MediaWiki talk:Community Portal: Difference between revisions

I have often found myself simply reading this website for entertainment because it just appeals to my sense of humor that much. I have often found myself wanting to somehow upvote or like a caption because it was just that good. Is there a way to do this? If not, can there be? Tourny 20:59, 5 January 2013 (EST)

I don't think that'd ever happen, because at the end of the day, this a Transformers wiki, not a 'post your Transformers jokes here' website. The jokes aren't and never should be the main focus, they're just a fun side effect. If anything, such a system would kind of legitimise the people who show up and do just want to use this place as a place to post their 'hilarious' Transformers jokes without contributing anything useful, and god knows we don't want that... Jalaguy 04:52, 6 January 2013 (EST)

A most welcome way of doing it would be to point out the captions you like by posting to your facebook or twitter or what have you, especially with a link to the TFWiki page in question. --abates 05:18, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Aligned character page main images

Since we've finally beun to treat the Aligned characters like we do characters of other continuities by disambiguating them by franchise, does anyone else feel that a bunch of characters with (WFC) disambigs having their Prime designs as their main image feels a little off? I mean, Thundercracker (Armada) uses his Armada design as his main image despite his Cybertron depiction being his most prominent one. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the WFC designs be the main images for those characters who bear the (WFC) disambig and such? Especially since our policy says, "the main image [of a character's page] should be their original 'real world' form". --Sabrblade 00:34, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Not sure why it's there for Thundercracker, but characters like Sideways (RID) and The Fallen use their later body designs for their mainpics. It's the most prominent way they've appeared, same as Sideways and Fallen. --Detour 00:40, 7 January 2013 (EST)

The only reason Sideways has his Armada body at the top of the page is that there is no art of the RID body. His packaging image was a photo of his toy and he hasn't appeared in that body anywhere in fiction. The Fallen has his movie body because, well, it was our most popular page for a year or two, because of the movies, and so he was a special case. Regardless, a part of me is pretty okay with the Aligned guys having their Prime bodies at the top, ignoring all standards. That feels a lot different to me than the disambiguation parenthetical, which is there for organization, not for looks or presentation like the main image is. But my feelings are not super strong. --ItsWalky 01:31, 7 January 2013 (EST)

I think we should stick with the Prime images. I'm basically okay with the disambig change at this point after not being on board at first, but I think keeping their Prime main images will help mitigate the potential confusion or blurring of the lines that Aligned seems to always foster. - Chris McFeely 05:09, 7 January 2013 (EST)

I think for the time being, Prime images make the most sense. Going into the future, I think additional different-looking cartoons in the Aligned continuity would be a decent argument for returning to WFC bodies, because at that point they're simply one of many looks, instead of the less prominent of two. -LV 11:49, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Continuing spam

With the spam continuing, even with captchas and email activation turned on, are we to assume that it's some actual poor bastards sitting there copypasting nonsense about handbags into pages? Would a possible solution be trivia-style verification questions? Something most TF fans would know, or could otherwise find out easily, but that a bored spammer would lack the initiative to find out? Like 'who is the Combaticon leader?' or 'what faction does Hound belong to?' and so on. Jalaguy 14:57, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Are Captchas and email activation turned on? I'm not sure how they could be. These are obviously bots, and last I heard we'd only turned on the requirement to register before you can edit.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 15:05, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Yeah, log out and check the account creation page, there's a reCAPTCHA thingmabob on there now. Sipher mentioned activation emails being turned on in the spam discusson further up the page, but looking at the sign-up page again, email isn't required, so I guess it can't be... Jalaguy 15:14, 8 January 2013 (EST)

There are several simple steps that would improve matters immediately and immensely - TitleBlacklist to block the likes of [[Talk:Something/]] and [[Talk:/Something]], preventing users from creating User: pages with their first edit by requiring the Autoconfirmed permission to do so, adding a $wgSpamRegex to LocalSettings.php to prevent pages from being saved if they contain obvious trigger words like "viagra", "cialis", "online casino", "ugg boots" and so forth. They just aren't being used. - SanityOrMadness 19:20, 8 January 2013 (EST)

reCaptcha is a piece of poop, security-wise. I'm also reluctant to add more extensions at the moment, due to performance issues, BUT. Find something simple and lightweight to REPLACE reCaptcha, and we can talk. --McFly 05:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

$wgSpamRegex isn't an extension, it's a line of code you can add various banned words to (i.e., if "viagra" is in the list and someone tries to save a page that includes it, the page wouldn't save and they'd get a error message telling them why it wouldn't save. - SanityOrMadness 07:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You know what WASN'T on? wgEmailConfirmToEdit. That may make a LOT more sense, as I'd wager that spambots aren't actually including legit emails. Email authentication is NOT the same thing. --McFly 16:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think reCaptcha is helping, as noticed, and it doesn't have anything like, say, a lockout policy, so I've bit the bullet and added a modified version of the SpamBlacklist extension, adding in RBL support and some basic language filters in one go. It's reasonably light on DB traffic, too. Will it slow the flood? That remains to be seen, but they're still getting around it right now. I also think I've resolved the IP blocking issue, so we might (might!) be okay now. Turns out that adding a load balancer in front of the Squid caches hurts Mediawiki's IP detection logic. --McFly 20:21, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Alternate suggestion: could the system be modded to block an editor from creating an article until one of their edits is marked as patrolled (and thus approved as legitimate)?KrytenKoro 00:53, 24 March 2013 (EDT)

We are moving very very soon.

That means at some point within the next few hours to few days the wiki will go to Read Only mode while McFly moves stuff around. Then we won't be hemorrhaging cash and things will run smoothly and we'll all have boners, even the ladies. --ItsWalky 17:12, 9 January 2013 (EST)

I've got one right now! - Chris McFeely 17:23, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Okay, so, uh, what the hell happened? -- spyder ^{Use this!} 00:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

We have moved. Some things are still being tweaked. --abates 00:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I knew we moved, just I thought nothing would look different. Oh, well. -- spyder ^{Use this!} 00:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

New Mediawiki software version. Some things got a little mixed up in the move, and newer versions decided to put the hammer down on bad practices. Other things are just... being refactored from a distinct lack of notes. --McFly 01:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of what's left is going to be us rejiggering some templates to more efficient code, and documenting the snot out of things so McFly doesn't name his first ulcer after us.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 02:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

http://science.education.nih.gov/home2.nsf/Educational+ResourcesResource+FormatsOnline+Resources+High+School/928BAB9A176A71B585256CCD00634489 :p - SanityOrMadness 07:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Pedantry aside, I CAN name my migraines after you. Stress exacerbates THOSE. --McFly 20:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Which migraine's stronger then? Madness or little Sanity? :p - SanityOrMadness 10:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Stuffs what have gone wrong(er)

User CSS files aren't being called post-move. Basically, the stuff here was previously all set true, now it's set false. [Is MediaWiki:Common.css even working?] - SanityOrMadness 07:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Compared old LocalSettings.php to new, wgUseSiteJs/wgUseSiteCss were NOT set over there. If you're not just making blanket assumptions, please point my not-MediaWiki-understanding ass to the right place. Remember, I built the house, but others (Scout? Derik?) actually laid out the rooms and installed the appliances. My understanding of Mediawiki extends out to "Ooh, shiny mediawiki package in apt repositories..." Anything else is a Wild. Ass. Guess. --McFly 20:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert (And I can't see the Wiki's LocalSettings.php myself to be sure!), but I have played around with MediaWiki a fair bit, so I'm beyond the "oh, shiny" stage and I know where to look at in http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Contents .

