MediaWiki talk:Community Portal: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:16, 31 July 2010

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

Specific Discussion Subjects

Moving From Wikia:

New Ad Policy:

Ads

Bookworm Database-Crash:

Server Move:

Arriving Take 2

Relicensing:

Relicensing

Dealing With Vandalism:

Vandalism

GoBots Sister Wiki:

Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive

Home Video sections are lacking

I looked up the DVD and Home Video content on Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, Lostpedia, and even the 24 Wiki and they all brought up pages with tons of info, all neatly organized and categorized. But for this Wiki, searches turn up little and the only way I could find home video content effectively is through the "Category:Home Video" page, and even then it was - sorry to say - A Mess! Why is a wiki as large as this one so inadequate in this regard? If this wiki doesn't have it right, then shouldn't it be fixed by modeling the home video sections after the wikis that have it done right? Most of the content is already here, it just needs to be better organized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.254.83.255 (talk • contribs).

Er, I don't know what you mean, exactly, considering that our home video sections look perfectly fine to me. See: Transformers_Animated_(cartoon)#Home video releases, The Transformers (cartoon)#DVD releases, Revenge of the Fallen DVD field guide, Robots in Disguise (cartoon)#DVD releases, etc. I don't know what more you could want; for any series you want to know DVD info about, the info is likely available on that series' page.

Either that, or you're perhaps not realizing the difference in how the TF series work. Instead of something like Trek where the different series are all in a single universe and storyline, there's somewhere around 16 DVD-able Transformers things, all of which are in multiple different universes and storylines.

As such, IMHO it makes far more sense for us to group our home video by those separate series, rather than all together. I think most TF fans are only going to be interested in what DVDs are available for their specific favorite series/universe, rather than wanting to see every single DVD at once for everything.

Not that a comprehensive DVD list might not still be a useful project, mind you. Just saying that IMHO we're far from unorganized or a mess if we don't have one. We just have different organizing needs because of the unique way the TF series themselves are organized. --Jeysie 08:38, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Agreed on all counts. I'd need to know what the previous poster was actually looking for to understand what improvements they're wanting.

It could be this is another symptom of us not having any sort of "Transformers primer", as we discussed ages ago. Maybe time to revisit that idea?

(I went onto Wookiepedia looking for some ideas, but got distracted by the absurdly long and reaching list of "References to the original trilogy" on the Attack of the Clones page. If that list were here, I'd take a weedwhacker to it.) -- Repowers 09:21, 7 March 2010 (EST)

I like the idea of a Transformers primer, explaining the odd franchise and reboot and "multiple characters with the same name" nature of the deal. Pages like continuity, canon, and continuity family cover some of the info that might go on such a thing, but they're still a bit too "techy" for the casual reader, I think. Something that covers similar info but in a more accessible way might be very useful. --Jeysie 10:13, 7 March 2010 (EST)

I'd be all for a Transformers 101 type page. A simple concise "These are Transformers, they come from Cybertron, there are Autobots and Decepticons (generally) fighting a big war (generally) over control of resources. Usually there's an Optimus and a Megatron (or the nearest local equivalent), a kid-friendly character and a conniving evil second-in-command, but beyond that, it's a weird-ass multiverse. Why are all the different incarnations of TF so different, yet so similar? Duh. -hx 10:22, 7 March 2010 (EST)

I've taken a stab at this; my idea is in my sandbox. Feel free to improve it. --Fortress Minimus 15:28, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

Good for what it is, but the problem this user was complaining about is that there is no "Transformers on home video" page. There we could have "By series" and "By manufacturer" sections. Clicking on (for example) "Robots in Disguise on home video" would take you to a list of all released DVD/Blurays of that series. Clicking on (for another example) "Transformers from Metrodome" would take you to a list of all releases from Metrodome. --Khajidha 16:26, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

I will say that I think we need to be better about making sure individual episode/comic pages include all the relevant home-video/trade-paperback compilations one can find said individual episodes on... and I am a firm believer that each home video/compilation needs its own page. --M Sipher 13:49, 7 March 2010 (EST)

I should have known I was stirring up a hornet's nest when I posted that yesterday. This started with my searching for old VHS releases of transformers on Amazon.com. I then figured I'd check it out on this wiki, but amazingly searching for VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray turned up nothing. (I even considered that it was the browser I was using. It's not.) "Home video" turned up pages for the series and their home video sections, but not a comprehensive listing with links (to the home video sections). There are some great guides to home video for the live-action films, and the home video category lists companies, but I just found it a bit frustrating that it required so much digging to find what I was looking for. Other wiki's do have pages dedicated to just DVD (Though I have exaggerated their organization.), and in the case of Memory Alpha templates that direct one to the releases. Granted, nothing's perfect and those other wiki's maybe only succeed over this one in that I was able to find what I was looking for fast. But content that can't be found might as well not be there. Out of frustration I finally just thought "This is a mess!" and posted the above.

Go ahead and say everything's fine. The content is there all well done when you do find it, even if it was difficult to come by (Why, for instance, does the home video category not provide links to the home video sections for each series and movie? Would putting all those article in the home video category be inappropriate? Maybe, but without something like that, the category didn't help much for my search.), and maybe this is more a criticism of the failings of the search engine behind the box on the left of each page. But my difficulty in finding what I was looking for happened, and I suspect it goes on all the time with other casual searches: "Lemme see what DVD releases there are for transformers." [types DVD, hits 'enter'] "Nothing?! Oh well..."

Ah, I see the problem. DVD, VHS, and Blu-ray are all three-letter terms (or made up of three-letter terms with dashes), and the wiki software always returns no results for search terms with three letters or less.

The problem is that (most) every other wiki only has one universe to worry about, while we have multiple universes. So it makes perfect sense for someplace like Memory Alpha to have all of the videos together, because the series are all sequels to each other.

Whereas for us, there's little reason to have, say, the Robots in Disguise videos and the Animated videos together, because they're two series that have nothing to do with each other. Instead, we have home video listings on the series pages, because it's far more likely someone's going to want to know if RID specifically has videos, or Animated specifically has videos, etc.

As such, putting the entire cartoon series pages into the Home Video category when only a single section contains info related to that category is odd. However, I do think maybe we could fake it using redirects. For instance, "Transformers Animated home video releases" that redirects to "Transformers Animated (cartoon)#Home video releases", etc. Then we'd put the redirect in the category.

We could also make it so that terms like "VHS", "DVD", and "Blu-ray" all redirect to "Category:Home Video" to get around the three-letter search terms problems. (Er, can you have redirects point to categories?) --Jeysie 16:07, 7 March 2010 (EST)

Maybe part of the problem is that Category:Home video mostly lists companies that put out TF on DVD. All well and good if you know Kid Rhino and Shout! Factory put out G1, but if you don't, how do you know where to go for G1 DVD info. We have Revenge of the Fallen DVD field guide and Transformers Animated (cartoon)/DVD. Perhaps we just need that for each series, and then maybe a central page to tie them together? --abates 16:18, 7 March 2010 (EST)

I was just going to add an addendum that if we go the route of creating categorized redirects to all of our series-specific sections, we could create a couple subcategories to separate the companies from the actual release areas. We also should probably stick the DVD covers subcategories in their own umbrella "Covers" subcategory.

I'm not sure we really need a central page, so much as making the individual sections all available and easier to get to in the Home Video category, and making terms like "DVD" redirect to that category.--Jeysie 16:22, 7 March 2010 (EST)

I don't see the harm in having something at each of those namespaces, but given my druthers I'd make each of them in the format of a disambiguation page.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 18:25, 7 March 2010 (EST)

If I'm following you correctly, you're suggesting to make pages for DVD, VHS, etc. and have them be disambiguation pages? That's not a bad idea at all. I think we should definitely have an actual main page for Generation 1 video releases and perhaps the same for Beast Wars. Adding links to the nav templates for video releases (whatever is chosen as the 'central page' for that franchise) would probably be a good idea too. --Tigerpaw28 01:55, 12 March 2010 (EST)

I've been planning to make a central "hub" page since I started doing the home video stuff, and to have releases listed on episode pages (like I did at the bottom of The Transformers: The Movie promo), but I was waiting until I'd finished all the company pages so I could add everything together in one go rather than a load of little edits. I guess I took too long doing that, though, and the punters are getting restless. We've got enough info to make it worth starting now anyway, so I'll bump it up on my to-do list. - Magnus Maximus 03:38, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Well, I was thinking something like the series page with links to everything, but I can't make that work without it becoming overly long and complicated. Instead I've gone with a simple disambig thing as suggested above, as well as the redirects and cat sorting that Jeysie mentioned. Thoughts so far? - Magnus Maximus 08:10, 13 March 2010 (EST)

Toyline list formatting

I was looking through various toyline pages to get an idea of how to format the list of toys for the Beast Wars Metals (toyline) page that I created and the one I'd like to create for the Japanese Beast Wars toyline, and noticed an inconsistency in the way the toylists are done. Specifically, with whether alt-modes should be listed by the name of the toy. Beast Wars, Neo, Beast Machines, Armada and Energon include alt-modes, while G1, G2, Beast Wars II, RID, Cybertron, and ROTF do not. Movie 2007 has it for some but not all. Is having alt-modes in the lists something that we desire? --Tigerpaw28 01:55, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Caption location

I find the way captions are currently placed at the rightt ugly, in particular if the caption is very short. It only looks decent when it is a piece of a conversation. So, is it possible to alter the coding so that caption gets placed in the center? I think that will look a lot better. Geewunling 08:52, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Uhhh...I'm not sure what you mean. Captions are placed in the LEFT of the boxes. Images are often at the right of the page, but not always. Khajidha 09:54, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Okay, so I have a problem telling left and right apart. ^^* Left then - the captions look ugly placed all too the left. Geewunling 10:09, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Isn't left alignment of text associated with images standard in all forms of publication? That's the way I've always seen such things in books and magazines.Khajidha 12:02, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Centering would look terrible. --ItsWalky 12:23, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Disambig3 of ordinary name

I think it is fine to put Disambig3 of ordinary names such as "David", "Jim", or "Bill" on certain pages, since these names are names instead of generic words like "Star",Thunder", "Sky", or "Jet".

See, we won't call Thundercracker or Thunderblast just "Thunder" (unless here comes an official nickname some day). But it is natural/normal to call David Kaye "David" (for example). Or, it's normal to call Optimus Prime just "Optimus".

So, in my opinion, it is okay to leave put disambig3 of ordinary names on those pages. --TX55^TALK 23:52, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

Is there some kind of consensus for this, or is it going to lead to a huge edit war where different users like FortMAx and Interrobang (to pick a couple random editors) clog up recent changes alternately addign and removing disambigs without marking them as minor for filterng purposes? --G1MarvelBlaster 01:55, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Current consensus is that we put disambiguation on for first and/or last name. We haven't had any discussion about removing the disambig3s. --abates 20:08, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

IP Range Blocking

As of this writing, within the past several hours, we've had a dozen edits from what appears to be one anonymous editor, sent from several IPs in the 64.112.16 range and one in 64.112.17 range. All have been attempts to add Japanese names to the TF Animated cast prematurely. I've blocked one of the addresses (infinitely, more for abusing multiple accounts than anything else), so any subsequent ones should also be blocked, but will this block other IPs he's already used? And if not, could someone point me to the process for handling this? Or is this something a super-admin has to handle?--Apcog 22:21, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

The IP addresses he's been editing from are AOL's proxy, which uses a random IP from their range for each access, so he's not changing IP addresses intentionally. Blocking all of the IP addresses he could potentially use would mean blocking AOL in its entirety. --abates 22:36, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

And that's bad how? --FortMax 22:46, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

So do I change his block to temporary instead of permanent? I'm not sure if a brief spate of premature Japanese name inclusion merits an infinite block in and of itself. Or do we hope this teaches him a lesson and that he registers if he wants to keep contributing?--Apcog 23:16, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

Every time he load or edits a page, he does so from a different IP address, so the ban on just one of the IP addresses won't make a difference - he'll never see that he's been banned. With AOL, it's either a blanket ban on the IP range, or semi-protecting the articles being attacked. --abates 23:27, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

The problem with AOL is that they have effin' huge IP ranges, they don't send X-Forwarded-For headers by default, and approximately ten umptillion people use it, which means we'd be blocking hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.

Semi-protect the pages. ---Blackout- 02:38, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

Ditto on semi-protect. --Lonegamer78 03:32, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, I looked up a Wikipedia talk page on how to deal with AOL vandals, and they came to the same conclusion - better to semi-protect the pages than block 5 million people. If the AOL person comes back and tries it again, we should semi-protect the pages. --abates 04:09, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

Works for me. If I'm here the next time he tries something, I'll semi-protect as many Animated character pages as I can in one go.--Apcog 13:19, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

Formatting Pet Peeves

So a thread on the Allspark made me want to bicker about a few annoying pet peeve things I see people doing here on the Wiki.

Double-spacing between sentences.

Folks... these are web pages. Double spaces don't show up on the display unless you use the HTML code that forces one (and please, for the love of humanity, don't). Now, putting double spaces before inline templates like storylinks does make sense, because it lets you pick them apart from the actual text while editing, but double-spacing sentences just does nothing even from that standpoint. And over the number of pages we have, it can add up space-wise.

Putting line returns between list items.

When you put list items together like this:

*List item one
*List item two
*List item three

You get this in the code:

<ul>
<li>List item one</li>
<li>List item two</li>
<li>List item three</li>
</ul>

See? Nice correct single list. Now, what happens when you do this instead?

*List item one

*List item two

*List item three

Well, you get this:

<ul>
<li>List item one</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>List item two</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>List item three</li>
</ul>

Yes. Now instead of a list that should be a single being in, you know, one coded list, it's now in three coded lists. This is bad for a number of reasons.

If you want spacing between line items, put a blasted line of CSS in your personal CSS thingy that puts some there:

li {margin:.5em 0;}

In fact, even better, someone with admin access put that line in the wiki's main CSS like I've been trying to pester Derik to do for ages now. Boom, instant spacing without doing god-awful things to the HTML code.

The never-ending {{-}} vs. {{--}} debate.

Considering the whole reason the latter was created was to replace the former in those instances where the spacing was too large, having some folks constantly swapping the latter back to the former is annoying. And then there's the people who don't even bother to do the swap and just stack both together, which is just really stupid.

If what's making it not work is that it's:

{{--}}

Next Header

When it needs to be:

{{--}}
Next Header

Then, you know, fix the code.

And if the problem is that you're using an outdated browser, then either get with the times, or suck up and accept that you're using a terrible browser and stop messing things up for the rest of us.

Anyhoo. There's probably other stuff I'm forgetting, but for now, this is your Code Wench complaining about these issues. --Jeysie 09:22, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

Good call on

* list

*list

that was something I was unaware of but will look out for in future. While we're talking formatting, though, is it possible to remove the

{{--}}

(or similar) from the note template? When notes escape images it tends to screw up the page a bit --Emvee 16:43, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

The problem is that if we don't, the note template is coded in such a way that it currently ends up overlapping part of the image frame and looking worse. Also:

li + li {margin-top:.5em}

Might be better for the list item spacing, as then you avoid affecting the spacing above and below the list, plus it will avoid messing up the articles where the list items have been spaced out, and they can be fixed at our leisure. --abates 17:20, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

That is indeed a better thought, although I don't recall off-hand if IE7 supports that type of selector or not. --Jeysie 12:19, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

I just tested it in IE8 and... no dice. Oh well. --abates 14:55, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

I'm confused, because this page says it's supported in IE7 and 8, but when I tried it in my copy of IE8, it didn't work. I may have to retest and see if it wasn't some minor syntactical error that was stopping it working. --abates 20:05, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

I'm wondering if it's possibly a standards mode vs. quirks mode (or compatibility mode or whatever the heck they're calling it nowadays) sort of thing, as I know IE likes to pretend it doesn't support some things if it gets kicked into quirks mode. --Jeysie 20:57, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

Aha, yes, it was a compatibility thing. I slapped a DOCTYPE on the top of my test page, and li+li started working! That seems like it would be the best solution to the problem of cramped lists. I can add it to common.css at some point, if everyone agrees. --abates 02:40, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Having tested further, the solution needs more work. We probably do not want to have this spacing in all of the lists, because otherwise you get this: [1]. So I think to be viable, we need to limit it to Notes sections somehow. --abates 04:16, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Is it possible to reset the margin for lists that are in a table? TABLE LI {whatever the reset would be}. --Jeysie 07:29, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Yes, however there are occasions where such lists occur outside boxes too. The Home Video stuff on the episode pages, lists of external links, the "these pages link to this image" list on the image pages, etc. --abates 07:38, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

I don't see why some spacing on those kinds of lists too is a bad thing.

But you could always try something like H2+UL LI+LI, or just reduce the amount of space a little to .25em or such.

Or adapt what Derik did to limit the TFNA/TFU/YoJoe icons to only show up in the "External Links" sections:

#bodyContent a[name='External_links'] + h2 + ul > li > a[href^="http://www.tfu.info"].external,
#bodyContent .tt1_external > a[href^="http://www.tfu.info"].external{
	padding-right:61px;
	background-image:url('http://tfwiki.net/w2/images2/7/75/Tfuinfo_icon.png');

--Jeysie 08:45, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

I tried doing the latter last night, but my CSS fu was not strong enough. The extra h3s in the way complicate things. Maybe Derik can have a crack on it when he's back on deck? --abates 17:20, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Still haven't had the chance to really look at this yet, but I had a thought: Since we tend to frequently label our Notes sections in the same way, why not just add those labels as extra matching rules? That would cover a good chunk of the H3 issues. --Jeysie 21:16, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

Could do, but there would be a bunch of them, and things like this where the lists are interrupted by paragraphs (I'm not sure why those aren't just H4s). --abates 21:28, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

I don't really see it as a problem... since most of our existing lists would need the extra spaces edited out anyway after this, we can always standardize other things as well, as soon as we decided on one (semi-colons, H4s, whichever). In fact, working on standardizing our code when we can is a good thing in general anyway. --Jeysie 21:43, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

Having given this more thought: probably the safest way to do it would be to create a template similar to {{columnlist}}. The disadvantage being that it would have applied to all of the lists where it was required. --abates 07:07, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Considering the whole point was to get people to have the whitespace they wanted while still using the coding correctly, that's not really what I had in mind. Let me see if I can find some time to hack away at it, provided Derik doesn't show up first. Honestly, though, considering we don't have a lot of in-body non-table-contained lists, I'd be more inclined to just live with spacing on all of them. --Jeysie 08:56, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Hey, if we're moaning about formatting, I got one - is there any way to make the "note" template work with left-aligned pictures that doesn't result in a chunk'o whitespace? - Chris McFeely 07:28, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

The image float is what makes it tricky, at least visually. Do you have an example handy I can look at? --Jeysie 08:56, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Sure, now that I'm looking, I can't find a truly annoying example of it, but here's a for instance. If that picture was right-aligned, the note would snap up to right under the body text, but because the pic's on the left, it creates that whitespace. - Chris McFeely 09:16, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

OK, did some poking around.

Basically, there's a clear:left in the CSS for the Notes, and I discovered that the reason why is that you can get this sort of icky visual otherwise.

This could be fixed by removing the clear:left and then either putting the Note in a single-cell table or slapping a display:table on the CSS for it (which would be cleaner code-wise but may not work in IE or older browsers; I don't know off-hand), but I'm not sure what effect that might have on other text/image-wrapping situations. --Jeysie 09:55, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Still don't know why you can't get {{--}}. Reasoning that people on those browsers should "either get with the times, or suck up and accept that you're using a terrible browser and stop messing things up for the rest of us" or bulljive like that is idiotic, because unless they visit this specific subsection they won't be aware the stupid thing isn't working due to browser outdatedness. Plus, as a ressource, shouldn't we, I dunno, thrive to be as accessible to as many people as possible, regardless of browser choices? Surely working the code for {{--}} so it works on as many browsers as possible can't be that daunting a task? I mean, honestly now, it's just the same break as {{-}} but without the extra space at the end. --Detour 10:27, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

I'm not Derik (obviously) but basically... what the {{--}} does is put a "clear:both;" on the header following the template via this:

.tt1_clearall + a + h1,
.tt1_clearall + a + h2,
.tt1_clearall + a + h3,
.tt1_clearall + a + h4,
.tt1_clearall + a + h5,
.tt1_clearall + a + h6

Which involves CSS selectors that older browsers can't handle because they weren't compliant with all of the standards. I think the only other way to handle this would be using javascript to alter the heading in question. Doable, I guess, but it seems like a waste of time to bother for the tiny handful of people who refuse to update to a standards-compliant browser. Whether Derik would feel differently or not, you'd have to ask him.

There's a lot of newer HTML and CSS standards that help out both viewers and webmasters, that either can't be done with very old browsers or can only be replicated on them by fiddling with complex javascript code. You need to accept that people aren't going to keep from ever using anything new just to accommodate your personal choice to keep using a buggy and outdated browser, especially when you're in an increasingly tiny percentage. Doubly especially when it's something like this where the site is still usable even if it doesn't work.

(Now, if you were using something like Lynx, which actually is standards-compliant for everything related to its pure-text methodology--and there are good reasons for choosing to surf sans images--then I think you'd actually have a good case.) --Jeysie 11:00, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Hey, I'd love to switch over, but new versions of IE have complete clusterfucks instead of layouts, and while I can mess around with the layout on Firefox to make it match IE6, the inability to add Office, MSN and AIM shortcuts to the icons, as well as just how freaking paranoid it is when it comes to browsing, downloading, etc., just makes me very uninterested in using it on a regular basis. --Detour 11:41, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Try using Opera. The button layout is drag-and-drop customizable to ridiculous degrees (my own setup basically looks nothing like the default setup), including being able to add custom buttons and website buttons. Its tile-able tab setup and ability to save and quick-insert custom notes and retain form data with the "Back" button is really helpful for Wiki-ing too. There's also things like one-click adding of custom searches (yay TFWiki search). --Jeysie 11:54, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Analog/Homage vs Distinct Character

This has come up in relation to whether or not Sentinel Prime (Animated) is an homage to Sentinel Prime (G1), particularly as to how both of them relate to Sentinel Major. User:ItsWalky informed me on Talk:Sentinel_Prime_(G1) that (emphasis mine): "I view Animated Sentinel Prime as the Animated universe's version of G1 Sentinel Prime. They are analogs. That relationship goes both ways. This is merely how Transformers Wiki categorizes its characters.'"

