MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

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

	Specific Discussion Subjects
Moving From Wikia: Arriving Leaving Complaints New Ad Policy: Ads Bookworm Database-Crash: Damage Control Central Project:Bookworm Crash Leaving Take 2 Server Move: Arriving Take 2 Relicensing: Relicensing Dealing With Vandalism: Vandalism GoBots Sister Wiki: Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki

Aligned Timeline

I'm going to try and take a stab at creating an Aligned timeline that unites everything we know about the franchise(s) so far. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Tom Servo the Great 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Help Wanted

Hello one and all. I'm here representing a newly created Role-Playing forum that is based in the Transformers Universe. We're in the early stages yet, and are looking for people to help get the ball rolling. Since this site seems to lack a dedicated forum (where requests like these would usually be made) and I haven't seen any other way to effectively say my piece in front of a large audience, I thought that posting here was the best way to "advertise" us, as it were. I sincerely apologize if this was the wrong move on our part, or if I've breached protocol at all, but I can assure everyone that our intentions aren't malign. Those interested, please contact me using any of the ways that I have listed on my username page here on this site. I won't tempt fate by linking our website here directly =P

Once again, you all have my sincere greetings, and I hope to hear from you soon. Also, as a side note: the difference in quality between this page and the transformers wikia is amazing. Rathian Warrior 23:50, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm not sure if you've crossed any lines, and frankly, you were polite enough about it that it's not a big deal, but you could always buy some ad space if you want to raise awareness of your forum. It's cheap! There's usually a link on every page around the banners, but if you didn't catch it, you can follow this link: Project Wonderful TFWiki Page--McFly 16:13, 8 November 2011 (EST)

"Fictional" and "real" categories

I think we need to come up with a consistent way to distinguish categories of things that are real and categories of things that have appeared in fiction. So far, we've skimmed the issue by using synonyms, such as companies and businesses, but that doesn't really work for things like magazines, which is already used for real magazines. Currently, we have Category:Fictional books, Category:Fictional video games that consider the fictional entities "different". On the other hand, we have Category:Real-world events by day and Category:Real world films. We focus more on the fictional aspect of Transformers, so it makes sense to not point out the fictionality in categories, but "real world" sounds awkward to some. Which one should we use? —Interrobang 00:26, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

I thought I'd cheat and see how some of the other fictional Wikis deal with the problem. Three different approaches I saw:

• Doctor Who wiki has a "Real World" category for real world stuff and in most cases the categories for real world things are at "Real world X".
• Wookiepedia goes the parenthetical route, with "Books" and "Books (real-world)". Though they also have one or two like "Real world companies".
• Stargate wiki has "Books" versus "Stargate books" for real world books.

I kinda like the parenthetical approach that Wookiepedia have taken. --abates 03:11, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

I'd favor pointing out the status of both categories, just to make absolutely clear what they are for. The words can be "Fictional" and "Real-world" (I notice both real-world categories use a different spelling. Whichever it's gonna be (if), only one spelling should be used). "Nonfictional" kinda works as an alternative, would "Real-world" be disliked. Geewunling 04:35, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

If we go that route, I think "real-world" should be used, since "real world" is a lot more easier to fix than the other parsing. I like the Wookiepedia approach, but I'm not sure that's enough to change how we already do categories. The idea to label both categories sounds nice, but "Fictional X" seems incongruous with unlabeled categories, such as "weapons", "technology", etc.; considering that our main focus is the fiction, I'm leaning towards only labeling the real stuff. —Interrobang 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

I think it would be advantageous to put a {{disambig2}} at the top, so people could easily go from the fictional to the real world category too. --abates 16:30, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Yeah, I think I put that on Category:Films a while ago. —Interrobang 16:57, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Speaking of this, I found we handle Category:Films like Category:Real people, wouldn't this be some, um, confusing? It's just, somehow, reverse? (Except for the fictional films like Honoji) According to the logic of how we handle Category:Real people, shouldn't we place films like 40-Year-Old Virgin or Godzilla in the Category:Real world films? --TX55^TALK 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Godzilla doesn't go in "Real world films" because it's not a real world Transformers film. The Transformers is implied in that category name. Presumably we could have a "Real films" category for Godzilla, etc, but I'm not sure it's worth doing. --abates 23:53, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

We shouldn't use "fictional X" for two reasons. One, there things like As the Kitchen Sinks that are fictional even within the fictional Transformers universe. Second, the wiki is written in-universe by default and putting Big Steve's Used Cars in a "fictional businesses" category would kind of break that. Within Transformers fiction, "Big Steve's Used Cars" is not a fictional company, but "As the Kitchen Sinks" is a fictional TV show. - Starfield 18:47, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

In-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is not a fictional show. It depicts fictional events and fictional people, yes, but the show itself, as a piece of entertainment, is not fictional. I do get your point, as we actually have things like Frankenstein that are two layers of fiction removed from us. —Interrobang 19:18, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Yes, of course. I meant, in-universe, As the Kitchen Sinks is a work of fiction, whereas "Big Steve's Used Cars" is a real business that sells real used cars to real people. Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Wasn't Buck Rogers a fictional TV show? Anyway, it sounds like you got my point. - Starfield 21:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Or, judging by the fact categories like "Magazines" in used for magazines in our real life and "Companies" for companies in real life, why not just use "Film" for films (such as DOTM) in real life, while we move current contents in "Films" to "Films in Transformers fictions"? --TX55^TALK 23:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

That seems like it would go counter to some of our existing naming schemes. e.g. if we split that out into films by franchise, you'd get "Films in Generation 1" rather than "Generation 1 films". Though admittedly the former title might have the advantage that it's clearer in meaning. --abates 23:50, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

I think both are equally ambiguous in their meaning. If we still need to clarify the purpose of the categories, we can always spell it out in the category's introduction. —Interrobang 00:03, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

"Transformers: "

We talked a bit about adding back "Transformers: " to the titles of articles previously, and the general sentiment was that people were for it or didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any input in this matter? —Interrobang 00:34, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm okay with this change, but I do have three questions on execution.
1.) Whether or not "Transformers" is followed by a colon seems random in our current system. How will that be handled?
2.) If "Transformers(:)" is going to be added to every relevant page name, then what about all the extra words in the titles of Japanese stuff?
3.) What conseuqneces will this have for categories, lists, storylinks, etc?
Geewunling 04:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

1. I think we've had two consistent rules about that: If the title is some kind of phrase, like "Transformers United", "The Transformers Collection", or "Transformers Animated", then we don't use the colon. If the title is some kind of obvious "title: subtitle" setup ("Transformers: Armada", "Transformers: Prime"), then we use the colon. There's some borderline examples, but I think we can figure them out one by one. Official sources will help with determining colon-status. The other rule seems to apply to only games: If the title has another subtitle, then the first colon is dropped (ex. Transformers Prime: Terrorcon Defense). I dunno why, but we can add back the colon, I suppose.
2. I guess we add them? We could argue it for Victory, since it was released in English contexts as just "Transformers: Victory".
3. I think we're just going to continue the same in relation to those. The articles will still be sorted by their subtitles in categories. Storylinks I could go either way on, but I think the trend is to drop the main title. I've been doing that for the AAII storylinks to avoid excessively long links. —Interrobang 12:49, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

I don't see how "Transformers United" and "Transformers Animated" are any different from "Transformers: Prime". To me, all three could fall into either of your groups (phrase vs subtitle) and would prefer colons in all of those cases. Of your examples, only "The Transformers Collection" seems to really belong in the "phrase" group. --Khajidha 13:22, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

"United" and "Animated" are adjectives that modify "Transformers" and have official sources that omit the colon. "Transformers Prime" doesn't make sense in that way. —Interrobang 14:58, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

I am not certain about those two "rules" for colons either. They're rather vague and bound to cause arguments and confusion. It needs to be made more obvious whether a colon should be used or not before "Transformers" can be added everywhere (a help page on the matter would also be handy in the future, me thinks).

I think that if we would put the cartoon at Transformers: Victory, that would cause confusion with the manga, storypages, toyline and franchises, none of which were ever brought over and should thus not be named such. If moved, the Victory cartoon should best go to its Japanese name. Geewunling 15:28, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

*shrug* The first rule is mostly there for Transformers Animated, which people will be resistant to moving to have a colon (plus, obvious cases like The Transformers Collection). The second rule I really don't care about and can be tossed (it mostly only concerns the movie series of video games and online games). —Interrobang 16:04, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Are you suggesting there that Victory articles should be moved to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory"? I'd disagree with that, if so! --abates 07:25, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Why? We can't go around writing out the full names of Western franchises and stuff but not do so for the Japanese stuff. We already have "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" written out for the 1985 & 1986 Japanese franchises, so why not Victory? Geewunling 07:30, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Victory (the cartoon) has been released in the West as "Transformers: Victory", to me that means that the official English name of the franchise is Transformers: Victory. Yes, we should give the full Japanese title at the beginning of the franchise page but there is no reason to move anything to that name. --Khajidha 08:35, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

That was pretty much my reasoning too (also typing out the full name every time we wanted to link to it would be tedious). --abates 17:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Tying out "(franchise)" every time for everything is more tedious, but we still have it (for... some reason). Ditto long titles like The Story of Super Robot Lifeforms: The Transformers and Transformers Vault's previous ridiculously long title.

