now I gotta make a sign... --FFN 23:14, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Try the Universal Greeting Dance. They'll reciprocate. -Derik 23:32, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Or they'll try to eat you! --ItsWalky 23:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Is our motto "Transformers is Serious Business"? Or am I associating Shortpacked!'s motto? --FFN 23:44, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

"Toys are serious business" is a Shortpacked! thing. I don't think the Wiki has a motto. The one on the Twitter feed is "We know more about Transformers than you." --ItsWalky 23:51, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

That sounds a bit confrontational, though, like people may not realise we aren't being aggressive or jerkish. Hasbro AU and Eric Siebenaler thought it was funny when I interrupted somebody complaining about Robot Heroes and Mighty Muggs by saying "Transformers is Serious Business". --FFN 00:08, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Considering how many TF creators use us as a reference as of late, I feel like it ought to be "We know about Transformers so you don't have to."

But I have to agree that something like "Transformers is serious business, yo." would make for an amusing sign blurb. --Jeysie 00:37, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

"Transformers are serious business" is thrown around as a joke a lot, but I don't think it's actually our motto.

• TFWiki.net: We know more about Transformers than you want to.
• TFWiki.net: Cooler than Star Trek, not as cool as Star Wars
• TFWiki.net: Great, there go 4 hours of my life
• TFWiki.net: Nerdgasm Evolved
• TFWiki.net^[1]

[1] amusing footnote

• Transformerology: Finally, a degree you can use in real life.
• TFWiki.net: serious intellectual debate about transforming space robots
• TFWiki.net: Disambiguiously Gay
• TFWiki.net: A Gold Standard of Geekdom
• TFWiki.net: Amazing and Kinda Scary

-Derik 00:44, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I've chosen the serious intellectual debate and we know more about TFs than you want to, as it fits my sense of humour. I'd do more signs, but I am the only TFWiki guy there, so two signs is already pushing it, and there's every chance they'll just crop the sign out or tell me to put it away. Cheers, guys. --FFN 00:58, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Incidentally, I love "serious intellectual debate about transforming space robots." Also:

• "TFWiki.net: Remember that one guy? He was so cool!"
• "TFWiki.net: We remember who Groundshaker was, so you don't have to." (alternately: "TFWiki.net: Who the hell is that!?")
• "TFWiki.net: Come for the information, stay for the inevitable flamewar about funny captions."
• "TFWiki.net: Unhealthily fixated since 2006."
• "TFWiki.net: Because you're just dying to know what they called Thundercracker in Hungary." Hooper_X 07:41, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I just got back. I have no idea if the sign got into pics or not. However, I am pleased this discussion spurred creative ideas in potential official slogans for the wiki. --FFN 09:16, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

"Come for the information, stay for the funny." has a certain ring to it. As does "We remember who Groundshaker was, so you don't have to." Or "Revering and ruining your childhood all in one website." --Jeysie 11:33, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I agree with Walky: "TFWiki.net: Yeah, this makes no goddamn sense, but here it is." - Jackpot 00:04, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Meanwhile, in other promotional exploits...

I was interviewed this morning for the Fayettesville Observer. Soon North Carolina will know alllll about Shortpacked!, our wiki, and Starscream's French-Canadian name. --ItsWalky 13:11, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Totally read that as "Fattysville". Home of the BBQ Double Stackticon! - Chris McFeely 13:21, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

And here we go! Got all the "important" stuff right, though apparently User:LV is now sixty years old and bought a Camaro. --ItsWalky 12:25, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Huh. Not too far from where I live. I should see if some folks I know there can keep a copy. --M Sipher 16:07, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Ridiculous Transformers

The StreetLevel blog recently posted a list of the Top 10 Most Ridiculous Transformers, Ever.

It is very dumb. I want to counter with a better list.

Anyone have any suggestions? Legion and Pepsi Convoy are already a lock. -Derik 13:16, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

It hurts my braaaaaaaaain. (And don't forget there's a Megatron that transforms into a shoe.) --ItsWalky 13:18, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

And Esmeral. --ItsWalky 13:21, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Piano Transformer guy?

Is this just for ridiculous transformations? Are there any in-universe guys who are ridiculous?

...I'm so putting Drift on this list. -Derik 13:23, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Don't be that guy, man. You might as well start adding Nightscream and Wheelie. --ItsWalky 13:25, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

They have redeeming features. Drift is Poochie. "Designed-by-committie awesome" always looks ridiculous. He's not just a traitor or a samurai-- he's an albino-japanese-streetracer-taciturn-former-Decepticon-honorbound-samurai-ninja.