Is that policy and/or the general consensus? I don't see why it should be applied universally as ItsWalky suggests it is, especially with characters like Jetfire_(G1) and Jetfire_(Animated) where we have evidence to suggest that two characters are not intended to be homages or different 'versions' of the same character. That said, I'll bow out if the quotation from ItsWalky speaks for the wiki as a whole. -- Ayellowbirds 20:50, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

As I said, I don't consider Animated Sentinel Prime to share anything with G1 Sentinel Prime but a name. As such, Sentinel Major is an homage to Animated Sentinel Prime, and cramming him into G1 Sentinel Prime's page does him a disservice.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 22:29, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Well first, an analog is virtually the opposite of an homage. A character is an homage if they are designed to resemble another character WITHOUT actually BEING that character. An analog to a character actually IS the same character, only from another dimension. So Insecticon from Energon could be called an homage to the original Deluxe Insecticon Barrage because they share a similar paint job. They are, however, different and distinct characters. On the other hand, Energon Insecticon in the Dreamwave Comics is an analog to Energon Insecticon from the Energon cartoon.

As for your actual question...I don't really know what your actual question is. Practically speaking, I mean. Jetfire (G1) and Jetfire (Animated) are on two separate pages because they are from two separate continuity families, Primax and Malgus. There is a disamg at the top because of their similar (in this case identical) names. The reuse of the name alone isn't considered a homage, generally, because name reuse is just a fact of life in trademark reservation. --Xaaron 22:45, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Xaaron- The issue that started this seems to be whether Sentinel Prime (Animated) and Sentinel Prime (G1) have any relationship to each other beyond the name, be it through homage or being analogues.

I think there might be a difference of use of the word 'homage' between various parties here; ItsWalky and User:JimSorenson both used the term 'version', which Jim treated as synonymous with 'homage', and Walky identified it with 'analogue'. I chose to re-use the terms they were using, since those were at the heart of the disagreement.

In any case, my question is whether ItsWalky's statement that "This is merely how Transformers Wiki categorizes its characters." as quoted above is valid. It suggests to me that the policy and/or consensus is that characters from different continuity families who share a name should be assumed to be analogous. -- Ayellowbirds 23:08, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

No, that's not true. The Mini-Con Safeguard from Transformers Cybertron and the combo robot Safeguard from Transformers Animated are not analogs.

But whether they're analogs or not, they're still from different continuity families and would be filed under different character pages. That's where your question breaks down for me: what are you expecting to do or not do differently based on the answer on our "policy"? What are the practical ramifications of your query? I feel like you're suggesting the answer to this analog / distinct character question of yours is going to have sweeping changes on how you plan to contribute to the wiki, but I can't see HOW.

Basically...What's your point? --Xaaron 08:24, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

My point was to find out if ItsWalky spoke for the wiki, or just himself. After all the back and forth arguing with him and JimSorenson over related issues, I'd rather go back to tackling unrelated topics for a while, like correcting typos in articles. Ayellowbirds 15:50, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

The main purpose was related to the Sentinel Prime/Major example, though it's possible it might have other related purposes. --Jeysie 17:00, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

Third Party products such as Fansproject etc

There's a good amount of folk here who have a lot of these products. While their unofficialness obviously means they cannot have their own articles, would there be any positive sentiment to somehow giving them a mention? Say a point in the corresponding trivia section? Or failing that, an external link at the bottom of the Kitbash page to some other archive (if one even exists?)? Drmick 12:08, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

They've already got a mention in the kitbashing article, and that suffices. --Detour 12:21, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

1993 European G1 character disambuigation.

We do not seem to have any guidelines for the default franchise-of-origin disambuig for the characters from the 1993 European G1 line. And if there are guidelines, they sure aren't being followed.

The main problem with this group is that all of them were sold in both the G1 and G2 lines in Europe, and many of them were also sold in the American G2 line. Because of this, there are three main groups:

Group 1: Skyscorchers and Axelerators: The American releases at most differed in name and window color from the European releases. Determining which version was out first is nearly impossible, but they were clearly designed for the European market. We currently use (G2) as the default for all of them.

Group 2: Color changers, Aguaspeeders, and Stormtroopers: The US only got the Aquaspeeder molds, but the US bios are, aside from the names, identical to Aquaspeeder and Stormtrooper bios.

Autobot Color Changer Drench has Aquaspeeder Jetstorm's bio and stats.
Autobot Color Changer Gobots has Aquaspeeder Deluge's bio and stats.
Decepticon Color Changer Deluge has Stormtrooper Hydradread's bio and stats.
Decepticon Color Changer Jetstorm has Stormtrooper Drench's bio and stats.

The Color Changers have the same unknowns as Group 1. Currently, the G2 disambuig is used.

Group 3: Lightformers and Trakkons. None were released in the US. Fearswoop uses the G1 disambuig.

Group 4: Obliterators. Named "Pyro" and "Clench" in G1, and "Spark" and "Colossus" in G2. Clench (G2) is just plain wrong.--FortMax 16:26, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

It's a tricky situation, but here are some similar cases that might help us decide:

1) Go-Bot (G2) and Laser Optimus Prime

We call these "Generation 2" despite not having the term on their packaging. The timeframe and the faction symbols are enough.

2) Universe "Spy Changers"

The first release of these toys was in packaging that just said "Transformers" with no subline, much like the Euro pre-G2 examples. But they were released again later in Universe packaging, which we use for our categorization.

If we apply those principles to your examples, then in every case I think we end up with G2. "Clench (G2)" is... odd, but not much odder than Double Clutch (G2).

- Jackpot 17:31, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

True, but the Gobots and Laser Prime still use the G2 version of the Transformers, but the 1993 Euro line still uses the 1992 logo. Hell, aside from the faction symbols, the 1993 toys use the 1992 EVERYTHING. --FortMax 21:48, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

Shrug. It's not a perfect analog, but ultimately I don't think there is one. I personally don't see any way of getting an ironclad This Is It answer out of the question, but I do think the examples I gave present a pretty good guide if we want to use it. - Jackpot 22:43, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

So should all of these transitional figures be moved to G2 disambigs if needed? Specifically, Should Fearswoop (G1) move to Fearswoop (G2)? --Khajidha 14:32, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

If you're asking me, then yes. But the authority lies in the consensus of the mob (which seems to be pretty disinterested in the topic. Try moving the page! I bet you'd get some answers then.) - Jackpot 00:20, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

Wow. I'd completely forgotten that G2 actually dropped the "Generation 2" from the packaging towards the end. Thanks. that's actually kind of good to know... --M Sipher 17:01, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

A Visual Representation of Transformer Anatomy

For a very long time I've been fascinated with transformer hands and fingers, and was always noting the different ways they were portrayed in art and the toys. Sometimes they look like a painted gloved human hand, other times fingers (3, 4, 5, or more?) are like a bunch of linked short cylinders, and often they are made of various polygons with enormous variation. And then there are the 'hands' that are actually claws or pinchers, or (borg-like who needs a hand-on-this-arm?) weapons like laser cannons (A certain high-ranking one-eyed Decepticon comes to mind). Looking for any articles about hands brought me to the anatomy category page, and while skimming it I realized the obvious: I was looking at a list of pages many of which could easily be represented visually.

Maybe it's been suggested before, and as near as I can tell it doesn't exist (yet), but I wonder why not have a page with a visual representation of transformer anatomy and links where possible. Some 'anatomy', like the software kind probably can't be represented pictorially, but certainly many (most?) could. It would take a lot of work from some folks skilled in illustration, but I think it'd be really cool to have a picture of a transformer (a generic male or one selected to be representative) with annotations of various anatomy, and a close-up of a head & face for head/face specific ones. There could also be a female version (for, say, heel struts, though too many specifics could easily be sexist) and maybe an animal/non-humanoid version. Cut-aways could reveal internal anatomy not easily represented with an exterior-only view and some non-anatomy (like kibble) could also be represented. I've even mused that such an illustration could be a transformer version of da Vinci's [[Wikipedia:Vitruvian_Man|Vitruvian Man] as was done before [2], though some readers might misunderstand and think it was an eight-limbed transformer.

So, whadyathink? Is this an old, horrible idea that was harshly rejected years ago, a kinda-sorta OK one that is priority #4,896,929.6, or worst of all does exactly this very thing exist and I somehow missed it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.254.84.116 (talk • contribs).

Finding said material varies between source to source. "Transformers: The Ultimate Guide", I believe, had a few X-ray shots of the TFs (Optimus comes to mind easily), being a DK book. The most recent issue of TV Magazine has a few anatomy pictures of Animated Optimus, Bumblebee, and Starscream, but I'm not sure if earlier TV Magazine issues did so as well. I think they're rather scarce on both sides of the Pacific, though I could be wrong... --Lonegamer78 03:05, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

Anon poster seems to be suggesting that we make our own anatomy pictures. That's not really within the remit of this site, since we only use canonical information and therefore images. --abates 03:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

Heh, I need sleep... But, that answers your question, anon. --Lonegamer78 03:51, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

Another canon image I just noticed is on Takara's World of Transformers site. There's a cutaway of Hot Rod. --abates 07:37, 24 April 2010 (EDT)

Planet Cybertron

First, I'd like to point at two above unresolved matters about category names and G1.5 disambs.

Second, I'm currently motivated to update the information on the wiki regarding Cybertron locations. But I have no clue how to do it. Since we don't split them, can I just lump information from different continuities and/or continuity families together in the intro part and let the fiction section do the sourcing or should I keep the introduction to what usually amounts to "[...] is a city on Cybertron" and the contributions of various continuities unambiguously separated. Also, this whole city-state vs city thing as we've currently got it written down (mostly courtsey of the city template) is confusing the heck out of me. Geewunling 02:14, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Google-rank milestone

For the first time that I've seen, a Google-search for "Transformers wiki" puts us at the top of the list, followed by Wikia and then Wikipedia. Well done, people! (Looking up character names tends to give the reverse order, but still.) - Jackpot 17:19, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

I remember some months back, we got the #1 result when I checked, though it wasn't consistent in all areas (I made a thread at the Allspark and some people were getting us first, others weren't). Eventually, we sank back down to #2 again somehow. This is the first I've heard of anyone seeing us back at #1. Hopefully we'll stay there, this time! --DrSpengler 17:22, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

I get us second (tfwiki.net), fourth (tfwiki.virtutechgames.com), fifth (174-143-26-81.slicehost.net), twentyfirst (174.143.26.81) and thirty third (en.tfwiki.net) --abates 17:32, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

...why on earth do we have so many aliases that are publically crawlable? --Jeysie 17:46, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

I PM'd Scout about it on AllSpark a while ago. --abates 00:12, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

I get first... and Wikia isn't even on the first "screen" of results. ahahahah. --M Sipher 23:48, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Oh, and because I forgot to mention it earlier, I'm getting us at #1, too (wikia at second, Wikipedia at 3rd). With any luck, we'll keep the rank this time and never have to worry about confusion with that swirling vortex of ineptitude ever again. --DrSpengler 00:27, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

Key question... are you logged into your google account when you check? -Derik (not logged in)

I'm not logged into mine, but I still get us #1, Wikia #2, Wikipedia #3. --Jeysie 01:49, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

Yay! (You'd be surprised how often people forget Google is customizing their search results.) -Derik 01:50, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

Seems the result swings back and forth, sometimes we got first while sometimes second. (I don't have a Google account.) --TX55^TALK 02:01, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm logged into Google, and I get wikia first, then us, then wikipedia. Could the difference be regional? I'm Canadian, if that helps. -- Semysane 21:12, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

Oddly I get us first if I log OUT of my gmail account, but second if I am logged in. --Khajidha 12:06, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

The results are pretty volatile at the moment. We'd been showing at #1 for me for a few days before Jackpot mentioned it, but since then, I've only seen us coming up in second place. I really do think it would help us if we got the alias problem mentioned above sorted out so that Google was only indexing us once. --abates 22:39, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

Also people are now starting to link to us at the wrong URL, which can only be bad for us. --abates 07:58, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, we need to either throw a "no index" robots.txt file on those other domains (then do this Webmaster Tools bit, if anyone's got those for our site), redirect them, or take them offline (depending on what would work best).

Maybe someone should PM McFly on the Allspark, since that was mentioned as getting a response? --Jeysie 09:52, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

The best way, IMHO, is to use a 301 response to direct them to the proper URL . I already PM'd McFly about this, and he said that Scout handles redirects. I didn't get any response when I PM'd her though. --abates 18:44, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

It's final exam time now. That might have something to do with it.--Apcog 19:01, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

I don't know whether this is just me or not, but tfwiki.virtutechgames.com is throwing a "Page Not Found" at me right now. ---Blackout- 11:49, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

It's not working for me either, looks like the alias has been deleted. Awesome! Now we just need to get the IP address, 174-143-26-81.slicehost.net and *.tfwiki.net to redirect and we're set! --abates 16:48, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

Teletraan-1 just got linked on Penny Arcade's frontpage. Expect them to go out the top of Google and then have their server burst into flames. -- Semysane 05:03, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Yep, they're on top for me, then their page on the fallen and then usOmegatron 06:21, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Pyro's Packaging Art Found (Hopefully)

OK, I got a big TIF scan sent over from Graham at The Hub, which I present thusly: http://miscfile.alienharmony.com/transformers/pyro.tif because it needs some cleanup and I figured I'd let someone who knows better what they're doing do said cleanup. --Jeysie 06:29, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

Hoorraaay! Cleaned up and put up. Thanks! --ItsWalky 08:24, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

What the hell is emopanda? :D

Hey, people have been asking me what the emopanda URL is that they see when they load up the wiki (I've seen it too). I recall it has something to do with Derik, but why is it loading when we load our wiki? --FFN 07:42, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

It's Derik's site. He has a stylesheet file on there which has experimental stuff in it, which (theoretically) later gets moved to the global stylesheet here once it's all tested. --abates 07:55, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Userpage caps

Can we get a hardline policy on User Page sizes? Preferably, the smaller the better? I'm getting juuuuuuuuust a wee bit sick of the Recent Changes page being cluttered by people turning this wiki into a fucking Myspace account. That this recent one is not in English doesn't help. --M Sipher 12:27, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

My guess is we could, but page size has little to do with the number of edits that can be done to it. So, is it worth bothering about a user page limit? Geewunling 12:39, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Perhaps a limit to the number of times a user page can be edited in a day. --NCZ 12:43, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Ditto. Also, I say we ban the hell out of user pages in other languages. ---Blackout- 12:46, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

How about some simple rules?

ONE image for your page. That's all you need.
No collection listing. Nobody cares.
Keep it to one paragraph of standard info. This is not a dating site, we don't care about your likes and dislikes.
Listing work directly related to updating this wiki on top of the above-mentioned paragraph is fine. Projects on your plate, past completed ones, etc, all fine.
ENGLISH.
All User Pages are subject to mods going "NO" and taking a chainsaw on fire to it.

I think this is not unreasonable. --M Sipher 12:58, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

One more.

A user page can only be edited X (we'll decide the exact number later) times a day. Any more and you are subject to being temporarily banhammered. ---Blackout- 13:03, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

So, would point 3 also forbid any stuff like personal canon or thoughts on canon? I kinda like those sections on user pages. Geewunling 13:06, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Basically, yes. --M Sipher 13:08, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm... with Geewunling, actually. Notes like personal canon and fave things are useful for knowing what a user's biases are and what areas of the wiki they're likely to work on, which I find interesting and useful.

IMHO for the most part the real problem is people who make frequent edits to their userpage without making many wider wiki edits, not necessarily the content. --Jeysie 16:48, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

That can be pretty well covered in the initial paragraph. If you like BW best and think you'll do mostly that, fine, say so. We don't need your fanfic ideas. --M Sipher 16:51, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

My user page should be the guideline for all of you. -hx 17:29, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess, to be straightforward with my opinion, if the person's not posting anything offensive, uploading multiple pictures, or cluttering up Recent Edits, I don't see how it matters all that much what a person has on their userpage.

If anything, there's some people I remember wishing had more information about themselves on their userpages, especially the admins. Makes it easier to get a mental map of which regular is which. --Jeysie 17:32, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

That's my opinion, too. I don't think it matters what is on a user page, even *gasp* a foreign language. If the edits could be restricted to one a day though, that would be cool. - Starfield 17:36, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

I fully support all those points. Our space should not be dedicated to MySpace accounts for Transformers nerds. —Interrobang 17:48, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

It could be worse... --abates 18:19, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

All the better that we left. —Interrobang 19:22, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Hmmm ... what about something like all user page edits being automatically tagged as minor edits?--Jimsorenson 18:39, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

I don't hide minor edits, because even "minor" edits can be big fuckups. --M Sipher 19:07, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

My userpage is the one we should all aim to emulate. X-P - Chris McFeely 19:26, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Is there a function that would hide all user page edits? --Khajidha 21:26, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Select "User" from the Namespace dropdown and then tick the "Invert selection" box. --abates 21:37, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

It's been almost two months. Have these rules officially been put into effect yet, or are they still just a proposal for now? --NCZ 11:26, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

Just a proposal I believe. ---Blackout- 13:31, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

No collection listing

M Sipher suggested that above. Can I (or any other regular, non-admin user) tell people to remove their collection lists? Item42 16:04, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

I don't think so, but I sure wish we could. ---Blackout- 13:44, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Good idea from the other place, no really!

Looking over the other Transformers wiki, I noticed that their recent changes takes multiple successive edits of the same page by the same user and shows them as a single listing (with a clickable drop down showing more details). Is there any way we can get this function here? --Khajidha 11:10, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

It doesn't work like that. It actually takes multiple edits of the same page within a specific timeframe and shows them as a single listing. Whether it's the same user or not doesn't factor in. ---Blackout- 15:19, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

If you mean the enhanced recent changes page, we already have that here. You can turn it on in your preferences. --abates 15:54, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

I noticed the point Blackout made after examining it more, it still seemed like a useful function - particularly with some of the problems we've had with "clogging recent changes". Good to know we have it here. --Khajidha 17:43, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

It's a good function (on Wikia, it only appear for anon and bot users) since it is much more convenience. --TX55^TALK 00:05, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Wikia's New Initiative

Apparently, they're now offering to absolutely remove all ads from small wikis, for 19.95 dollars a month.

Why am I not surprised? ---Blackout- 15:10, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Hahahahaha. That's cheaper than what we pay for hosting, but still sooooo not worth it. --ItsWalky 15:14, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

It's even more stupid once you realize that some wikis are incredibly small, edited by a small group of people, and the only anons are regular editors forgetting to log in. (My wiki in a nutshell.) ---Blackout- 15:20, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Those are about the only wikis that would actually be eligible for this, since they have to get less than 20,000 page views a month. For comparison, we get about 8 times that per day. --abates 19:21, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

And anyone running that small a wiki who's willing to throw money at it would be much better off getting their own webspace for $10/month and installing MediaWiki software on it (not to mention getting their own domain and POP e-mail and being able to upload and do whatever they want with the rest of their webspace). --Jeysie 19:40, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

They're only giving it to the first 100 wikis. I'm pretty much ready to take bets on how long until Wikia realizes only twelve people in the universe have gone for it and now they must make it 19.95 dollars a week in order to make any sort of profit. ---Blackout- 03:34, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Image leeching

Is there much we can do about people leeching images off the wiki? That is, people on forums directly linking the image off of our server and not bothering to rehost it. --FFN 12:38, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

I believe there was a discussion about this at some point. The general consensus was to somehow get all hotlinked images to change to another image or something. ---Blackout- 12:47, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

There's plenty that can be done. The problem has been getting the folks with server access to actually do it. :> --Jeysie 13:55, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, I've brought this up a few times to no avail :( --FFN 19:05, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

But seriously, people on forums are not going to stop directly linking images (thus costing you money and making the wiki perform more sluggishly than necessary) until something is done about this. --FFN 20:50, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

Have you emailed Suki Brits about it? Not sure how often she checks the Community Portal. --abates 21:34, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

Good idea, I just did so. --FFN 01:27, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

She never got back to me. Now what? --FFN 21:47, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

That's about as far as I got with the subdomain issue too. --abates 22:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

So, since the site's owners don't seem to think this to be a major issue in their lack of interest in this problem, shall I stop asking TFW2005 staff to remove hotlinked images? --FFN 12:53, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

I guess it depends on how often they're doing it and why. It's kind of nice to be able to inline graphics into threads for the purposes of discussion. If that's what's happening, then, no, I don't really care that much. In fact, that's pretty cool. Now, if someone's inlining, say, several megs at a time or using one of our images as a .sig or user avatar, then that I don't like. But I feel those are incidents that are isolated enough for us to take care of them on an individual basis. If I'm wrong about the severity of the problem, then I'm willing to change my mind. --ItsWalky 13:00, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Well, I've seen a couple of dudes using images as sig pics (not our "Go! button" thing - remember when some blog hotlinked that Mountain Dew Robots logo and it became one of the most visited pages on the wiki? That's what I fear) and recently there was a large thread of mass hotlinking (half of which was this wiki, half was from Wikia), which TFW clamped down on since it's against their rules anyway. Those are the sort of things I was concerned about. but yeah, you're right, I'm overreacting/paranoid about this. --FFN 17:20, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

Slicehost RSS Rerouting

Is there any way to get the RSS feed to never switch over to the Slicehost IP? Maybe I'm the only one who bothers subscribing to the Recent Changes feed, but it's really annoying ending up with dozens of duplicate entries constantly because the feed keeps switching between sending the TFWiki.net server entries and the Slicehost duplicate entries. (Not to mention that accidentally clicking to the site from the Slicehost entries instead of the TFWiki ones lands you on the wrong server for editing. Been tripped up by that a couple times, too.) --Jeysie 02:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

Out of interest, what are you using as an RSS reader? --abates 05:05, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

I just use Opera's built-in RSS reader. --Jeysie 10:34, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

Transform into other bots

I was wondering if this gimmick has ever been done. As an example: Ratchet transforms into Ironhide, or something like that. Its odd..a transformer becoming another one, but I HAD to ask if it'd be done or not.--Chipmonk328

Bizarrely, it almost was.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 22:54, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

Technically it has been done, if you count Shockwave (Animated) and Punch (G1). ---Blackout- 12:40, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Anon Criticism

I find this wiki to be a piece of shit. What did you hope to accomplish wih these captions? Why didn't you go to Uncyclopedia to make your articles funny? But they probably wouldn't accept on account of how lame it is. -General Q-Nek

I just realized that by reverting your post, I wasn't following my own advice. Most people here like the jokes, if you don't like them start your own Transformers related wiki. --Khajidha 17:31, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Heck, go help the Wikia. Goodness knows they need it. --Jeysie 17:47, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

But the Wikia also has jokes on it, so it won't help our humourless anon at all! --abates 18:43, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

An entire wiki delivered completely seriously would be monotonous. As the Transformers Wiki:Caption page explains, serious captions tend to be redundant, and since Transformers is a (mostly) light-hearted kids' franchise, we might as well have fun with it. Captions are also a reward for users who are frequently helpful. And Uncyclopedia is different; their wiki is devoted entirely to nonsense, and for the most part we deliver actual information in addition to these funny captions and sometimes comments. That's how I see it. --NCZ 18:47, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

To abates, there is some talk at the wikia about getting away from the funny. If our anonymous friend can point to an instance where the humor gets in the way of the information, that particular joke might need to be changed. Otherwise, I've gotta agree with NCZ - it's about giant frickin' robots from outer space, how serious can it really be? --Khajidha 19:00, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, what Khajidha said. While I also agree on principle that I think a serious TF wiki is probably pointless, if Wikia has to keep existing at all I'd rather see it finally go in that direction to stop being a fifth-rate copy of us. And our anon here would probably be better served helping the swap there than mouthing at us. --Jeysie 19:05, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Out of the two admins over at the Wikia, at least of them (Xeno) is firmly against losing the humour, so unfortunately I don't think it'll happen while he's in charge. --abates 20:17, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Pity. I guess Wikia's going to keep going nowhere, then, until they realize that almost everyone who's OK with editing a funny wiki is already here with us. --Jeysie 20:34, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

Hurr Hurr Hurrr!!! I was just joking! I wanted to see if it would get deleted. The jokes aren't to bad. ( but im still in favor of Uncyclopedia's jokes.) I actually kudos this Wikia when it comes to delivering information. A thousand lamentations. again, I thought this would be deleted, I just wanted to see how often this page would be checked. ( I guess i could of done that more efficiently.)-General Q-Nek

Also, I enjoy how calm people were when replying. I wish I had some way of helping, but I'm more of novice to the deep Transformer knowledge.-General Q-Nek

People commenting on the humor is a semi-frequent thing, so... you get used to hauling out the counterarguments.