For instance, I don't know what $wgAutoConfirmAge and $wgAutoConfirmCount are currrently set to. If the createpage and upload have been set, but those two variables are not set, a fairly minimal barrier would be two days & four edits before you can create pages and upload files - certainly, very few spambots will hang around for two whole days before editing!

$wgAutoConfirmAge = 86400 * 2; # Two days times 86400 seconds/day
$wgAutoConfirmCount = 4;

If they HAVEN'T been set, you can add them with:

# Only users with accounts in autoconfirmed group
# (registered accounts at least as old as $wgAutoConfirmAge and having at least as many edits as $wgAutoConfirmCount)
# can create pages:
$wgGroupPermissions['*'            ]['createpage'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['user'         ]['createpage'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['createpage'] = true;

# Only users with accounts in autoconfirmed group
# (registered accounts at least as old as $wgAutoConfirmAge and having at least as many edits as $wgAutoConfirmCount)
# can upload files:
$wgGroupPermissions['*'            ]['upload'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['user'         ]['upload'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['upload'] = true;

-SanityOrMadness 10:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Broken templates

{{cal-date}} is broken, but I'm not template savvy enough to fix it. Anyone want to have a go? --abates 07:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ja, I will fix it. -Derik 00:15, 17 January 2013 (EST)

$%^&* I'm getting closer to fixing it. -Derik 15:02, 17 January 2013 (EST)

*cries piteously* -Derik 15:43, 17 January 2013 (EST)

I've just had a go and I think that's sorted it! Not sure if there are any other broken templates lurking out there... --abates 05:58, 20 January 2013 (EST)

Storylink

Are the storylinks looking odd for anyone else? They appear as full size text without the surrounding box from before for me. --Khajidha 12:29, 20 January 2013 (EST)

Yeah, storylinks, note boxes, disambig boxes, organisation templates (eg. listing comics issues) and episode/issue/etc. infoboxes are all not displaying correctly. I assume that the folks who know what they're doing with this kind of stuff are working on getting them fixed.. Jalaguy 12:42, 20 January 2013 (EST)

I think that's done it - or at least it's displaying normally for me now. Well done to all involved, much appreciated. --Emvee 17:04, 22 January 2013 (EST)

Still Confused About All This

I just got registered so that I can always find this site.

When I search for Transformers Wiki, all I get is Teletraan 1 and I don't like that site as well. Heck, their information on BotShots is woefully unsatisfactory.

Did this site used to be that site or the other way around? Much of the information in articles looks copied from one site or the other.

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask these questions. I was looking for an e-mail address or something and couldn't find it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haven13 (talk • contribs).

No worries! We were originally at Wikia, but split with them in September 2008 and went independent. Wikia are still operating the old version, but it doesn't get updated in a lot of areas.

Where is it you're searching for Transformers Wiki? We come up first on Google when I search on there. --abates 18:16, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Ooh! Ooh! Let me guess! BING. (Who are blocked for hammering our wee servers.) --McFly 23:52, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Well, I just searched for "transformers wiki" on bing.com and we were the first result. Followed by the wikia site, wikipedia's main Transformers page, and wikipedia's Transformers (film) page. --Khajidha 07:01, 24 January 2013 (EST)

Key things missing from toy sections on character pages

There are a couple of things most toy sections don't have that would probably be useful:

a link to the page about the toyline - some articles have it, but they don't seem to be the majority.
for characters who've been more than one faction in fiction, knowing what faction their toy was sold as would be useful, especially if the toyline's page isn't split into Autobots and Decepticons.

Just a couple of ideas. --Flicky1991 16:45, 2 February 2013 (EST)

More than once I have thought a link to the toyline would be handy. - Starfield 21:31, 2 February 2013 (EST)

New Theme

So, according to Hasbro, basically the entire new theme of the Transformers brand is now Beast Hunters. So why not change the wiki theme from Animated to Beast Hunters? Just a suggestion,if people don't like it, whatever. -- spyder ^{Use this!} 12:15, 10 February 2013 (EST)

That's a good idea. Even if not Beast Hunters specifically, a Prime-related theme would make more sense than Animated now, considering it's been a couple of years. --Flicky1991 12:43, 10 February 2013 (EST)

Yeah, sounds awesome! I'm in favor of a TFP theme, when do we change? - Bumblejumper 22:42, 4 November 2013 (EST)

Why would we change to TFP after it just ended rather conclusively?--Rosicrucian ^Talk 23:23, 4 November 2013 (EST)

Yeah, you've got a point, maybe TF4, when it comes out? - Bumblejumper 23:27, 4 November 2013 (EST)

Trivia/notes sections

While I have nothing against a "trivia" or "notes" section (we are not Wikipedia, after all), it is my opinion that such a section should really only contain general notes about the article's subject that are either really trivial, or too general to fit into any specific paragraph. In particular, a noteworthy two-line bit regarding a specific toy in an article about a character with multiple toys might better fit into the specific toy's entry. For example, if the toy had a prototype that was very different from the final toy, the toy's entry isn't very long and the info about the prototype doesn't fill the page either, it could better be added to the toy's entry (since it's actual information about the toy, and its design process), rather than treating it as marginal trivia that is ostracized from the main portion of the article. Likewise, informative notes about fictional appearances of a character and after-the-fact retcons that affect the general perception of said character are better added as notes to the specific fiction writeup, rather than shoving it into the "notes" ghetto. So simply put: Short notes that are directly related to a specific part of the article might better be placed in that very part, rather than in an inflated catch-all "notes" section. Thoughts?--Nevermore 15:45, 16 February 2013 (EST)

Proposal to rename an article.

Hi, I'm proposing that the article "Brick Springhorn" be renamed to "Brick Springstern". Because of an error in the original comic, the character was given both names at various points during the story. A radio announcer called him "Springstern" and an editorial caption said he was "Springhorn". Usually, I'd agree with calling him "Springhorn". We can rationalise the mistake by saying the announcer was mistaken or drunk or something, and of course "Springhorn" is just a damn funny name. Except...

In the recent IDW reprint (which I was re-reading today), they have corrected the error, and he's now called "Springstern" throughout the comic. (Similar to how the IDW reprints corrected the Sherman Dam / Boulder Dam mistake).

Given that "Springstern" is now his name throughout the most recent printing, I'd suggest that most readers trying to look up the character will type "Springstern" into the search box. I know the redirect is in place, but I feel that maybe it should now be the other way round, with 'Horn' redirecing to a main article located at 'Stern'.

Advice and opinion welcome! --Ryan Frost 17:55, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

This is terrible news, because you're probably right, and I hate it. --ItsWalky 18:01, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

Database dump

Hello! In my region I have a bit of an internet connection issue so I'm using WikiTaxi for offline wikia browsing. Since tfwiki is based on wikimedia system I was wondering if a database dump of current pages could possibly be generated for download? I see that it currently doesn't exist on your special: statistics page. I'd rather avoid any mirroring software as it would no doubt cause issues with the site so I hope someone can help with this.

Thank you in advance,

NocteDraconis

I can't help personally, but it might be worth also posting this over in the TFWiki discussion thread on the Allspark board, it's frequented by several of the sysops/technical-know-how guys from here. Jalaguy 09:05, 27 March 2013 (EDT)

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction :)Though, I do hope someone will take notice of the question here as well. NocteDraconis 15:12, 27 March 2013 (EDIT)

Proposing New Continuity Term for Multipath Books

Hi, I've been working on the first six Find Your Fate Junior books since I joined about a month ago, and just finished a summary for Dinobots Strike Back. While I'm still revising it, I just began editing relevant info into character pages, and starting with Starscream's, I found I needed a new term to explain how paths within the same book relate to each other without using the word "book". I didn't see anything that applies to this in the Continuities page, so I began referring to each individual book as its own "micro-continuity nexus". I think this is necessary to clarify that each book has its own tangle of paths which don't carry over to other books in the series, even though the books in that particular series are numbered by Ballantine.