So then I hope you're putting Animated Prowl on that list, too! --ItsWalky 14:28, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Much less ridiculous than Drift. I am adding Break though. There are more ridiculous transformers, but "Penguin Antagonist Naruto" is easy to shorthand. -Derik 14:51, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I'll give him a fair shake and note he hasn't been that annoying in the fiction itself... but in concept he's clearly ridiculous. -Derik 13:28, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Looking at that list, I'm assuming that "ridiculous transformation" is the one major factor. I could nominate Signal Lancer and his friend Pay phone refugee on that criterion.

If we're going for the whole package, Misfire's gotta be on there somewhere. I have a big soft spot for the fellow, but there's no getting around a Con that can't shoot being ridiculous. Plus he's the only male TF I can think of off-hand that canonically has pink as his main color. --Jeysie 13:43, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Energon Wars Sky Lynx. He's pointlessly obscure, to boot! (And yes, definitely the Victory Decepti-wives.) Hooper_X 16:15, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Eh, their focus seems to be different than ours. They're internet hipsters mocking things you thought were cool when you were a kid (something that's in plentiful supply on the interwebs). They're not looking very deeply, and have constrained themselves to US G1 because that's all most people even remember exists. So it plays to their target audience, rather than people that actually pay attention to the brand.--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:35, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

True, but I've always been of the firm belief that if your parody doesn't focus what actually is wrong/stupid about the thing you're picking on, instead of just generic put-downs, you should step back and let someone who actually knows comedy do the writing. --Jeysie 13:43, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I don't have a problem with their targets being so generic... I just think the nits they picked were so... obvious. And not very accurate. (Apparently Blaster is inherently racist?)

Sky-Bite! Awesome and ridiculous. -Derik 13:47, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, yes, pretty much. Saying Megatron or Scorponok are ridiculous is kind of missing the mark. Especially when, as you say, there are TFs who are quite delicious in their actual ridiculousness.

I mean, now that I think about it, in addition to my nominations above, there's also Shortround, a toy-collecting dork of a Con with a hopeless crush on the "hot chick", who can also be mistransformed into looking like a toilet just to polish it all off. --Jeysie 14:04, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Heinrad is definitely up there with the most ridiculous, as are the Jointrons..but I'm sure you've already thought of them. -Mazenoise 14:19, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Much as I love the KP TFs, Glit's profile always makes me wonder why A.) he is a Decepticon and B.) how on Cybertron he's still alive. Gary Stu right there. Geewunling 14:49, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Dude. They used Wikia as their resource. Of course they, and their article, suck. Hooper_X 16:16, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

List is up, thanks for all the help guys! -Derik 22:21, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Consensus on the Allspark seems to be that your list has much better choices but needs more humor in the descriptions. --Jeysie 11:05, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Aww. I think the Wiki has ruined me with it's dryly informative style. -Derik 12:27, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

You just need practice in channeling copious amounts of sarcastic hyperbolic incredulity when chronicaling stuff that's ridiculous. --Jeysie 17:38, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Four hour downtime of June 24

So, was today's downtime caused by massive server backlog of people wanting to add info to Revenge of the Fallen, or did we just get another unforseen downtime again? -- SFH 17:23, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Probably the latter. We'd more likely get a shitload of visitors than a shitload of editors. --FFN 17:28, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

It was most assuredly the former. The server has not actually been down at all. --Suki Brits 23:53, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Wow, so we actually had would-be-contributor overload? Guess I'm gonna have to see the movie by this weekend or I won't be able to visit here at all w/o accidentally getting spoiled for every little thing before I get the chance to watch it. --Apcog 01:46, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Ouch, well, I didn't expect that. --FFN 04:39, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

If the problem was a flood of people trying to edit the movie articles, would locking some of them against unregistered users prevent a repeat of yesterday? Or is the flood likely to be over? --abates 07:17, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

It happened again today, at roughly the same time for almost the same period. Did anybody else experience this apparent downtime or is it just me? I tried to make a comment about it earlier, but it stopped loading again. --FFN 02:42, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

Yes, it did. McFly's been working on the problem. --abates 03:08, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

Ahh good. I thought it was only happening to me/I was going insane. --FFN 13:52, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Lag's been pretty bad today, though it appears to clear up now and then. (I'm taking advantage of an apparent lull right now to post this.) I guess we just have to be patient until McFly and/or Scout get a chance to do something substantial about it. Do we have any clearer idea of what it would take, both in terms of money and effort, to alleviate this sort of thing, at least?--Apcog 18:14, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

When I asked about upgrading to a more expensive hosting plan, McFly said that wouldn't help because we're not utilising the current server fully[2]. --abates 21:12, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, we are now, in that Apache (the web server) is fighting for resources against the database, and Apache is, to put it mildly, a fucking pig. I can spend days going on about how utterly broken Apache is, as it is effectively a wonderful Swiss Army Knife when all we need is a working goddamned X-Acto, but to make a long story short: We can either cache pages for anons (as we currently do by running Apache with Squid caching most of the content,) or we can process PHP code (that is, EVERY FREAKING PAGE) faster, without the benefit of caching, as every test with Squid in front of a lighter web server (nginx in our case, though lighttpd is similarly sparse on feedback) has resulted in Utter Goddamned Failure. To say that I'm at my wit's end is a bit of an understatement, though the bigger scare for me is trying to figure out what can be moved where in order to skirt around these problems entirely while staying within a reasonable budget. --McFly 23:15, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