As for how often pages get checked, most of the regulars keep frequent tabs on everything. If you want to track changes to any specific pages, you can create an account and add pages to your watchlist. --Jeysie 00:24, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Interesting, thanks for the info!-General Q-Nek

"Games" vs. "Fiction"

I noticed in Optimus Prime (Prime) that info from Exodus is filed under "Fiction", while War for Cyberton and Cybertron Adventures is in a separate "Games" section. I didn't think this was how we did things, so I was going to put everything under "Fiction" and do away with "Games", but I double-checked some movieverse articles to be sure, and lo and behold "Games" is separate there too (such as in Shockwave (Movie)). This was an explicit change - looking in the history, the Shockwave article used to have an all-inclusive "Fiction" section. Why was this changed? Games are fiction too. I see absolutely no reason to separate them, any more than we would separate the Find Your Fate books. - Jackpot 14:48, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

Splitting off video game information helps pages from getting too unwieldy. Pages such as Cheetor's are much more readable this way. --ItsWalky 14:51, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

That seems really arbitrary to me. I guess there's little harm done in doing that to Cheetor's page, since the BW games are so story-light and have no impact on other fiction. But for TF:Prime it seems anti-informative: Unlike the BW games, WfC is a defining element of the larger novel/cartoon storyline. Shunting it off into a "Games" ghetto breaks up the information flow pointlessly. I think a "Games" section should be the exception, not the rule. - Jackpot 14:59, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

I'd actually treat WFC as the exception. It is the only video game that ever "mattered" from a story perspective. With that in mind, I would include it within Fiction. --Thylacine 2000 15:02, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

I'd say its fiction matters very little, since the novel Exodus includes its events and supercedes it, since it's apparently written straight from the new "Prime" story bible. --ItsWalky 15:39, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

The Movieverse games are pretty story-heavy. If you look at Optimus Prime (Movie), the game writeups are substantial, and there's nothing more superfluous about their continuities than the Titan comics or the Cyber Mission cartoons, which of course are included in "Fiction". I agree with the general principle that unwieldiness is a problem worth addressing, but this is an incredibly arbitrary way to fight it as an across-the-board rule. Scalpels and hammers and all that. - Jackpot 15:31, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

I think I was the one who started separating them as I wrote the sections. I mainly did it for layout reasons (I prefer to make separate sections clearly defined), and I figure that given video games are usually the least-edited types of articles on this wiki, they were considered to be a lesser form of fiction than other stuff (as seen by Walky's comment about it not mattering). Also, until WFC, video game fiction tended to be splinter continuities. --FFN 11:38, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Walky's point--and it is a pertinent one, that I hadn't considered--is that in time WFC could prove to be just as much a splinter continuity. Exodus appears to be the "real" story--it certainly includes more concepts, more back history, and more of the developing brand structure that Aaron discussed in his "Once Upon A Time On Cybertron" shpiel at Botcon. WFC might differ from this "core" story the same way basically all the other games differ from theirs--and most of us at this point in time see it the other way around because we've been hearing about WFC as being the next main fiction product in and of itself since about last December, whereas Exodus was announced much more recently, seemingly out-of-the-blue, and had no advance samples / screenshots / P.R. that could compare with the WFC blitz. In other words, they treated the "real" story as an afterthought, probably because they know young kids are more into gaming than books, but in the long run WFC's fiction will matter for less. So... uhh... maybe it should stay in "Games" after all? --Thylacine 2000 11:44, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Sure, I get that. Even accepting that Exodus is going to be dominant (which at the moment is still a guess, albeit an educated one), I really dislike the idea of game-fiction being walled off by default just because of its medium. It's like we're saying that games can't matter. If we're going to start making value judgements about which fiction is primary and which is of secondary notice - not a bad idea, mind - I think we should do it right and apply it across the board. Like I said above, there's no real difference in those terms between the movieverse games and the Titan comics, so if one deserves to be sectioned off, then so does the other. I could see dividing the "Fiction" section between "Core continuities" and "Offshoots & micro-continuities", allowing the writeups on the movies + IDW comics to be read through without interruption. That could also help out some of our runaway G1 pages. But as it is now, picking on games is just a half-measure to muddled and weirdly prejudicial effect. - Jackpot 07:28, 4 July 2010 (EDT)

Hall of Fame "faction" markers?

It dawns on me that perhaps up in the top-right with the other faction markers, we should have something indicating that this person/character is now part of the Transformers Hall of Fame. Perhaps a silver Matrix, to go along with the trophies from BC. Of course, the way Hasbro sees characters, we'd be giving this tag to four different Bumblebees, but still. I think it'd be a nice addition. --M Sipher 11:05, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Taking the fact that they're all one character in Hasbro's eyes, should we tag the disambiguation page as well? --Bluestreak7 11:06, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

No, because that's not strictly true. Predacon Megatron is apparently considered a separate "entity" from G1/Movie/Animated/Prime Megatron. Mini-Con Shockwave certainly wouldn't be considered the same as G1/En/Movie/Prime Shockwave. And let's not even go into the problems raised by putting it on the "Dinobot" disambig. --M Sipher 11:19, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Point. But how far do we go with each "character"? Does RID count? It got no love during the clip shows. What about the Optimus cloned and tortured to become Nemesis Prime? What about Shattered Glass? If we limit ourselves to what Hasbro showed in the clip shows, then we would lose Animated Grimlock, had he won. So how far to go with this? Just hit the big ones (G1/UT/Movie/Animted/Prime) and be done with it, or go further? I just want to see this get fleshed out before we start. --Bluestreak7 11:46, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

SG Prime actually was in the display case and apparently "is" Optimus Prime as far as the Hall is concerned. Yeah. So moving forward, I would suggest making a parallel structure for everybody involved: that is, if ANYBODY got a SG / UT / whatever version as "themselves," then everybody else could be seen as getting it too and, thus, SG Grimlock is "himself" and would have gotten the Matrix icon.

The RID thing bugs me--need to look more closely at those Hall display pics and see if there was ANY relevant merch in there at all. If it wasn't.... I guess we really would leave them out. It's no harder to see RID Megs and UT Megs as "being" "the" Megatron, but... this is an area where we shouldn't try to make the rules. I just wish the people who did make them had been more consistent about it. --Thylacine 2000 11:56, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Nope, nuttin' there from RID. I looked back through the display pics. Everybody has the extended G1-iverse plus Movie and Animated. Two had UT and one had SG. I guess those are the "favored" continuities and the ones in which their character analogues would get whatever icon we choose to give. And as Siph said, there was no display "crossover" from Beasts to anywhere else, so Optimus Primal isn't Optimus Prime and we are spared that degree of headache. Though here's another one: even though Hasbro had full access to the toys, they DIDN'T include Generations Prime/Megs/BB in the displays, so does that mean the Prime characters are not "themselves"? But Shattered Glass IS? --Thylacine 2000 12:06, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

I bet RID clips didn't show up because of the usual Disney stuff. --ItsWalky 12:29, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

I think you are over thinking it. The thing to ask yourself is, would Hasbro even consider RID Prime or Predacon Megatron for a spot of their own in the Hall of Fame? No, probably not, since "Optimus Prime" and "Megatron" pretty much covers them. - Starfield 12:38, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

I would extend this to also putting gold Matrix icons on the real-life people that got hall-of-famed.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 11:47, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

I concur. At least that's easy. We don't have multiple Peter Cullen articles floating around here. --Bluestreak7 11:49, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

For an image, how about the silhouette of the statue seen here? It could be cleaned up a bit and made black and white. It could also be a little larger than our current icons. - Starfield 11:54, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

That is totally not going to be recognizable at faction icon size.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 11:55, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

It'll have to wait until I get home from work tonight, but I feel confident I could make an icon based off of the stylized Matrix and starburst circle around it that the tops of the trophies had. I'll post it here once I have it done, and we can tweak it if we don't like it.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 12:06, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Alright, here's my first stab at it. If it were faction-icon sized, it'd look like this:

Whaddaya think? Will that hold up to being recolored gold and silver?--Rosicrucian ^Talk 00:07, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

Hot damn, looks good to me. -- Semysane 01:33, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

Looks great! --abates 01:40, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

Alright, the factions template code for these are "hofgold" and "hofsilver". I've tagged all the real-life inductees, as well as put a silver icon on Dinobot, but now I'm heading out to do a grocery run. Anybody should be able to tag the rest now, but I'll work on tagging some when I get back if there are any left.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 14:53, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

The 11000th article

I think was Assembly. Wheeeee! Sorry, Irvine, you missed it by one... --Jeysie 18:46, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

BigBadToyStore

Does that deserve an article yet? (maybe to go in the "Retailers" category) They got their first Hasbro exclusive (see http://www.bigbadtoystore.com/bbts/product.aspx?product=has19150&mode=retail). Item42 01:02, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

What's Canon For Each Continuity

OK, after watching one seriously stupid and quite frankly embarrassing mess of a thread on the Allspark, I feel a need to say something. Namely that I'm really tired of our tendency to apply cross-continuity retcons all over the place.

Yes, everything official is canon for some continuity. But the key here is SOME CONTINUITY. I think we need to stop treating any details that take place in one continuity as if they definitely for sure affect another separate continuity. We need to start dropping the 100% in-universe conceit just a little and acknowledging the real-life reality of things. Namely that even if elements of one continuity are borrowed into another, that doesn't necessarily mean the writers of that continuity borrowed from have to acknowledge it in their own storyline. In fact, in some cases they even explicitly don't.

Just to borrow one scenario, every time we go "Oh, well, this event that happened in an Animated book/FunPub story uses some Movie concept, so obviously it's now canon for the Movie fiction too!" we just confuse the matter by presenting as canon for the Movie continuity things that have not actually happened in the actual Movie fiction, and may never actually happen in the future. Since the Movie writers--to be quite blunt and bringing in a dose of cold hard reality--probably do not know or care what an Animated reference or a FunPub story have done in their universe.

I'm not saying we shouldn't document this sort of cross-continuity mention at all, but merging pages based on it and writing it up in the main continuity sections and all that, well, it's just really getting to the point of being stupid and confusing. I'm starting to feel like, instead of getting to just write stuff up based on what happened in the actual fiction for each continuity, or what the writers who are actually in charge of writing each continuity actually said about their own continuity, now I gotta worry about mind-reading the wiki's pet fanon theories about which things that were never meant to be related by the actual authors go together after all.

And when it leads to things like some of us on the forums actually trying to tell the authors that we know better than they do about what they have planned for their own storylines... just, come on people.

Yeah, I know I'm probably the only person who actually feels this way and you're just going to heap insults on me, but I'm just tired of this, especially to the degrees it's been going on lately. It makes the wiki confusing and ridiculous for me to both read and edit, especially when done in the sheer volume it's been done lately, and I don't like being in the position of feeling this negatively towards our setup. --Jeysie 22:22, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

This is a little too generic a rant to be helpful. Obviously, you're talking about the Sideways merger. What else, specifically, is being affected by this sort of thing? --Xaaron 22:32, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

And Alignment supposedly being canon. And the renaming of the G1 characters. And merging Alpha Trion's pages. And really the whole multiversal singularity in general and everything related to that. And... etc. etc. (At least the whole thing with Sentinel Major was finally stopped by the affected author in question putting his foot down and people eventually relenting.) It's been bugging me for a while, but the mess lately was really kind of just the last straw where it tipped into "OK, this is just starting to get unignorably dumb" territory. --Jeysie 22:50, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

Whatever Hasbro approves of is canon. It doesn't matter if people are annoyed by it or it goes against original authorial intent. Transformers is Hasbro's property and if they sign their name off on something, it is canon.

Pretty much. There's no question a lot of fanon made its way into the AAII, but it's official now. You can blame the writers for taking advantage of their official positions to win internet arguments, but you can't blame the Wiki for acknowledging what they got published. As for Alpha Trion, he now has the dubious honor of being one of the 13, a multiversal singularity. Merging his pages had to be done -- he can't just be one of the 13 in SOME continuities, b/c the whole point of the 13 up til now is that there's only one of each of them in the multiverse. Does it make sense that G1 Alpha Trion and SG Alpha Trion are the same guy? No, not really. But it's the officially mandated position of Hasbro now, so...roll with it. --Xaaron 23:10, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

It's official for Animated. But last I knew, Sorenson was not licensed to write fiction for anything but the Animated continuity, so what he says in the Almanac is only canon for Animated and is a footnote at best in those other continuities.

Now, when the actual Movie writers make some fiction officially licensed as a part of the Movie continuity saying that ROTF Sideways is the same all the other Sideways, then it'll actually be full canon for the Movie continuity.

Likewise, Alpha Trion is a member of the 13 in Exodus, which is a part of the Prime continuity. I missed the part where that constitutes official fiction for any of the other continuities. Again, footnote sure, but until we get official fiction corroborating from those other continuities...

He certainly can be a singularity in only those continuities that actually use the singularity. Again, step outside of the in-universe a bit and accept that in the real world the different writing teams can and do end up doing different things with their characters and storylines. They don't always fit into a nice tidy bow, and I do not think it should be our job to fanwank it into doing so; it should just be our job to present the canon as-is for each continuity's actual fiction, even if that means some contradictions.

Like I said, we should not be misrepresenting things that did not happen in the official fiction specific to a continuity as if it actually did, just because it happened in an entirely separate continuity.

Because, what Exodus does is no more "officially mandated by Hasbro" than what IDW does, what Animated does, what the Movies do, etc. It's all official fiction. For some continuity. --Jeysie 23:35, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

The entire point of a multiversal singularity is that who and what they are is official across ALL continuities. To say Alpha Trion can be a multiversal singularity only in Prime continuity is a contradiction of terms.

And "official by Hasbro" means "official by Hasbro". I don't understand where this dissection of Animated and Movie universes is coming from. Sorenson wasn't given a license to Animated continuity and Michael Bay a license to Movie continuity...they were each just told to make something for Hasbro's Transformers property. The franchise indicator / universal stream breakdown for the fiction is an IN-fiction construct, not a legal distinction of rights between contributors. The movie writers don't have any more rights to those characters or properties than Sorenson, or Fun Pub, or IDW. They're all working for Hasbro. Like that quote from Nick Roche about how he thought he'd get to tell the story of Kup's reactivation, but IDW let Shane McCarthy do what he wanted with the character. IDW Kup is IDW's baby, not Roche's. They got to decide when and where he was used. And Sideways (ROTF) is Hasbro's baby, not some movie writer's. Sorenson was authorized to write about Hasbro's intellectual property called The Transformers, employing the universal stream distinction for their individual franchises. Ergo, anything published in Allspark Almanac II was true for anything it said it was true for...it wasn't somehow "limited" just to Animated concepts. --Xaaron 23:55, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

You're right that that's a contradiction in terms. But it only matters as much as we care about presenting the multiverse as though it's a real, consistent world. It's a fun conceit, and it subtly underlies a lot of what we do... but it's worth questioning. Which do we value more when there's a conflict: the integrity of a series, or multiversal decrees? - Jackpot 00:16, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Hasbro "signs off" on the notion that everybody ever named Optimus Prime is the exact same character. Their use of terminology is not exactly the same as ours. We've been working around that for years. --Thylacine 2000 23:03, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

Good point. It's also been officially declared that RiD and the movieverse are in-continuity with G1. We never even tried to take that seriously, so why should be obligated to accept these other cross-continuity declarations?

We're at a very interesting decision point here. Before it was ever acknowledged officially, the idea of the TF multiverse was accepted by fans as simply an in-universe way of giving equal regard to all of the contradictory series. But over the last decade or so, the multiverse has oozed into canon in a slipshod, right-hand-doesn't-know-what-the-left-is-doing, nobody-at-the-wheel way. And we who have taken up the burden of documenting it are starting to feel the strain of untangling the crush of continuities elbowing each other and stepping on each other's feet.

I'm not sure what the ideal approach is; I wonder how comic-book wikis have dealt with this. My personal preference, as I elaborated elsewhere, is to try to portray each series as it defines itself, giving only passing credence to cross-series retcons and decrees. I certainly haven't thought through all the practical ramifications, but it seems the most rational starting point to me.

- Jackpot 23:58, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

RID (or Car Robots, rather) is absolutely in the G1 continuity family. Just on the Japanese side. The movie thing only came up in one website timeline. —Interrobang 00:12, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

You are mistaken. RID is not in G1, but Car Robots is. Our RID is a distinct cluster (Viron) from G1 (Primax). RID and CR are in different clusters. But to keep us from having duplicate articles for everybody in Car Robots/RID, we note what's going on (or we should). We had this discussion a while ago, and I guess you weren't there or something. Japan once claimed that the movie (well, their version of the movie) took place in G1. This didn't end up happening and Japanese stuff since has ignored that tidbit, but even if it hadn't, their movie is not the same "universal stream" as ours to begin with. It would be the same thing as RID/CR. We don't ignore these things. --65.60.140.213 00:14, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Thank you for the clarification. And to clarify my own words, I never meant to suggest that we did or should ignore anything. It's all a matter of relative value. If, for instance, we placed a high value on the Japanese timeline and the attendant CR/RiD split, we WOULD have separate articles or more prominent declarations or something more than we currently do, which is just about jack (as evidenced by my ignorance). On the flipside, we ARE placing a high value on the FunPub model of the multiverse, letting it dictate article structure and primary presentation. We're even letting it define post-FunPub claims: As far as I know, all that the Prime universe has said about its Alpha Trion is that he was one of the original 13 TFs, a claim that has no multiversal relevance at ALL unless you apply the FunPub notion that The 13 are singularities. If we valued the FunPub model at the same level we do the Japanese continuity, we wouldn't be arguing over how that chain of cross-continuity associations should define our article structure. We'd just default to the normal continuity-family schema and make notes as appropriate. - Jackpot 00:35, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Well, we have a separate category with all of the alternate names. We also have write ups for Brave Maximus's adventures in Kiss Players. What is it you're looking for to prove we acknowledge CR as part of the G1 family? —Interrobang 00:57, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

If you want to argue it some more, Jackpot, have at it. --ItsWalky 00:58, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for the link. I did indeed miss that whole discussion. But I have less than zero desire to argue against anything in it, and you're missing my point completely if you think that's what I'm even talking about. Yes, fine, we take the Japanese CR/G1 thing seriously, but even Interrobang's examples still demonstrate that we acknowledge it secondarily, through redirects and notes. The end result of that linked discussion was that we DON'T change our article structures or primary presentations to accomodate it. As opposed to the FunPub model of the multiverse, which we HAVE been allowing to dictate our presentation, at least up until the new Alpha Trion thing generated this debate. All I'm saying is that we have more than one established option for dealing with cross-continuity declarations, which means the question of how we deal with singularities isn't as open-and-shut as some think it is. - Jackpot 02:20, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

You do have to agree that the CR/RID thing is a special case in that it would require that we have 100-plus articles that are exactly the same other than what they're named at the top. (And X-Brawn's personality would be different.) This is not the case for multiversal stuff, since it does not require us to be redundant on such a massive scale. I'm not sure why you think our attempt at avoiding massive redundancy should dictate how we treat entirely dissimilar things. --ItsWalky 09:14, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm not saying that the CR-G1 thing should dictate what we do the FunPub stuff, just that it's a precedent worth considering. In fact, I believe you and I are closer in principle than you think. If we allowed the Japanese model of the multiverse to guide our presentation, we would indeed have to do this massively redundant re-org, but we've collectively decided it's not worth it, so we don't. You and I are on the same page there. What I'm doing is using the same principle to say that we likewise don't have to let the FubPub model of the multiverse make us jump up and rearrange article content every time we hear a whisper of "singularity." We can still present all the same information, but reprioritize it underneath our tried-and-true foundation of dividing articles by continuity-family.