For example, when moving from that first book onto Starscream's actions in Battle Drive, I'd begin the first paragraph with: "In the next adjacent micro-continuity nexus, Starscream and Blitzwing were on a strafing-run to torch farmland, when..." since "later" isn't true with no possible book-to-book continuity, but I need to indicate that the summaries are moving on to the next book beyond just the storylinks in that section of the character page.

Please let me know if there's a better, established term I should be using for this phenomenon. Perhaps some term applied to video games with alternate endings? I don't know jack about TFVGs, and haven't studied those pages yet. I intend to add all relevant content from Dinobots Strike Back to the character pages soon, while it's still fresh in my mind, so please let me know if I'm at risk of muddying them up with a nonsensical term. Bumblevivisector 23:49, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

A couple years ago I was trying to figure out how to describe video games with multiple playable characters, different endings, etc. and was leaning towards considering each individual path a splinter timeline. But that's just me and nobody else ever looked at what I came up with. So. -hx 12:51, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, I've gotten the impression that no one will say anything about others' sandboxes, but might once something's actually implemented and becomes a potential problem. I agree that "splinter" is as good a term as "path", and I see now that even the splinter page could use some work; seems like Earthforce should be mentioned as the first possible splinter, setting the precedent for the other Marvel examples listed, but that was likely a touchy subject for tending to veer into endless speculation.

Your example looked like a workable outline, but I don't know enough about different TF games to visualize in detail how it'd apply. Have there been any two TF games with continuity that retroactively makes one possible outcome the "real" ending? (non-TF ex: Mortal Kombat II stating Johnny Cage beat Goro) "Nexus" just seems like the best word for a clump of splinters that all have equal weight, continuity-wise (one game, one book).Bumblevivisector 19:11, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

How much of the splinter timeline article is from sources? Is that term actually used? If so, I think it would be best to keep with it. --Khajidha 20:22, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Oh, I just meant that the article looked like it could use a few more examples of splinters, assuming the word was most relevant as a descriptive fan term. If it's only documenting uses of "splinter" from official sources, then forget it. As long as no one's objecting to terms I'm using in FYF books and character page subsections, I'll just keep using them until I'm done documenting the first 6 books and worry about the wiki's broader terminology later.

Since they're classified as "multipath adventures", I'll usually just say "path" or "outcome" to indicate that they're all viable options with the same canonical weight, since "splinter" could imply either a timeline-shifting cataclysm, or that the splinter is inferior to a "main" timeline that far more fans are familiar with, a principle which would just inject fan-judgement into these particular books. Bumblevivisector 21:16, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Holy grails and Want list need to be more visible.

Judging by just how long Jake/Stingray has been on the want list, these two things need to be more visible. Many people visiting the wiki probably don't even visit the home page let alone scroll down far enough to read those two little boxes. Would it be possible to do something like the Go! boxes for them? RavenG 02:40, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

So nobody else thinks something like this would be good?RavenG 08:58, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

I think the problem is more likely that no one has the items in question than that they need to be more visible. Most of those things are very obscure. --abates 18:37, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

All the more reason it should be more visible. The more people that know to look for this stuff, the more chances there are of actually finding it.RavenG 01:51, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

It's second from the top, just below the Featured Article. It's more visible than 90% of the rest of the frontpage. And finding Holy Grails is NOT more important than showcasing our good content that we actually have. --ItsWalky 02:04, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

Seen this?

More info than you ever thought you'd need about the Ziploc TFTM iron-on promotion. This all should be wiki'd up by someone. Possibly me. 09:51, 17 May 2013 (EDT) (look at that 100 million dollar growth in the first year - that's like Angry Birds levels of success.)

Left-hand menu

FOC and Prime - the Game have been and gone by now, so we can probably take them off there. It's probably a bit early to put Transformers 4 on. Maybe we could put links to the MTMTE and RID comics? Is Transformers: Legends high-profile enough that a link on the menu would be useful? --abates 22:31, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Anyone else have an opinion? --abates 21:34, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

I'd be down with MTMTE and RID on the sidebar, considering the level of popularity IDW's stuff is currently enjoying in the fandom. Legends is probably high-profile enough, but our article for it is still sporting a stub template, and I'd reckon that most people looking for information on the game will end up at the specialised Wikia rather than here. Once we get closer to 2014, I'd suggest we might subsequently want Thrilling 30 (once we have a page up) and Transformers 4 on there. Jalaguy 04:54, 28 May 2013 (EDT)

Spam filter acting up

Japanese Wikipedia is being blocked by our spam filter. Can it be whitelisted? Mimi 20:42, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

The spam filter is blocking all external links at the moment. I've given it a poke, but because of the caching we do, it may take a few hours before it comes right. --abates 21:15, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

New Category

Have we considered adding a category for characters that debuted in fiction before receiving a toy? As in, no toy was in production at the time they first appeared, but it was eventually made. I've noticed the number of examples growing lately, with Straxus, Grindcore, Drift, Nightstalker, Wipe-Out, the Female Autobots, Dion, Hauler, Devcon...

Can't think of a way to phrase it, though. "Fiction First characters"? --Xaaron 10:31, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Precedent suggests Cat:Fiction-original characters, with Comic-original and Cartoon-original subcategories. - SanityOrMadness 11:52, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

But there's already a Fiction-Only characters category (with Comic- and Cartoon-only subcategories). So Fiction-original would therefore encompass Comic-original and Cartoon-original sub-categories, plus a Fiction-Only subcategory with Comic- and Cartoon-only as sub-subcategories? --Xaaron 21:53, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Sure. That would make, e.g., Category:Comic-only characters a (direct) subcategory of both Cat:Fiction-only and Cat:Comic-original. (NB: There are, of course, more possibilities than comic- and cartoon-. I just picked them up as the most frequent) - SanityOrMadness 23:00, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

I'm curious, would you include such characters as G1 Shockwave, G1 Reflector, and the casts of Animated and Prime? Why or why not? - Starfield 13:54, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

In Shockwave and Reflector's cases, the toy was made first despite the character actually appearing first, so it's hard to judge, but I'd be inclined not to put them in the category, although I see why others would disagree. I don't know about the Animated situation, but the Prime show was made well before any toys were, so they certainly belong there. --flicky 1991 14:01, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, I think this gets pretty hinky when you consider that to be technically correct we'd have to apply it in every instance where the fiction debuted before the toys did, regardless of whether toys were planned all along and it was just a quirk of release order.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 14:21, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

Shouldn't it be a case of who developed it first? Dion was developed for fiction and then later turned into a toy (much later). Where a toy is designed and developed and then turns up in fiction (even if this is aired/ released before the toy is released) it was originally developed as toy. The Shockwave et al issue is easy to resolve if you forget about whether they were a transformer toy or not and focus on whether they were a toy or not. Here the character model for fiction is based on a toy, it is an artistic representation of something filtered through the necessities of the medium in which appears along with aesthetic considerations. Where a character is developped for fiction first the starting point is the characterization, personality, needs of the story etc. It is a different creative process. You have to consider if we have toy designers going for show accuracy or illustrators going for toy accuracy (or in some cases not worrying about accuracy at all). I do think the category tells us something about the creative process that has gone into each character/ toy especially where the dates on release as toy/ fiction are similar. I agree though that it could be a potential minefield and we will need source/ link information to back up which category each character would go in..... Mister Jazz 14:48, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

The above is why I wanted to be clear on the wording. I'm thinking ONLY about characters who were first introduced in fiction at a time when there were no official plans to produce a toy of them...not characters whose first appearance in fiction just happened to beat their toy to release. --Xaaron 15:56, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