I assume you don't mean now. According to the Google Trends data for Transformers... search volume for Transformers spiked at ~950% of "normal" on the opening weekend of "Transformers (2007)." We can expect them to drop back down to 'merely' twice normal within 5-6 weeks (maybe a 50% drop in the next 10-12 days) and long curve out from there. -Derik 00:06, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

...What in blazes are you getting at? What, precisely, does a spike in 2007 have to do with a server that was only brought online in mid-2009? This is an issue with the performance of the current server, which is utterly unrelated to ANY search volume OR traffic spikes in 2007, back when Wikia was doing the hosting for free, with many more servers, much more infrastructure overall, and more server-side staff. Of course, if you would like for us to start obscuring content with CSS-breaking ads of minimal relevance and relatively low conversion rate, I'm sure we can arrange that. "Normal" has nothing to do with *anything* that you're currently talking about, and everything to do with the stats of the current server, which has close to 2 million hits only halfway through TODAY. --McFly 12:16, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I think he's trying to say that 2007 could be used as a traffic predictor, McFly. As in traffic spiked by a similar amount then, and can probably be expected to return to "normal" levels at a similar rate. I don't think it's a commentary on Wikia's hosting practices at all, just as an indicator of "this is what a major motion picture does to the number of people looking for Transformers information."--Rosicrucian^Talk 12:42, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

That makes sense as a bit of analysis, but not in the context of the conversation. Alden quoted my claim that we weren't using the server fully. I updated with the fact that we *are* using it fully at this point, in that there are points in time where we are using up all but a few megabytes of RAM just trying to serve up pages. Derik attempted to correct with stats that are completely irrelevant to that situation. We already knew about the "why," and at this point, we're just assessing the damage in order to shore up the levees for next time. --McFly 12:58, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I was not attempting to correct your assessment of server stats-- I don't even have access to them.

You seemed to be suggesting some sort of major reconfiguration in order to handle these kinds of traffic levels and "skirt around these problems while staying within a reasonable budget."

I was just pointing out that our current traffic level was very temporary, tied to the movie, and presented a google search traffic chart as an illustration of the way the generalized interest in Transformers spiked around the 2007 movie, and showing that the 2009 movie was (so far) following the same patten, and our traffic would probably see a radical drop-off within the next few weeks.

So what I was asking is... "are you suggesting we do something to restructure now, or should we weather the problem for another 2 weeks, knowing that a 50% drop in traffic is probably coming and try to fix it when the server isn't vomiting everywhere?" I wanted to know if you were talkign about long-term changes we needed to make, or immediate-term ones.

I don't know where you got Wikia out of it. -Derik 18:24, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

So, upshot is that we're stuck like this for the foreseeable future, barring a major revelation from on high to you of a workable solution. Dang. Well, your effort's appreciated, regardless.--Apcog 01:40, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

"What in blazes are you getting at? What, precisely, does a spike in 2007 have to do with a server that was only brought online in mid-2009? This is an issue with the performance of the current server, which is utterly unrelated to ANY search volume OR traffic spikes" Wow. This quote is brilliant. Encapsulates a lot of......... real life and Transformers issues. Like a microcosm of the fandom, in a single quote. Drmick 13:03, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Admittedly, I was a bit... enthusiastic in my reaction. However, as noted in my response to Rosicrucian, feeding contextually irrelevant info doesn't really help out. It's not that we didn't know about the incoming spike, it's that we didn't know just what we'd need to throw at the problem. What we don't know about the two previous hosts (Wikia, then Bookworm) could fill a few bookshelves, and it's all of that info which we're stuck at digging up solely via trial and error. It's basically crash-testing a scratch-built car without any notes about how to set up crumplezones or airbags or seat belt tensioners.--McFly 13:34, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Can you still learn a lot from a dummy?--Apcog 13:44, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Well, we did buckle up. Problem is, the seat belts didn't retract fast enough, the airbag suffocated the driver, and the crumplezones failed, pushing the engine through our shins. On the upside, our prototype car has decent handling, acceptable acceleration, and it passed emissions testing! Now if we can just tackle those pesky side-impact explosions...--McFly 14:02, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

9000 articles

Not long now until we hit 5 figures! --abates 20:09, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Yep. :D So we've got...