Here's an example of how this might work (I'm thinking out loud here, so don't take this as me drawing a line in the sand or whatever): In Alpha Trion's case, we could keep all the pages separate but, say, add a line to the end of each intro: "According to some sources, this Alpha Trion is the same individual as all the rest," with appropriate links. It would be more prominent than burying it in "Trivia," but not so dominant that it dictates our entire presentation. It also would give breathing room to the various ways the character has been portrayed, so the reader can get a better sense of the pieces that make up the whole, rather than get a giant, muddled, ill-conceived "whole" that we all think is kind of silly anyway. The Prime version of AT would be written up with a more multiversal slant than the rest, of course, but I don't think we'd need to jam everything onto his page to get that point across. In the end, we would still be documenting all of the info and ignoring nothing, but I think the presentation would be much more in-line with the reality of how the character has actually been written over the years.

- Jackpot 16:28, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, I lean about the same way as Jackpot. The Multiverse thing was fine when it was just a vague umbrella to tie together a hundred different continuities. But having one story or source reach out and re-write details of half a dozen other stories at the same time? I dunno so much about that. Seems to me that things like "Alpha Trion the old doddering cartoon guy is a multiversal singularity according to whatever source" ought to be kept in a Notes box or section, not integrated alongside info that actually came directly from the G1 cartoon. -- Repowers 00:15, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

There's an irony in the fact that the multiverse started as a tool for the fans to keep order and sanity in spite of the TFverse's freewheeling structure. I remember for YEARS the doctrine of "everything is canon, there are just multiple continuities" had to be diligently repeated in forum threads before it took hold in fandom zeitgeist. But now that the creators have gotten into the multiverse game without giving up the loose approach, our tool has been turned against us. There's no handy maxim to settle things anymore. - Jackpot 02:20, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

It is a little bit more difficult to brush these things off when the fiction is explicitly dealing with "The Multiverse". It is officially establishing new facts in multiple timestreams. I say this as someone who doesn't always like it when long-time nameless things get retroactive names. The Alignment thing is kind of wonky. It goes beyond the Multiverse and sort of breaks the fourth wall and directly tweaks real-world information. - Starfield 23:37, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

My prediction: this Multiverse hogwash will get way too overcomplicated. It's then going to get some much tangled up, no one will ever be able to figure out anything. Giant crisis cross-over's gonna happen, DC Comics style. Continuity will get completely rebooted. The Fandom will flip their collective shit over it. I'll be here chilling while everyone's still throwing around cluster f-bombs. Don't worry about it guys, it's not our jobs to fix it, just to record it as it happens. Write it all down, let Hasbro sort it out. :P --Ascendron 02:00, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I think that's already happening with Exodus's continuity mixing (although it contradicted the game lol). Transformers: Prime probably doesn't just mean the show's focus on what it means to be a Prime, but also literally being an Earth Prime for the multiverse. Alientraveller 04:53, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Disclaimer: I like they way we have been doing things and don't mind multiversal retcons. It's all just fiction, one continuity effecting another is cool to me, and the more layers it gets the more fun, IMO. THAT SAID: If there's a conflict, I'm with the "ours is not to reason why (or make un-stupid) ours is but to record" crowd. When a new source changes a past source I say we give NEITHER precedence but record both with equal weight on the page. One Alpha Trion page, but we make it very clear on the page that X is what he was like in the G1 toon, and Y is what a later source says he is. Put the focus on simply Recording Information rather than prioratizing it. It may require stepping "out of universe" a little more often in our entries, but that's a good thing if it clarifies the expression of information, our main goal. (Just like how we forgo humorous picture captions when we need a real one to express something clearly to the reader.) My 2-cents.--ZacWilliam 07:31, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Just a side note, my 3rd cent if you will, this is pretty much already how we do Unicron, with details of his various retconed backstories and the current story's conflicts all recorded "Out of universe" clearly and prominently on the page. Its a good model for Alpha Trion, Sideways and all to follow, IMO. --ZacWilliam 09:28, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Sound good to me. --TX55^TALK 10:42, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm with Zac on this. My understanding is Alpha Trion is now officially a multiversal singularity solely because someone put up a slide with his name on it at BotCon. If that's all we've got to go on, it's obviously not going to make much sense, but that's not Hasbro's problem -- they can't make announcements in a time and manner that makes it easy for the Wiki to record the information. We just have to roll with the punches and make the changes that are necessary to reflect the official information. There's no point in complaining about the fact that this information exists; that's an issue for message boards or your blog.

So A3 is a multiversal singularity now. Them's the breaks. If we need to do some tongue-in-cheek writing to acknowledge it (like the openings for Scrapper and Scavenger in their cartoon fiction section), then we do it. But arguing about this and the AAII and whether official info counts or doesn't count unless it was published in the right medium or with the right franchise header is asinine. --Xaaron 10:37, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

It's not asinine at all. Different branded fiction in the TFverse has different editorial and writing boards writing it. Different companies have different licenses to create specific types of media, explicitly not being allowed to create media they're not licensed for. Hasbro has demonstratively shown a very anal and strong hand in making sure that things like the Movie comics fit into canon. In at least one case we know of (FunPub), there are even specific mandates about which continuities can't be directly written in/for by that company and which continuities aren't affected by their fiction. So Hasbro, at least, is actually shown to be very clear about who can write in what medium and for what storyline, and what is and isn't allowed in a certain storyline.

Meanwhile, I have no problem acknowledging that Trion is a singularity in those continuities that have one. But the fact of the real-life situation is that not every continuity uses the concept.

We need to accept that the real-life factual way this all has been working up until now does not always fit tidily or work how we wish it would work. And like I said, it's our job to report on what officially happened, not our fanwank theories. Especially when this wiki is theoretically supposed to be for those fans looking for information on what actually has happened in official fiction, not what we wish would happen. --Jeysie 12:05, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Saying FunPub can't publish movie material b/c Hasbro won't allow it is one thing; saying material that WAS published should be ignored or disavowed is another. Again, assumptions -- you have no evidence that Hasbro said the Allspark Almanac was NOT allowed to reference other continuities, and the Almanac itself is evidence that Hasbro DID allow it. The proof is in the publication...to go beyond that is you assuming you know Hasbro's policies better than the Hasbro employees who allowed the Almanac to be printed in the first place. --Xaaron 12:27, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Actually, it's the other way around. Since the Almanac is branded only as a guide to Animated (and thus very likely did not go through the same editorial process that the branded fiction in the other continuities goes through, only Animated's process), and Hasbro has been shown to be very anal about the info that goes into its officially branded fiction in other continuities, you need proof that Hasbro approved the Almanac as anything but a guide to Animated. Anything else is an unfounded assumption with no proof. Especially when, like I said, we instead have explicit proof that continuities are not always obligated to acknowledge cross-continuity mentions, and that some companies aren't even allowed to write any direct canon at all in some continuities.

The only thing the publication of the Almanac proves is that it was approved as Animated fiction, since that's what it's branded and marketed as. Going beyond that is you assuming you know Hasbro's policies at all. Because I've never seen anything that indicates that Hasbro considers cross-continuity retcons to be binding, and in fact have seen several indications that they don't, so I sure as heck am not going to be making any assumption about that matter.

On top of that, when it comes to Sentinel Major, we know 100% for certain that the Almanac was not approved by Hasbro as being binding to FunPub fiction, based on Pete stating it's not as FunPub's Head Editor, so that calls into doubt its so-called applicability to any other continuity as well. --Jeysie 12:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

No, Jeysie...no. A thousand times no. "The only thing the publication of the Almanac proves is that it was approved ~~as Animated fiction~~." You're the one assuming the Animated brand has weight and meaning beyond being a mast head. You're the one assuming Sorenson was told he can only write Animated fiction. You're the one assuming b/c FunPub has a certain type of limitation, every other publication has something similar even though we've heard nothing about that from Hasbro or the writing team. And you're the one assuming that Hasbro didn't mean to publish things it actually DID publish.

All the assumptions here are on you. I don't need to prove your elaborate series of assumptions about the inner workings of Hasbro are false. You need to prove they are true. --Xaaron 13:08, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Yes, a thousand times yes. If anyone can publish any fiction in any continuity at any time, why bother branding it or having dedicated regular writing teams or anything at all? Why not just brand everything as Transformers with zero differences and let all the writers write whatever they want in any series?

Why would Hasbro work closely with teams like the WFC folks or the Movie comic folks to make sure everything matches up the way they want it if they didn't care about the continuities of those series? Why would Hasbro do things like disallow FunPub from writing their own OC ever again because they want to use him in their new continuity? Why would they turn around and give one-liner cameos in completely unrelated fiction a free pass to affect those other continuities?

Yes, I do assume that the Animated brand has weight beyond being a masthead. If this very wiki assumes that the logo has meaning for the toys, why is the fiction about those toys magically exempt? It fits into franchises exactly the same way, and indeed we actually have made decisions on this very precept. (The discussion of treating the ROTF toys and fiction as separate from the 2K7 line, and whether we should treat the SG fiction as SG vs. as Timelines-branded fiction comes to mind off the top of my head.)

Not only that, but the Almanac is very clearly being marketed to customers as being based in Animated, as a guide to Animated. There's literally nothing about the Almanac at all that says customers should be expected, in a marketing sense, to treat it as also being a guide to anything else; no extra official logos, I'm assuming no editorial note to the effect in the book (if anything, we had the exact opposite statement from Sorenson himself!), etc.

On top of that, like I said, Mowry got ridden to keep continuity in his Movie comics. So basically, to reiterate, you're trying to tell me that the guy tapped to write directly-branded fiction gets paid close attention to by Hasbro, but an admitted throwaway joke in a completely different continuity that contradicts officially-branded Movie fiction gets waved through, no worries?

And again, like I said for the umpteenth time, we have direct evidence that no, the Almanac is not canon for all other continuities, and that no, other continuities don't necessarily have to care what fiction in other continuities do.

And I have proved that my assumptions are true, based on, like I've already said umpteen times, direct evidence of how Hasbro has handled things. I've given you evidence of licensing restrictions, continuity restrictions, how Hasbro edits the canon for each storyline, how some continuities explicitly don't acknowledge others, etc.

Meanwhile, all you've given me is your assumptions based on... well, nothing at all except your own assumptions. I'd say the burden of proof is on you, bub. You've been feeding me nothing but a lot of illogical statements that make no sense compared to how writing a storyline actually works or even how the treatment of the various bits of fiction by the licensees and Hasbro has been shown to work in reality. --Jeysie 14:48, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Yes. Very much so. And more, why we should care over the simple and logical: "Hasbro aproves it, then its canon for whatever continuity(ies) it says it is." rule we have now.--ZacWilliam 14:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Because it's not logical at all.

The logical thing to do is assume that what's canon for a continuity is the official fiction for that continuity and what the people actually writing said fiction have said is canon. Because that way you're getting the fiction how it was supposed to be presented in a literary sense, in terms of what the people actually writing it intended as canon for their story.

Meanwhile, there's absolutely zero logical about assuming that someone who has no connection at all to the regular writing or editing of a story should know anything about it or should make an official contribution to it. Nor is there anything logical about assuming to be part of a story things that were never intended to be in it.

I mean, for heavens sake, the various writers can't even keep their own continuities straight half the time, and we have lots of errors in stories that were explicitly meant to go together. Why compound the problem by linking together things that weren't meant to go together? It makes no sense at all from a literary standpoint, from a practical standpoint, or from the standpoint of a casual reader who wants to know what actually happened in a certain continuity, not what we fans think happened based on fanon speculation. --Jeysie 14:58, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I'd agree. Prowl II was pretty much the same "two different guys smashed together into one big continuity monster because of a reference book" situation, and nobody's split him back up into Chip Chase-in-a-Prowl-suit and Prowl the Owl. Omnibus 11:35, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Gotta go with Zac and company here. These things have been said, we need to record it. Put any notes about possible problems and confusions, but I don't see how to get around the bare fact that it has been done. --Khajidha 11:39, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

If this is such a big deal, for Sideways, might I suggest considering something similar to what we did with Ramulus's page, because of the ambiguity of his identity as Longhorn? Two seperate pages, but still presented with the facts that we know of them being hinted as the same character. Or heck, even Lazorbeak has a nice note noting that he may-or-may-not-be the original Laserbeak. It's not like we have just two options in this matter really. --Ascendron 13:05, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Quoting Zac: When a new source changes a past source I say we give NEITHER precedence but record both with equal weight on the page. One Alpha Trion page, but we make it very clear on the page that X is what he was like in the G1 toon, and Y is what a later source says he is. It's impossible NOT to prioritize. By advocating the merging of singularity pages, you're giving priority to that kind of retcon. That's really what all of this is about - no one is saying we should IGNORE canon information, just that we should think twice about letting every new multiversal declaration make us rearrange how we structure our presentation. See my proposal above - there are other ways of doing this. It's a pure strawman to say that anything other than page-merging is anti-canon chaos. - Jackpot 16:47, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

*wearily just gestures that she thinks Jackpot's arguments and suggestions make sense* --Jeysie 16:55, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Does Hasbro Matter?

(Moved down from earlier in the down in an attempt to keep things organized.)

Exactly. That's why Jeysies idea of how continuity should work strikes me as very very wrong. The ONLY way we have of determining what is official canon in TF is by what Hasbro officially publishes. PERIOD. If you start allowing people to say "Hasbro didn't really mean that" or "Hasbro didn't know what they were saying" or "Hasbro didn't mean to approve what they clearly approved" then you open up EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING to any interpretation or negation that any fan wants to pull out of nowhere. That way lies complete dissolution of all meaning and canon. You don't know better that Hasbro what they mean or what's "right". Feel free to HATE retcons and multi-sings but they exist: Hasbro MADE THEM and HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEM and so it is this wiki's purpose to record that, not put our heads in the sand and imagine "they can't do that" shape the fiction into the shape we'd prefer.--ZacWilliam 12:47, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Well, you know, I'm only going by the real-life facts of how the reality actually works regards Hasbro's licenses, different editorial and writing boards, different brandings on each fiction, statements from actual creators (including Sorenson himself), etc. But I guess clearly our pet fanwank takes precedent over the facts and reality presented to us by the people actually officially creating the fiction?

I mean, like I said above, we already have one instance where we know 100% for certain that what was written in the Almanac is not canon for a non-Animated continuity. And even Sorenson stated himself that the jokey references were just that: jokey references.

No, I don't know for sure what Hasbro's full policies are. Just that, unlike you folks, I'm thus playing it safe and only assuming what we have proof to assume, based on actual real-world facts.

I don't hate retcons or the multiversal concept. Nor am I basing my case on which retcons I do and don't like: for instance, I hate McCarthy's retcons, but since he's a writer hired specifically to write in IDW's G1 continuity, his retcons are nonetheless considered by the people actually creating the continuity as canon for that continuity.

I am just stating that we have zero proof that said retcons or concepts absolutely have to apply to anything but the specific continuities they were presented in, and instead plenty of proof that in many cases they explicitly don't apply outside their specific continuities. --Jeysie 12:59, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Yes Hasbro controls who publishes what. Of course they do. No one is arguing otherwise. That doesn't matter at all and SHOULDN'T matter at all as far as the wiki is concerned. What matters is what they alowed to be published. If its published, its canon. If something is published that is a mostly an Animated story but touches on G1 continuity because of dimensional travel that DOSN'T mean it isn't G1 canon because it was "An Animated" story, it means that the story was a "G1 and Animated crossover story" and what it said is canon to both. If Hasbro says something is a Multiversal Singularity and that this means there is only ONE if it in ALL continuities, than we have to accept that this means what it says: ALL CONTINUITIES.

If we start assuming that not everything Hasbro publishes is canon, or that they "Maybe did't mean that, really" then we have no way to diffentiate official from fanon at all. We've never had a rule about one branded fiction "not being able to effect" other branded canon because 1) thats counter to the whole Multiverse idea that Hasbro's very much embraced, and 2) Hasbro themselves clearly DO NOT have such a rule in 99% of cases, or they wouldn't approve so many dimension hopping character or stories. Hasbro does approve stories where continuities cross over and effect one another and that retcon past continuities (like it or not) so they are canon and its our job to record them as we are given them. Not to make value judgements about how much Hasbro "meant them". --ZacWilliam 13:09, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Again, as I've stated several times already, I never said some things weren't canon. But which continuity they're canon for is the question.

I mean, I've absolutely no argument whatsoever at all about the info in the Almanac being canon for Animated, seeing as how it's branded with the Animated logo. So I'm not saying that the Almanac isn't canon. But that means zero about whether it's canon for any other continuity. And we know in at least one instance it explicitly isn't.

And, *facepalm* Like I said, some continuities have explicitly actually been stated as not being a part of or beholden to the multiversal concept or cross-continuity retcons. And just because one continuity does dimension-hopping doesn't mean any other continuity is obligated to actually care. Each storyline has a separate set of dedicated writers and editors all doing their own thing. We have no evidence showing they have to pay attention to each other (though some obviously choose to), and some evidence of cases where they quite explicitly don't. That's the whole reason to for continuities and micro-continuities and splinter continuities in the first place, acknowledging that something that's canon for one continuity may not be canon for another. We just need to finally accept that reality across the board.

Also, when we do this sort of cross-continuity retcon, we're accepting the thought that people who are not part of a continuity's dedicated regular writers and editors and thus probably know nothing about what those people are doing with their storyline still know what's going on in it canonically. Even more moronically, sometimes we even do this over the word of the people actually writing the contested storyline! If people can't realize how utterly stupid that is (I mean, just because I'm officially writing in one continuity doesn't mean I know jack about what the writing team in another continuity is doing)...

And no, saying that Hasbro's word goes doesn't mean anything, because if Hasbro were really truly mandating all of these cross-continuity things, then the people writing those other continuities would be forced to use them and thus wouldn't be claiming they don't apply or contradicting them in the actual fiction. I would think this would be obvious logic... --Jeysie 13:34, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

To address your points in order:

1) Anything aproved by Hasbro is canon. We both agree there, yes? Why, then, do you think there is debate about what continuity it is canon for? If Hasbro publishes a story that touches on any and all continuites then it is canon for those continuities. Were they to have, say, RiD and BW crossover than YES it IS DEFINATLY canon for both RiD and BW. Why? Because that's what they published. To imagine anything else is counter intuitive, overly complicated, and putting the determining factor for canon on US rather than Hasbro, which is WRONG. You don't have to like it, but there it is. Any other way is uselessly arbitrary and complex.

2)No I do not believe any continuity has been confirmed by Hasbro to be outside the Multiverse. If fact they've said the opposite, that the multiverse contains all TF universes. And that Singularities specifically exist in All Continuities. (Thats what it MEANS.) FP said informally they wouldn't touch the movie stuff with their fiction because the Movie stuff is an exceptional really complicated issue driven by outside powers, that's not saying that its outside the multiversal stuff, as Hasbro has specifically published a SCRAP-TON of stuff connecting the movie continuity family to the greater multiverse.

3)Sorry to be blunt but I don't think Creators mater here at all. They're totally beside the point. "Dedicated fiction teams" (in the rare cases they exist) don't matter. They're all "work for hire" folks who come and go. Hasbro is the authority on whats canon. They have to be or there is no canon.

4)Your final paragraph above is absolutly wrong and missing the point IMO. The only way we have and have ever had of establishing what is official TF canon is by what Hasbro approves. It doesn't matter if they "enforce" a storyline on every writer for it to be canon. All that matters is that they approve it to be published. That's what makes canon. Thats the only thing that can make canon. If you start doing what you're doing and saying "Oh they can't really mean that, because x" or "they can't let x writer retcon the work of y writer" then you are making yourself the judge of canon and it stops being official canon. We have to stick to "Everything Hasbro publishes is official canon for the universe (all universes) that the story says it is" or we're just making up fanon. --ZacWilliam 14:19, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

1. Because we the wiki DOES debate what continuity something is canon for. Why do we have continuity families, continuities, micro-continuities, splinter timelines, etc. at all if we don't care about what goes in what continuity? Why did we split up ROTF from 2K7--both the toys AND the fiction--if the branding doesn't matter? Why did we debate whether SG--again, both toys AND fiction--counts as SG or Timelines based on how the fiction is branded if the branding doesn't matter?

To me, assuming that fiction in one continuity somehow affects fiction in another continuity is what is extremely counter-intuitive, based on both my personal experience as a writer and my experience of what has happened in real-life vs. what the actual creators themselves have said about how various bits of fiction do and don't fit together.

It is, however, completely intuitive to assume that if a bit of fiction is branded for a continuity, it's canon for THAT continuity. That's the whole damn point of the branding to begin with, to signal to readers that this fiction, this toy, this tech spec, belongs to THIS certain franchise/universe/continuity.

As for it being overly complicated, I actually consider it more overly complicated to do lots of fanwank academic gymnastics to try and figure out how to things that were never meant to fit together and might well be completely contradictory fit together after all. Like I've said elsewhere, it's not as if stories that actually were meant to fit together don't manage to have enough errors already anyway, without us helping things along.

I will concede it might be more complicated for us to catalog, but tough shit, reality doesn't always play nice with what you want.

2. I've never heard a single statement that says all continuities have to include the multiversal concept. Meanwhile, I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. That the Movies are outside of the multiversal idea. That bits of the Almanac explicitly aren't canon for some continuities. Statements from creators about their own continuities... who, like I said, would not be making those statements if Hasbro had actually mandated differently to them.

3. XD You can't be serious. Yes, the people directly writing each continuity matter because, um, you know, they're the ones actually writing the stories. Dur. Yes, writing teams change, but they change within those continuities. For instance, when McCarthy took over for Furman, he took over under IDW's editorial, writing for IDW's storyline. He didn't take over for Animated, he didn't take over for the Movies, he isn't working for Prime, he doesn't work for FunPub. He's the new guy for a specific company under a specific editor for a specific continuity.

And yes, what Hasbro says is canon. For some continuity. And again, if Hasbro was actually mandating all these cross-continuity claims, we wouldn't even be having this debate to begin with because all of the fiction and statements from the creators would reflect that so there would be no argument. I've seen plenty of evidence that Hasbro cares very much about what goes on in certain specific continuities. I've seen no evidence at all of Hasbro mandating cross-continuity things, however, and in fact just the opposite.