Because if you split hairs that fine, it becomes an increasingly meaningless distinction relative to our existing categories. A category ought to be relatively simple to apply. Ideally it should be obvious without even needing to go to the category's page to read the description.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 19:02, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

It seems fairly simple to me - toys don't pop up out of nowhere, there are catalogue solicitations, ToyFairs, adverts and so forth that happen months before toys are/were released. To be "Fiction-original", the point would be to demonstrate that they weren't planned as a toy at any point around the release of the comic/etc (and we know it takes yoinks to develop a toy - diverging from actual original characters for the sake of examples - IDW Stealth Bomber Megatron and IDW muscle car Bumblebee were both fiction-original designs, and the not-quite-accurate toys took so long to develop and schedule that both announced after the IDW characters had *stopped* using those bodies! Whereas "Goldfire Bumblebee" may not have been officially announced before RiDW #18 came out, but is anyone in any doubt that the design was toy-first?) If in doubt, leave it out. - SanityOrMadness 15:01, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

Gallery space

I know that the majority of this would already be covered on the fiction articles, and we want the wiki to have an organic and fun read to it, rather than being tables and lists, but would it be acceptable to add a gallery space for stuff like depicting the various designs and robot/alt mode pairs? For example, when reading about G1 Bumblebee in IDW having umpteen different designs, I kind of want to be able to see an exhaustive list pointing out each design and saying where it's from. Since this would be a separate namespace, it wouldn't clutter up the fiction articles, and might actually relieve some pressure to add a screenshot to the fiction articles just because it depicts a design or mode that no interesting screenshots had depicted.

This could also be expanded into interesting screenshots themselves, or for the Japanese series, animated gifs depicting named attacks. Something similar to this or this.

Suggestions and objections welcome, and if you guys aren't interested in this but know of a fansite that already does it, please bring it up as well, as this kind of obsessive categorizing is what I live for.KrytenKoro 14:55, 14 June 2013 (EDT)

tales of the beast hunters chapter 22 sharkticon megatron

chapter 21 vertebreak

Chapter 22 (Sharkticon Megatron)

chapter 23 night shadow bumblebee

someone add this to tales of the beast hunters thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jazz-meister (talk • contribs).

This is copyvio, right? Don't we need to delete this?KrytenKoro 20:04, 14 June 2013 (EDT)

It's not really a good place for it, no... --abates 21:18, 14 June 2013 (EDT)

Romanizations of purely Japanese names

It has come to my attention that the way this Wiki romanizes Transformer names that are purely Japanese in origin (such as for Shōki, each member of the Dinoforce, the recent Gan'ō, etc.) feels a bit at odds with how we also handle official name spellings. Generally speaking, we tend to go with the names that are official, and seem to only really diverge from this if there's something inherently wrong with the official spellings, right? Well, for the aforementioned examples, each of them has an official spelling of their names written in English, yet this Wiki seems to forgo those official spellings for some reason and instead opts for a different spelling of each. My question is, if we have an official spelling of a purely Japanese name, and there seems to be little-to-nothing wrong with said official spelling, then why don't we always use it?, For Shōki, for instance, we've gone with spelling his name as such despite official packaging material with his toy spelling his name as "Shouki" in English. Similar cases also apply for the Dinoforce members and Gan'ō, as well. The only exception to this I can think of that we do use is "Ginrai", whose name would be more straightforwardly Romanized as "Jinrai", but we went with "Ginrai" due to official sources spelling his name with a G. So what makes Ginrai special enough for him to use the official spelling over the straight Romanization spelling?
Now, I'm not suggesting that we switch every single romanized purely Japanese name out of the Hepburn style that we use. On the contrary, I think we should at least continue to utilize the current Hepburn style for names that have no official spelling in English whatsoever, or at least for those who haven't had theirs revealed yet. But for those who have (Shouki, the Dinoforce, Ganoh, etc.), I ponder as to why we don't just use what is official if what's official is indeed a decently acceptable alternative to what ths Wiki uses. I mean, there is precedence in us using the official spellings since we use "Ginrai" over "Jinrai". Why, we even use "Dinoforce" when the box and fiction both clearly say "Kyoryu Sentai" (Dinosaur Squadron/Taskforce) in Japanese. So what's been stopping us from using the official names for the non-Ginrai Japanese word TF names? --Sabrblade 01:08, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

Part of the problem I feel here is evokes the "Spell My Name With An S" trope, and part trying to keep the spirit of the name's original meaning. For example, "Dinoforce" from "Kyoryu Sentai" feels more... real in English, I suppose, as contrast to someone actually writing out "Dinosaur Squadron/Taskforce". "Dinoforce" has that sense of quirkiness but it still carries the meaning without loosing too much. Sometimes, the official spelling that Takara uses just seems odd (Ligier/Rijie or Rartorata, anyone?), and other times the name only makes sense if you have a passable grasp of the language. _{(The arguments I could bring up from subbing toku. Then of course, someone else could argue about "sentai" that used in the Super Sentai series...)} --Lonegamer78 01:52, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

I'm fine with us using "Dinoforce". I was just pointing it out as an example of us using an official spelling over a more literal one. Same with "Ginrai" vs. "Jinrai". But, what I'm really getting at is why we use spellings like "Shōki", "Gōryū", "Gan'ō", etc. when there are official TakaraTomy spellings of these as "Shouki", "Goryu", Ganoh", etc. that feel just as valid as alternatives to what we currently use. (Not to mention easier to type.) This inquiry mostly stems from the discussion on Gan'ō's talk page, and raises the question as to why we don't use the official spellings in cases like these when there doesn't seem to be that much, if anything at all, inherently wrong with those spellings. --Sabrblade 09:53, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

Look, there's pretty much one reason we do it this way - Interrobang's unconquerable boner for the Japanese language. He pushed for it, and the reason it wound up happening is the same reason that right now nobody is taking on this argument against it. Because nobody caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaares. And nobody wants to have to go through changing everything again. - Chris McFeely 15:12, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

In other words, "Sabrblade, have at it." - SanityOrMadness 17:27, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

Basically. I should point out I pretty much NEVER see Japanese use of English letters actually involving macrons and blardeeblar. And if we can get rid of a lot of that shit on the wiki, I'll be... well, I dunno about happy, but less aggravated. I am 100% in favor of using the given romanization when it's obviously not incorrect. --M Sipher 13:49, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

At least going forward, I personally support the "use the romanization given" initiative, unless it gets as bad as Minelba.KrytenKoro 16:13, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

I'm all for consistency with the Japanese packaging when it's basically the same pronunciation. -LV 18:51, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

Very well, then. Interrobang, huh? Figures. --Sabrblade 00:25, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

Erg, just hit a speedbump. Tried to move Shōki's page to "Shouki", but it won't let me. --Sabrblade 11:17, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

It's because there's already a page, redirecting to Shōki. An admin will have to delete the Shouki page. --flicky 1991 11:47, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

Can an admin delete the Dinoforce redirects? All of them have history, so I can't move them over. Mimi 10:51, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

There's still Būpink, Pīpō, and Kōmoribreast, but I can't find any official romanizations, so I guess they stay where they are? Mimi 13:22, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, I'd say we can stick with the Hepburn style Romanizations for names/terms that haven't official been spelled in English yet (or unless there is something genuinely and inherently wrong with its English spelling).