• 8000th article: Ego on January 25th, 2009
• 9000th article: Michael York on June 28th, 2009

Whoo-hoo! --Jeysie 20:17, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Affiliate sites

Over at Template:External, I've been poking at the coding that flags certain external links. (It's been doing this in External Links sectiosn for months, and there was a discussion... somewhere... where we agreed that everyone was okay with these sites beign thus flagged.)

Here's my thing... if we consider these guys preferred content providers... we should reward them. I think we should disable rel=nofollow for these sites. (Something that makes our links to them not be 'counted' in search engines.)

Also-- I notice that rel=nofollow has been reset for Wookieepedia-- it had been off, part of our 'friends of' networking program. The setting probably got un-flagged in the software upgrade. We should fix that. -Derik 02:18, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Sounds good to me. We trust these sites, so it shouldn't be an issue if we unnofollow the links to them. --abates 03:05, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

While I'm thinking about it, we should also un-nofollow the links on Main Page to our status/twitter/facebook pages. I'm not sure how or where the whitelist is set, so I think that's probably a task for Suki Brits. --abates 21:40, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

And also we should do the same for the Cybertron Chonicle (cybertronchronicle.freewebspace.com) and RiD Forever (ridforever.info) on the G1 and RID cartoon pages, respectively. --abates 04:19, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Our tech-people being apparently busy, I'm going to point out that the mechanism for making this change is made in LocalSettings.php, and follows this basic format;

$wgNoFollowDomainExceptions = array( 'en.wikipedia.org', 'wiktionary.org' );

-Derik 09:51, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

I think only the tech people have access to change that file. --abates 20:44, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

Firefox 3.5

Firefox is launching it's first major upgrade in 18 months, and it sounds like there's signifigant under-the-hood reccoding to make it lighter and faster.

Please report any problems associated with the new version here. -Derik 15:09, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I've been using it since the beta. I've noticed no major issues with the site, and I've had it for months. The major under-the-hood stuff was related to javascript parsing, and our functions that depend on it (image description previews, faction symbol, etc.) seem to work just fine.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:13, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

The History javascript problem is still there, but I'm hoping it disappears when we upgrade MediaWiki. I dunno about lighter and faster, but Firefox no longer properly terminates when I close it. Grrr. --abates 18:13, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Size-scale references

someone is adding the scale size to a lot of the ROTF toys, and I was wondering A) if anyone cares considering they're not supposed to be any scale like the alternators/binaltech, and B) should we stop it before it gets outa hand. I don't think we need this information, personally, but maybe the rest of you disagree. it poses the problem of adding this ridiculous scale system to EVERY page on here. Cliffjumper prime 18:49, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Nope, I don't care for noting scale unless it's some sort of unusual circumstance that should be noted (say a toy that turns into a train fitting on whatever scale train tracks). And like somebody who asked us to list the heights of every modern toy ever made, I'm not going to waste my time listing scales and such. I have more important things to do on the wiki. --FFN 18:55, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I especially thought it was pointless considering a lot of more recent toys are simply approximations of real vehicles, or altered versions, not the real thing. Cliffjumper prime 19:10, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I'd rather reserve the whole size-scaling thing for JUST Binaltech/Alternators and Alternity! --Lonegamer78 19:47, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Oh, definitely. When scale is explicitly called for (1:24 Alternators, 1:32 Alternity, whatever else Takara tries) we should point it out, but otherwise it's just stupid. --Detour 19:51, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Changes to comic issue format

I'd like to propose two changes to our comic issue format.

1. I think that, when available, the 'covers' section should present the covers without copy. Virtually every TF comic printed this decade has had its cover art previewed online without the title, issue-box, etc. I'm not suggesting that old content should be purged... just that there should be an official preference for copy-free covers.
2. I'd like to propose a 'Reprints and Collections' section near the bottom of comic pages, like the video release section found on some episodes. (This particularly applies to Marvel UK stuff.) It'd look something like this;

Reprints / Collections

• Reprinted in Transformers Collected Comics #8 (1986) — UK only
• Reprinted with Issue #98 as Marvel Comics (US) #34
• Recolored and reprinted in Marvel UK's "1990 Transformer Annual" (1989) — UK only
• Collected in the Titan Trade paperback collections "Primal Scream" and "Matrix Quest" (1997)
• Reprinted in IDW's "Transformer Generations #16" (2006)

No single set template format can adequately describe the way Transformers stories are printed, collected, bundled, broken up, recolored, excerpted etc etc etc. A plain English approach (allowing for in/as/with etc...) seems best. (The above examples are kind of a mess... I was trying to throw in as many oddball scenarios as possible.)

Our existing comic template accommodates two publications for US and UK Marvel stuff... but a UK story might've been reprinted in the UK, ported to the US and bundled with another issue, gotten a 'Collected Comics' edition, been recolored for an annual, then gotten Titan releases in color or black and White... and that's without even getting into the IDW reprint series, which've had their own trade paperback collections...