4. Just the opposite, it's utterly making up fanon to assume that things branded as one continuity have any affect at all on a completely different continuity, even when those people claim different or even write official fiction stating differently. It's fanon to assume that we fans or people not assigned to write directly for a continuity know better about what is planned for that other continuity than the people who actually are writing for that continuity. (Not to mention, to be quite blunt about it, just plain fucking stupid.) --Jeysie 15:23, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

From your second point; if the movies are outside the multiverse idea, why do at least two multiversal singularities appear in it? Or do Unicron and the Fallen not count? -- Semysane 17:27, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I think this covers it pretty well. But the short version, they're versions of Unicron and the Fallen who aren't singularities. Pretty simple. --Jeysie 17:55, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

The writing in one continuity does not affect any other continuity/ies.... except when it does. Animated Arcee being a schoolteacher does not make G1 Arcee a schoolteacher. A god warping the fabric of reality such that every entity ever named Arcee is now said to have been a schoolteacher DOES make G1 Arcee a schoolteacher. Sideways being long-established for years as having had the power to warp from one continuity to the next means that he actually can do that, and the things he's said to do in some continuity he hadn't visited earlier can certainly be attributed to him, being there, doing it. If the writers go all-out along those lines and it gets published, then it is canon. I know there's a fair amount of author-intent debating here every now and then, but I don't think "in-continuity author intent supremacy" is a popularly-held viewpoint, let alone one stable enough on which to build this wiki in the future. We would certainly have to un-happen Beast Machines, which we're bloody well not. --Thylacine 2000 15:36, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I can't speak for Jeysie's view, but I do think that series-integrity should be given higher priority than we currenty do, and I see absolutely no need to "un-happen Beast Machines." The changes being discussed are a lot subtler than that. As I see it, all we need to do to maintain BW's integrity despite BM's retcons is just to make sure we don't, for example, talk about the Allspark in a section titled "Beast Wars cartoon". Which is pretty much how it is now, so no big deal. Where this really comes into play is the singularity stuff; jamming everything into a single article fosters a sense of retcon-supremacy. If it's our goal to try to present the multiverse as a single, cohesive whole, then yes, I would agree that the retcons should be given primacy. But I see no particular reason to give that conceit so much weight. Each series has its own view of the multiverse (or none at all), and it's a choice on our part as to how to present it when one series's multiverse-model treads on another series's territory. We don't have the choice of ignoring it... but we do have options for how it affects our presentation. - Jackpot 17:38, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I can't speak in detail about something like BM, not having seen it, but again, I think you covered my viewpoint pretty well. I'm not saying we should flat out ignore any canon. But there is a difference between simply mentioning a given detail somehow, and treating that given detail as major enough in a certain continuity to affect our organization.

I feel like cross-continuity things should almost always be the former rather than the latter unless we really have solid, official reason to treat a cross-continuity detail as being major for that other continuity. (As in, corroboration from fiction branded with that continuity or someone who regularly deals with that other continuity, not just a mere mention in whatever publication in a separate continuity.)

Especially since, it just doesn't hurt us at all to play it safe this way. We're not ignoring the info. We're not presenting it as being not valid at all. We're just reasonably not taking a firm stance on something, especially a major difference, unless we have really solid reason to know it's the case. --Jeysie 18:04, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Sure. I just discovered the debate over on Talk:Sideways, and that actually provides a good example: I have no problem with Animated Sideways being on the UT Sideways page because Animated took the UT dimension-hopper thing and ran with it. However, I'd prefer that the live-action Sideways NOT be on the same page because the movieverse doesn't acknowledge the connection. Yes, let's absolutely document the retcon, but make it a link instead of a merger. That way, the information is still conveyed, but we let series-integrity define our presentation instead of the mythical idea of a consistent, unified multiverse. - Jackpot 18:21, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

You are actually pretty badly misrepresenting the discussion there. We aren't saying that Movie Sideways isn't UT Sideways because the Movie universe says so, we're saying that they aren't the same because the evidence presented in the AAII doesn't prove that he is beyond a shadow of a doubt. All it says is that the was planning to go to Shanghai, but that Shanghai could be in the UT, RiD, Animated or Robot Masters universes just as easily as the Movie universe. We're not saying definitively that they are not the same guy, just that there is not enough evidence to prove he is. -- Semysane 19:01, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm not trying to represent your arguments at all. I'm defining my own answer on my own terms. For what it's worth, I see the phrase "the same guy" as an... overly-simplistic way of looking at the question. Different series provide different views of who's the "same" as who, and my suggestions are keyed to preserving those differences of perspective. - Jackpot 19:21, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

So then why even bother brining the discussion up? You may as well have cited Weekend at Bernie's. -- Semysane 19:23, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Jackpot's Guide to the Multiverse

In the discussion above, I started piecing together a sensible approach to dealing with cross-continuity issues, but it's kind of scattered and buried up there, so I figured I'd spell out the principles I'm working with:

1) By default, articles should be separated from each other by continuity-family.

I don't expect much disagreement here, since it's how we actually do things 99% of the time. There are of course exceptions when the subject is sufficiently universal, like Cybertron (planet). And at the moment, we also make exceptions for singularities and dimension-hoppers. I only bring the principle up to say that when I advocate separating articles, this is the standard I'm falling back on.

2) Everything with a Hasbro trademark is canon, and we should document it.

Pretty sure we're all together on this one. The thorny issue is HOW to document it.

3) Each series should be presented as it presents itself.

Again, this is pretty much how we already do things. When we talk about Starscream in the context of the G1 'toon, he's a "ghost," but when it's in a BW context, he's a "spark." Where we're starting to see problems is with singularities and dimension-hoppers. For example, the Animated Almanac strongly suggests that its version of Sideways is the same individual as his movieverse namesake. But within the movieverse, there's zero evidence of any connection. There's been debate over whether the Almanac claim is "proof" or just an "Easter egg," but let's assume for sake of argument that it's an ironclad declaration. In that case, one series's self-presentation contradicts another's. Our job is to present them both, each with the prominence that it merits, no matter how at-odds they may be. Which leads to the next point...

4) There is no single, consistent multiverse.

I think this is my most controversial notion. Almost every argument I've seen in favor of merging articles rests on the assumption that continuity is a two-way street: If one source makes a statement about another universe, then by gum that other universe needs to be roped in. But the reality is that TF fiction comprises a bunch of independent series written with little or no regard to each other, each with its own view of the multiverse (or lack thereof). For example, it was brought up in this discussion that Pete Sinclair, when pressed about how Nexus Prime related to the Dynasty of Primes, dismissed the live-action universe as "outside the multiverse." This statement is of course not canon, but it illustrates the real-life situation, where Orci and Kurtzman didn't get the memo about what was going on in the fan-club comic while they were writing the movies. It's the reason why trying to conform our presentation to the mirage of a unified multiverse will always end in buttache and fire.

6) Merging articles for a retcon's sake gives priority to that retcon.

No matter how diligent we are about disclaimers throughout a merged article, the fact that readers are presented with all the guys on one page tells them that primarily they're the same character. I don't think this is merited if the connection isn't supported in all cases. Let's use a new example: Alpha Trion. He's had many incarnations, always as an elderly sage, sometimes with mystical overtones, but with no specific uniqueness other than being super old. In fact, he even got an evil incarnation like lots of other ordinary characters. But now the Prime universe has a version that seems to be a singularity. If we merged them all because of this, then that would override the primary nature of the pre-Prime A3s as individuals in their native contexts. This is what I've been referring to in the debate as "series integrity," per point #3. So instead...

7) Links can serve instead of mergers to document a multiversal connection.

This seems obvious to me, but since some people seem to think that multiversal claims necessitate mergers for some reason, I figured I'd say it. In the Alpha Trion example, my answer is to link all of the pre-Prime A3s to the Prime one, and have the Prime one link out to all the rest (or just the disambig page). Then we could let the tone of each article to reflect the degree or absence of connection appropriate to its source material.

So let's bring this all together into a simple rule...

THEREFORE: If a cross-continuity claim goes both ways, then the pages should be merged. If it's one-sided, then they should be separate but linked.

For an example of "going both ways," we can look at Sideways again: When the Almanac used the character, his dimension-hopping had already been established. So saying that he stopped off in the Animated universe was barely a retcon at all; it just added a stamp to his passport. I think that calls for a merger with the "(RID)" article. But because the movieverse presents its Sideways as an independent character, he deserves his own page with his own intro, mainpic, toy section, etc., no matter how strongly the Animated universe may claim him. We should certainly LINK the two, but again, with the prominence it merits within each context. If we decided the Almanac wording was watertight, then we would make the link on the Animated page fairly in-your-face, something in the intro, bold, blink-tagged, with a trumpet MIDI. But the movieverse page should have a quieter link, maybe down in "Notes"/"Trivia".

Oh, and COROLLARY: If there's ever any uncertainty about whether a situation counts as "both ways," we should default to linked separation, per #1.

So that's where I'm coming from. I used the Sideways and A3 examples because they made handy illustrations, and I don't mean to represent all the nuances of their own debates. The point was to give practical examples of how my principles can be applied to ALL singularities and dimension-hoppers. The more Hasbro gets into the multiverse business, the more we're going to have to deal with this shit, and I think this is a solid guide that will help prevent future battles if we can agree to it. Of course I'm open to suggestions - I don't mean to say that This Is My Conviction or whatever - but nothing else I've seen so far makes as much sense to me. Agree/disagree? Discuss!

- Jackpot 21:20, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

The Debate, part the first, wherein Semysane complains about length and Jeysie complains about Semysane

I'm sorry, that was a bit TL;DR. Is this a blog now? -- Semysane 23:11, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

*eyeroll* I hate "Too long, too lazy ass to read" butthurt. Look, are you over the age of 10? If so, it's not going to kill you to be expected to use your brain and read more than a few sentences, especially when someone's rightfully trying to explain their reasoning behind what would be a major change in how we do things. Suck it up. --Jeysie 23:39, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm sorry I don't have the time to read all day about fucking toys. If you would like to pay for my food, rent, clothes and internet FOR me, then I'd be more than willing to read a novella on retcons. Until then, stop insulting me. -- Semysane 01:26, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Guess what? If you don't have the time to read and pay attention to a conversation, then here's a thought: don't participate in it. Wow, what a crazy thought. There's the door over there.

As for the insulting, pot, kettle, black. You insulted the post, I insulted your lazy whining. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. --Jeysie 01:48, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

What's your damn problem? Who died and made you the lord and master here? "There's the door?" Why the hell does this have to turn into ad-hominem assaults? All I said was that the post was long. I honestly don't see why you would flip your shit over that. -- Semysane 01:58, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

You came in here and insulted the post by wondering when the wiki turned into a blog, instead of actually contributing something useful, so please stop acting like you have the high ground.

For two, like I said, if you don't have time to participate, then instead of wasting your time and ours making a pointless whiny insulting complaint about OMG someone daring to expect you to read more than a few sentences, why not just... not post? I mean, dur. --Jeysie 02:08, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't realize that I should have given time to some blowhard telling us how we should completely throw out how we've done things from day one BECAUSE HE SAID SO! My sincerest apologies! -- Semysane 02:26, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Hey, here's a thought. Both of you knock it off or there's some timeouts coming. --M Sipher 02:29, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

The Debate, part the second, wherein Sorenson and Jeysie lay out the basic thrust of the pros and cons of the proposal and others weigh in

I kind of like it. It helps as a sort of guide on the whole MC-classifying thing. --Lonegamer78 23:22, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, me too, it makes an incredible amount of sense. --Jeysie 23:39, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

I like the logic; it's clear and concise. However, I don't agree with it. If you take this idea to its logical conclusion, it means that we basically, more or less, ignore all retcons. Or, at the very least, it means that we need duplicative pages. For instance, The Nemesis wasn't named in the G1 cartoon. Its name came from Beast Wars. To really follow your thought process, merging the Nemesis, the ship named in Beast Wars, with the unnamed Decepticon cruiser introduced in a different series, would be 'giving priority to that retcon.' I think it's far more interesting, useful and informative to have those concepts as the same article, rather than splitting them. I'll also point out that the Ark was never named in the Sunbow cartoon, so we'd have to split that from the Marvel Comics. There are undoubtedly a ton of other examples like this.

(It's possible that you meant for your point four to apply exclusively to cross continuity-family mergers and retcons. You don't say this, but even if you meant it, in my mind that's a false distinction. Cross series is cross series, be it G1 to G1, G1 to RID, Animated to Movie or whatever.)--Jimsorenson 00:33, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

I think it's far more interesting, useful, and informative to be accurate. IMHO we should be making our arguments based on what presents the information in the most accurate and least fan speculation/assuming way, not based on how tidy or convenient it is or isn't. IMHO we should bend to fit the information, not bend the information to fit us. --Jeysie 00:44, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

That's a complete strawman argument. It's not inaccurate to retroactively apply the name The Ark to the ship from the Sunbow cartoon. It's a choice of two different organizational schemas, both of which have pros and cons. When dealing with organizational issues, tidy and convenient are valid goals.--Jimsorenson 01:01, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

It's potentially inaccurate whenever it forces us to make a completely fanon decision that one bit of information is "more canon" than another bit, instead of treating all info as equally canon. See Jackpot's point #6. --Jeysie 01:25, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

It's actually inaccurate to refuse to user our judgment to merge two effectively identical concepts, such as The Ark (Marvel comics) and Unnamed Autobot ship (Sunbow), just because one was named and one wasn't. It's a completely "fanon" decision to decide that they're two different ideas, just as it's a completely "fanon" decision to decide that they're the same idea. Being unwilling to commit to a position is itself a position, and not a very useful, informative, or interesting one. --Jimsorenson 01:52, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Being unwilling to commit to a position when there is no solid information to go on is the honest and accurate position. It's our job to catalog canon, period, not our fanon theories. (Basically, it's less fanon to assume they're different than it is to assume they're the same without solid canon proof.)

It's useful and informative to present canon as-is. People come here to learn what canon says, not to read our fanon theories on things. (As for interesting, I think it's more interesting to read about TF fiction and what the creators intended, personally, rather than read people's fanon theories.) --Jeysie 02:00, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm not sure you know what fanon means, based on your usage of it here. No one here is seriously advocating just making things up and hurling them around willy-nilly. But when you have two positions, both of which have evidence, choosing one over the other is not fanon. Fanon is saying "Dion is Ultra Magnus" and then linking those pages. Interpreting canon is saying "Oh, there is an Decepticon spaceship in Beast Wars named The Nemesis, and an EXTREMELY similar ship in the Sunbow cartoon with the same backstory... let's treat them as the same thing." Interpreting canon != fanon. --Jimsorenson 02:35, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Bluntly, there's also a point where it's "come the fuck on" and not making the link is either pussyfooting or bullheadedness, and both lead to a disorganized, unfriendly mess of a wiki with a million scattered pages for the same concepts. Plus it's rather insulting to one's intelligence after a point. I don't have "solid" proof the sun will rise tomorrow, but you know, if I were to place a bet... --M Sipher 02:41, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

I agree with a some of it but if it's not a "consistent Multiverse" then what is the point of having one? That would essentially make the Thirteen and so on less then Multiversal even though they have been stated canonically to exist in such a manner. MrBlud 04:02, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, the logic is good in a lot of ways, I don't deny that, but Jim and MrBlud raise very good objections as well. As Blud said, it's not really the "multiverse" if it doesn't contain everything. That's what the multiverse IS. Thats entirely what it means, and downplaying that this much feels like our chooseing to really diminis the whole concept. Even more worying, Like Jim says, it IS just as subjective to group things together as to seperate them. It's just a difference of interpretation. If you set the bar so high for seperating everything though it's a very destructive rule. In our continuity article we talk about how assuming anything is in continuity with anything else even within a singular series IS really just an assumpion. The approach to continuity we have been using is a constructive one (Continuities and future material can build on one another. Alla G1 and BW). To switch to an entirely devisive model opens both issues of revamping lots of pages but also destroying many comon sense connections such as those Jim mentions in an overzelous OCD nead to keep everything from touching. It's not unworkable but as an idea it has very worring potential and at least as much room for abuse and stupidity as our current constructive format.--ZacWilliam 08:29, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Agreed, the basic premise is valid but there are problems with applying without reservation. Jim, in particular, raises the quite valid point that if we truly follow this, then we really need to split off a couple thousand pages. The thing to remember is at some point you're doing more harm than good by keeping things separate. Have your examples reached that point, I don't know. But I want to leave the possibility open to combine them if evidence keeps piling up in favor of it. --Khajidha 08:33, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Links can be used instead of mergers / same-naming for highly contested cases, like the recent Sideways flap. But as Jim noted, arguing that the Sunbow ship ISN'T the Ark just seems like an exercise in deliberate obtuseness that inhibits the clarity and usefulness of this wiki. There is a TON of canon evidence that it's the Ark, from the Ultimate Guide to Beast Wars to the Titanium toy. In an instance where a retcon does not actually OPPOSE pre-existing information in the retconned storyline--because there was none--I cannot think of any valid reason to exclude it. I can see debating an oppositional retcon, like Primus vs. Unicron; however, that particular one has been well established foundationally for so many years that, again, trying to split it out now would only get in the way of conveying any facts at all. As long as we sufficiently annotate all such material instead of trying to seamlessly pass it off as perfect revealed in-universe truth, I see no problem with it. I HATE the concept of the Vok being the Swarm, it adds nothing to the series except some pretty agonizing internal contradictions that were totally, totally unnecessary. But there it is. So--we mention it, we discuss and/or annotate the potential problems, and that's that. As long as readers can be made fully aware of any controversy that has actual impact on the storylines, we are in the clear and our approach "works". --Thylacine 2000 10:43, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Jackpot's guide is how I view the multiverse, I also don't think it is a two-way street. I think the Nemesis situation is different. The ship played the same general role in the comic and cartoon, so it is appropriate to be on the same page—just like cartoon Megatron and comic Megatron. Beast Wars doesn't say the ship crossed from the cartoon to the comic or anything. But we could make it more clear. On the Nemesis page there should be clear notes, preferably at the top of both the cartoon and Marvel comics sections, stating that the ship had no name in those continuities and was named later. There currently isn't such a note. I would also prefer the name Nemesis wasn't used in the cartoon and Marvel comics fiction sections, but that isn't a big deal. Well done Jackpot. - Starfield 10:53, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

I have a minor quibble with #2. Bendy-Bus Prime is a Transformer, but I believe he is all Paramount and no Hasbro. Is he canon? Maybe he isn't, I don't know. - Starfield 10:53, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

The Debate, part the third, wherein Sorenson suggests sandboxing, Sipher laments repetitive arguments, and Jeysie bemoans what may occur in the future should the proposal not be accepted

OK, it looks like, after a bit of back and forth, most of the users see the inherent problems with the proposal. As I implied, it actually has a certain intellectual appeal, I just think that in application it would do us more harm than good. I think the current system is clear maybe 99% of the time, and occasionally leads to arguments on corner cases. My instinct is that the proposed change would be clear maybe 80% to 90% of the time.

My suggestion is to take a very small multiuniversal franchise and then sandbox it up. Robot Masters has only 49 pages, including 34 characters, a few pieces of fiction and some other notions introduced. If you (any of the proponents) are really seriously considering having us rework several thousand pages and having probably a lot more arguments, I think that sandboxing out 49 pages first to see how they'd work isn't unreasonable.--Jimsorenson 11:02, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

"As I implied, it actually has a certain intellectual appeal, I just think that in application it would do us more harm than good. I think the current system is clear maybe 99% of the time, and occasionally leads to arguments on corner cases. My instinct is that the proposed change would be clear maybe 80% to 90% of the time."

Personally, I think your "99%" estimate is off. It's more like 99.999999999%. So basically, just like every other time ever someone has proposed a massive organizational change to the wiki in order to try and account for a single instance of something the current system can't handle (something every system possible will have), we're looking at more harm and work for a "payoff" that isn't remotely worth the effort, one that will obfuscate information and make the wiki on an already-complex and expansive subject even less readable. I'm deja-vu'ing here bigtime. --M Sipher 11:26, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Seems to me like we're actually pretty evenly split on people who think it's a good idea, people who don't, and people who see the logic but also see some issues to iron out, but OK. But I agree that sandboxing is probably a good idea.

As for Sipher's point, the problem is, as the thing with SG Alpha Trion shows, Hasbro doesn't care about cohesion the way we do, and it might well start becoming more and more of a problem in the future considering the directions Hasbro's been taking.

The simple fact is that, in real-world terms, there isn't a consistent universe. There's HOW many storylines going on at the same time at the moment, on varying schedules and with varying teams on how many different parts of the planet? Considering companies like IDW can barely even keep their *own* writers matching up with each other... even if Hasbro really did want to make sure everything 100% matched up with everything else, I'm not sure they actually could pull it off with the current setup.

Plus, on top of that, Hasbro obviously just throws things together because they like how it looks together, not because it actually works at all with previous canon. And as Hasbro starts doing more of this cross-continuity stuff, the problem's just going to get worse and worse.

The more we try to stick to our conceit while Hasbro's busy tying things in knots, the more ridiculous our gymnastics to keep it all straight are going to get. I've already wanted to cringe at some of the gymnastics I've seen on Trion alone. (Like the notion that somehow Lee knew when creating a character three years ago from a toy with a vague bio, that Animated would get cancelled and we'd have an entirely new show that needed a new origin story novel. Or something.) And the discussion on Sentinel Major and Sideways shows how much a clusterfuck it can get when we're busy trying to combine things based on whose fan speculation makes more sense than whose, rather than going by solely the actual canon and authors.