Also, thanks a bunch for helping out with this. I started to, but I got stuck when the redirects needed to be deleted first, and then came the TF: The Ride grand opening in Orlando that I was in attendance of, which took a lot of my time away from the Internet. --Sabrblade 20:29, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

No problem. Happy to help. Mimi 22:31, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

Should real people be included in this? According to the talk page, Yūki Ōshima is generally credited as Yuki Ohshima. --flicky 1991 06:29, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

I should think so. I know he's not relevant to our wiki, but Yasuhiro Nightow is pretty specific about his name's Romanization, and I'd think there would be other people who had put thought into it. -LV 09:28, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

I'd say that, if there are real Japanese people who have their names spelled a particular way officially (in English letters), then by all means, let us reflect that. If they don't, however, we can just keep them in the Hepburn style. --Sabrblade 12:49, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

The Yuki Ohshima page already exists... can someone remove it, please? --flicky 1991 09:41, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

Yuki Ohshima is still there. Also, Shaoshao Li is officially spelt "Syaosyao Li", so we should probably treat her the way we treat the Japanese ones to be consistent. --flicky 1991 05:59, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

Deleted! There's a {{tobedeleted}} template you can put on pages, BTW. --abates 07:11, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

Thanks, I didn't know! --flicky 1991 07:37, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

No problem. I think there should probably be some debate before moving Shaoshao as I get the impression from the talk page that it's another Minelba type situation possibly? --abates 16:26, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

It is, and the page went through a LOT of romanization revisions before we settled on where it is now. --M Sipher 17:04, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

DuckDuckGo

Could whoever-has-FTP-access unblock DuckDuckBot in http://tfwiki.net/robots.txt, please. - SanityOrMadness 13:59, 22 June 2013 (EDT)

Robot

I was quite surprised to see we don't have an article about robots in general! There are robots other than Cybertronians in Transformers, both man-made and natural lifeforms. We probably should have an article summing up the different types - after all, we do have an article on aliens. --flicky 1991 09:42, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

Disambiguation pages and parsing

If the names on a disambiguation page differ in parsing, should the page name follow the initial use or the most common use? See Heavytread (disambiguation) and Knockout (disambiguation) for examples. The first case is at the most common form while the second is at the first used form. --Khajidha 11:54, 3 July 2013 (EDT)

There is no policy that I can find. I would say it makes little difference, unless one of the forms was well recognized and the other was super obscure. Otherwise it is six of one, half dozen of the other. Not worth moving pages over. - Starfield 19:41, 3 July 2013 (EDT)

I would agree it doesn't make much difference. Most of the time people are going to arrive there via redirection from a link whose text has the parsing that they're looking for. Only we Wiki editors are likely to go straight to a disambig and we already know what the other parsings are. I don't think the parsing is going to hinder anyone in trying to find the page. --Tigerpaw28 21:00, 3 July 2013 (EDT)

Wiki content used in official materials, again.

So Transformers Legends just put out a Doctor Arkeville card, and the character bio is a truncated version of the Wiki introduction. "DR. ARKEVILLE is a self-proclaimed evil genius who often allies himself with the DECEPTICONS. Like all mad scientists, he has designs to rule the planet Earth.... however, his success rate is sorely lacking." It doesn't MATTER or anything, but it seemed strangely familiar. -hx 09:13, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

Derik checked a while back and found a whole ton of the Legends bios were copied from here.[1] I think the conclusion was we weren't going to worry about it too much. --abates 19:18, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

Sizes

I brought this up on the scale talk page but got no response. Basically, for a wiki that tries to include as much as possible, tfwiki doesn't really address the sizes of the toys. For someone who's never actually bought any toys, terms like "Deluxe" and "Mega", or "Small Headmaster" and "Large Headmaster", or "Autobot Car" and "Mini Vehicle", aren't useful for telling how tall the toys actually are. Pretty much the only place this is addressed is the pages for the original Fort Max and the new Metroplex, which actually have numbers (22" and 24"), and seem to be the only place on the wiki where this is addressed, despite articles on both Scale and Size class. --flicky 1991 11:00, 10 July 2013 (EDT)

I don't think an "average size" has ever been calculated for a deluxe. Look at the current Beast Hunters line, Starscream is quite a bit smaller than Ripclaw. As far as I know, size classes aren't really about the size of the toy but of the packaging. Any deluxe figures should fit in the same shelf/peg space as any other. --Khajidha 11:22, 10 July 2013 (EDT)

That way lies madness. There's been enough fandom beardwringing about "shrinking/growing deluxes" for a lifetime. Let's not fall into that trap. -hx 13:40, 10 July 2013 (EDT)

Khajidha, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Nothing on the wiki actually indicates how tall any of these toys are. You mention Beast Hunters Starscream, but all it says on his page is that that toy is "shorter than his First Edition toy". As far as I'm concerned, he could be anything from a couple of inches to over a foot! Everything just seems to be described in terms of other toys - as another example, the original Omnibots are only described as being "shorter than Autobot Cars". I'm not asking for a true average size - just enough to have some point of reference. --flicky 1991 14:25, 10 July 2013 (EDT)

I think actual measuements would be useful. You would need to standardise what you measure (i.e. from the feet to the top of the head or to the highest point on the toy - not always the same, and determine whether this included any removable weapons/ accesories). We should probably limit the amount of info to stop it turning into an unnecessarily long list (you don't need height to head, shoulders and cannon where these are progressively taller for example). I'd also like to see both metric and imperial measurements, it's odd that the only system we seem to have is in imperial when metric would make more sense to me, I suppose both is better than choosing one or the other. It's a mammoth task though and I'm not sure it could ever be completed. If we start we will have to live with a degree on inconsistency. Mister Jazz 13:54, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

So, what if you can stretch their arms up in the air, or they can hold accessories in an unmarked position (maybe on their back?)

Eh...I think it would be, at best, reasonable to measure them with no accessories in the pose depicted in the instructions.KrytenKoro 16:15, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

Ok, I've added height info for Prowl. I'm not going to add any more yet until I get some feedback on whether the format I've used is acceptable. What do you guys think? Mister Jazz 09:30, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

I think that if this is to go forward, that the length of the altmode is of more interest than its height in most cases. --Khajidha 10:43, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

Figuring out the format should be done on a delete-able "sandbox" page rather than on a "live" one. And honestly, I'm still unsold on the usefulness of the info. But I'll humor for now...

Dimensions: ??in / ??cm (robot height), ??in / ??cm (vehicle length)

This does bring up the question of how many dimensions to measure, and how to non-clunkily add it. It kind of feels like if you're going to actually put a numbered measurement down, just picking ONE dimension is insufficient... or to put it another way, you halfassed the job. Go full height/width/depth or go home. Toys with multiple altmodes present bigger problems of readability; the more numbers, the more boring a morass the entry becomes. (THIS kind of thing is why you sandbox format changes rather than put them on live pages.) --M Sipher 16:57, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

Ok but halfassed is a bit harsh, three quartersassed perhaps... I'm not sure about sandboxing so for Prowl

Dimensions: 10.5 cm/ 4⅛ in (robot height), 11.3cm/ 4⅜ in (vehicle length) As for the reason to do it we can't assume everyone visiting the Wiki is a Transformers expert, you or I might understand 'about the same size as the 1984 Autobot Cars' but not every visitor will. The casual fan or even parent looking for information regarding what present to buy a child might really appreciate this. You also have to consider that the secondary market is now huge and this info isn't always present, you would expect this wiki to be able to fill in that gap. As a public service information provider we have to consider that not everyone has our background knowledge and be just as informative to the novice as we are to the expert, otherwise we are in danger of becoming a jargonistic clique who only provide for ourselves. In the same way I think we should also add difficulty rating as stated on the box (where present). If you consider the potential audience in its entirity I think the case for size information is obvious. Mister Jazz 08:30, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

In that case, why not just do weight? It's not going to be changed by altmode, it's easy to measure, and you'd have a reasonable idea of scale from the weight; besides, the precision of exact size isn't really going to matter unless you're putting it in a display case, and in that case you're almost certainly a collector who understands size classes. Casual fans or parents just looking for a toy to play with aren't going to need precise measurements of size.KrytenKoro 08:44, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

Weight would vary too much due to the density of the materials. A mostly diecast figure may have the same mass as a MUCH larger modern figure with the thin plastic panels they use now. Robot height and altmode length are probably the most relevant measures for most figures. --Khajidha 10:30, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, weight is definitely not a thing we need to measure. --M Sipher 19:54, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

Any non-TF-fan parent looking to our wiki for toy purchasing information is already well and truly fucked. We really aren't a good resource for casual kid-toy purchase information for non-fans at all... I mean, just look at Movie Bumblebee's toy page. What parent is gonna wanna dig through all that to find their kid's birthday toy? (Never mind that the toy information is one of the last things we present; we handle their fiction first.) That demographic is gonna go to TRU's website and see what's available now, assuming they web-shop that way at all. And as pointed out, they most certainly aren't going to need precise measurements.