It really just needs its own section. So I'm proposing one and seeing what other people think. -Derik 19:14, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

I disagree pretty strongly with point #1. In the "covers" section, we're documenting the actual, physical comic covers, are we not? What you propose seems like it belongs in a seperate "cover art" section. Does that distinction make sense? --Salt-Man Z 17:15, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

New templates for toy releaess?

In addition to the "comingsoontoy" template, I propose adopting one or two more templates that indicate a toy has been officially released on another market but not in the USA yet. Usually this is merely a matter of a few weeks, but in some instances it could mean several months of waiting (see ROTF Legends Constructicons). My main reasoning is that a) listing a toy as "coming soon" when you can already buy it in another country (Japan, other Hasbro markets) seems a little too US-centric, and b) listing a toy as "out" even though it's not actually out at US retail yet is equally awkward. So I propose a tag to indicate a middle status. Either one single tag, or two, one to indicate a TakaraTomy release and another to indicate non-US market Hasbro releases. Furthermore, we might also adopt one or two similar tags to indicate that some toys/multi-packs are/were exclusively available outside the USA, such as various Takara-only redecos, European late-G1 toys and such.--Nevermore 15:39, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

Upload image templates

A discussion about adding a list of insertable templates to the Upload form a couple months ago got derailed by the rush of other higher priories. I re-visit it now;

If you're running Kired Tools, a (perfunctory) list of image templates will now appear in your Upload form. This is being drawn from User:Derik/Sandbox10, so feel free to add to it, edit it, experiment, etc... there are a lot of image templates, and I'd like to try to figure out how to handle such a dense list... good.

Responses appreciated. -Derik 09:42, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

Category Proliferation

OK, just because you can make a theoretical grouping of seven or more characters, doesn't mean that it's wise or advisable to do so. We should limit ourselves to groupings that people might actually be interested in. The more categories we make, the harder it is to keep them all complete. Having an incomplete category is far worse than having no category. The natural assumption is that a category is exhaustive, so an incomplete category is basically misinformation - it implies that we've listed all of something when in fact we have not. Adding in more noise does not help anyone and gives us that much more inventory to mange without creating real value. --Jimsorenson 02:48, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

Great! Now digest that and write Help:Categories! -Derik 13:26, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

Okay.--Rosicrucian^Talk 12:07, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Pointing out redirects while editing

Was trying to think of something less annoying than a blink tag. Maybe have them followed by a small graphic to denote them on the edit screen? Perhaps a scaled down version of this?--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:29, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

I think the point is that they're supposed to be annoying, so you easily notice them and feel compelled to fix them. The instances where a redirect is the "correct" linkage are rare enough that I don't see it as a big deal to ignore the blinking in those cases. --Jeysie 14:37, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

I still think a yellow u-turn icon is obvious enough.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:39, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

I guess I just don't see it as a big deal, since you're only going to see it for the 30 seconds it takes to fix the link and refresh the preview anyway. (Plus, I actually find the yellow more annoying than the blinking, though it does make them nice and easy to pick out while scanning.) --Jeysie 14:46, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

I can see where Rosh is going... when you're drafting an extensive change, at some point you're re-reading the entire thing to try and see if it 'feels right' before committing the save. The blink tag is very distracting... making it hard to ignore to judge the overall 'feel' of the page.

The real appeal of it, OTOH, is that the blink tag is the one thing you can be sure will always work-- because blink isn't used anywhere else. Storylinks (for example) have inline background and border colors-- I think those would override the yellow background of redirects, so they wouldn't show up. But because no one ever uses "blink," blink will always show up.

I'd be open to adding the image... but I think (for example) if a prev/next link on a comic issue template was pointed at a re-direct... it would totally break the layout of the button because it imposes padding and background attributes that either:

1. Won't show up (overriden by the template styles) so there's no indicator that the link is a redirect.
2. Will show up-- and then break the template which was never intended to accommodate this.

(I'm having trouble picture which.) Basically as set up, it's a 'least offensive solutiont hat will always work.'

IIRC, we already have redirects with a yellow background and double-underline. So if Rosh wants, I can show him the code to turn off the blinking in his own CSS file and he can evaluate how it looks/try other solutions to propose. -Derik 15:31, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

Well, like I said, if I spot redirects to fix when previewing, I quickly fix all of them and then preview again to check for more possible mistakes.

I will say that the yellow and underlines do indeed show up over the grey of the storylinks, though, as I've come across more than a few "Shattered Glass (comic)" links in my editing. But that's in Opera 9.x; I can't speak for other browsers. --Jeysie 15:41, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

Image templates for video game images and screen captures?