I think we tend to give Hasbro much more credit in planning all this stuff out than they've ever shown, well, ever. --Jeysie 11:51, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

"the problem is, as the thing with SG Alpha Trion shows, Hasbro doesn't care about cohesion the way we do,"

I'm just going to say that I know for a fact this is patently untrue, and the whole story is not yet told. --M Sipher 16:03, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, I don't know what Sipher knows, or anything, but I find it very hard to believe that the internal Hasbro dude who has basically been responsible for the whole singularity/thirteen thing, being the same guy who wrote the bios that indicated Alpha Trion was one of the thirteen before Exodus confirmed it, wrote a story about Trion being evil without having some greater plan or rationale in mind. - Chris McFeely 16:07, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Exactly. The reason MS Alpha Trion seems so messed up right now is because we know zilch about the details of the concept. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all we're going on is one slide at BotCon with his name on a list of confirmed Thirteen. Clearly, there's going to be more to it than that...we just haven't been told yet. There's a difference between "Hasbro doesn't care" and "Hasbro's teaser preview doesn't explain the entire concept to our satisfiction." --Xaaron 16:33, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

It wasn't just a slide, it was repeatedly throughout Exodus. --Thy

If cleaning up Alpha Trion involves retcons that supersede previous continuities, then that is just the sort of thing the wiki shouldn't take a stance on. Is the original continuity true as presented, or is the new retcon true? - Starfield 16:45, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Our stance has always been "What Hasbro says goes. If they retcon something than that's their right as its their story, they determine official continuity, and the retcon is now whats true." Changing that would mean changing perhasp hundreds or thousands of articles at this point I'd guess, but that's what this discussion is all about. As long as we tell people that the retcon is a retcon and tell them all the facts of the original story and the new, then we're doing our job. Anyway, back on the point at hand, Exodus had a lot of other priorities. The Thirteen revelations in there were basically treated as background stuff and were far from the focus, teasers really for Hasbro's new plan for the characters announced at Botcon. The point stands that you can't call it proof of Hasbro not caring when they've barely gotten the first sentence of their story out of their mouth yet. Be patient and Lee will almost certainly deal with it as he set it all up. --ZacWilliam 16:56, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

I admit that I read the novel immediately before BotCon (like, I bought it on the drive to Florida and read it at breaks and while waiting for car repairs), so there's a chance that I didn't have time to properly retain everything about it before more new info pushed it out of my brain... but Zac is right. The 13 were barely backstory, and the multiverse was not even touched. We're only a month into what may be Hasbro's biggest venture into entertainment ever (on their part, at least), and we've only been given tiny teasers to the main part of it!

(Also... it isn't just Lee working this stuff out. Remember the show crew, and Aaron...) --M Sipher 17:34, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

"Changing that would mean changing perhasp hundreds or thousands of articles at this point I'd guess, but that's what this discussion is all about."

Possibly. But the problem is, the more Hasbro throws stuff together because it seems cool and then just does after the fact cobbled-together retcons, the more we're going to have to change our pages. We've already had to merge a number of pages, and we already have arguments on the talk pages about how it utterly blatantly goes against what was explicitly shown in the official direct canon fiction, thus creating new errors by merging things never meant to be merged or changed.

This new proposal is so that the wiki doesn't become even more entangled and insane in the future, messing up the info in old series with things never meant to be in them and things never meant to be connected by the direct official fiction in that continuity.

Plus, as was pointed out up above, Hasbro's stance is that all Optimus Primes are the same, all Megatrons are the same, etc. So we already go against Hasbro's stance for the sake of presenting the fiction as-is. If we really were going by how Hasbro did/sees things, our pages would all be set up exactly like Wikipedia's.

Which is my whole worry, really. I like our current setup. I like the fact that we separate things out. To me, #3 and #6 are vitally important here. A bit of writing is written as having certain details, certain backstories, etc. in mind. If you later add things in, you change the story.

And, I mean, it's bad enough that even the people directly writing in a given continuity often change things around even when it makes no sense, or forget that previous things happened, without us deciding that people in completely separate writing teams writing completely different storylines can somehow keep track of everyone else's work on top of their own.

And Hasbro sure doesn't seem to be keeping track. IDW's main continuity is a mess. Hasbro went to all the trouble of trying to keep Mowry's comics canon... and then the Movie writers went and contradicted it anyway. I've seen plenty of arguments how WFC and Exodus contradict each other, yet are supposed to go together. Hasbro came out at BotCon and had to admit they goofed on the Sentinel/Zeta Prime thing. Pete had to basically declare the Movieverse outside of the multiverse to acknowledge that the Movie people don't know/care what the Fanclub was doing. Etc. Etc.

This "plan" you guys seem to think exist? Either doesn't exist, or is utterly contradictory with itself, or is being incredibly poorly maintained. I see no reason so far whatsoever to think that Hasbro's left-hand writing team knows what the right-hand is doing.

Which I could live with, if we didn't keep trying to merge things never meant to be merged, change things never meant to be changed, etc. due to info given by people who aren't even directly involved with/in what they're changing, on an assumption of coordination between the fiction that has not been shown to exist.

To me, what's canon for a storyline is what is being officially marketed to me as taking place in that storyline, and occasionally the word from the people directly writing that storyline. Because nothing else makes sense to me. Just because you write officially for one storyline doesn't mean you know a thing about other storylines being written by other writing teams. And the fact that there are so many existing, undeniable contradictions between the various writing teams and storylines sure suggests to me that it's not being coordinated by Hasbro either. Not on the level some people seem to be thinking/wishing for. --Jeysie 20:28, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Addendum: Plus, the more tangled this gets, the harder it's going to be for me to edit the wiki at least. If I can't even trust the directly-related show/comic/prose story in front of me to be true about its own storyline, thanks to some publication in some other completely unrelated fiction I otherwise would have no interest in reading... well, I sure can't edit the wiki any more. Because now I have no way to ensure I'm not wasting time scribing info that's apparently not even accurate even though it's right blatantly there in front of me. --Jeysie 20:39, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

You're missing the point, either intentionally or because you have blinders on. IT DOESN'T MATTER if Hasbro has any kind of grand plan. It doesn't matter if the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Authorial Intent counts for nothing when dealing with a collaborative property like this. There have probably been literally thousands of creative people who have touched the brand in some official capacity; what was going through their minds when they made their contributions is irrelevant. What made it on to the page, or the screen, or the toy, THAT'S what matters.

Does it logically follow from this idea that new material will influence / modify / change / mess-up older stuff? Yes, of course it does. When Bob Budiansky looked at a toy gun and said to himself that Megatron would be a good name for this toy, and that it could lead the bad guys, he didn't have any notion of him as a gladiator. Furman added that later. He didn't conceive of Starscream as having an immortal spark, (or, indeed, any of them as having sparks) but then Megeen McLaughlin and Ian Weir added that aspect to the character. He didn't think that Optimus Prime carried within him a creation matrix, but later he added that idea in himself. Flint Dille didn't make up Unicron as a dark god, but neither did he make him up as built by Primacron. Those ideas were added later, by Furman and Glut. Marty Isenberg didn't originally think of Bulkhead as a space bridge genius; this idea grew out of Michael Ryan's Autoboot Camp, and was solidified by Marsha Griffin in A Bridge Too Close, Part I. Cybertron modified Armada. Robot Masters added to many existing franchises. Universe pulled from all over the Multiverse. So does Timelines. So does my work. It's been happening for a long, long time, and it's one of the aspects of the franchise that I find appealing.

A few specific rebuttals: "The problem is, the more Hasbro throws stuff together because it seems cool and then just does after the fact cobbled-together retcons, the more we're going to have to change our pages." It's foolish to definitely introduce a ton of changes to our pages now to maybe possibly avoid changing pages in the future.

"Creating new errors by merging things never meant to be merged or changed." Meant by who? The original writers? Again, who cares, doesn't matter. This isn't Babylon 5, where there's one driving vision. This is a collaborative experiment involving at a bare minimum hundreds of people. One guy didn't intend something, another guy does, things change, it happens.

""The more tangled this gets, the harder it's going to be for me to edit the wiki at least." Transformers is a living, evolving tapestry. If you're worried that the story that you're currently reading doesn't reflect the entire, complete, 100% truth, then maybe you should find some other franchise that's a little less dynamic. Asimov's Foundation series is pretty good. (Oh, wait, no, he wrote in new prequels and changed around the backstory, then the rights holders commissioned new books in the universe.) Basically, everyone else seems to manage to contribute without running into this non-issue, this mole hill that you're attempting to mountainify.

Besides... why are you wasting your time arguing? There were, what, three or four people that seemed to think this proposal had some merit, maybe seven who thought it caused more harm than good. The idea was put forth that, if you're really interested, put your money (or at least time) where your mouth is. Sandbox out Robot Masters, see if it's better or worse than our current Robot Masters offerings. About 50 pages. I'd be willing to look at your work and see if maybe, despite my strong intuition, you'll come up with something cleaner and better than what we have now. However, don't expect everyone to start reordering things because you don't like the idea that a Beast Wars cartoon can modify a Sunbow one when that's the model we've been operating under for years.--Jimsorenson 21:35, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

When Asimov wrote new sequels, he wrote it in his own storyline. When the new people wrote sequels, they again wrote it in the same storyline.

That's different from feeling like I'm only interested in the cartoon, yet I have to counter-intuitively pick up an Animated book just to make sure I didn't miss something true about the cartoon. Or I have to watch the Movies to know something about IDW's storyline. Or I have to sub to the Fanclub to know about the Movies. These are all completely separate storylines, yet we treat them as somehow meaning anything to each other. Why? I dunno, it's never made any sense to me and I've never liked our tendency to do it, especially when it's been shown time and time again that the people actually writing the fiction do not consider other storylines as meaning anything to their own.

"This isn't Babylon 5, where there's one driving vision."

So why are we acting like there is?

"This is a collaborative experiment involving at a bare minimum hundreds of people."

Except that it's not. It's completely separate teams of people writing completely separate storylines that have never shown any signs of being coordinated with each other, yet we're acting like they are. And now it's starting to happen more often.

As for the rest, I think I'll let Jackpot take over down there, as he's already said much of what I would have said. --Jeysie 21:52, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Right, they're not coordinated, but they ARE connected through the multiverse. And does you ignoring my 'go sandbox it' mean that your not going to go do so? Because if so, I think you've just lost by forfeit. Basically, I'm saying "put up or shut up." --Jimsorenson 22:01, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

So wait, let me get this straight. You agree that in real life the coordination between storylines does not exist, that the writers do not know or care about each other's storylines, that what other people are doing sometimes even contradicts what the writers in a different storyline are actually going to do, yet we're supposed to connect them together anyway based on a fictional conceit that the writers have been shown to not always care about?

And you don't see the problem with this? Really?

And I haven't ignored it, just pointed out that Jackpot already addressed it, and since it's his proposal, I see no point in not letting him choose how to handle it. --Jeysie 22:30, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Correct. I agree that the real life coordination is almost non-existent. I further point out that it's ALWAYS been that way, even within single series. It's that very lack of coordination that enables so many retcons without this being problematic. Transformers evolves. They, ahem, transform. My vision and introduction to the universe may later be modified by a future writer. This is not a problem, it's a good thing. More than Meets the Eye introduces an unnamed Decepticon ship, and later Beast Wars names it. The universe just got richer. I don't care if that doesn't match up with George Arthur Bloom's vision.

And regarding sandboxing, Jackpot didn't address it at all, but that's ok, it was directed at you. You're spewing out a LOT more verbiage than him. If you're not ready to actually go show us how to do it, then I don't see why anyone should listen to you.--Jimsorenson 23:32, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Yes it is a problem. In that most of the things we treat as retcons weren't meant to be retcons to begin with. They're things we treat as retcons due to a cross-continuity policy we adhere to that Hasbro's writers do not. We introduce errors and inconsistencies that do not exist in the original work, errors and inconsistencies that only exist because we're putting things in the original work never meant to be there.

In fact, some of the creators even find it offensive. Derrick flat out hates the multiverse idea. Pete told me he thinks something written 25 years after the fact shouldn't trump the original script for something. So not only are we being stupid and adhering to something that flat out has been shown to not exist/apply, we're in some cases being disrespectful. Which apparently you don't care about considering...

"I don't care if that doesn't match up with George Arthur Bloom's vision."

Wow, what an utterly jerkass opinion. Well, here's one of my own. You know what? I don't give a shit about your fanon opinion on continuities you weren't hired to write for. You wanna change around Movie continuity? Go get IDW or Paramount to let you write for it. You wanna mess in FunPub continuity? Go get hired by Pete. Etc. They're the ones who've been hired to write those storylines. You? You were hired to write a book about Animated. And I'll accept whatever you write about Animated specifically. But when it comes to other continuities, being an official writer in one continuity doesn't make you any less of a clueless fan on the others than the rest of us. And thus I care about your fanon theories as much as I care about any other fans' (i.e. very little at all). Your constant "I'm Armed With the Ability to Make Canon" attitude, and dismissive attitude towards your fellow pros' work just makes you come off as a petty jackass every time you open your mouth in one of these debates.

So yeah, you know, I'm done with you. You obviously have such an inflated sense of your own ego, an utter lack of respect for your fellow writers, and an equally utter lack of grip on reality that there's little point in giving any worth to what you have to say. Typical arrogant asshole TF fan, made worse by you being one of the pro writers who ought to know better.

As for the sandboxing: "(Also, the Robot Masters thing, being basically a cameo-fest, falls under the same category. Plus isn't it in the G1 continuity-family anyway, so principle #1 would make it a moot point for everyone but Sideways?)" So you can't read either. --Jeysie 01:41, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! WOW. Just... wow.--Jimsorenson 02:34, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

(ps: Wow.)--Jimsorenson 02:34, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Now, when I say this, bear in mind that Derrick Wyatt is a friend of mine, someone I keep in touch with well beyond a TF context.
It doesn't fucking matter what he does or does not like about what is canon.
He doesn't like Ratbat having the power to speak or leading the Decepticons. Doesn't matter, both these happen. He hates Beachcomber. He happens. Derrick is a great guy and an amazing creative force, but once again, he is only a part of the Animated creative crew, predominantly the visual part of it, and is not currently working on TFs at all. He wasn't the story guy. He could influence with character choices and his knowledge of the past series, but he answered to many others when it came to the story (and even the character designs!). He is not some be-all-end-all God Of What Is TF so stop invoking his personal opinions that didn't even affect the series he worked on. --M Sipher 11:27, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

losing count:Jeysie sez: some of the creators even find it offensive. Derrick flat out hates the multiverse idea. Pete told me he thinks something written 25 years after the fact shouldn't trump the original script for something. Okay, and what happens when OTHER CREATORS DISAGREE WITH THAT? Pete and Forrest worked on the same storylines in the same continuity and they completely disagree on this. Ben Yee and Simon Furman had worked with Bob and Larry, yet there we have the Sourcebook and all of its contradictions and quirks. Simon Furman totally erased Budiansky's "natural gears and pulleys" business. Author-intentism is not automatic--very often it requires picking and choosing which author's intent to validate. That's one of the reasons I despise it so much.--Thylacine 2000 10:36, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Pete is the editor of FunPub's fiction, so his view takes precedence for that fiction, much as Schmidt's view takes precedence over the IDW writers'.

And, Yee and Furman wrote fiction directly branded as being in Beast Wars (yes?), and Furman wrote fiction directly attached to Budiansky's storyline. So those changes made sense because they were made by someone directly writing in the same storyline. If other creators writing for the same storyline disagree, then that's the nature of a storyline being written by multiple authors in the same storyline.

It's the idea of creators in a different storyline disagreeing with writers in a separate storyline that's my sticking point. Because, why should we care? Why should we care what someone writing for a Movie storyline thinks about IDW's storyline? Why should we care what a FunPub writer for one storyline says about Animated's storyline? Why do we assume that someone hired to write fiction for one storyline knows or cares anything about an entirely separate writing team's storyline? Why do we assume that just because a bit of fiction is approved to be branded and marketed as being part of one storyline, it has any relevance at all to any other storyline?

Nobody's been able to give me a good answer to this that doesn't boil down to either making even more assumptions about Hasbro's editorial than I am, or ignoring the reality of the situation (that in fact the writing teams have been shown to not know or care about each other).

So it's getting frustrating basically seeing people who can't accept that the reality doesn't match up with our fictional conceit, or getting made fun of for a POV that actually makes sense to anyone who understands how literature works from a structural standpoint (i.e. what to assume as true and not true while reading a story).

And the "Well, Hasbro has final say, not the authors". To which I say, "Duh." Except that the reality of it is, Hasbro is obviously NOT dictating these cross-continuity changes, or there'd be no contradictions to quibble about!

If Hasbro actually wanted the Movie writers to care about FunPub fiction, then the Movie fiction would have matched up, and Pete wouldn't have had to declare what was obvious to anyone who wasn't stuck in fantasy-mode: that the Movie writers don't care and weren't told to care about the Fanclub fiction. And if the Fanclub had to care about what an Animated book said, then Pete wouldn't be coming out and saying he doesn't. And if Primus and Unicron had to exist in every storyline, then Furman and the folks at Animated wouldn't be coming out and saying they're not including the ideas in their stories. Etc. Etc.

So, this whole "Well, Hasbro has dictated all this cross-continuity stuff is mandated, even though everything from the direct fiction to creators talking about what they're going to do with their storylines contadicts it, so apparently Hasbro forgot to tell the writers about their mandate, whoops" mentality makes about as much logical sense as assuming that just because something's official it applies to all storylines: None at all.

Of course, I love how Sorenson agrees that the writing teams don't have anything to do with each other, but insists on us continuing to pretend there's a consistency that doesn't actually exist. Whereas I feel like we should be bending ourselves to put down info as-is based on the apparently reality of the situation, rather than the other way around.

Basically, the problem is that we assume that TF is one giant whole, when the reality, based on how the various creators (and the fiction itself at times) act towards the cross-continuity stuff, is that the franchise is a number of totally separate storylines whose only commonality is that they're all marketed as being under the Transformers umbrella.

But, you know. Apparently I'm stupid and insult-worthy for trying to actually pay attention to what the reality of how the fiction is branded and what the people actually creating the fiction tell us about their craft, and base my opinion of the matter on that rather than on what I wish the TF fiction would be. So be it, I guess. Sorry to have wasted your time trying to contribute. Apparently anyone who disagrees with the prevailing opinion isn't welcome. --Jeysie 09:47, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

"Why do we assume that just because a bit of fiction is approved to be branded and marketed as being part of one storyline, it has any relevance at all to any other storyline? Nobody's been able to give me a good answer to this..." The answer is, that when an author invokes the Multiverse, they actually are writing fiction for those other storylines. In other words, if you want to put it this way, the Multiverse really is a backdoor which allows a writer in one continuity to hijack an otherwise unrelated continuity. - Starfield 10:16, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

"Why do we assume that just because a bit of fiction is approved to be branded and marketed as being part of one storyline, it has any relevance at all to any other storyline? Nobody's been able to give me a good answer to this..." Because we are giving greater weight to the content Hasbro chooses to publish rather than to the label they chose to brand it with. One is actual information...the other is, in the minds of the majority, simply a letterhead. Most of us simply don't agree with your assertion that the franchise is a strict, unsurpassable boundary for Hasbro's contributors. Hasbro may make policy decisions and edicts based on their brands, but what they SAY will take second place to what they DO. Hasbro CHOSE to publish fiction under one brand that referenced others -- as owner, proprietor, and liege maximo of all those brands, they have the right to do that.

Scientists in the 19th century could not explain how bumblebees could fly. The math didn't add up -- weight distribution, mass indexes, aeronautic variables...all seemed to show that the simple wings of a bumblebee could not support them in the air. But as good as the math was, none of these scientists argued that, therefore, bumblebees DON'T fly, because anyone can see that they do. But that's your position here, Jeysie. No matter how many arguments you make to the contrary (and the majority of them have been reasonable, Jeysie), what Hasbro SHOULD reasonably do, what can be intelligently extrapolated that they WOULD do, will always take a backseat to what they DID. If Hasbro went on the record and denounced Sorenson, "We didn't think to read the Cybertronix. We did not authorize him to publish material unrelated to the Malgus cluster. All of that stuff is unapproved by Hasbro, which is us.", then we would likely remove all the Primax, Tyran, Viron, etc related information provided from the Almanac. But without a statement from Hasbro denouncing THIS incident and THIS publication as faulty, we simply have to assume they knew what they were doing when they allowed it to be published. --Xaaron 11:09, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

I have kept away from this debate for many, many reasons, but I am stupid and I'm going to say something now. Transformers isn't about respect for the creativity of individual writers - it's about Hasbro trying to get their toys sold. Hasbro owns the brand, Habro decides what happens to it. If writers experience this lack of control about their storylines a threat to their creative product, then they shouldn't have gotten involved with the brand in the first place. Mind, I absolutely hate the multiverse ever since it went from occassional fun interaction between different franchises to a royal mess with some pretty fucked up character derailment. And I absolutely hate the WOH storyline, and with that all the things it does to the G1 cartoon, which perhaps don't immediately affect the cartoon but are likely going to inspire further canon which makes it moot to declare it of no affect on the cartoon (although as long as I can, I'm going to hold on Greenlight changed her name to Dusttrail, because seriously, "Greenlight" can't be something that wasn't come up with in less than 0.6 seconds). But, I concur the "big" story and its limited coherence is Hasbro's choice, and that simply goes over whatever any of the writers want with their input. Because the writers, no matter how cutely enthusiast they may be about what they do, in the end have given Hasbro promotional material while Hasbro has given them a paycheck. Hasbro's employer, writers are employees, Hasbro decides, writers can either take it or leave and do fanprojects if they want to be involved with the brand that badly. It has nothing to do with respect. This is a company trying to be a company, and if they afterwards choose to adjust their promotional material to fit their current market strategies, so be it. Geewunling 02:31, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Considering that Pete went out of his way to state that WoH was a completely separate timeline from the cartoon, I'd say that the official creators understand better than we do about how to play with existing continuities in ways that don't actually affect those continuities.