For "casual" fans, I think they have enough prior experience with toys to know the rough sizes most TFs fall under per given class (standard largish action figure range is the most common). For the more advanced fan who might conceivably need dimensions... then yes, width and depth are as relevant as height, if not moreso. Height doesn't play into stuffing robot-mode guys onto a display shelf anywhere as much as how much horizontal space a toy takes up... and frankly numbers are nothing next to just plain old physical trial-and-error on that score.

As for difficulty ratings... that's a whole other can of worms. Hasbro's own ratings are horsehockey; they rated conversions mostly by size-class, not actual difficulty. At this point, that's basically giving out misinformation. And giving subjective difficulty ratings... less than ideal. Some people don't find RiD Side Burn or the Alternators unfun morasses of panel-massaging.

And as for "jargonistic clique who only provide for ourselves"... you do know what site you're on, don't you? This is akin to accusing TVtropes of not being a good resource for people who want to get into a TV show they've not seen but have heard about. We are, ultimately, not a resource for people who kinda sorta maybe think Transformers are okay, but for people keen on digging into the guts of the franchise, the nitty-gritty, the obscure, the corners not often seen. We are very much a metaphorical rabbit hole; by design and intent we run far deeper than anyone on the outside would need. And yes, sometimes we DON'T provide info by choice... like the exact box-back bios and tech-spec numbers, but we DO provide links to places that you can get those if you really want them. The latter we don't provide because we could find no non-clunky-and-horrible way to present said info, which is very much a problem with measurements... which brings us back to the start. We'd pretty much have to provide all relevant dimensions to be of actual use to the people who'd conceivably need that kind of information, and presenting that in a way that's not clunky is a major issue. --M Sipher 19:54, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

Possibility? When photographing TFs (or accessories or merchandise, such as statues, Robot Heroes, Attacktix, or board games/pieces), include a ruler or measuring stick in the photo, or if one isn't handy, photograph the item in or next to your open palm. (In your palm if it's obviously smaller than your hand, next to your palm if it's nearly the size of your hand or larger, and zoom out far enough that your whole hand is in the picture.) Doesn't provide all the dimensions (unless you use multiple rulers simultaneously or take multiple photos) and only addresses one mode (unless you have duplicate figures photographed together or take multiple photos), but it's an easy-to-understand frame of reference, and other measurements can be approximated.

When no photos are available, or when we already have photos which do not include rulers or anything, i have no objection to the inclusion of text giving the length, width, and/or height for any, all, or none of the TF toys/merchandise on this site. If someone wants to know, and the information is there, great! If the information there is presented in a clunky way, odds are it's still better than nothing for anyone curious, and odds are it's still brief enough for the uninterested to ignore. Anyone who thinks the presentation of the info is too clunky can reformat it, and anyone who thinks the revision is still too clunky can refine it further, until we arrive at an elegant format we can standardize. And if the information is not there at all, well, that's what we have now--an incomplete database which will never be complete as long as Hasbro/TakaraTomy keeps making Transformers, but an incomplete database which contains A) plenty of other interesting tidbits to read about and B) plenty of opportunities for contributors to add what they can.

For the record, sometimes i see photos of TF figures online, and am surprised by how small/large the actual figures are when i eventually see them in person for the first time--even if i own other figures of the same size class (like 1984 Autobot cars, or Legends class figures). Do i need to know beforehand how big a figure is? Probably not. But i may be curious anyhow, and if it pleases someone to satisfy my curiosity, whom does it hurt?

--Rhymus (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2013 (EST)

we are not going to photograph toys in the palms of hands --ItsWalky (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2013 (EST)

Holy cowcatchers, Batbot--it's Walky! Forgive me for being flustered, but i've long thought of you as something of a Transformers legend. (Is that the same as saying you've got class?) i envy your artistic capability and productivity, admire your dedication to Transformers lore and collecting, and further envy that your art/writing has elevated you beyond the "caste" of mere fandom into the "council" of official TF writers/artists whose works can become canon. And if you think i'm just kissing your aft, well, i should admit that i'm trying very hard to get on your good side right now as i am a little intimidated by how hard i've seen you come down on people whose opinions differ from yours.

That being said, you seem to be opposed to using images of toys in/alongside a Human hand as a size reference; have you anything to say about the photographing toys alongside measuring sticks? Also, are you so opposed to hands being used to show scale that you would remove such images if others post them?

(i ask only hypothetically; the only camera i can claim at this time is a G1 Reflector.)

--Rhymus (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2013 (EST)

Aside from the sheer ugliness of having hands or rulers in the photo, you would need to have separate scales for each mode so that it is clear that none of the individual images has been reduced or enlarged relative to the others before combining them. `--Khajidha (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2013 (EST)

Foreign Localization placement - again!!!

Said it on the page for the 1984 cartoon, will say it again here: the Foreign Localization section for cartoon episodes needs to go at the very bottom. It makes no sense to go from factoids (notes, etc.) to a list of names, then back to factoids (Trivia). Disrupts the flow of the page, buries the trivia, looks bad. -- Repowers 17:51, 16 July 2013 (EDT)

I've had this thought a couple of times. It seems like it would be more naturally placed below Trivia with the home video releases. --abates 05:41, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

Some Transformer Knock-off cartoon

We have some Transformer-Knock-off cartoon made by china ( Not a big deal huh how about they use that cartoon charracter toy make them loke idiot cut and turn it into "Transformer Gobot Toyline ) Here the Final Episode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI5fXIJY5_U

To Story:

Some stupid kid play games about Transoformer and get sucked into the game world who Transoformer get seperate into 2 side Animal ( Deceticon ) and Vehicle ( Autobot )

Vehicle: With 6 Clan Car,Police Car,Hellicopter,Bulldozer,Jeep ( They are Extinct only the stongest guy alive ),Jet and one extra Bike ( Only One ) ( Clan i mean they Fucking look like the Same Fucking Guy only the Officer on specific clan have different Color that mean they use the Same Fucking Model to make Hundred Guy )

Animal: Only 3 : Jaguar,Gorilla ( Only the leader the infanry are Rat but they look like the mech from Battle Tech Series ) and Dragon

Korean, not Indonesian

The Indonesian foreign names of many of the Transformers are written in Korean. Why? They use a completely different script. I can't distinguish whether someone just phoneticized Indonesian names and have written them in Korean, or if they're Korean names and someone just mislabeled them as Indonesian. (I think I see examples of both, although I only have a passing familiarity with Indonesian so I'm not sure.) --Noviere 14:23, 18 July 2013 (EDT)

The one that you changed was added by Andreanromanky18, I guess we should review all of the others that he/she has added. --Khajidha 15:43, 18 July 2013 (EDT)

Indonesia Wikipedia shows most of the characters have the same name as they do in English. Korean Wikipedia had Grimlock's name written differently. Hrm. --abates 16:36, 18 July 2013 (EDT)

Grouping American/Japanese divergent fiction

I'm trying to standardize the G1 cartoon fiction sections, particularly when characters have both American and Japanese histories. For larger characters like Kup we have a big "Generation 1 cartoon continuity" masthead, with "The Transformers cartoon" underneath, some micro-continuities, and "Japanese cartoon continuity", which has its own sub-sections. On the other hand, we've got Hound with a "G1cc" heading, and all the Japanese sections as equal to "The Transformers cartoon" instead of under a "Jcc" header. I think Hound should have (1st tier) "G1cc", (2nd) "The Transformers cartoon" & "Jcc", (3rd) the various Japanese fictions.