But I guess the general principle of "Transformers: " is acceptable to most. I'll start moving the noncontroversial pages (Western comics and cartoons with definite subtitles, etc.) if there's no opposition in the next few hours. —Interrobang 18:08, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Is there a difference between Transformers, Beast Wars: The Gathering and Transformers: Beast Wars: The Ascending? I must admit, the comma/colon distinction seems kinda arbitrary. Also, these page names seem kind of overlong and stupid, what's wrong with The Ascending and The Gathering? It's a Transformers wiki and those are Beast Wars series; prefixing everything we possibly can with "Transformers" is only going to clog up the search box and make editing just that bit more arduous. What were the arguments in favour of this again? --Emvee 16:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

That's the formatting used in the indicia. Your complaint about the search box is silly; did you really think typing "Transformers" into it yielded anything useful 99% of the time?

Like it or not, "Transformers: " is the part of the name of many things, and the hoops we have to go through to maintain this silly system of dropping it from article titles has gotten ridiculous and inconsistent. Adding "Transformers: " to article titles, on the other hand, adds clarity and avoids pointless disambiguation. "The Transformers: Bumblebee" is preferable to "Bumblebee (comic)", "Transformers: Sector 7" to "Sector 7 (comic)", etc. —Interrobang 16:44, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

I get that it's useful in some cases, but it just seems like applying the rule across the board means we're overcomplicating the issue. Occam's razor has a lot going for it, and for user-friendliness I'd go for brevity. --Emvee 17:11, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Also on an Occam's razor tip, "Bumblebee (comic)" conveys more information in fewer characters than "Transformers: Bumblebee". I really don't understand why the latter is preferable. --Emvee 14:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

There's something to say for either argument, but as it is, we have proven to be unable to keep to one consistent "Transformers"-as-part-of-the-title policy at least since TFA. And if trying to keep "Transformers" out of the deal doesn't work, we oughta give the alternative a chance. I don't think it necesarilly makes it harder to find anything, as the search box reacts to words even if they are not the first part of a page title. And I want to have the changes in clear perspective before I might suggest deleting a few redirects, so at least for now, searches won't be any harder and we have a consistent policy. Geewunling 14:49, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I gotta say, I'm hating how this is working in practice. Article titles seem long and ugly to me.--Jimsorenson 15:46, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I feel the same, but it seems to be an necessary evil because "Transformers: ***" is a full title? duh. --TX55^TALK 22:45, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

I fear the day someone decides to add full titles to disambiguation suffixes as well, e.g. "Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated)", "Grindor (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)" etc.--Nevermore 13:43, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

That would be silly, and I'm pretty sure most people would oppose it. Putting "Transformers:" in names is a change we'd already been drifting towards for a while with, for instance, the War for Cybertron articles all doing it. --abates 16:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

On a related note, it's a pet peeve of mine when a writeup talks about a specific medium related to a franchise but links to the franchise as a whole instead, such as "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the Cybertron toyline" or "in episode 6 of the Energon cartoon...".--Nevermore 17:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Would the best solution there be something like "Jetfire was released as part of wave 1 of the Cybertron toyline"? --77.99.176.103 03:32, 29 September 2011 (EDT) (oops, emvee not logged in)

I think linking to the toyline page is sufficent. There's no need for an additional link to the corresponding umbrella franchise. The thought behind this is: "If Joe McRandom sees something that interests him and clicks a link, does he want the link to take him straight to the specific topic or to a more general overview?" I think link targets should always be as specific as necessary. If someone gets interested in a broader overview, he can always go one level up. After all, a link referring to G1 Optimus Prime leads to Optimus Prime (G1), not to Optimus Prime (disambiguation), either. In the same fashion, toyline pages should deeplink to the specific toy entries on the respective characters' pages (or even their toy pages, if applicable). Like, if Joe McRandom is on the Universe (2008 toyline) page, sees a "Prowl" toy listed under "Deluxe Class" and wants to read more about that toy, he wants the "Prowl" link to take him straight to Prowl (G1)/toys#Universe (2008), not to the main character page where he then has to scroll down to "toys", see that G1 Prowl toys have their separate page, go there, then scroll down to "Universe (2008)". (It currently links to Prowl (G1)/toys, which is at least halfway there.) I will fix this wherever I see it, and implement it when doing writeups.--Nevermore 08:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Suggestion to creating templates

Do we need some kinds of templates when typing contents for convenience? For my experience in Terminator Wiki, we use templates like {{T3}} for ''[[Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines]]'' or {{TSCC}} for ''[[Terminator: The Sarah Connnor Chronicles]]''. What I'm suggesting is that after we make all franchise names into full title (and we don't use redirect links), it is some how trouble some when typing the title. So we can make some templates like:

{{tf|Armada}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (franchise)|Transformers: Armada]]''

{{tf|Armada|toyline|Pokeformer}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Pokeformer]]''

{{jptf|bwn}} -> ''[[Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo]]''

If there is any user who can created complex template, we could make

{{tf|armada|t}} -> ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Transformers: Armada]]''

parameter 1:
2010 = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010 (toyline)
thm = Transformers: The Headmasters (toyline)
mf = Transformers: Super-God Masterforce (toyline)
v = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Victory
z = Transformers: Zone
roc = Transformers: Return of Convoy
oc = Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: Operation Combination
armada = Transformers Armada
bwn = Super Lifeform Transformers: Beast Wars Neo
mov = Movie
rotf = Revenge of the Fallen
tfa = Transformers Animated
...and (blah blah)

parameter 2:
*default* - franchise
t - toyline
ct - cartoon
co - comic
m - manga
f - film

And, if possible:
if parameter 3 = s (for example), it will become short title like ''[[Transformers: Armada (toyline)|Armada]]''

--TX55^TALK 21:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

It's something I've thought about as well. Considering there are a lot of exceptions to the regular naming system (parts of franchises that are called something different or franchises that lack the (franchise) identifier on the wiki because it's not necessary to disambiguate it), I don't think a template can be coded to put a link together. A full list system like our TFtoon templates have could maybe work though. Geewunling 16:08, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

I think with the number of franchises we have, it would end up being a hellishly big template and difficult to maintain for only a minor gain. --abates 18:03, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" Transformers

With the insertion of this phrase into the Victory page titles, should it also be inserted into the titles of The Headmasters, Super-God Masterforce, and Zone? now while the immediate answer would be "No", there are some places that do include this text above the "Toransufōmā" text in each of these series's logos. An example of this would the Transformers Tapestry (which even includes it in the Operation combination logo as well) and the Columbia DVD of Zone. Its inclusion in these places seems more than mere coincidence, so would we take this idea into consideration? --Sabrblade 14:33, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Um, that Zone DVD does not support your assertion. All of the actual media for those series (except for the Zone manga and story pages) do not include The "Fight!..." portion. —Interrobang 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Technically the whole toyline in Japan from 1985 to 1992 was called "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers" (as was written on the boxes), so at least the toyline pages for the series of those years would probably need the longer title than just "Transformers: X (toyline)" --Sabrblade 16:04, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

So you want to move the toyline pages to some made-up name? Pick one: 1) Merge all of the toyline pages to "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers (toyline)" 2) Leave the toyline pages as they are instead of stressing over naming things that technically don't exist. —Interrobang 16:23, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

How is it "made up"? "Tatakae! Chō Robot Seimeitai" means "Fight! Super Robot Lifeform" and is written above the "Toransufōmā" text on the packages of the 1985-1992 Japanese toys. I'm not proposing we merge all those toyline pages together, but rather something akin to the Japanese Beast Wars toyline page, in which the individual toylines are kept separate even though they were all collectively the same-named toyline. --Sabrblade 17:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

"Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers: The Headmasters" and its ilk are the imaginary names. Those articles for imaginary toylines are fine where they are. —Interrobang 17:53, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

"Movie"

There's still Movie (franchise), Movie (toyline) and more. Shouldn't that be "Transformers (2007 franchise)" and "Transformers (2007 toyline)", with the current Transformers (2007) becoming "Transformers (2007 movie)"?--Nevermore 20:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Probably. I didn't move them, since I wanted to bring it up for discussion first. The film should be moved to just "Transformers (film)", though. —Interrobang 21:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

"Movie (media)" should be moved to "Transformers (2007 media)" while "Transformers (2007)" goes "Transformers (film)". --TX55^TALK 21:27, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

That push for lexical accuracy strikes me as creating more ambiguity than it resolves. -Derik 16:06, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

Jungaroo

Someone made a lovely Jungaroo gobox, but there's no page for him. --Jimsorenson 21:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

I don't think he's in any applicable fiction, but his bio card is online here. Someone will have to translate it from Japanese first though. --abates 20:25, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Making the search suggestion work better

I don't know if anyone else has this problem, but I noticed sometimes when I type something in the search box, the search suggestions below it jump around and end up on a list which doesn't quite match what I typed. I think it's something to do with the speed I'm typing and the amount of time the server takes to respond to each request.

Anyway, I tweaked the javascript for grabbing the suggestions from the server so it would only trigger when I stopped typing. That seems to fix the problem for me, and as a bonus it's not nagging the server on every keypress. The downside is no instant feedback when I type, but I can live without that if it fixes the other thing.