As for the rest, see my post above. --Jeysie 09:47, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Not sure where this should go, but it really is in response to Jeysie's points about "respect for authors". In some sense it really doesn't matter if an author likes, understands or even knows about the multiverse. If Hasbro decides that certain things in different stories, in different universes, written by different authors at different times are the same; then those authors feelings are irrelevant. Every story is written for Hasbro, the writers are playing in Hasbro's sandbox with Hasbro's toys (pun unintentional). This is a corporate brand, not a creator owned one. --Khajidha 11:18, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

See my post above. --Jeysie 09:47, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Agree 100% --ZacWilliam 21:41, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

How often is that true of a retcon though? Most (if not all) of the Transformers ones *add* to the story not detract from it. Even the whole Sideways brouhaha was giving Sideways a larger article. ROTF Sideway's depiction was still true and still happened even if it was "other" Sideways playing the role. In addition, outside of universe jumping or multiversal singularities (both of which are reasonably rare) there's hardly any overlap anyway. MrBlud 21:10, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Excellent point here. As Sipher points out, we're talking about, what, a dozen articles out of 11,000? Maybe a tenth of a percent. The proposal will introduce far more problems than that.--Jimsorenson 21:35, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

And again 100% agree. Does that make 200%? Can I do that? ;) --ZacWilliam 21:41, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

See my point above and Jackpot's point below about how not changing our policy may well eventually cause MORE problems. And in fact there's quite a few retcons that have caused contradictory information and errors. Including many of the new ones. The cartoon Prime retcons cause contradictions. Trion's retcon causes contradictions. Part of Sentinel Major's and Sideways' retcons eventually got overruled by our consensus because they just didn't make sense (and in one case the author actually writing the contested story in question pointed out it was wrong). Etc. Etc. --Jeysie 22:00, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

See MY point above where I point out that DEFINTELY introducing more work and NOW to POSSIBLY avoid more work and arguments in the future take your point and refute it completely and utterly. Also, if you're saying that Sideways and Sentinel Major were wrong, then congratulations, you've just scored a point for my side. In other words, the system works.--Jimsorenson 22:13, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Er, what? No, I scored a point for our side. The system dictated that we should merge them, and we didn't because people realized that no, that would actually be dumb and go against what the authors actually intended. It was a step towards what Jackpot is proposing and away from our current system that assumes one continuity "knows" anything at all about a different one.

Your point does not actually refute my point remotely at all, sorry. --Jeysie 22:30, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! If the current system suggested that they should be merged, then THEY WOULD BE MERGED RIGHT NOW. Because, you know, WE'RE OPERATING UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM. Instead, the current system resulted in a solution that you yourself thinks is 'correct,' albeit after a few days of debate. Ergo, the system works. --Jimsorenson 23:32, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

There's an old saying "Never trouble trouble until trouble troubles you." or even more simply "Don't borrow trouble." There's no reason to cause huge upheavel and a bot-load of work now to avoid something that only "could maybe be an issue" sometime in the future.--ZacWilliam 22:22, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

The Debate, part the fourth, wherein Jackpot attempts to synthesize the feedback from above

Rather than dig into the specific responses above, I'm going to respond more generally here: Thank you for the feedback, and I want to clarify that I'm NOT against all retcons, and I don't think the ideas I presented would suggest so. For example, the Autobot ship from the G1 'toon should clearly go on Ark (G1); I would never say otherwise. I personally would avoid using the name "Ark" in the 'toon writeup, but that's as far as I would take it. It's the same concept in the same continuity family; the name is incidental. My point #1 up there ends that question.

Where I will admit that my "rule" as presented would cause problems is with harmless cameos, like Armada Megatron showing up on one page of the Universe comic. That does no violence to his UT identity or continuity, and making a separate "Megatron (Universe)" page would be pointless. I think the truly massive across-the-board changes that people are worried about are of that nature, and I'm totally willing to leave those be. I'm not sure how to phrase it in a pithy bold-face sentence, but I'm with all y'alls there. (Also, the Robot Masters thing, being basically a cameo-fest, falls under the same category. Plus isn't it in the G1 continuity-family anyway, so principle #1 would make it a moot point for everyone but Sideways?)

Now, one disadvantage I do have here is I'm not privy to any Awesome Insider Knowledge like some of you apparently are. As an uppity prole, my view from the trenches is this: Our current policy of rearranging content at the first whiff of "singularity" is maddening and unsustainable. The more Hasbro gets into the cross-continuity game, the more I cringe at how we're going to bend ourselves over backwards trying to keep up with the multiversal-retcon-of-the-moment. This top-down approach does not serve us. What makes a lot more sense is a bottom-up approach, where we let each series define its own view of the multiverse from within the continuity-family-based structure that's been our foundation since the beginning. In other words: links, not mergers.

- Jackpot 21:19, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

I think with your second paragraph there, you 100% summed up my main worry about continuing with our current tendencies. I worry that our policy that originally might have been intended to keep things simple and coherent is going to end up being very not-simple and not-coherent. --Jeysie 21:34, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Cross series or cross continuity family is a false distinction, invented by us for administrative purposes. Bob & Larry have as little to do with the Sunbow cartoon as I do, or Pete does, or Furman does, or the Robot Masters guys do. Trying to sweep the problems of your proposal under the rug by saying that you're willing to ignore it when it's harmless would make for WAY more arguments than our current system. If all you're concerned about is singularities, of which there are 15 (And Unicron, Primus, The Fallen and Vector Prime are already completely done), then you probably shouldn't be talking about the issue in such general terms. --Jimsorenson 22:01, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, it seems like it's only going to be an issue for around 15 people total at this point. The whole Sideways argument waged for what three days max and ended with ONE de-merged article and only *then* because he's one of the 15 special cases. The sanest and easiest way to handle this is on a case by case basis as we're doing now IMO. MrBlud 22:43, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

I agree with Jack's opinion, especially the second paragraph ( -> "bottom-up approach"). --TX55^TALK 08:05, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm sorry that my ideas have been interpreted in such a disruptive way. I thought their deepest impact would be in terms of paradigm, not in terms of number of rewrites. I tried to communicate that most of what we've already done would be unaffected, via point #1 and my endorsement of the current ghost/spark treatment. Ultimately, yes, what concerns me most are singularities and their ilk, but I don't know where the boundaries of "their ilk" are (Sideways being a case-in-point), and I didn't want to artificially limit the scope of topic.

As for "series" and "continuity family" being false distinctions, I strongly disagree. This is going to take some explaining, so... [deep breath, hitches belt, cracks neck] ...Let's start with the series:

When a series in any franchise, TF or not, is created, there are functional and cultural expectations. On the inside, there's a structure consisting of (usually) a consistent editorial/writing staff, bible, production company, etc. On the outside, there's an audience-expectation that each episode you watch or issue you read should coexist in the same world with previous installments. (There are of course exceptions, such as anthology series, but they're usually called out as such; the rule is consistency.)

But at the same time, those internal and external expectations by default don't extend beyond the series boundaries. A writer may be expected not to contradict what's already happened in a series, but he or she generally isn't expected to be knowledgeable about PREVIOUS series. Whenever a series ends and a new team creates a new series, it's understood that a new foundation is being laid. If they choose to follow from previous work, that's a burden they're welcome to take upon themselves, but the bar for consistency is by default much higher internally.

That's why I see the series as the fundamental "unit" of continuity, more so than episodes or issues. And I think that's embedded in our wiki structure, too: We're happy to sectionalize our articles to high heaven, but by default we stop at the series. We could, especially on sparse articles, run the content of multiple series together into a single writeup, but it's always been unspokenly understood that we just don't.

In fact, I've always thought that the logically-consistent ideal would be to separate our articles based on series, but I recognize that as a functionally terrible idea. We don't really need a dozen articles saying how G1 Ironhide is an ornery old coot in ever-so-subtly different contexts. Which brings us to the continuity-family, which is a little more artificial an idea on our part than the series, but there's still a real-world basis. The G1 cartoon/comic split is the best example, where we can see that both series drew simultaneously from the same well of ideas but held zero consistency with each other. In terms of character, there is a shared concept of "G1 Ironhide" (originally expressed in the toy bio) that all G1 series refer to. They might not necessarily hew to it, but the creators always know that it fundamentally matters.

Just as with series, there are natural boundaries to the continuity-family as well. Anybody writing Energon Ironhide knows that there's no need to pay attention to the G1-Ironhide ideal. This boundary is looser than with series, but it's juuuuust tight enough that we've been able to build a wiki around it. The danger I see in going further out (which is what merging singularities entails) is losing the integrity of the series that are the true foundation. Take the "Hall of Fame" bios, some of which are spread so wide in their inclusiveness that they cease to actually apply in any specific case anymore.

To put this in user-experience terms, imagine for a moment that we'd decided the Almanac reference to live-action Sideways was strong enough to merge the articles. Then picture a user reading about a movieverse writeup in some other article and seeing that there's a "Sideways" character. He clicks on the link, and is taken to... the UT page. The primary message we're sending is that the conglomerate of Sidewayses is the most important thing. It's only worth a note that, oh yeah, the movieverse gives no support to this connection. We've robbed the movieverse character of his own intro-summary, mainpic, unique Notes/Trivia... the independent identity that his native series gives him. Luckily, of course, this isn't the current case, and I'm very happy about that. But with a slightly stronger Almanac reference or a small shift in the prevailing mood, it easily could've been.

Now, that might not be a problem to you depending on your view of our role as documenters. My view is that we should document things in the past with the same regard as we document things in the present. Of course Hasbro has the "right" to retcon whatever they want to... but that doesn't make it our duty to fall in lockstep. The best way to keep the balance is to maintain focus on the series, since ultimately almost all official fiction comes through the lens of individual series anyway. If Hasbro wants to use Prime to make grand statements about everything else, we should document the hell out of it... but from within the series (and, article-construction-wise, continuity family) perspective.

Bwuh. Sorry for the novella there, but I couldn't think of a more concise way to put all that. And you'd questioned my focus on series/continuity-family more than once, so I thought you deserved a full explanation.

- Jackpot 17:44, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Well thought out, as always, but I'm afraid that you misinterpreted my point when I said the series / continuity family was a false distinction. I should perhaps have made it more clear. I'm saying that the idea of two series being able to modify each other WITHIN a continuity family, but not BETWEEN two continuity families, is a false distinction. I'll grant that each series is a fairly logical unit. However, once you concede that, say, Beast Wars can modify the Sunbow cartoon or that the Energon comic can have relevance for the Armada television show, you've opened the door completely for, say, Animated to modify the Sunbow cartoon. You're still talking about completely different creative teams, completely different series bibles, completely different approval processes. The organizational web we have that binds Robot Masters to Kiss Players to Beast Machines to Wings of Honor to the Dreamwave profile books to Transformers vs G.I. Joe to Hearts of Steel is tenuous to the point of non-existent. What in-universe support for the idea that there is, well, by your own argument they wouldn't apply to anything outside of Alternity and some Fun Publication books.

Once you concede that one series can modify another, you concede that one series can modify another. I don't see any real way around that.--Jimsorenson 18:11, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

There are indeed degrees of "modification" involved here, but that doesn't mean there's no distinction whatsoever and it's free-for-all time. That way lies Wikipedia. Like I said above, arguably my logical ideal IS to separate all series from one another, but I acknowledge the practical ridiculousness of that. The continuity-family basis is ultimately a kind of compromise, a maximum point of tolerance. Within that, I still advocate avoidance of inter-series modification, which is already our standard. Again, the ghost/spark example. Earlier you brought up how the original conception of Megatron didn't involve being a gladiator, and indeed, we never call him one when we're talking about the G1 'toon or any other series where that doesn't apply. (In fact, there ARE cases where I think our current application of continuity-family unity goes too far; I've argued for separating the Japanese and American incarnations of G1 Fort Max and Scorponok, for instance. But that's neither here nor there.)

I guess what it comes to is that I see the practical value of family-unity in spite of my series-ism, but the practical value diminishes rapidly the further we stretch our inclusion. And we can easily do injustice to the material we're supposed to be documenting impartially when we sacrifice unique presentations, as in the Sideways hypothetical I just described.

- Jackpot 18:41, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

I think we're in agree-to-disagree territory here. The compromise you propose is ultimately unsatisfying, at least to me, as there's no real basis for it. Basically, you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying that anything north of the line is fine, anything south is not. To me, that seems like an approach that undercuts the basic intellectual appeal of your proposal. The current system, as you note, does allow us to handle things like the Beast Wars spark / ship ideas under an intellectually coherent framework. Your proposal undercuts that framework and then hand-waves the undercutting away by saying "don't look at the man behind the curtain." By sabotaging your own intellectual rigor, all you're left with is a proposal that will probably introduce more work without even a strong logic under-pining it. It doesn't go far enough to justify itself, and when you take the idea to its logical conclusion it becomes unworkable.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.--Jimsorenson 19:09, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

We're into abstract enough territory that I feel I should ask: How would you define the current system, which you've just described as "intellectually coherent"? I think one of my concerns is that I don't really see a system to it, just a loose collection of tendencies that at the moment happens to be dominated by a desire to bend our presentation to the latest English-language retcons. (In fact, more than that, I also see a trend towards accepting the words of sufficiently Hasbro-riffic creators for binding definitions of controversial topics, like "singularities" and the structure of the multiverse, rather than being rigorous about in-fiction proof.) In putting down my ideas systematically, it's not just that I thought it was a better system, but that it was a system at all. I know some people hate to give up the feeling of flying by the seat of our pants, but the more overgrown both the wiki and the fiction itself becomes, the more we need to know what our foundation is. - Jackpot 19:34, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Gee, I was attempting to bow out gracefully with the 'agree to disagree' comment. I'll take a stab at codifying the current policy as I see it if no one else will, but I'd rather defer that to someone like Thy or Sipher, who have been around longer and perhaps have already articulated it.--Jimsorenson 20:17, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Ha! Graceful exit: thwarted!

It may not be apparent, but my purpose in doing everything I've done is to find common ground, not try to dominate with my ideas. I figured that laying down some principles would make a good platform to hammer things out on, whether or not the final direction of things went "my" way. So I'd feel more comfortable agreeing to disagree if I had a better grasp on what I was disagreeing with...

(Oh, and by the way, I'm still trying to figure out how to amend those principles to properly include the cameo-exception. I do completely admit that THAT, at least, is a hole in my reasoning.)

- Jackpot 20:53, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Okay, the Multiversal Singularity idea is a bit of a hot and heated topic at the moment, so why don't we try to come at this from a different perspective? After all, one of the main objections to Jackpot and Jeysie's suggestion to change approaches is that only 15 or so pages are really at issue with the MS stuff. In order to get support to change approaches, the changes should be applicable to pages other than MS topics, correct? Making them better, and certainly not making them worse.
Here's a recent example that has less far-reaching consequences: in FunPub's Flames of Yesterday, the Decepticon Stormtrooper Drench appears, and joins the Elite Guard at the end. He's undergoing retrofitting and paint changes, while providing the Autobots with the same liquid weaponry as the Decepticons. There's an implication that this meant he and the Autobot Color Changer named Drench are the same being.
How would the two sides in the debate want to treat that? Assume Jesse Wittenrich has said "Yes, that was my intention", or "No, it wasn't". How would that affect the decision? Would anyone suggest merging the two Drench pages? There would be no direct contradiction in doing so -- they've never both appeared in the same continuity. Or should it just be solved by a note on both pages? "These guys may be the same guy in WoH, but not necessarily in other realities"?
Try this out, people -- use it as a thought exercise instead of making similar arguments back and forth. It might help conceptualize things better. --Xaaron 09:49, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Excellent question, sir! Firstly, I don't think Wittenrich's opinion matters. In a previous thread, I saw Jim use the "What made it on to the page, or the screen, or the toy, THAT'S what matters" argument against my position, which is ironic because I completely agree. I think knowledge of how the creative process generally works can be valuable in figuring out the framework to organize fiction in (such as the reasons I just gave up above for being series-centric), but the closer we get to specific creators' opinions, the less regard I give.

Secondly, good choice in skirting my point #1 up there. Even though they ARE in the same continuity-family, we've still separated them because their original portrayals (toy bios, basically) seemed to make them different characters.

Thirdly... well, let's dig into it: At the moment the only definite in this story is that it's about the Decepticon Drench. So it certainly should go on Drench (Decepticon), as it currently does. As long as there's uncertainty about what he was rebuilt into, we should play it conservatively and keep the pages where they are (with links, of course). Now, let's say there's a followup story where he has unambiguously become the pre-existing Autobot Drench. What then?

Tough call. There is indeed no continuity-contradiction there, but there is an identity contradiction. Autobot Drench's only real establishment is his toy bio, which gives him a DRASTICALLY different personality than his Decepticon namesake's. The fact that they were released in different markets makes it even less likely that there was any intended connection. You might hate me for bringing this up, but I'm going to defer to the same logic I used in the Goldbug (IDW) debate: We shouldn't break up the telling of WoH Drench's story, but we should still keep the pages separate and tell the story on only one of them (with links). As for WHICH one, I'd say whichever one's personality matches closer with the WoH portrayal. And if he's written with equal parts both.... fuck it, man, I don't even know. At that point I'd probably say "merge" because there's nothing else left to do except duplication, which tips the practicality scales.

- Jackpot 19:11, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

The Goldbug debate is a bit different because of the universe where Goldy and Bumby actually coexist side by side. It's an oddity. I would advocate merging the two Drench articles, but only mentioning the Decepticon part in the WOH section (y'know separating things by series like we do with every other page on the wiki. Why is this suddenly a problem?). I really don't see a problem with this at all. It says nothing about the Autobot Drench in any of the other G1 continuity family universes. Kaje 20:14, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Intercontinuity retcons

I haven't detected major problems with them so far.Here's my view of them, (maybe it's worth posting, maybe not).

1) Alpha Trion being one of the original Thirteen
Maybe he has the same backstory as Nexus Prime. There was an Alpha Trion in NP's profile, maybe he split himself up after doing that to Nexus. That way, it wouldn't conflict heavily with the singularity thing. Altough the Quill thing seems ridiculous.

2)The renaming of the FFoD4 narrators using pre-existing names
Actually, seems down to either that, or leave them nameless. Giving them those names ties in the cartoon with other G1 media. The name Sentinel Prime is rather established in TF media as Optimus prime's predecessor, any other name might get bad fan reaction. (don't know how that Prima thing would work considering...)

3) The Fallen being Megatronus Prime
Would be a good explanation for this Megatron. Hope the writers don't forget that.

4) Sideways going to Shanghai
Not much reason to believe that he's Sideways (ROTF). It doesn't say which universe's Shanghai he was trying to get to. Even if it was Movieverse Shanghai, maybe he was trying to take the place of another Sideways and pretend to be him.

Well, hopefully future TF fiction doesn't start making things worse. Item42 10:05, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

A3: I support Jackpot's suggestion of leaving all the Alpha Trion articles separate but having prominent annotations and links on all of them. G1'toon A3 just had too long a history and left too many "fingerprints" throughout for us to be expected to be able to rewrite it and make it all make sense with an after-the-fact retcon. This is supposed to be one of those things you don't think too hard about, but the very existence of this wiki is an exercise in thinking too hard about stuff. I don't think it would be possible to merge all the A3 incarnations into a single article and still have something that was remotely readable, let alone interesting. Make the annotations and links prominent. Heck, we could even invent a new category, color, or font for annotations and links referring to the 13 or to cases where something is not "supposed" (Sideways) but is actually "true" (A3) but irreconcilable from a narrative perspective.

FFOD narrators: I really don't like this, but any real name is better than shit like "New Narrator". Again, make a note of all the spacegod woowo powers that are attributed to the characters in other media, but otherwise let the in-fiction narrative remain as it is. I also think we've reached a fair compromise by splitting Sentinel (FFOD) from Sentinel (WOH), and do hope we can stick to that.

Megatronus the Fallen: Changes nothing. Our current article points out that the Fallen's history is confusing, which it is, but it's also rather shallow. I get the feeling this will be the easiest of all four to integrate, if the time comes.

Sideways: Think we resolved this one. And if it worked for him, it can work for others if necessary.

The 13 are going to be a horrible pain in the ass, and if worst comes to worst I suggest dealing with them in the manner described for A3 above. That being said, THERE ARE ONLY 13 OF THEM. And Aaron said several of them would be entirely new creations with no prehistory to confusingly interfere with. We'll probably have maybe 6 really awful stupid overcomplicated headaches. These have NOTHING to do with the way we generally do business here, because generally Transformers are not magic woowoo spacegods, so we don't have to worry about changing our usual m.o. for the sake of working around these freaks. Don't miss the forest because a tree got in the way. --Thylacine 2000 10:48, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Once again, Thy is right... well, mostly. Once again I hasten to point out we don't even know the whole story with A3 and the Fallen and the pre-existing 13 guys and how Prime is going to deal with all this. It's too early. Let's not renovate the entire house when simply cleaning a cabinet will suffice. --M Sipher 11:54, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

So,I guess we aren't facing major issues with these yet, although this stuff seems to be worrying. Item42 13:38, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

TFsource ad buy

TFsource contacted me, having seen our perennial Reprolabels ad up above and wanting in on a piece of the action, wanting to permanently buy one of our other ad spots. The question I have is, would/should we restrict them from ads depicting "third-party" toys and bootlegs? Perhaps this is the ghost of BotCon hovering over me, since their Wall Of Trademark And Copyright Theft Directly Facing the Hasbro Booth is prominent in my mind, and I know a few of the editors here expressed some displeasure with that. Is that a big deal for anyone, does anyone care in this context, or should I be all "ABSOLUTELY!" and then we make a deal and rake in the dough? Can we even judge, since we have, you know, all of this scanned material and whatnot? These are the questions I present. Tell me how much they matter. --ItsWalky 14:24, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

All else being equal I'd prefer to avoid it, unless we're desperate for cash. We know some Hasbro staff look at this wiki and they've been clear in how much that stuff bugs them. Also, the more our pageviews include imagery of Fake Magnus Armor and Fake Springer and Fake Rod et al., the more we're going to have to deal with new arrivals who feel that's all kosher for inclusion in the main articles. If it's possible to get a TFSource ad that will never display a bootleg, then I'd have no problem with it. --Thylacine 2000 14:36, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

Seems like a reasonable restriction for us to make to me. My take on our scans is that one, we generally err on the side of fair use in not uploading entire pages and making sure we credit the hell out of things, and two, they're not a 100% vital part of the wiki anyway--if Hasbro told us to take every scan down tomorrow we could comply and still have a perfectly usable (just a less visually exciting) wiki.