Hey guys, do we have an image/copyright template for video game images (covers ect) and their screenshots? If not, we should consider making one at least for the big three english language series of TF games: The Armada PS2 game, the 2007 TF movie games, and the ROTF games (please be aware there are several games under 2007 TF and ROTF). What do you guys think? --FFN 07:35, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps we can create a series of the gamecap template just like screencap, which is used to create G1cap, BWcap, BMcap, TFAcap and so on. I think there can be a Template:gamecap, which can be used to create Template:armadagame, 2007game, Template:rotfgame and more (if needed).

And, since there are many games under 2007 TF and ROTF, 2007game and rotfgame will feature parameter to co-op with the games. --TX55^TALK 11:57, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

Screencap is already tailored to handle video game screenshots, and can take enough optional parameters that the ownership can be easily identified. Are we really going to have enough screenshots from each game to dedicate a template to each? It's not that hard to type out manually.

I do agree with FFN that something for non-screenshot images from video games might be in order, perhaps based off of the comic cover template.--Rosicrucian^Talk 12:04, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

...and I specifically think creating the "gamecap" template anyway is a dumb idea. There is no need whatsoever for a generic template for video game screen captures. There is nothing it can do that the screencap template isn't designed to do already.--Rosicrucian^Talk 12:11, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

Are we really going to have enough screenshots from each game to dedicate a template to each?

Yes we already do. Unfortunately, the guy who uploaded most of them seems to have disappeared.

It's not that hard to type out manually.

Try telling yourself that when you're the one actually writing it, yes? --FFN 14:08, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

No necessarily a dumb idea in some way, the gamecap template is more convenient than using screencap for game screen.

Take Image:Tidalwave_pushup.gif for example, when using screencap, we need to typing:

[[Tidal Wave (Armada)|Tidal Wave]] knows regular exercise is the key to a healthy lifestyle.

{{c}} 2004 Melbourne House and Atari
{{screencap
|source= the PS2 video game "[[Transformers (Melbourne House)|Transformers]]"
|owner=Melbourne House and Atari
|nocategory=true
}}
[[Category:Screen captures from video games]]

While using gamecap, we only need to type

{{gamecap|
[[Tidal Wave (Armada)|Tidal Wave]] knows [[Humanization|regular exercise is the key to a healthy lifestyle]].|
[[Transformers (Melbourne House)|Transformers]]|
Melbourne House and Atari|
2004
}}

without parameters such as "source=", "owner=", "nocategory=true" or "Category:Screen captures from video games"

--TX55^TALK 13:23, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

That doesn't look like much work saved, to me.--Rosicrucian^Talk 19:34, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

Well, the template is kinda like G1cap, BWcap or TFAcap, which only need <description>, <source>, <year> and doesn't need to type those parameters mentioned above as well. --TX55^TALK 21:18, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

Except all those examples autofill most of the fields the screencap template needs. Here, you're entering roughly the same amount of information you'd need to use the naked screencap template. It's an extra level of transclusion with very little payoff in terms of time/work saved.--Rosicrucian^Talk 21:21, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't feel much, for the most apparent thing, at least we won't need to fill nocategory=true and Category:Screen captures from video games, just like the G1cap and others. --TX55^TALK 21:27, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

As for the non-game-screenshot, I've created a concept for various covers which are not comicbook covers. --TX55^TALK 08:25, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

Hey, I like the prototype template. --FFN 14:08, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Thank you. ^^ Right now I think I need to search out which pictures are from games so I can figure out what should be done in the next move. --TX55^TALK 23:53, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Shattered Glass Character Categories

Anyone I catch adding redundant "Decepticons" or "Shattered Glass characters" categories to any character already in the "Mayhem Supression Squad" category is GETTING FED TO GRIMLOCK. Their omission not a mistake! Stop adding them back in! :P
...sorry, I just had to get that off my chest. Carry on. --Jeysie 11:47, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

In less ranting thoughts, I had been considering making a category to denote which characters are "Alpha Trion's acolytes". --Jeysie 17:55, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

A "factions of the Shattered Glass Universe" catch-all page might be interesting, showing the Elite Guard, the Wreckers, Trion's forces, Optimus' loyalists, etc.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:05, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Well, it's pretty much... we already have the Seekers, Dinobots, Elite Guard, and Technobots in those existing categories, and we should put the Wreckers in the existing category too (though do we even know any of the former Wreckers in SG other than Rodimus?). And we don't have enough of Optimus Prime's loyalists named to make a category for it - only Blurr, Nightbeat, Ironhide, and Grimlock.