If anyone else is having that problem and wants to have a go, just copy and paste the following into your monacobook.js (caveat: only tested on Firefox and Chrome):

var ss_memory = null;
var ss_timeron = 0;
var ss_timer;
 
function DoActualSearch() {
    ss_timeron=0;
    var newdiv = document.getElementById("searchsuggest");
    if (!newdiv) {
        var newdiv = document.createElement("div");
        newdiv.id = "searchsuggest";
        var searchdiv = document.getElementById("searchBody");
        searchdiv.appendChild(newdiv);
    }
    var x = document.getElementById("searchInput").value;
    if (x == ss_memory) {
        return;
    }
    ss_memory = x;
    document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'none';
    if (x.length < 30 && x.length > 1 && x.value != "") {
        sajax_do_call("wfAjaxSearchSuggest", [x], newdiv);
        document.getElementById("searchsuggest").style.display = 'block';
    }
}

function MySearchCall() {
  if(ss_timeron) {
    clearTimeout(ss_timer);
    ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
  } else {
    ss_timer=setTimeout("DoActualSearch();",500);
    ss_timeron=1;
  }
}

function myss_ajax_onload(){
    var x = document.getElementById('searchInput');
    x.onkeyup = function(){
        MySearchCall();
    };
}

hookEvent("load", myss_ajax_onload);

Unfortunately it won't fix the actual contents of the search suggestions, so you'll still get a bunch of All Hail Megatron issues when you type "Megatron", but that requires changes on the server. --abates 20:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Hmm. I feel like adding ORDER BY `page_counter` DESC around line 20 of suggest.php might help w/ our search results, but it's hard to say for sure given how abstracted mediawiki database calls are, someone would have ot make the change then test it. -Derik 18:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

The thought I had was to do a query on article titles starting with the search term, and then if that gives back less than 8 entries, do a second search to fill the rest of the list with titles with the term anywhere in the title. The search suggest currently supports both options, but not at the same time. --abates 20:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Stuff

Firstly, our organization of information related to the junior franchises is terrible and I'd love to do something about it, but I need feedback. We currently have most Japanese and American Go-Bots as separate characters, except for the Japanese Go-Bots from the 1-2-3 line. Though there are requests for a separate Chopper page. Should those pages be split or not? And if so, what about the figures that came with some of the toys. Kid-Bot clearly isn't the "red driver" or "blue driver", but the dog and "Gas-Bot" both have fiction in only one of the two franchises, so is it worth separating them? Also, does the unpublished coloring book count as apocrypha or not, seeing as it was mostly approved? And the human characters within, do they count as cameos like Kelly in the Dreamwave comics or separate characters? And does anyone know what the Japanese name was by which the First Transformers were released? The Go-Bots fansite has an image of Dumpkun's box featuring what looks like a G1 logo, the First Transformers logo and "初めて トランスフォーマー" written on it.

Secondly, many disambiguation pages still mention if there's a separate page for the toys of a character. Is this system still necessary now that we use subpages to separate such stuff under? Geewunling 17:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

I think unpublished stuff is treated as apocrypha, isn't it? The character page coverage of unreleased Dreamwave issues is in notes, for instance. --abates 07:48, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

True, but we don't know if those were approved or know those weren't approved. The coloring book was approved, just not released. That makes it better comparable to Wreckers #$, which we do not consider apocrypha (though I wouldn't know if we'd do that if Wreckers #5 didn't partially canonize it). Geewunling 11:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Just weighing in on the toy page issue: I find it useful to have these called out on the disambig pages. Being able to go directly from the disambig page to the toy page of a character saves me at least one click (if I see the suite box in time) and often some scrolling (if I don't see it). However, I won't fight too hard on this if consensus is for the removal of this feature. --Khajidha 07:47, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Thinking some more about the Go-Bots stuff, as the Japanese version of Gas-Bot has no fiction, it probably doesn't need its own page - either link to Gas-Bot's page or just leave it unlinked in the appropriate toy sections. Same with the US version of the dog. --abates 21:30, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Facebook.

Is http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFwikinet/191252494230187 us? Because it's the #1 link when you search for "TFWiki Facebook," and our group is nowhere to be seen. -Derik 16:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

I think our group is not showing up because you have to have a Facebook account to see it? When I go to the group's URL, I just get a page prompting me to log in to Facebook. --abates 17:47, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

The link is this one: http://www.facebook.com/groups/28226443881/, which is the #3 on the search by "TFwiki site:facebook.com" on Google. --TX55^TALK 19:51, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

So the other one isn't ours, and we can't put a link on it pointing it to the group.

Annoying. -Derik 01:01, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

It's a "Community page", whatever that is. Clicking on the "Create a page" button on the top right of that page does bring up some sort of form which seems like it will do something. --abates 01:12, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Halloween

Presuming we're deco'ing our frontpage for Halloween... does anyone have any suggestions? Monsters, ghosts, gouls? -Derik 02:09, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Animated Blitzwing's random face looks sorta Jack O'Lanterny and could work as a replacement for the Autobot insignia on the site logo, assuming we can find a head-on image of it. --abates 02:35, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Moving "(Timelines)" articles

I'm thinking that, as we don't bother with "(Timelines)" for SG, TransTech, and Animated characters, we should apply the same across the board and only use it if necessary.

• Astrotrain (Timelines) → Astrotrain (Cybertron)
• Cannonball (Timelines) → Cannonball (G1)
• Cop-Tur (Timelines) → Cop-Tur (G1)
• Halogen (Timelines) → Halogen (G1)
• Side Burn (Timelines) → Side Burn (G1)
• Sky-Byte (Timelines) → Sky-Byte (G2)
• Switchblade (Timelines) → Switchblade (BW)
• Thunderblast (Timelines) → Thunderblast (G1)
• Yoketron (Timelines) → Yoketron (G1)

The exceptions are the Descent into Evil characters, who don't really fit in any pre-existing franchise, and the Nexus Prime characters, who don't originate from a particular universe.

• Buzzclaw (Timelines)
• Dirge (Timelines)
• Flareup (Timelines)
• Landquake (Timelines)
• Ricochet (Timelines)
• Heatwave (Timelines)

Thoughts? Or does nobody really care that much? —Interrobang 10:19, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Since you asked, I'll pitch 2¢ into the conversation, since I know a little bit about it. I found out the hard way that wiki "doesn't bother with '(Timelines)' for Animated." And by hard way, I mean I was clobbered over the head without a hint of explanation for proposing that a Timelines-original Animated continuity character should be at "(Timelines)." But no hard feelings. I still think "franchise of origin" and not "continuity of origin" is best for disambiguations. For reasons that have been discussed previously on the subject. TransTech and SG are treated as a kind of sub-franchises of Timelines by the wiki, so I think they are an OK exception. - Starfield 11:00, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

The prose stories are identified as "Transformers Timelines presents a Transformers: (franchise) story". I would say that both franchises are equally valid to the stories, and the fact that non-Timelines stories (Around Cybertron, magazine comics, etc.) bleed together with Timelines stories makes the "(Timelines)" designation convoluted. —Interrobang 11:12, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Well, that's different. It sounds like you are calling their actual franchise of origin into question, not just their disambiguation. I don't have an opinion about their actual franchise of origin. - Starfield 11:28, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I'm not denying that they're Timelines, but saying that they're better categorized under their other franchise. Like the Animated guys, it seems more instinctive to file Side Burn (Timelines) under "Side Burn (G1)" instead (not to mention that there's other Side Burn in Timelines: Side Burn (SG)).—Interrobang 11:38, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I'm hesitating, but let me think about the ramifications. --ItsWalky 11:20, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I'd be fine with this. Though, one thing I'd like to propose is giving the Wings Universe characters their own disambiguation suffix. Like maybe "(Wings)" or something. I know it's a part of G1, but it's kinda like its own series within the over G1 continuity family like the Japanese G1 series are (which are also given their own suffixes such as "(Victory)", "(ROC)", "(BT)" etc.).

Though, as for the Descent into Evil characters, maybe something like "(DIE)" or "(Descent)" or even just "(Descent into Evil)". Or, if not, keep them at "(Timelines)". --Sabrblade 11:51, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I think the DIE guys are fine where they are (although you could argue moving Ricochet (Timelines) because of Ricochet (SG), but I don't really care). As for the Wings Universe guys getting their own disambiguation, eh... —Interrobang 12:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I am definitely absolutely against creating a (Wings) disambiguation when (G1) or (Timelines) work perfectly fine. We do NOT disambiguate by continuity except by absolute necessity within a franchise. Making up a (Wings) parenthetical just because incredibly confuses our disambiguation policy for no real reason. --ItsWalky 13:46, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

And what exactly keeps the Descent into Evil guys from being tagged G1? --Khajidha 14:29, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Is the intermezzo period between G1 and BW considered G1 or BW?

It's all G1 characters... and IIRC the Insecticons were supposed ot be part of Insecticon plans which had been around for ages, so the characters weren't "BW-era only" characters...

I could support a G1 disambigif you talked me into it. -Derik 15:01, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

DIE fiction (Descent into Evil itself and Intimidation Game) has elements of both BW and G1; it doesn't have a certain franchise placement. Dirge (Timelines) and Ricochet (Timelines) also have namesakes firmly in G1. —Interrobang 15:14, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

BW is both BW and G1. And G1 has been back-incorporating BW elements since, like, 1995. The fact DIE has G1 and BW doesn't mean it's part of neither. -Derik 15:25, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I think that, by the nature of Timelines, it feels more natural to parse that specific set of characters by their continuity or parent-franchise of origin. Honestly, I think the Nexus components (all of them) are really the best and only candidates for the Timelines parser.