That's kind of different from openly advertising toys that totally violate Hasbro's copyright, though. Even aside from the legal tangles (which is no small aside, certainly), while I know we are in that murky grey area in some things, we have always tried to play as fair as we can with Hasbro in how we operate. --Jeysie 14:40, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

I agree, no knockoffs in our ads if we can help it.--Jimsorenson 14:44, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

Ditto on no knockoffs in the ads. --Lonegamer78 14:59, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

ALL ABOARD THE DITTO ASTROTRAIN ---Blackout- 15:07, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

N-O on the K-Os. --Khajidha 15:12, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, if TFSource can give us ad without IP infringing product, I say let em in. --M Sipher 15:17, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

Yikes, I'm looking at the side banner right now and it's full of IP infringing products. The one I see has Knight Morpher Commander, Crossfire Munition and Explorer and Warbot Defender. The only ACTUAL Transformers product in there is Masterpiece Ghost Starscream. I think it would be bad form to keep ads like that on the site. -- Semysane 18:19, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

Ads without IP infringing material would be fine with me. MrBlud 18:56, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

Ugh. When they were allowed to buy the ad space, did they promise no knock-offs? - Cattleprod 23:12, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

Big NO on knockoffs, including third-party. --TX55^TALK 01:51, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

I am cool with them buying adspace IF they only advertise official Transformers products. --FFN 06:14, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

I say YES to having the Third party stuff on here. As you can see by the continuity discussion above Hasbro don't really give a damn about Transformers fiction the way we do. The third party stuff proves that those guys have passion that many in Hasbro do not. And "knock-offs" is a bit harsh, no? So in summary, screw Hasbro and yeah Fansproject! And let's be honest if the choice as to who controls Transformers came down to a two-way battle between Hasbro and TFWiki, who would you pick? Drmick 10:44, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Drmick, we're talking IP infringement here and we occasionally have actual Hasbro folks peek in here time to time. I think I speak for the others in that none of us wants them knocking on the wiki's doors with some form of a C&D or something that'll restrict us (save certain circumstances). We've probably toed a couple lines somewhere more than several times, and I for one, do NOT want our relationship with Hasbro to be messed up. --Lonegamer78 12:22, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

What LG said. Also, we're not talking about putting Fansproject's knockoffs on the wiki itself... just adspace for sites dedicated to selling such knockoffs. And I'm giving that idea a big fat hell no. --Detour 23:49, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

No doubt the only reason the ad is still up is because Walky's on the road. --abates 02:38, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

What ad are you guys seeing? All I see is a Project Wonderful sidebar ad (current bidder is Unreal Books) and reprolabels permanent banner up top. --FFN 02:55, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm seeing a TFSource ad ABSOLUTELY FULL of pics of third-party stuff. And MP Ghost Starscream. ---Blackout- 02:57, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, for some reason I'm not seeing any of that. I just see two Project Wonderful ads on the left hand side "Advertisement" sidebar, so TF Source's ad must be triggered by IP address or something. Also, if the ad is already up after only one day (or less) of community consultation, and Walky's not around to deal with administration problems relating to it (especially as there is a fear of how TF Source's wares would look to Hasbro), then that's poor planning on his part, (no offense intended, boss.) --FFN 03:02, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Weird, it's gone for me, now. Where it was I have a Project Wonderful ad displaying Akemi's Anime World. -- Semysane 03:11, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Still there for me. ---Blackout- 03:36, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Just tried it on another browser that I never use (in case there's some cache thing on the main browser - no change, I don't see the TF Source banner. --FFN 04:18, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Project Wonderful ads are localized, guys. TFSource probably just shelled out the dough for their ad in the States only. I've never seen it up, myself. --Detour 04:34, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm in Poland, Detour. That's on an entirely different continent than the US. ---Blackout- 04:37, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm in Canada, and I have seen it. I just don't see it anymore. -- Semysane 04:44, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Wait, you're Polish? I had no idea. You talk gooder English than me. -- Semysane 04:39, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

The advert's currently only displaying in Europe. --abates 05:26, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

No wonder, all I see are just two Project Wonderful random ads. And I'm in Taiwan. --TX55^TALK 05:52, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

TFsource said they were willing to give us a banner that has no third-party stuff on it! Hooray! --ItsWalky 08:01, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Oh yeh, that sounds nice to me. --TX55^TALK 08:09, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

And it should be noted that during the time we were displaying the "offending" ad, we had not yet agreed to have an adspace bought out by TFSource. They'd just bought the ad the normal way, and as they'd been a prior bidder, they were pre-approved.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 11:13, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Excellent - my apologies, Walky. --FFN 05:00, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

That sidebar ad with the knock-off Swindle, Springer, and HoS Optimus has started showing up for me again, in Canada if that's relevant. It had stopped showing up less than a day after I first saw it, but now it's there again. - Cattleprod 23:46, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

Another Canadian here. Same situation as Cattleprod. --NCZ 23:58, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

Me too, same ad as before, knockoffs and all. -- Semysane 03:12, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

Yep, knock-off ad here too. --Detour 12:44, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

On the Project Wonderful site, both the Canadian and EU traffic are seeing the version of the banner with the Munitioner upgrade sets, Knight Morpher Commander and Warbot Defender. --FFN 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

Now I see THE ad, too. (Taiwan, Asia) --TX55^TALK 22:40, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Welp, Californian and now I'm seeing the Munitioner set, alongside Knight Morpher and Warbot Defender with MP Ghost Starscream. --Lonegamer78 02:26, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm in Ohio and getting Naruto vol. 48 as the ad. --Tigerpaw28 02:45, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

TFSource's knockoffs ad is back for Canadian and European visitors. --Detour 08:59, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Seeing all sorts of KOs advertised now. Can we void their contract and keep their money as a fine for breaking their agreement with us? --Khajidha 15:02, 15 July 2010 (EDT)PS- since when is NC in Europe/Canada?

Welp, this I certainly agree. --Lonegamer78 15:05, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Same here, and I'm American. I'm only sort of mentioning this because they let someone steal my credit card. Chip 22:50, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

As mentioned, we haven't actually committed to any deal yet with them, and any ads you see are them going through the standard Project Wonderful process. They've bought ads with us before, and thus as long as they have the high bid, they're pre-approved. They're going to have the proposed first-party-products-only ad to submit to Walky sometime next week.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 23:11, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

Guys

There is no "contract" to "void." Their permanent ad buy hasn't STARTED. They've been advertising with those particular ads for months. You've just finally noticed them because I brought them up. We haven't even discussed what the ad space will cost them since I've been busy and they said they won't have a new ad for us for about a week anyway. So, like, chill out. --ItsWalky 15:31, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

For months? Huh... --Lonegamer78 17:21, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

And it's done

TFsource owns our skyscraper until whenever they don't want to anymore. It's all official stuff, so everyone happy? (Yay!) --ItsWalky 16:06, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Can we please somehow code it to say "This ad comes with a 100% chance of not causing us headaches" beneath the ad? (Nah, not really.)

Also, I'm happy. ---Blackout- 16:29, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Looks awesome! --abates 18:29, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

That looks great! Nice and slick-looking. --FFN 04:55, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

Simon Furman's IDW pitch

So here's a thing. The following text is Simon Furman's original pitch for Transformers comics when IDW took up the license, printed in the back of the "Best of Simon Furman" hardback collection. I skimmed this a few years back when the book was released and it passed under my nose at work, but since then, we've never had any of the info on the wiki, and I've never seen any discussion of it on any forums - presumably because none of us actually BOUGHT the dang thing, since we own all these stories in multiple formats already. I borrowed the book and transcribed the pitch so that anyone interested can read it, and we can maybe actually do something with the info. - Chris McFeely 11:01, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Hmm. I've never seen this before. It's pretty interesting that Furman was itching to do Cybertron , which is weird, because by the time IDW was announced as the new comic licensee, Cybertron had started. Would take awhile to get a Cybertron comic up and running, I would think. By the time it came out, it might be already too late. --FFN 02:58, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

It wouldn't surprise me if that's why it was modified so much. But, um, should we be duplicating this sort of material here? I mean, sure, The Best of Simon Furman wasn't the most popular book, but isn't this just copyright infringement? --Jimsorenson 03:18, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, that was on my mind as I was transcribing it. I don't really intend to permanently house this anywhere - I just wanted to get it up so people could get a look, take in the info, maybe do something wiki-related with it, then I'd scrub it. - Chris McFeely 11:18, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

TRANSFORMERS… A NEW DIRECTION

A Proposal For IDW

--Simon Furman--

In the (Armada/Energon) Cybertron timeline…

…UNICRON IS DESTROYED, utterly wiped out of existence by a seismic shock warhead detonated deep within its superstructure (events which would be visited retroactively in any subsequent ‘Energon’ conclusion issues).

But as one threat to Cybertron ends, another has only just begun. A rift in time and space – a massive ‘chronal’ black hole formed by the annihilation of Unicron – is threatening to suck Cybertron in, tear it apart in an internal maelstrom of deconstructed space and time. Only by anchoring the planet, via a spacebridge, to Earth’s energon core can Cybertron maintain its tenuous position, but it’s at best a quick fix. To seal the rift, they need the power of PRIMUS, the progenitor of the entire TRANSFORMERS race. But while a fragment of the dormant Primus lifeforce exists within Cybertron, the rest is lost, scattered throughout the universe, buried deep within strange, alien worlds.

Roused (from eons of chronal stasis in a dimension outside of normal space and time) by the impending cataclysm, the immortal sentinel known as Vector Prime spearheads the search for the Primus lifeforce, guiding Optimus Prime and his Autobots on a quest that will take them to aliens worlds in the farthest corners of the galaxy and beyond. But where Prime and the Autobots go… Megatron and the Decepticons are never far behind.

Clad in the armor of Unicron, fuelled by a fragment of his Spark, Megatron has become a true agent of chaos. He’s prepared to sacrifice Cybertron, Earth and any other world in order to contain and absorb the lifeforce of Primus himself, his ultimate aim to transform himself… into a living god!

And the ‘Cybertron’ timeline is not the only one to feel the effects of the destruction of Unicron. In fact… it’s one of the lucky ones.

<<In all the disparate timelines, all the myriad dimensions, there is but one Unicron. Though physical presence is limited to a single reality at any given time, it exists simultaneously in countless dimensions, shadows of its vast, ancient consciousness inextricably interwoven into the complex geometry of time and space. Its destruction in the Cybertron timeline creates ripples, which become shockwaves, which gather force, become a tidal wave of destruction. In some realities, the effect of the ‘chaos wave’ is total, instantaneous, entire timelines… wiped out. In others, the initial effect is less pronounced, a dramatic event heralding a slow descent into space/time anarchy.>>

In the G1 timeline…

…CYBERTRON IS DESTROYED! The resident Autobots and Decepticons barely have time to evacuate the planet, to eject the core of the planet and it’s precious Vector Sigma cargo (an eventuality made feasible way back when [in The War Within v3]) before the planet is torn apart, smashed into component molecules by the roiling chaos wave. Many Cybertronians don’t make it at all, and are simply wiped out. In a shockingly short time, Cybertron is gone. Forever.

Shocked, stunned, bereft of their homeworld, the remaining populous finds itself spread far and wide throughout the galaxy, seeking (in the Autobots’ case) safe harbor or (in the Decepticons’ case) new worlds to conquer… and colonise. Megatron’s Decepticons have perfecting ‘mechaforming’ technology, invasive, self-replicating machinery designed to restructure the entire geological substructure of a planet, in effect turn it into a new Cybertron. And since the Decepticons are indifferent to the presence or fate of any indigenous civilizations on the planet(s) of choice, it’s down to the Autobots to stop them… at any cost.

Earth, always a pivotal world in the G1 timeline, becomes even more of a focal battleground. Its natural resources are a potent brew that – with the right exploitation and manipulation – can be turned into energon, the lifeblood of the Transformer race. In Decepticon hands the whole world would be turned into a vast refinery, bled dry to fuel the creation of the ‘new’ Cybertron.

And Optimus Prime has an even more pressing concern. Contacted by Vector Prime (who can move within all remaining TF timelines), he is warned that the omniversal geometry is critically out of alignment. The removal of – for want of a better word – ‘evil’ has disturbed an age-old natural balance. Though it goes against every Autobot credo, they must somehow resurrect the dark force known, among other things, as Unicron! The key is the so-called ‘Decepticon Matrix’, a quasi-mythical power source spread throughout the galaxy. Said to be fragments of Unicron itself, released in some apocalyptic confrontation with Primus before the dawn of time, its retrieval and coalescence could restore the balance and dissipate the chaos wave.

Reluctantly, with grave reservations (and considerable dissent in the Autobot ranks) Prime forges an uneasy alliance with two of Unicron’s heralds, Cylonus and Scourge, both of whom are dedicated to the rebirth of their master (for different reasons). But, unknown to Prime, they have a secondary agenda, a plan to use a fragment of the Decepticon Matrix to destroy Megatron… and recreate him as the unstoppable force known as Galvatron!

<<And so, in one timeline, the Autobots seek to make Primus whole once more, while in another, they seek to resurrect the spirit of Unicron, leading ultimately to the new, universe-shaking confrontation between the two ancient forces… one that will (briefly) unite all remaining TRANSFORMERS timelines and continuities in an epic battle for survival.>>

CYBERTRON #0 (AND ONGOING)/G1 #0 (AND ONGOING)

Amidst the larger framework of the ‘chaos wave’ saga, the ongoing thrust of Cybertron is a focused series of one or two-part (largely self-contained, featuring different character assortments) adventures set on Cybertron, Earth and the key planets (Speed, Beast and Giant) that support its core quest… the search for the lifeforce of Primus. At every turn, the Autobots are confounded and frustrated by the Decepticons, but in the process forge new alliances and friendships, both on Earth and beyond. It’s a race against time… with the fate of Cybertron (and more) hanging in the balance.

The G1 title expands the scope and reach of the line, exploring wider character/conflict story arcs (while pulling in much more fan-friendly past and future continuity) and dramatically shaking the whole TRANSFORMERS mythos to its core, streamlining and redefining the sometimes confusing mass of ‘alternate’ timelines. But as with Cybertron, the focus will shift to different groups of Autobots/Decepticons on different worlds, faced with differing agendas and challenges.

The issue #0s will be mirror-images of each other, both told from the perspective of Vector Prime as he awakens to an omniverse in chaos, threatened on all fronts. His narrative will serve to encapsulate what has gone before while his actions introduce the primary cast and lay the groundwork for what is to come.

Noticed something

both told from the perspective of Vector Prime as he awakens to an omniverse in chaos

Some use of the word omniverse. Wow. Item42 10:16, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Added it in somewheres

I've added references to that thing at IDW Generation 1 continuity and Cybertron (franchise). Did I do it right? --Fortress Minimus 17:21, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Usernames

Our latest user Michaelbayblows has what I consider to be a somewhat inflammatory username considering the how many arguments ensue regarding the live-action movies. It's probable that you would have difficulty registering on a forum with such a username. --FFN 15:56, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

I was thinking the same thing. We blocked some guy from registering such a name referencing Detour, why should we allow such statements against Bay? --Khajidha 16:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, I also thought his name was inappropriate. I don't think personal threats would be acceptable here, particularly about such a controversial figure in Transformers fandom. --NCZ 16:10, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

On Wookieepedia we routinely block people for having inappropriate names. I see no reason why we shouldn't have a similar policy here. -- SFH 16:19, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

How he creates a new account and the old one is blocked? Some of his edits aren't too bad; I don't see why he shouldn't get a second chance. --NCZ 16:21, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Block the old account, post a nice note explaining that we want him to stay and continue working but that he cannot use a name that is attacking/insulting any person. --Khajidha 16:32, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

I am in support of this, but he should be informed via his talkpage for one full day prior to the block, for the sake of not being too harsh. --Detour 18:04, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

I fully agree with Detour. ---Blackout- 18:18, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Now we just need to find an actual admin. --Khajidha 19:12, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

And set the thing right. --TX55^TALK 21:47, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Well, he ignored Abates. --FFN 06:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

I was Michaelbayblows but then I kinda stop using it because some mind find it offensive. So I am sorry for my inflammatory username. --HeyTFWiki 05:17, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

Official sources policy

Recently, some of us have been explaining to a user why video from a cellphone camera of the movie set cannot be taken as official sources. I was going to link to the official sources page when I realized that I do not know what it's called and cannot find it. Which brings me to this point: we actually took the time to write out and codify our what we consider to be official sources, right? -- SFH 16:22, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

It's at Help:Official info. And next time, somebody should probably just place the {{scoop bastard}} template. (I was going to but couldn't find a good chance.) --NCZ 16:26, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Disgusting ad

Sorry if I'm posting this at the wrong place, but is there anywhere we can complain about the ads on the wiki? Not to overstep my (very modest) bounds here or anything, but that ad with the GIANT PIMPLE on the back of the guy's neck is really off-putting... You've probably all seen it by now right? I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks this... Call me squeamish if you will, but it's really bothering me... --Ascendron 14:40, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm with this 100%. I'm so glad I haven't eaten a thing all day, because I'd have lost my breakfast and my lunch by now. --Detour 14:49, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

I wouldn't mind so much if it would only pop up occassionally (then again, my gross tolerance is relatively high). But to be confronted with the world's largest zit every page I go on this wiki... Rather not. Geewunling 14:55, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

I checked the PW sites - must have been outbid so I missed it. What the heck was it for? --FFN 22:37, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

It was for a website about the world's largest pimple! It was this I believe. SO not missing that ad. -- Semysane 03:19, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Disamb template on calendar pages?

So while fiddling around with the latest additions to our "day in history" pages, I got to thinking. Separating bullets with a blank line adds to our pages' sizes because that adds a "list start/stop" in the coding, yes?
Well... does the {{disamb}} Template do that when we split that up with a blank line between them? The only real difference we see on the page is a "—" instead of a ":" after the bolded year. I fiddled with it a bit (without saving) and it looks good to me; I'll probably do up a Sandbox. If using this template doesn't add to the page size in the back-end that we don't see in the normal edit window... it sure would make it easier to read in said edit window, plus give the lists that litlte extra space between lines for readability on the normal pages. --M Sipher 14:45, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

Yes, putting spaces between {{disamb}} also causes the problem whereby each item is in its own list. We can space out the more compact lists on the normal pages using css, but I don't think there's any way to space them out on the edit window due to the way MediaWiki parses stuff. --abates 17:43, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

Well, that's goddamn irksome. It's too easy to get lost in a mass of unbroken text in the edit window. but if we can add jsut a little space between items in the final result, I'll be happy. Though this does beg the question of whether we should move over to using the disamb template anyway for calendars. Probably ought to be going over our disambiguation pages and bringing them up to code anyway (well, where dates are applicable). At the very least, I'm liking the use of em-dashes instead of colons. --M Sipher 11:23, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

TF Wiki Firefox Search Engine Add-On

I'm surprised that one wasn't created a long time ago. It would make things incredibly convenient, and it can't be that hard to make. Anyone else like the idea? Anyone here have experience? --Devastator 15:27, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

Please elaborate. What function exactly would such an add-on serve? ---Blackout- 15:32, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

None. You can add the wiki to the search engines list without messing with addons. Just go to a page on the wiki, and click on the down arrow in Firefox's search box. --FortMax 15:38, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

Wow, I must be blind. Thanks guys. There should be something on the home page encouraging visitors to do just that. Might help with traffic. --Devastator 15:50, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

In regards to expo 86.

Hey, Editor from Seibertron.com here. The front page list a request about "Information on the Transformers presentation at Vancouver's Expo '86".

I was about 11 then but I spent a lot of time at Expo during that summer. I don't remember any presentations per say, but I do remember that Hasbro (or at least Hasbro Canada) did have a presence. Namely they had 3-4 outdoor kiosks located around the fair, these were freestanding units with each one branded with one of four Hasbro properties, I clearly remember one being for Transformers and another for My Little Pony, the other(s) escape me at the moment but I am fairly certain that GIJoe wasn't there, and one could have been a generic Hasbro one. Additionally, one proper store was set up more for kids goods in the Red Zone near the Land Plaza and UFOH2O, that stocked the same items.

Due to the size of the units a good amount of available items were blister packs mainly Scamble City units. Boxed TF's were available but in smaller amounts (For some reason I want to say a good number of Wreck-gars and Gnaws were there) Sadly due to the location everything was more expensive than they could be found for at local stores. What was cool is that each of the kiosks regardless of how they were branded had a bit of everything, and they occasionally had loose pieces on hand. (I do remember playing with a Swindle at the actual TF Kiosk.

Don't know if that really helps but hopefully it did. Feel free to contact me thru Seibs if you have any questions.

Hmm, that's interesting, though, it being your memories from about 24 years ago, I'm not sure how "article information"-worthy it is. Would you happen to have any photos taken of the event? --FFN 17:25, 24 July 2010 (EDT)

Not in my personal collection, but since writing the above I have been looking thru some online records of the fair to see if I can spot those kiosks. If I remember correctly where a couple were I might be able locate some. If I can find them I'll post here.

In our anon's defense, I offer the following taken from a story titled "Expo '86 a hit at luring firms through turnstiles" written by Jennifer Hunter, and published in the May 1st, 1986 edition of The Globe and Post:

Expo is offering corporate exclusivity; there was already a soft-drink manufacturer, a car maker and a bank, but no toy company. Hasbro - with 1985 sales of $1.2-billion (U.S.) and profit of $99-million - is one of the largest toy manufacturers in North America and seemed a likely candidate to fork over dollars for a world's fair.

Mr. Hassenfeld and his brother Stephan could not resist the Expo slogan - Invite the World. A global showcase for Hasbro toys was too good an offer to turn down. So the Hassenfeld brothers delivered a cheque for $2-million (Canadian) to sponsor the Expo Centre geodesic dome. In return, Hasbro toys will be sold on the fair site.

"Bringing the name Hasbro before the public is the major reason we are participating," Mr. Hassenfeld said.

So it looks like his memories are probably accurate. --Tigerpaw28 17:22, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

Hopefully whomever asked for this information in the first place will pop in and comment. --FFN 04:53, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

Titan Magazines

Is there a reason why none of the Titan Movie comics pages have Featured Character boxes? ---Blackout- 15:47, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

It is highly possible that the pages (or at least the sections) are still under working. --TX55^TALK 21:52, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

They seem pretty complete other than the featured character lists. Not sure what's up with that! --abates 22:26, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

makes note to add Featured Character boxes to as many Titan Movie comics pages as possible sometime in the near future* ---Blackout- 03:53, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

@@ Line 1,127: / Line 1,127: @@
 ::::::::::Well, he ignored Abates. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 06:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
+:::::::::::I was [[User:Michaelbayblows|Michaelbayblows]] but then I kinda stop using it because some mind find it offensive. So I am sorry for my inflammatory username. --[[User:HeyTFWiki|HeyTFWiki]] 05:17, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
 == Official sources policy ==