Or were you talking about some sort of umbrella category and/or article? --Jeysie 18:28, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

An article, rather than a category. While we "hate lists" here, an article exploring the political situation and factions of the continuity could be informative.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:47, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Ah. I could get behind that. Especially since we have the ABN crew, the Micromasters, the Targetmasters, the Terrorcons, the Mayhem Suppression Squad, the Predacons, and Astrotrain's squad as well. There's also Arkeville and his interns on the humans' side. --Jeysie 18:51, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Mold reusage list

I've been working on a list that lists the most reused molds. Sorted after Toyline and alphabetical order. Now I would like to know if this would be a useful piece of information or if it's uninteresting for the wiki. Check out the current poor and far from finished version here. Should I continue working on it or stop and erase it.Dead Metal 13:09, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Robot Heroes Organization

Allright. Robot Heroes from the first movie being listed below Revenge of the Fallen RPMs in characters' Merchandise sections is giving me a headache. Right now, the toy/merch lists are treating Robot Heroes as their own line, when they've really all been branded as subsets of other lines - you have TF 2007 Robot Heroes, Universe Robot Heroes, and ROTF Robot Heroes. Right now, the lists are mis-representating this aspect of the figures; I don't know who began the practice, because that info was wiped out in the crash.

I move to, at least, put the Robot Heroes under their respective franchise banners in characters' Merchandise sections — most relevant for movie-based characters, I grant, but characters having Merch/TF2007/Robot Heroes and Merch/ROTF/Robot Heroes sections makes more sense to me, as it makes it more like the toy sections. For other characters - let's say Perceptor - it could go Merchandise/Universe/Robot Heroes, or maybe Merchandise/Universe.

I considered starting on this myself tonight, but I'm tossing it out for opinions first. --Monzo 04:36, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Relicensing vote

TFWiki.net has until midnight tonight to decide whether if we want to switch from a GFDL license to a CC-BY-SA3 license.

I've been studying the issue, and I have some thoughts on the direction I think we should go in terms of licensing. (As long as we're switching over, let's actually get it right.) But none of that has to be done now, the actual relicensing has to be performed tonight, and I'm calling for a vote.

• User:Derik votes we switch to CC-BY-SA3. -Derik 15:38, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
• User:Jeysie still votes to switch to CC-BY-SA3. --Jeysie 15:40, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
• User:Rosicrucian votes we switch to CC-BY-SA3 and is in favor of Derik's opinion draft on potential wrinkles and assertions we can make.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:43, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
• User:Starfield votes we drop all licenses and go without one. I normally wouldn't give my opinion on this, but since you seem to be soliciting my vote, there it is. - Starfield 16:01, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
  • User:Derik points out that that would make us GFDL, (whether we acknowledged it or not) because we don't have a legal right to drop their license. -Derik 16:05, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
• User:Dead Metal votes we switch to CC-BY-SA3 Dead Metal 16:03, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
• User:DrSpengler (who is at work and cannot log in) votes we switch to CC-BY-SA3. --DrSpengler (at work)
• User:Lonegamer78 votes we switch to CC-BY-SA3. --Lonegamer78 16:57, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
• User:MrBlud votes we switch to CC-BY-SA3. MrBlud 17:17, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
• User:Jackpot votes we switch to 007 and shoot anyone who steals our shit. - Jackpot 19:14, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
• User:Shellshock votes we switch to CC-BY-SA3. Shellshock 20:02, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
• User:TX55 votes we switch to CC-BY-SA3.

--TX55^TALK 21:07, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

• User:ACIDSTORM92 votes we switch to CC-BY-SA3.--ACIDSTORM92 00:02, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
• Nuts, I missed the deadline while I was working, and didn't see the vote listed in Recent Changes until now. FWIW, User:Apcog would've voted to switch. I'm still not 100% certain of all aspects of CC-BY-SA3, but it currently seems better than standing pat.--Apcog 02:21, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Language in the GFDL relicensing clause simply says 'By August 1.' Your vote is still valid for 4 hours yet. -Derik 03:56, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
• User:abates votes we switch to CC-BY-SA3. --abates 04:32, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
• User:FFN votes we switch to CC-BY-SA3. --FFN 07:29, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

Relicencing vote outcome

On July 31, 2009, TFWiki.net conducted a community vote about whether our content licensing should remain GFDL or switch to CC-BY-SA3 as afforded under the provisions of GFDL 1.3

In low turnout, 86% of votes cast were in favor of the switch to CC-BY-SA3. No votes were in favor of remaining to GFDL, and two votes cast in favor of general lawlessness.

The result of this voting being in line with previous general discussion on the subject, and 3 of 3 administrators being in favor of the change, I assert that at a time of 23:59:59 GMT-12 the operating body of TFWiki.net had voted to switch to CC-BY-SA3 and declare on my bare authority that all articles on this site have been so republished.

May God uphold the right. -Derik 08:08, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

I request that Suki or McFly set $wgRightsText in LocalSettings.php to be "CC-BY-SA", in accordance with this change. -Derik 08:08, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

Did anything happen?