Also, I made a quick template that you guys could use here to simplify the coding for whenever you need to link a continuity-parsed name.192.249.47.196 15:37, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Unfortunately I don't think that template would work as well here, because our articles are not consistently named by franchise. For instance Lightspeed (G1 Technobot), Flattop (Autobot) and Impactor are all (G1) characters but don't use (G1) in their title, so the template wouldn't work for linking to them. --abates 16:05, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

I think that Timelines is a pretty clunky franchise for the purposes of this wiki, in that it covers multiple continuities. I think the proposal on the table makes sense.--Jimsorenson 12:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Two spaces after a period in a sentence

I've noticed this for a while on the Wiki. In practice, it makes no difference as the software displays one space the same way it displays one. However, I've been wondering why people do it. Now I know: They were taught so in school. By teachers who were taught on friggin' typewriters. So the "two spaces after a period" rule is a leftover from the typewriter days, where it was a necessity, but it's completely obsolete on computers. Source--Nevermore 07:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

The sentence spacing rules were, in fact, developed by typographers, but were not phased out via the magical introduction of the personal computer. The em-space rule exists for monospaced fonts, which were still fairly common for a great number of printers through the mid-1980s. If you would like to begin a tyrannical series of grammar-based wiki edits, I would begin by avoiding the use of prepositions at the start of sentences. I would also advise some respect for the proper use of colons and semi-colons, as typographical errors should not take priority over proper word selection and punctuation. Cheers! --McFly 14:20, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Are you referring to sentences beginning with prepositional phrases for the sake of emphasis (also known as an introductory modifiers)? That's totally valid. Or do you mean idiocies such as relative clauses that are separated from the preceding main clause by a period instead of a comma? The most glaring typographic blunders I encounter on the wiki typically go hand in hand with awkwardly worded sentences and clunky terminology, so I'm inclined to assume the same person(s) is/are responsible for all of those.--Nevermore 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)

I have bolded an example. --ItsWalky 20:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Aw, you altered your post. No fair! --ItsWalky 20:16, 8 November 2011 (EST)

What'd I alter? I just moved it up. Anyway... I'd call that one "deliberate departure from proper grammar for the sake of dramatic emphasis". It's about as improper as using a period after every. Single. Word. If it's obvious from the context that it's done for emphasis, I'd call it acceptable as long as it's not used inflationary. I'm sure we have a few cases of "We know it's not proper grammar, but we want to stress a point here" on the wiki. (How did the saying go again? "Know the rules first before you break them"?)--Nevermore 20:28, 8 November 2011 (EST)

....or you can just set the bot to convert " " to " ". Since we don't output monospace font, or anything.192.249.47.196 15:22, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Over the whole wiki, those extra spaces account for maybe 20kb of data, which I don't think is worth worrying about. --abates 20:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Typed text is typed text, and the double-space after a period is still correct. Shall we next be told that we're "wrong" for not having the wiki use the metric system, or for writing down dates with the month before the day instead of after it? --Thylacine 2000 23:31, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Oh, and I bolded something too. --Thylacine 2000 23:36, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Due to habit, I'm gonna double-space until I die. I really don't think that needs to be considered a problem. Is that really a problem? An extra millimeter between sentences? --ItsWalky 23:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Nevermore is right about it being mostly obsolete, but for purely technical reasons: All double (triple, etc.) spaces are collapsed down to one for display in HTML. If you want the extra spaces to actually be viewable as extra blank space, you have to use  . So if you double-space here on the wiki, it only shows up when you edit the page. For whatever that's worth. (Not really taking sides, just presenting the info.) --67.252.49.31 06:08, 9 November 2011 (EST)

More on the search box/"Transformers" everything

Typing "Energon" into the search box does not give me Energon (franchise), Energon (cartoon) or Energon (toyline) as top results. Same for "Cybertron". I assume this has to do with the recent "Transformers" prefixing for article titles. However, typing "Animated" into the seach box does give me franchise and toyline as top results, so it should be possible despite the prefixing.--Nevermore 07:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)

It's purely alphabetical, dude. Animated shows up before Arcee (Animated) because "An" precedes "Ar", whereas Arcee (Energon) comes up before Energon because "A" precedes "E". --Xaaron 08:13, 6 November 2011 (EST)

There's an option in the search suggest tool to limit the results to stuff starting with the search query rather than with stuff with the term anywhere in their titles, however it's not something that can be configured through MediaWiki. There's a bit of discussion about it in the "Making the search suggestion work better" section up above. --abates 14:36, 6 November 2011 (EST)

If we wanted to do that, when we shouldn't have prefixed "Transformers:" before hundreds of articles 3 weeks ago. -Derik 17:06, 19 November 2011 (EST)

We still have the titles without "Transformers: " as redirects though, so they'll still show up. --abates 17:23, 19 November 2011 (EST)

Spam-dalism

Is that the neologism for it? Anyway, somehow the ReCaptcha is failing to stop the automated spam, and I'm guessing the IP's are all very different.

How old are the accounts when they do this? If they're fairly new, would it be possible to simply block IPs and new accounts from inserting new external links? If not (or if that's unworkable), would it be possible to flag such edits for review the way that wikipedia does to edits on contested pages?

Also, is there any chance these are at least coming from the same proxy? The fact that they're getting past ReCaptcha makes it seem like these are actual people doing this, unless ReCaptcha only activates on certain namespaces.192.249.47.196 14:25, 18 November 2011 (EST)

I was using captcha with images on my phpBB installation on another site (Doctor Who related) until yesterday and getting a half dozen spammers a day signing up in despite of it. Yesterday I switched to a Question Answer challenge which asks the person registering to name the main character's time machine, and so far it has stopped the spammers dead.

MediaWiki has QuestyCaptcha which looks like it works in exactly the same way, and works with the ConfirmEdit extension we already have installed. If we can get that installed and set up, it might be more effective than the image-based system we use now. --abates 15:39, 18 November 2011 (EST)

What would the questions be? It can't be too obvious or too obscure. Tom Servo the Great 17:31, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Not necessarily. The question I'm using on my Doctor Who site is obvious if you have any knowledge at all of the source material, but it seems to be working. We can always start with something easy and see how we go. Most likely all of the spammers are using bots anyway. --abates 17:49, 18 November 2011 (EST)

"What is the name of the red-and-blue semi Autobot?", "What's the name of the blue casette player Decepticon?", or "What is the name of the yellow semi Micromaster Autobot with a hydraulic crane?"192.249.47.196 17:50, 18 November 2011 (EST)

"What is the fandom's usual reaction when a new franchise is announced?" :p Tom Servo the Great 17:56, 18 November 2011 (EST)

If Dick has two apples and Jane has two apples, how many apples do they have? (3 letters.) -Derik 17:09, 19 November 2011 (EST)

Ah, but then it would be so easy for users to use only three exclamation marks, and forget the requisite four exclamation marks and a 1.

No but yeah, a question helps a lot. Might even be worth doing for all IP edits and new accounts, not just those with external links.192.249.47.196 15:57, 19 November 2011 (EST)

While we're on the subject, is it somehow possible to flag certain terms or words used by IP editors and auto-block them? *coughcoughobamacoughcough*Tom Servo the Great 16:31, 19 November 2011 (EST)

...but we have an article on Barry Obama.

Are you trying to whitewash the wiki? -Derik 17:13, 19 November 2011 (EST)

It was just an academic question; after all, I'm sure that you've noticed our considerable problem with a certain IP editor lately. Tom Servo the Great 17:19, 19 November 2011 (EST)

Well yes... but I couldn't resist. -Derik 17:43, 19 November 2011 (EST)

It's getting to the point where I'm thinking a temp ban on the whole ISP might get better results. --abates 17:51, 19 November 2011 (EST)

sooo...who would you need to talk to about getting this set up, and what exactly do you want to restrict?192.249.47.196 19:45, 21 November 2011 (EST)

The guy whose IP addresses are always located in England who keeps vandalizing articles with Obama-related nonsense. Doesn't look like even banning IP ranges stops him. --Detour 11:01, 22 November 2011 (EST)

...so, there's no way to stop this lunatic? Tom Servo the Great 11:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Options, in order of severity:

1. Block all new uses of the word "Obama" to all anonymous editors.
2. Block anonymous editors entirely.
3. Destroy England.

But really, that's a separate issue with probably a separate solution, since the guy is a some kind of being. To deal with the spamdalism, I think you guys should add a "name that Transformer-mon!" question, which should cut down heavily on automated edits, and if they still get through, look at blocking all uses of external links for anonymous or new editors. The use of the question for all IP edits is fairly standard, so it should be easy to implement, and you can look into harsher measures if the bots still make it through. However, I really think you guys should make an effort to get this setup, because the conversation keeps kind of drifting down and the vandalism keeps happening.98.223.102.157 02:29, 23 November 2011 (EST)

On another note... isn't it cute how he keps trying to badly pass himself off as me? I think someone has a bad case of hero-worship. Tom Servo the Great 10:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)

Please stop egging on vandals. —Interrobang 11:05, 23 November 2011 (EST)

OK, on a more serious note, is anyone averse to just locking the wiki for a few days? Bulbapedia does it regularily and they don't have much of a vandalism problem. Tom Servo the Great 12:36, 23 November 2011 (EST)

Removing the "Undo" option for anons would help, at the very least. We need a regular tech person (or give abates access to the MediaWiki stuff, since he seems to know his way around). —Interrobang 14:12, 25 November 2011 (EST)

What if we implemented a captcha system for anon edits? I mean, it wouldn't stop them, per se, but it would make persistent vandalism wars a hassle. Tom Servo the Great 14:16, 25 November 2011 (EST)

I would not be opposed to that, or simple stock questions. ("Who is the leader of the Autobots?", "What is two plus three?", etc.) —Interrobang 14:23, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Rodimus Prime? :p

But seriously, how did Mr. Obama Guy get past the rangeblock? Because that's rather worrysome in and of itself. Tom Servo the Great 14:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)

BT Internet has a lot of IP ranges. --abates 16:58, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Okay. Listen.
1) CAPTCHA won't change crap. It might stop a small number of bot edits, but we have a large, active mod presence that basically polices this place around the clock, and any of those crappy ad pages can be eliminated in mere minutes, if not within seconds of their creation.
2) There is basically NOTHING that can be done to stop someone who has decided that the best use of their time is constant, repeated, easily-reverted vandalism of a wiki. Well, okay there are a few options, but they're not ones any kind of wiki coding is gonna be part of. They'll find ways around bans, and all these automated things that are being suggested are basically shooting blind and wasting time. This is not remotely the first time someone has thought to do this. It won't be the last. But we've outlasted all those others. And that's all it takes. Again... that large active 24-hour admin presence that quickly and coolly reverts the vandalism without getting all butthurt. That's what vandals want, to watch you get pissy and panicky and angry... and that's what you're giving them. So shut up and stop feeding that, then they'll eventually get bored and leave.
3) I can perhaps get behind removing the "Undo" option for anons. I don't think though that it will really help much, since making an account takes what, a few seconds?
--M Sipher 18:38, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Um. I don't want to offend anyone, but the Obama-guy thing really isn't related to this topic, although some of the solutions to the spamdalism thing might work to hinder him. The bigger issue is the guys spamming the wiki with links to knockoff viagra, sort of thing, and putting up a simple question system for anons and new editors would work to stop that almost completely, at least everywhere I've seen it in use.