There's also some discrepancies between characters that only appeared after TROOP, where American and Japanese continuity completely diverged. Pointblank has a "G1cc" header that includes "The Transformers cartoon" and "The Headmasters cartoon". Chromedome, however, has "The Transformers cartoon" (and Wings as a sub-section) completely separated from the "Japanese cartoon continuity". I think a "G1cc" is preferable, since the stories flowing forward from The Rebirth or Transformers: The Headmasters do share the same underlying backstory.

Finally, there are characters that have only appeared in Japanese and American cartoon micro-continuities. Roadblock has appeared in America's Wingsverse and Japan's United EX fiction. Both of these continuities come from the original cartoon, as "add-ons", but there's nothing to indicate that in the way they're grouped under his fiction section. I think characters like Roadblock, Rapido, etc. should have their Wings/United EX sections grouped together, with a note of some kind explaining the connection.

Anyway, I wanted to bring this up here before I started sweeping through the G1 sections. Preferences one way or another? --Xaaron 08:56, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

I don't think character pages should concern themselves with continuity beyond the characters themselves. Headmasters Chromedome has absolutely no connection to Rebirth Chromedome in any way and putting them under the same section is deceptive. Mimi 22:15, 24 July 2013 (EDT)

The problem with that is that a casual reader of the page may not know the connection between the US and Japan cartoons. Whichever way it's written, it will be clear that Chromedome was introduced separately in both the US and Japanese cartoons - however, grouping the two together would signify that, despite the difference in the portrayal of the character, these are two similar universes, as opposed to the fairly different Marvel universe or the radically different IDW universe. I don't like it when the wiki assumes too much prior knowledge on the part of the reader - just because we know the story behind the Rebirth/Headmasters timeline split, someone who only knows Chromedome from the IDW comics may not be as aware, and wiki articles should above all aim to be informative. --flicky 1991 03:26, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

I don't see why that's the responsibility of character pages or how that would enlighten them instead of making them think there's a linear chronology for the character when there isn't one. Mimi 11:00, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

The point I'm trying to make is that, assuming the article is written clearly, there would be no confusion as to whether there is a linear chronology, as the sections would be labelled "US continuity" and "Japanese continuity" or something similar - so as long as we've made that clear, we might as well point out that these two separate timelines were once the same timeline, but branched off before this character was introduced, so as not to give the impression of a completely separate "Japanese cartoon continuity" that is unrelated to the US one, unlike the actual situation which has a split timeline. Looking at Chromedome's page, both the Rebirth section and the Headmasters section mention Galvatron, but the page as written gives no indication that both "versions" of Galvatron, unlike the two Chromedomes, experienced exactly the same events for a while before Chromedome appeared - if Chromedome's page was the first page I ever read on the wiki, I would conclude that the Headmasters series was as unrelated to the US series as it is to the IDW comics. Grouping the two together would prevent any such misunderstandings without going into too much detail, and the reader could then consult the page about the Headmasters series if they want a full explanation. --flicky 1991 11:19, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

That was my concern. There could even be an opening note on the subject, like:

The underlying history for American and Japanese G1 cartoon continuity is the first 95 episodes of the Sunbow cartoon, before splitting in two directions. Chromedome first appeared in the cartoon continuity after the split occurred, with two distinct histories.

--Xaaron 11:53, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

The Marvel comic sections are already drowned in obnoxious continuity notes. Do we really need to do the same to the cartoon sections? Mimi 15:52, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

I'm confused -- how are you making "being informed" sound like a negative? --Xaaron 17:56, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

I'd rather have "obnoxious" continuity notes than a confusing article. --flicky 1991 17:17, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

New templates

Template:Nihongo, same one as used on wikipedia.

Also, I had a suggestion for a Template:L (I forgot to get approval the first time) that would simplify the coding for any article with a parser from [[Optimus Prime (WFC)|Optimus]] to {{l|Optimus Prime|WFC|Optimus}}, and [[Optimus Prime (WFC)|Optimus Prime]] to {{l|Optimus Prime|WFC}}.

Thoughts?KrytenKoro 11:51, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

I really don't see the need for a link template like that. It increases the learning curve to edit the wiki in exchange for a only a slight saving of characters. --Khajidha 13:37, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

No. --M Sipher 14:07, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

Like Khajidha said, it's a solution that solves nothing in particular. Not everything needs to be relegated to templates. (I'm looking right at that awful Comicstory template.) Mimi 15:49, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

Regarding the Nihongo template, I wonder if there's somewhere more useful we can point the question mark thingy at the end rather than a Wikipedia page with general Japanese info and WP-specific stuff for dealing with Japanese, though I'm not sure if we have a relevant help page (perhaps this is a sign we need one). --abates 19:03, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

trying to find a template

I believe the subarticle 2006/toys, and the like, used to have a template pointing back to the year at the top of the article, but I can't seem to find that template. Does anyone know what it should be? Also, should these subarticles have a category? Thanks. --MistaTee 10:23, 15 August 2013 (EDT)

I don't think "2006/toys" is meant to be viewed on its own. It exists for some organizational reason or another. Its content is automatically put on the 2006 page. - Starfield 19:05, 16 August 2013 (EDT)

They can come up when you use the random page function though, like the suite pages do. As for the uplink, that wasn't a template, it was a subpages setting. --abates 18:46, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

"Thin gray line" template for splitting sub-sections visually

Okay, this kinda hit me while working on Glit's page... look at that fiction section. How can you tell where one one continuity ends and another begins at a glance? It's kind of a mess. The size differences between the subheader text is almost negligible. And Glit isn't even the most complex fiction section we got. The more subheadings we add to a section, and the loner those entries get, the worse it gets.
Testing things out, I tried the "----" template, which puts a thin dividing line across the page. It works well as a visual separation, but the line itself is too dark. Can we either change the template so the line is, say, %50 gray (making it subtle but still noticeable and not confusing with the main subheader line breaks), or make a new template that does this function? This would be put between major subheadings; in this case, over the "IDW" and "Classics" headers. This might also be nice for Toy sections. --M Sipher 03:14, 28 August 2013 (EDT)

I suggested that like three or four years ago and got yelled at by everybody. --ItsWalky 04:17, 28 August 2013 (EDT)

I would support it.

I think it'd be a bit of a mess for characters around, say the marvel G1 stuff with its multiple branches... but definately worth it in the end. -Derik 16:17, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

I can dig it. Honestly, I've used solid black lines to divide continuity clusters in a few huge articles myself already. - Chris McFeely 16:35, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

Well, I don't think we'd put the line between the Marvel G1 sub-sections since they're all part of the same "branch". But between Marvel and IDW? Oh yeah. --M Sipher 16:44, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

I raise the idea of solid black lines between Mrvel and IDW and gray lines between branches.