The footer says GFDL; the editing page says GFDL; Transformers Wiki:Copyrights still says GFDL... Did anything get changed at all in time? --fleb 00:02, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Also Transformers Wiki:General disclaimer - that and Transformers Wiki:Copyrights are easily updatable (Derik?), but only McFly or Suki Brits have access to change the configuration file to correct the other messages. --abates 00:18, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

We held a vote and declared the change had taken place. That the admins are slow in making the necessary changes is annoying, but does not change the underlying reality. (Even a storekeeper must be allowed time to repaint his signs.)

I have refrained from editing the other instances where it says GFDL to make a proper clean transition when our web-bravos get off their asses. Anyone else si free to do it though... we have transitioned. -Derik 00:23, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Ah, fair enough too! --abates 03:05, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

My apologies for not checking three days ago. It is fixed. --Suki Brits 03:25, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing.

I... guess you could interpret 'republish' that way. To optimism. --fleb 09:12, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Marvel UK issue pages

I feel that we need to make a change with how we handle Marvel UK comic issues. The UK comics split most of its stories up over multiple issues, and even reprinted some of the split up in a different way. This has led the story articles to become bloated with non-story info (covers, letter pages, other comics from the same issue, contests, ads) for multiple issues on a single story page. Also, navigating the UK comic is a pain in the ass, as many issues having two stories (one issue has three!), as well as the reprints.

Here's what I suggest we do:

• Make "hub" pages for the individual issues. These pages will cover issue-specific things. Those UK cover scans clogging up every Marvel Transformer story? They go here. As does information from that issue's letter pages, ads, TransFormations, and anything else that isn't a part of the actual stories. Also, there will be a list of what each issue contains, mostly the TOC from the issue itself. Non-Transformers backup strips (Machine Man, Action Force) should need nothing more beyond the name of the series and the title of the story unless more info is given in the cover, letters page, TransFormations, Coming Attractions or the like. The TOC will also have links to our story articles.

• Leave the story articles mostly unchanged The UK comic usually treated the stories like serials (think the early Flash Gotdon films or the original Doctor Who series), so splitting them up makes no sense. Aside from moving the issue-specific stuff to the hub pages, the only changes needed will be removing the story navigation box from the UK-original stories, removal of the UK navigation from the stories written for the US comic, and adding any needed "Reprinted in" links, and putting "Originally printed in" links on the stories written for the UK comic.

Marvel US 33 & 34 (Man of Iron!) and Action Force 24-27 (Ancient Relics!) would be handled in the same way. --FortMax 17:40, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

So you're suggesting that any issue which contained multiple discontinuous stories get a page for the issue, and a page for both stories? -Derik 22:37, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

Not exactly. Marvel UK is a special case because these multiple discontinuous stories are broken up over multiple issues. We would still have one page for Time Wars. I'll put together a sample tommorow. --FortMax 00:51, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

I have a very rough example at User:FortMax/Sandbox. The main reason I feel this needs to be done is because not only does the UK comic non only have multiple stories in each issue, these stories get spread out over multiple issues. For example, Time Wars was printed over seven issues. --FortMax 12:04, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

That makes sense... a 'landing page.' I'm tentatively in favor of it... but I'd like to see what others say. -Derik 15:40, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

I think this is a really good idea, because it enables us to show the very different format of the UK comic. Formats, in fact - something I didn't realise till I completed my collection is how very different the first 30 or so issues are from the rest. More like a robot enthusiast's magazine than a comic, and much more 'British' in feel. Unfortunately I've only got my scanned copies of issues 1-5 to work from at the moment, but I can mock something up to show you what I mean. --Tribimat 06:25, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Concept arts of questionable nature

As we all know, there are some concept art images out there of various Transformers in Revenge of the Fallen that we have up until now considered to be leaked art and will not use. However, it has come to my attention that Wikipedia is using this art without issue in their articles, as are our "friends" over at Wikia. I wanted to ask the powers that be what to do here, so can someone give me an opinion? -- SFH 19:21, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't consider either of those a ringing endorsement. Yes, these are likely actual concept art, but I believe they are still leaked. The only officially released concept art we've been getting has been mostly through Josh Nizzi.--Rosicrucian^Talk 19:42, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

And I should probably elaborate on why I don't think Wikipedia using these images means we ought to (Wikia not being a good indicator should be obvious). Wikipedia has... well, both more and less copyright restrictions than we do. They are bigger wonks about the letter of the law and fair use justifications, and it may well be that the resident copyright nigglers just haven't spotted these images yet. Wikipedia is an enormous site, and that means there's large swaths of terra incognita where you can get away with nearly everything, just because the more anal-retentive users don't frequent them. On the other hand, Wikipedia has no real policy whatsoever on leaked information or images, and we do. That makes our criteria for use and retention of images wildly different from theirs.--Rosicrucian^Talk 19:52, 2 August 2009 (EDT)