The mod presence, yeah, things eventually get cleaned up by the end of the day, but a simple, standard change like adding the question will prevent that from happening in the first place.99.39.88.159 22:44, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Just to alleviate any concerns: In my experience, the question captcha does not prevent human edits except from the most severely uninformed editors, and it completely prevents the bot-spam, which at this point almost totally covers the RC when I happen to check it. Many other independent wikis, such as Halopedian, use the question captcha, so if you guys wanted a first-person POV on it, you could also ask them for their experiences. Basically, the captcha question should totally eliminate the bot-spam, with the only drawback being that it adds maybe a fraction of a second to anonymous human edits. So, given that, does anyone have any objections to adding the captcha question?192.249.47.196 13:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)--(same anon as throughout this topic)

Spelling throughout the Wiki

I've found that, on multiple spots on the Wiki, there are UK English spellings of words. Now, I know that the Transformers Wiki is a country-spanning project, but I'd like a consensus on whether or not we should change incidences of UK spellings (like "practise" and "polarize") to their American English counterparts. A streamlined flow using only one dialect would, I believe, make the editing process much easier. However, I do not want a backlash from UK users.
P.S.: Damn you, Webster! You and your new-world dictionary! TheMZone 18:09, 23 November 2011 (EST)

Here is the wiki's policy on the subject just so you know. I myself don't think it needs changing. - Starfield 18:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)

Why are the IDW books in G1?

Going by our own Continuity Family article the concept is pretty much akin to TvTropes Broad Strokes, a rough outline of somewhat similar events. If the IDW comics are explicitly stated to be a REBOOT of G1, how do they count as part of that continuity family if Animated and the Film Series dont, which ostensibly could also be called G1 Reboots. Classic aspects, such as the Ark/Nemesis Crash Landing and dormancy , Unicron's attack as seen in the movie (which was more or less is continuity across G1) and hell, even there Beast Wars don't really sync up with past Family history. Does a reboot of G1 really count as G1? Say what you will about Dreamwave, but at least they TRIED to fir it in to some semblance of G1 Continuity, this seems to be more like a full start over, akin to Aligned or RID ((before the Japanese got to it.) -Lush City

Uggghhhhhh. —Interrobang 16:09, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Yeahhh, you not understanding the concept of Continuity Families particularly well.--76.28.76.206 16:30, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Other continuities within the G1 continuity family also eschew some of those classic aspects. In Action Blast 1, for instance, the Autobots crash on present-day Earth and they don't hang around in stasis for millions of years. I don't think there's really a template of specific events that a G1 continuity has to stick to. That would hamper storytelling too much. --abates 16:59, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Also, they share a lot of the same characters, body designs, and personalities. Granted, some of them are common across the multiverse, but things like Megatron becoming a gun and Optimus Prime as a flatnosed tractor-trailer are distinctly G1-ish. Tom Servo the Great 17:29, 1 December 2011 (EST)

FYI: Previous discussion here. Yes, on the one hand, it is G1 because it uses the G1 cast of characters for the most part, and most of those pretty much have the same personality as their G1 bio card as on their G1 counterparts (with the significant exception of their gimmicks). On the other hand, an artist has said it is not G1, so it isn't entirely crazy to say it isn't G1. The universe itself doesn't seem particularly G1. It is like a different universe populated with G1 guys. The Micromasters aren't Cybertronain (I think), so a whole class of G1 Transformers aren't Transformers which sounds like a different universe. In short, it mostly makes sense for the wiki to organize it under G1 so they don't have to duplicate character pages with characters with mostly the same intro paragraph. But don't take it too seriously, it isn't official or anything. - Starfield 22:54, 1 December 2011 (EST)

No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I mean is that there seems to be no CANON justification for why IDW is considered G1. Especially because it lacks the links of similar G1 works, it’s never been verified as such by the creators (as far as I know) and it’s “G1-ness” is tentative at best.

IDW really doesn’t have as strong a link as or other G1 families. They all either were marketed as direct extensions to the original 80s ‘Toon and Comic adaptations (Gen 2 and Dreamwave ) established “next gen” sequels (Beast Era) Inserts into Gen 1 (Alternators and much of Japan’s stuff) Or add ons to particular points of the G1 timeline (Classics, Dreamwave) hell Timelines might count as a little bit of all of these. IDW really has no direct link.

That leaves us to the creators, and when it’s referred as such by them they use the term "reboot” or the like. Hell Simon Furman, architect of a large section of G1, straight up called it an ‘Ultimate’ version in his CBR interview. And Don Fig doesn’t consider it G1 at all.

Even then we look at why we call it G1 it causes all kinds of fallacies. Relying ion art style to tell families (as said in our very own article) leads to insanity, as characters change appearances across media ostensibly in eths same family all the time (for example WFC and Prime) likewise the “G1" aspects, such as personality, and looks, have been used both in the Transformers Film and Animated families, and yet we don’t consider them G1 despite both being just about the same kind of reboot on it IDW is. They incorporate a version of the Beast Ear into their timeline but assuming a connection with their main IDW addition, it’s just as differing as Aligned or Animated version of the Beast era would be.

I’m not trying to rock the boat I se4riously would just like to know if there’s any official, canon, or Hasbro/Creator data that states IDW as a version of G1, because right now I’m not seeing it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be seen as the "young turk" coming into old pros territory and rocking the boat against guys who have been studying this since before I was born, but I just picked up a bunch of Simon Furman stuff from [The old comics] as well as the big two volume IDW packs and they just don't fit at all. They're as different from G1 as the Films, Animated or RID are. I don't think we should makes assumptions and leaps of logic just for convenience's sake, kind belies the purpose of a wiki, ya know? -Lush City

This is a ridiculous amount of navel-gazing to get past the point that IDW continuity is just G1 in new dressing and not a new franchise of its own. —Interrobang 01:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)

By that terminology ALL of Transformers media is Just "g1 in a new dressing" by the virtue of G1 starting the franchise. -Lush City

That is not what I mean by "franchise". Please don't be obtuse. —Interrobang 02:05, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Considering new Generation 1 toys keep being made in the style of IDW design, that that firmly cements the stuff as being G1 in Hasbro's eyes. And the fact that they are constantly using Generation 1-style character aesthetics, personalizations and the freaking original font on the titles. --Detour 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)

The wiki's more confident about calling it G1 than even Hasbro, which calls the toys "Generations." Wiki organization is one thing, but we act more like it is a fact than it actually is. "Generation 1" doesn't really exist anymore. Hasbro is a little ashamed of it. Or at least doesn't want to pigeon-hole their toys and comics as being old-school. The IDW Generation 1 continuity page as a "Generation 1" logo on top. That doesn't really reflect reality which is more hazy. Maybe "Generations" is the new "Generation 1" or something. - Starfield 10:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)

To use your Simon Furman point against you, saying that IDW is not G1 is kind of like saying that Ultimate Marvel is not part of the Marvel Multiverse. It may be fairly different, but it is undeniably the same basic characters and situations. Also, I never have figured out why anyone really cares what the creative teams think, anything they say can be overruled by Hasbro at any time. Even after it has been published. Only Hasbro's opinion really matters.--Khajidha 11:07, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Discussed ad nauseum years ago. Nothing new has been added to the conversation since. Not changing. --M Sipher 05:13, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Aesthetics have already been disavowed as a valid ground for Continuity Pedigree, most notably with the Aligned Family. if Hasbro itself hasn’t recognized it as G1, hasn’t directly tied it to a previous G1 work, and if the writers and artists themselves don’t consider it G1, how is it legitimate to denote it as G1 based on our interpretation. Especially given such ethereal "evidence" as the looks of toys and fonts of all things.

Hasbro has yet to give any word. And also the Marvel analogy wont work, because while Marvel has but ONE Multiverse composed of several individual universes. The TF Multiverse is a collection of Universal Streams, each roughly following the same vents with several different interpretations over key events. It's like comparing diffirent versions of the Bible as rather than like comparing the Bible against the Koran.

M Sipher, would you do an FYI link? I've seen the discussion over on IDW Continuity’s Main page and the quibbles on the main Continuity Family but never any hard decree from an authority based on reasoning any more firm than convenience. I'm simply trying to hold IDW to the standards of the other G1 works on the wiki, all of which have in-canon links to versions of G1, or else are stated as such by the Companies. -Lush City

99% of all IDW characters are G1 characters, based on their original G1 counterparts. The different origins of some characters (Arcee) are no different than varying origins between the original cartoon and Marvel Comics (Grimlock, Technobots). Compared to the Aurex universes, where only Optimus, Megatron and Starscream consistently fit the G1 character archetypes, whereas most other characters are clearly just name reuses (Red Alert, Cyclonus, Jetfire, etc). Even Malgus and Tyran, both clearly closer to the G1 continuity than Aurex, have clearly distinctive character differences. IDW Bumblebee is clearly a variation on the original G1 Bumblebee, whereas Movie 'Bee and Animated Bumblebee are approximate extrapolations, see also Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, and so on.

IDW is a G1 universe that has expanded beyond the original G1 concepts, but not the characters themselves. Trying something new is not the same as abandoning the underlying foundation. --Xaaron 11:47, 2 December 2011 (EST)

I'm sure there are other examples, but Prowl, Sunstreaker, and Sideswipe have appeared in their Universe Classics series bodies while Starscream, Thundercracker and Skywarp have appeared in their Masterpiece bodies. All of those are undoubted G1 toys. Either IDW is G1 or those toys are being repurposed. All things considered it seems most parsimonious to classify IDW as a part of G1. --Khajidha 11:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Masterpiece is a franchise. Classics series is G1^{continuity family} but it isn't G1^franchise. Unfortunately, "G1" can mean different things. Just so everyone is on the same page, the wiki treats IDW as being part of the G1 franchise. For example, on the IDW Generation 1 continuity it has the G1 franchise logo. Is that what this discussion is about, or is the discussion about if IDW is part of the G1 continuity family? - Starfield 12:28, 2 December 2011 (EST)

The original poster said continuity family. I do consider IDW a different franchise within the G1 continuity family. --Khajidha 12:39, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Oh, OK. Anyone else? Show of hands? - Starfield 14:04, 2 December 2011 (EST)

But does the use of Character analogous to G1 interpretations define it as a G1 series? This really comes don to whether we define continuity families as being overlays of roughly similar events (as in Tvtropes Broad Strokes) or whether we are tying versions of characters as the archetype from which it is based. If you're taking side new altmodes and differences like Goldbug and Galvatron is being "based" on G1 to a degree enough to allot status within the family? At that point we might as well make a spectrum of "G1-ness" and start arbitrarily cutting everything. As it stands now our definitions of Families are based off there uniqueness of story and universe content, and IDW differs significantly from any other G1 work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.103.0.1 (talk • contribs).

So does Hearts of Steel. Shall we consider that a separate family as well? - Chris McFeely 13:11, 2 December 2011 (EST)

As the line of books it was from was cancled de jure that cnat really be elaborated on. (Although it's G1 staus was controversial to start with, it being the TF equivilant to a What if or Elseworlds) But HoS was never devolved as an obstensive reboot, rather an Alt-universe portyal that gets put in G1 by the same stroke as the Sg-verse. (if we diidnt have it's Universal Stream number to go by). IDW on the contrary was billed as a reboot, the same way aligned is being done now. Couple that with the radical (and debatedly unparalleled ) story alterations and you have apples and oranges. Though really teh entire "G1 by default" mindset is pretty off-putting. Heck it might even work as a really big Mirco-Contunity. Pardoxial as that sounds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.103.0.1 (talk • contribs).

I was under the impression that the character archetypes were a major part of what makes a continuity family. These problems really only arise with G1 because it is the only family that has had multiple continuations and reboots and additions for decades after its debut. The RID, Unicron Trilogy and Animated continuity families have been pretty well limited to their original period of release (not entirely so but with only a few minor exceptions). --Khajidha 18:42, 2 December 2011 (EST)

I think this is really down to the fact that Continuity & Franchises is just too darn confusing. Not to mention that there can be disparate continuities within a franchise and different franchises can make up a continuity, all of which fit into the over-arching Continuity Family. Obviously there must be enough in common in order to include any new franchise into an existing Family, or to take the leap and create a new Continuity Family. Does new media have to have enough in common with the progenitor of a Continuity Family to be included? Or merely use aspects of the varying franchises of said Continuity Family? With G1 all of the supporting media has strayed from the originating cartoon, but kept enough characterizations, and broad timelines within the Family. RID, Animated, Aligned, etc have all maintained aspects of 'Transformers' but been significantly different from each other to establish there places as individual Continuity Families. Whereas IDW is disparate from these Families, and other than story lines (which have to change be definition) most closely fits G1. In order to argue IDW being a new Continuity Family you would have to prove that it is different enough from other existing Continuity Families & G1, which doesn't fit given the IDW timeline, characters and mythology, it is all based off of G1 franchises.Yuppie 19:04, 2 December 2011 (EST)

I just want to point out that the G1 cartoon ISN'T the "originating" source. That would be the TOYS. And the comic work came before the cartoon. So... yeah. --M Sipher 19:15, 2 December 2011 (EST)

That's right. Transformers is different than other fiction on TVTropes because the toys are the originating source and not storylines. Therefore the characters derived from the toys are the important thing. Even in things you would think so, like movies. If they came up with completely different fiction with the movie toylines cast, it would be the live action movie continuity family. So I think IDW is pretty clearly G1^{continuity family}. What else but G1 would include Roller and the Combat Deck? Nothing. - Starfield 00:04, 3 December 2011 (EST)

So the official definition is based off of the toylines? Okay, fine by me. I guess I'll edit that line somewhere on the main Family page. Would you also mind linking me to the IDW toyline page? Google brings up zippo. -Lush City

Yes, yes, you're very clever and funny, ha ha. I'm so glad you're here to bring fresh new things to the table. --M Sipher 05:09, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Is sarcasm warranted? I'm not here to pick fun, and I've been respectful, so why cant you do the same? -Lush City

IDW doesn't have a toyline. IDW is a derivative work based on the original G1 toyline, just like the Sunbow cartoon and the Marvel Comic. IDW is not in the same continuity as the cartoon or Marvel, but it is in the same Continuity Family -- perhaps that's causing some of the confusion here. When we say IDW is G1, that's like saying that Ultimate Marvel is part of the Marvel Multiverse, and NOT the DC Multiverse. IDW is part of the Generation 1 Continuity Family because the characters and concepts (NOT the STORIES, mind you, but the underlying CONCEPTS) come from the G1 background and toyline, instead of from the Unicron Trilogy, Movie, or Animated background and toylines.

Nod if you understand now, oh Nameless One. --Xaaron 18:18, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Okay then, but then why is something like "Wings" considered G1, when it's primary characters and concepts (The Elite Guard and Sentinel and Magnum/Magnus) draw from Animated? It's made as an insert into a form of G1, but I'm actually starting o question which takes precedence story or characters. From what I've read and from the list of G1 I've seen, they all cover a very similar story with detail changes (Unicron Trilogy covering the Mini-con Hunt, the Energon Wars and Cyber Key Search, The Film's Allspark history.) I'm saying that if those works can base themselves off a G1 characters concepts and ideas (again, drawing from the Tyran and Malgus Streams here) than why is IDW different? It can be argued that the Film and Animated storylines are just as different from G1 as IDW's is, and there charters are all clearly drawn from G1, in the absence of any official la word from Hasbro and knowing we have creators describing it as a reboot (similar terms being used for Animated and RID) why is it that they are considered separate. Is it because they have a toyline separate from the main G1 lines? Is it because of the fact that versions of them cover a wider dearth of material? Our article defines Continuity Families as "a group of distinct but closely-related individual continuities." We also set up a three step process for determining new continuities, noting that they should be “a) a fresh continuity, b) within a separate franchise, and c) significantly different in cast, theme, style, etc." IDW tests positive for a, is inconclusive for b (given its lack of a toyline) and due to the nature of c, is highly debatable. If we look at past examples continuities follow the same general structure and theme, even various permutations son the setting. Taking the origin 1984 Toyline/Cartoon/comic trifecta, we can see Dreamwave and the Beats Era serving as Sequels (leaving the original era to a vague "Camelot" level of detail as shown by the creators) while Kiss Players and Gen 2 expanded versions of the continuity. While there were inconsistences (dinobot origin, differing dates for the reformatting) they all followed roughly the same events, or modifications of those events from a central thesis (Wings, use of the Elite Guard, Heart of Steel’s age change or the Mirrorverse aspect of Shattered Glass. Not only does the IDW timeline differ from the G1 timelines enough to put it in the same breath as other confirmed continuity families. IDW's position can be seen as being akin to the initial RID reboot, while it obviously used G1 characters the (there being no others to use at the time) the storyline and aspects were utterly different (before Takara's retcon) a good way to do so would be to compare Megatron with the RID Megatron and the IDW Galvatron. Both are totally different characters, while the Tfwiki approach seems to be that they are effectively different iterations of the "same character." The Unicron Trilogy gets a shift because of the absence of Mini-cons, Energon Wars, and the different concepts of the Quintessons and Scorponok. The Animatedverse shows an entirely different Cybetronian social Order (which IDW also accomplishes, withe there casting of the war, the Tyrest accords, Megatron's origins, the "Protocols" etc.) If we were to create an ostensibly accurate definition of continuity families on a rubric of "distance" from each other, than it would not be that hard of a stretch to determine that we have an inherent fallacy between hat we let in and out of G1, as Franchises with equal relationship to G1 get casted in differing families. if the rubric lies within a different maxim (having separate toylines, character portrayals) than not only would we need to rewrite our definition of what constitutes a family, but we would also have to undergo a mass reassessment of the family set up as a whole. Currently the strongest (and only) reason for them being in G1 is that they look and act like there other G1 counterparts, which I, and others, find isn't valid enough grounds in the wake of all the other evidence. Otherwise, WFC would be G1. -Lush City

"Wings" is G1 because it takes place between episodes of the original cartoon. Oh my god. --ItsWalky 16:18, 5 December 2011 (EST)

WFC is G1^{continuity family} for all the reasons stated already (it features the G1 cast of characters in a new setting.) But Hasbro shoehorned it into the modern stuff, so the wiki plays along. - Starfield 16:31, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Nobody is going to read that, dude. I don't know why you're putting this much effort into something that is not going to change. Just save yourself and us the trouble and give up the conversation. —Interrobang 16:23, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Hey! There was a mini-consensus brewing that although IDW belongs in G1_{continuity family}, it doesn't belong in the Generation 1 (franchise). Anyone want to talk about that? - Starfield 16:31, 5 December 2011 (EST)

If it makes you sleep better at night, I really don't care. Nothing here is going to change and the idea of having the Wiki treat IDW G1 as its own franchise is imbecilic. —Interrobang 16:57, 5 December 2011 (EST)

On a related note, though this is probably a question born out of my own stupidity/ignorance, but if Wings is G1, then why do we call it the Wings Universe, which implies that it is a seperate continuity family? (For the longest time, I thought it was its own little verse). Tom Servo the Great 17:02, 5 December 2011 (EST)

We don't call it the "Wings Universe", Fub Pub do. In the same way one might call the Marvel comics the "Marvel universe" or the cartoon the "Sunbow universe". That's all. - Chris McFeely 17:06, 5 December 2011 (EST)

This is bit of a digression, but "Wings Universe" is used in the same fashion as "Cybertron", "Shattered Glass", and "TransTech" in the heading for their prose stories. I think that, in the lack of anything official to contradict it, "Wings Universe" is the name of that particular "franchise" (or whatever term you prefer). There's more to WU being a franchise, through parallel construction with the other Club/Timelines sub-franchises, than there is for IDW, at least. —Interrobang 17:33, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Ah, I see. Thanks. Tom Servo the Great 17:09, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Also, further to what Interro said - yes, please, Mr. anonymous type person... just let it go. No-one is going to read that giant wall of text. I don't understand how you can't simply look at the IDW comics, and the way the characters are portrayed in them, and not understand why they are G1. - Chris McFeely 17:08, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Pardon, but why is the use of large amounts of text a bad thing? Wouldn't the use of Basic English essay format (claim, source, analyses, and explanation) to put out your points in an argument be a positive thing in an encyclopedic debate? @ Walky, yes I know Wings is explicitly set in G1, that's why I used it as an example to highlight a double standard. A reason given for why IDW was G1 was because they used G1 character traits as a base. I noted that under that rubric (characters over stories or what creators say) than Wings would count as a Malgus stream because of all the elements from Animated, regardless of its intended placement within the original cartoon as stated by the story. I'm not particularly attached to the idea of IDW being in or out of G1, I'm just noting that there is a paradox within the way we define Continuity families. Either we’d have to move IDW out of G1 (and perhaps others) to better fit in with the "definition" of a family we have now, or we'd have to reassess and probably redefine how we decide and clarify the families, otherwise we'll wind up doing classification by convenience; taking things on case by case basis by whatever "works" for the moment rather than having a single unifying maxim. If we're just going to "eyeball" to find what continuity fits where we are going to have contractions and hypocrisies, as we do now. We should move to standardize the method of continuity selection, because if we continue this method we’ll have a severe inconstancy and consistency is the lifeblood of any encyclopedic source of information. - Lush City 23:58, 6 December 2011 (EST)

I'm no longer sure what you're suggesting our organization should be. Are you suggesting that IDW comics are not G1 franchise (in which case we should move "Drift (G1)" to "Drift (IDW)") or are you suggesting that IDW comics are not in the G1 continuity family at all (in which case we would make an "Optimus Prime (IDW)" page)? --abates 00:28, 7 December 2011 (EST)

What's this "we" shit? Have you actually done any work on the wiki before? And regardless of that, would you actually be willing to carry out the hours and hours of tedious work that would be required to carry out whatever it is you're suggesting? I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess the answer is a big ol' fat freakin' "No". Heck, just MAPPING OUT an IDW split-off would take for-freaking-ever, but you haven't even done that much. Give us a diagram, a mock up page, a sandbox, SOMETHING.

We got a system that works, that makes it easy to find info on Prowl and Hardhead and Nightbeat and all their doings in the cartoons and the comics and whateverelse. There's no BENEFIT to anything you're suggesting. It would just be separating information that makes more sense, is more cohesive, and builds upon itself when it's all in one place.

And dude, this is not Serious Business. It's MADE-UP GIANT SPACE ROBOTS. There are no "hypocrisies" involved. -- Repowers 09:08, 7 December 2011 (EST)

What major elements do you think make Wings an Animated related universe as opposed to a G1? The mere presence of an Elite Guard? That's pretty ridiculous. Look at all the characters used in those stories, they act like and take the positions of their G1 selves because they are those G1 characters. --Khajidha 09:13, 7 December 2011 (EST)

Just as the IDW characters are. I think that if you're making such ridiculous claims as Wings being an Animated universe because of these elements then you are simply not understanding how continuity families work. I mean, what is so hard to understand about this? Wings is in the G1 continuity family because it features the G1 characters (in a setting explicitly derived from the backstory of the G1 cartoon). IDW is in the G1 continuity family because it features the G1 characters (in a new "Ultimate" style setting). Henkei Henkei is in the G1 continuity family because it features the G1 characters (with a movie-inspired backstory). - Chris McFeely 09:26, 7 December 2011 (EST)

Yeah. At this point, it's pretty clear that -surprising no-one- the argument against how we have things now falls COMPLETELY apart. Wings of Honor as Animated? Oy. --M Sipher 17:53, 7 December 2011 (EST)

Regardless of any continuity quibbles I'm almost certain that IDW isn't a G1 franchise. Those are decided by corporate not us (which, continuity families are, more or less). I'm also finding IDW's status as a G1 family debatable mostly because while it's characters and looks are "G1" it's story is quite different from any other G1, or at least as different from G1 as some other stories we've also made different families. It all depends on what exactly our rubric is, if we value Aesthetics , character traits and the like over plotline similarities or what creators say ,than Wings gets confusing, and Aligned is just a Clusterbomb, it might have to be split. (Or made into some bizarre "Dual Family" thing) Just shifting IDW and a few other pages to be more in line with what we already have seems far less drastic and disturbing.

Repo, that tone is uncalled for. I'm from TvTropes, I know what it means to spend hours on a wiki, I'd also note that I would call anything that someone would consider spending hours on as "serious" business; this site has served as the primary bastion of TF knowledge for years, don't diminish that. By the same vein We shouldn't do things just because they're easier, we should do things because they're right, as it is, they way we define Continuity Families leads to inconsistencies, the largest one being IDW, I'll get to work on the mock-up, but I do find it hilarious that someone would tell me "it's not that serious" and "put several hours of work into this n00b" in the same breath. --Lush City 4:38, 8 December 2011 (EST)

"Then Wings gets confusing"

No it does not. It will never, ever be confusing. Wings is G1. It is set in a variant of the G1 cartoon continuity. You will never, ever, ever make a case for what you are saying by trying to hold up the Wings universe as an example of a similar (non-existent) conundrum, because it is unquestionably, unequivocally, unfalteringly, unhaltingly, utterly inarguably G1. - Chris McFeely 04:54, 8 December 2011 (EST)

That's my point. In the same way the Wings story is so totally G1 making it such is insane (despite the Animated influences, The IDW story is so totally not G1 that having it as such is insane (despite the G1 influences) We can either give characters our story priority, not either or.

Simple question: How can you look at a comic full of G1 characters and say "this is not G1"? Please answer that. - Chris McFeely 06:46, 8 December 2011 (EST)

Your logic is idiotic. All you're doing is arguing for the sake of arguing because we will never consider IDW as not G1 in contradiction with common sense. If you don't like it, make your own wiki. —Interrobang 06:50, 8 December 2011 (EST)

Wings had one character (Sentinel) and one concept (Elite Guard) that were arguably derived from Animated and not G1. The four Guard teams focused on (Thunder Clash's, Metalhawk's, Onslaught's, and Powerflash's) are all G1 characters, as are all the villains of the stories, the background characters, the setting, and the implicit and explicit authorial intent. Yes, the unique nature of Transformers continuity allows for "reverse homages", as G1 influenced the creation of Animated and pieces of Animated have now influenced subsequent G1 stories, but that doesn't change the underlying nature of the entire universe. IDW is not an Animated timeline either, just because Lockdown was adopted into the universe in Transformers: Drift.

G1 is the oldest and largest continuity family in Transformers and, as a result, it occasionally borrows characters and ideas from the other continuities that come and go in its wake. But across the 12 club comic issues, the 2 BotCon specials, and the 2 online prose stories, well over 150 characters have appeared. Of those, exactly THREE originated from non-G1 toylines. The remaining 99% are all G1 characters or brand-new to any universe.

Wings and IDW are both obviously G1 to anyone whose paying attention. Trying to craft an argument where it could, potentially, be re-phrased in some way that, if you squint, might make it look like they aren't G1...is ignoring common sense and the vast abundance of evidence put before you. --Xaaron 08:27, 8 December 2011 (EST)

If I may interject? The wiki's notion of continuity families runs parallel to the canon in-multiverse concept of universal streams. There is a 99.999% chance that any reference to IDW continuity from a canon perspective would classify it as a positive-polarity Primax stream. That makes it part of the G1 continuity family. The movies and Animated are in the Tyran and Malgus clusters respectively. That makes them not part of the G1 continuity family. --Andrusi 08:43, 8 December 2011 (EST)

Beast Wars Neo Sausage is gone!

The page was deleted for some reason. It was marked as vandalism, but as I'm sure some of you know it actually existed. -- Terrortron 22:47, 2 December 2011 (EST)

As far as I know it didn't. Are you sure you're not thinking of Beast Wars II Sausage? --abates 23:13, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Do you mean the page or the product? I'm not sure the page existed, but the product itself most certainly did: TV commercial for Beast Wars Neo Sausages --Tigerpaw28 00:55, 3 December 2011 (EST)

We've never had a BWN Sausage page, no. --abates 01:16, 3 December 2011 (EST)

We had it briefly in January but it was just a vandal making a crappy page. Feel free to create it again if you have the info. --Detour 01:26, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Man, that advert makes it look like the most awesome thing ever. If I knew Japanese I would already be making a page for it. --abates 19:33, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Actor/Voice Actor's other roles

It seems as of late that the intro sections for actors and voice actors have become mini-IMDB pages. Clancy Brown isn't really best known for being on Earth's Mightiest Heroes, even if we do have a page for the Avengers to link to. John DiMaggio's is getting to be more résumé than intro. It seems kinda silly to suggest removing content, but it's just been something bugging me.--Carrion 19:03, 6 December 2011 (EST)

No, you're quite right, and I agree. One user seems to be a bit of a voice-whore and is going around adding a lot of frivolous additional info. - Chris McFeely 19:34, 6 December 2011 (EST)

Character articles and redirects with titles/ranks

I'm of the opinion that where a character has a title or rank, there should be a redirect from their full name with their title in front of it to their article. I don't think we have any explicitly spelled out rules on how this would work though, and at the moment there are some redirects to the Sidney Biggles-Jones article marked for deletion. There's been some previous discussion about it here. How should we treat ranks and titles? If her name was specifically parsed as "Dr. Biggles-Jones" in a comic, for instance, do we have a redirect using that name or do we just stick with writing it out as "Doctor"? --abates 16:58, 13 December 2011 (EST)

My gut instinct is to have redirects for every way their name and rank is spelled out in fiction. I don't have a strong opinion on this, however. —Interrobang 17:00, 13 December 2011 (EST)

It's gramarically incorrect to use title-abbreviations in speech bubbles or inside quotes in writing. One doesn't say "Mrr Dlinn," one says "Mister Dlinn."

I don't think we're beholden to the way such titles were parsed in the original source material; it's a distinction without meaning. But I don't mind having two redirects either. -Derik 17:04, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Fall of Cybertron

We desperately need to fix up the Fall of Cybertron related pages. The page that should remain as the definitive should be what is currently called Transformers: Fall of Cybertron (360/PS3), which I recommend should be renamed simply "Fall of Cybertron" or "Transformers: Fall of Cybertron". We do not require the franchise page and the video games page, along with the PS3/X360 page, as the PS3/X360 is the only confirmed version of the game, with PC confirmed to NOT be happening, and Nintendo systems left up in the air. I wholly support streamlining the navigation for the FOC pages, and perhaps placing FOC as "sequel" in the WFC franchise navigation bar. --Kaymac192 05:32, 20 December 2011 (EST)

That sounds sensible to me. We can always move it back to (360/PS3) when the DS and/or Wii and/or whatever version is announced. --abates 16:20, 20 December 2011 (EST)

Problems retrieving password

(Since this seems the best place to ask.) Hi, I've been reliant on a cookie for so long that I've forgotten my password. (Blushes) However when I try to get the site to email me a new one it says one has been sent but nothing has arrived in my email; nor will it allow me to make the request again for 24 hours.

Is anyone able to check the login database to see if something's gone wrong at that end? 109.154.29.163 15:58, 22 December 2011 (EST)

Account renaming

Is it possible to get an account renamed in this wiki? Thanks. --Autu299 16:43, 24 December 2011 (EST)

It's not technically possible, because we don't have the MediaWiki Renameuser extension installed. The best you could do is create a new username, stop using the old one, and put links between the two accounts on your user pages. --abates 17:56, 24 December 2011 (EST)

Ok, thanks for the tip. --Autu299 16:49, 25 December 2011 (EST)

Mozilla Firefox 9/10 and TFWiki

Just an FYI, Mozilla Firefox 9 introduced a rendering error with our site, causing the sidebar to render below the content area. Mozilla Firefox's beta of version 10 carried over this error initially, but the most current beta of 10 corrects this. I was scratching my head at this one, as we don't really use anything exotic in the way of code, but it turns out this was Mozilla's problem. I am kind of not liking the rapid release schedule, if this is what results.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:19, 3 January 2012 (EST)

...or it could start working properly on my Firefox 9 PC too. I'd cleared cache a few times on both PCs, so either Derik fixed this sneaky-like or I've managed to hallucinate the whole thing. I'm pretty sure it's not the latter, as I still had the sidebar issue before refreshing today.--Rosicrucian^Talk 02:35, 4 January 2012 (EST)

It's still happening on my copy of Firefox 9.0.1, and when I check for updates, it's not reporting any. Tilt? --abates 02:54, 4 January 2012 (EST)

No, wait, I tell a lie. I just cleared my Firefox cache and the problem's gone. --abates 02:57, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Yeah, and on both machines I experienced it, it only started doing it on Firefox 9, not 8. Worked fine in IE, and wouldn't budge through multiple cache clearings. I'd _thought_ that the very recent update to 10's beta is what cured it, but I returned home to my laptop that I never went beta on, and there it was after a refresh. Perhaps Derik could offer insight beyond digital poltergeist activity?--Rosicrucian^Talk 03:07, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I informed Suki Brits of the Firefox rendering error as soon as I became aware of it and she took care of it accordingly. Victory for Brits! --Monzo 12:33, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Aha. See, I usually assume Derik when there's CSS muckery, but this is excellent news. Thanks, Suki! I vaguely suspect we did use a couple Mozilla flagged tags when we initially coded it, that are now fully supported in CSS proper.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:19, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I think the fix may have worked for Google's preview thumbnails as well, as a couple I've found show the menu where it should be. --abates 19:32, 5 January 2012 (EST)

I'm still having this issue. My Firefox updated itself recently, so I don't know what version it is. And clearing my cache that a) I don't know how to do and b) scares me for some reason. Bobpiecheese 00:37, 10 January 2012 (EST)

You may be able to get it fixed by holding down Ctrl and pressing F5 while on a TFWiki page. Wikipedia has a page on clearing the cache. --abates 00:56, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Huzzah, the sidebar is no longer all brokey! Thanks Abates! Bobpiecheese 01:16, 10 January 2012 (EST)

Project Heat Scramble

I just noticed that the wiki has NO data on the Heat Scramble TCG . So how should we go about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lush City (talk • contribs).

Robot Masters parsing

Moved from Talk:Robot Masters (franchise)#Parsing.

This is something that's been bugging me. As far as I can tell, in all images of the official logo, the series is parsed "RobotMasters", yet all spellings on this wiki refer to it as "Robot Masters". Is there a reason we opted for two words instead of one? --Sabrblade 12:19, 10 January 2012 (EST)

The packaging parses it as one word, while correctly spacing names like "Beast Megatron", so... I guess. Although it's debatable whether it's "Robotmasters" or "RobotMasters"; the brand's name isn't "TransFormers". —Interrobang 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I'd like to avoid the CamelCase precisely because we can't usually tell from a logo whether it should "really" be written like that (as per "Transformers"), and also because I generally don't like the look of it. I do think the franchise should be one word, though. -LV 19:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

The difference here is that there doesn't seem to have been any other spelling for it aside from the CamelCase spelling, whereas the "Transformers/TransFormers/Trans Formers" logo gets re-parsed all the time. "RobotMasters" is the consistently-seen version. --Sabrblade 19:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Technically, it's presented as RobotMasters and ROBOTMASTERS. I think we can be flexible. —Interrobang 19:57, 12 January 2012 (EST)

They still make a point to enlarge the R and M. Though, is there any other series logo that uses this kind of CamelCase just as consistently? --Sabrblade 20:33, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Uh, I just pointed out one. The TransFormers logo was the standard design from 2001–2006, across six franchises and much longer than the existence of Robotmasters. I think you're putting too much stock on what is probably a stylistic choice by people who barely use lowercase to begin with. —Interrobang 21:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)

What I mean is, there's multiple versions of the "Transformers" logo, which gets restyled as "TransFormers", "Transformers" and Trans Formers" as the years go by. But the one for RobotMasters is always consistently styled as "RobotMasters". Unless I'm missing something, there hasn't been any other logo for it that wrote it in any other form than "RobotMasters" with the enlarged M. Unlike "Transformers", which is one word, "RobotMasters" is two words with a space missing. The uppercase M shows the distinction that the two are separate words, but the lack of space makes the end result thus resemble a rather sci-fi sounding compound word, which works for this sci-fi themed line of children's toys. Why change what the logo says? --Sabrblade 22:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)

SOPA and PIPA

Has anyone read about the SOPA and PIPA bills and how they will affect the wiki?--Megatron Prime 13:51, 14 January 2012 (EST)