Does McFeely have an example of an article with a solid black line? -Derik 17:11, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

The trouble there is "solid black" already denotes the spit between MAJOR headers, like "Fiction" and "Toys". Gray is a "soft separator"; a visible marking, but not as STOP WE ARE MOVING TO AN ENTIRELY NEW SUBJECT as solid black. --M Sipher 17:24, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, that's an accurate assessment. Re Derik's question, I know it I did it on Matrix of Leadership and Transwarp, I might've done it on some others but I honestly forget at this point. - Chris McFeely 17:52, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

To follow up, I don't think we need a soft-line break between EVERY sub-header. I think that under, say, the Marvel G1 continuity clump, a header is enough to denote "here's where continuity may jump/branch so just a heads-up". The line better notes an out-and-out break where what came before had no ties to what comes after... jsut with the gray, we're still staying in the same ballpark of "Fiction" (or possibly even "Toys"). --M Sipher 18:51, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

We'd use a different visual obviously...

I'm going to dinner but I'll do some mockups later so you call can go "Hell no, I hate that, are you crazy?!" and we'll get a better idea of what we don't want, and can maybe figure out something useful. -Derik 19:28, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

(Unrelated: I think I know what cluster Bot-Shots goes in.) -Derik 19:28, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

Disambiguation suffixes

I would like to propose two modifications of our disambiguation style, both of which merely codify principles that we already seem to follow. First, I propose that franchise of origin disambiguation suffixes be limited specifically to characters, not places or things. Second, I propose that characters from external properties should never be given Transformers franchise disambiguations, but should always use tags appropriate to the external property. The first rule underlies the logic behind the recent move of Tyrest (Autobot) to Tyrest (G1) despite the presence of Tyrest (polity), which also originated in G1. The second is why Roadblock (G1) can be at that location despite the existence of Roadblock (G.I. Joe), whose first TF appearance was during G1. As these examples demonstrate, we are already actually doing this, we just don’t explain it very well. If there are no objections, I intend to clarify Help:Disambiguation with notes about these principles. --Khajidha 09:42, 2 September 2013 (EDT)

We don't strictly follow that first rule - see the various "Great War" pages, for example. --flicky 1991 14:26, 2 September 2013 (EDT)

Plus there's Ark (G1), Ark (Movie), etc. --abates 00:22, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

The one that always gets me is "(TF 2010)". Lugnut (TF 2010) is treated as G1, most of the others (e.g., Override (TF 2010), Terradive (TF 2010), Highbrow (TF 2010)) are treated as movieverse (oh, and the Mini-Cons just say "who knows"). The word is DISambiguation, people - G1 characters and movieverse characters should not share a disambig tag. - SanityOrMadness 23:48, 2 September 2013 (EDT)

The (TF 2010) toys are disambiged by franchise. That toyline contained toys representing characters from more than one continuity. Lugnut was part of that line's Reveal the Shield subline imprint, which is when the line switched from a mostly Movieverse toyline to a mostly G1-based/Classics-style toyline. The end result of the characters you mentioned all sharing the same disambig despite being in separate continuities is due to the unfortunate nature of that franchise spanning more than one continuity. --Sabrblade 00:19, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

I know all that and don't really care, because the end result is a broken disambig model that only works for rules lawyers. [Note that (Timelines) as a disambig is avoided for this very reason.] - SanityOrMadness 01:19, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

I love it when people tell me they don't care how the wiki chooses to disambiguate things. It makes me super want to talk with them further about these issues. --ItsWalky 01:23, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

You never talk with people on the public internet anyway. You talk at them.

As for the subject... disambiguating by franchise may be a great plan (mileages may vary - I think it works only in the simplest cases), but it completely breaks in contact with a multi-continuity franchise. [And is more than a bit wibbly in the case of stuff like toys designed to match pre-existing High Moon WfC/FoC designs being listed only as "repurposes" in those articles because of later material.] - SanityOrMadness 02:30, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Ultimately I don't think TF2010 is big enough of a franchise for it to be bothered breaking into tiny pieces. It's got eight new characters in it. It's not like Timelines, which spans years and years and multiple continuities. It's not a Big Deal enough to make a mess within the existing rules. It's nowhere near a quagmire. --ItsWalky 02:45, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Also also, the reason Timelines is better split up is because due to its nature of also containing Shattered Glass and fifteen different permutations of many popular character names, disambiguating within it is pretty pointless anyway. Starscream (Timelines) would refer to which guy, exactly? The MW clone? The TransTech guy? The Shattered Glass version? Timelines breaks itself within our established rules. TF2010 absolutely does not, no matter how much you individually think having G1 and Movie guys in the same disambig is wrong. --ItsWalky 02:53, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

How is a disambig tag in any way related to how toys are listed on pages? I mean, unless you are legitimately suggesting that instead of disambiguating by franchise, we put all Thundercrackers ever on the same page, I cannot understand the connection here. -LV 02:50, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

It isn't, really, I jumped a track there [posting while insomniac and cranky is never advisable]. It just offends my sense of chronology to see the guy the design originated for listed as a "repurpose" rather than just listing the thing on both pages equally. - SanityOrMadness 03:07, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Which... we DO. List on both pages. See: lots of Shattered Glass character pages. --M Sipher 03:10, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

It's listed, but with a particularly silly note given that WfC Thundercracker is the original design. There's a difference between Shattered Glass using a toy that existed years before SG did as an entirely different character (e.g., SG Ravage from Glit), which is repurposing, and listing the original as a "repurpose". - SanityOrMadness 03:44, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, that happens not infrequently, like with Megabolt Megatron. It doesn't bother me. This wiki reports what actually happens, not what we wish would happen. --ItsWalky 04:11, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Hmm. Seems I overlooked a few things about franchise identifications on non-character articles. It still seems that characters take priority over non-characters (per the Tyrest example I gave), but it isn't quite as strict a rule as I thought. Is there any dispute over the external properties point? --Khajidha 10:41, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

I don't think so. --ItsWalky 13:08, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Added an external properties note to Help:Disambiguation. Feel free to modify it if it seems warranted. Also, do we want to go at least as far as saying that if a character and a non-character from the same franchise need disambiguating that the character can retain the franchise parenthetical while the non-character gets something different? Basically saying that the characters get dibs on franchise tags. --Khajidha 10:50, 7 September 2013 (EDT)

Stub Templates

Okay, so at this point I think I should change my username to "Stubtemplatesix"...so before I go looking through the stub category, are there any other stub templates that people want made? -- spyder ^{Use this!} 16:21, 11 October 2013 (EDT)

From the Marvel Comics portion of the Generation 1 continuity family

So I've been doing a bit of work with the Comic-only characters lately and I've noticed that while we have "from the Hearts of Steel portion of the G1 continuity family" and "from the IDW portion of the G1 continuity family" at the top of various characters' pages, all of the "from the Marvel Comics portion"s seem to have disappeared. Was there a purge of these? Do we not do them any more? Is there a good reason why not? Cheers --Emvee 11:15, 28 October 2013 (EDT)

There are some "from the Marvel portion..."s. I suspect it's more a case of "they were never added" than "they were removed". - SanityOrMadness 13:01, 28 October 2013 (EDT)

Okay, just making sure I'm not stepping on any toes if I start adding them --Emvee 13:47, 28 October 2013 (EDT)

Well, I added a lot of the "IDW portion"s myself, so...

One thing - "portion" should be included in the link ([[Marvel Comics continuity|Marvel portion]] or [[Marvel Comics continuity|Marvel Comics portion]]) to distinguish from links to [[Marvel Comics]]. [I tend to prefer the former, since RG1, Classics and Fleetway are MCC splinters without being published by Marvel Comics.] - SanityOrMadness 16:35, 28 October 2013 (EDT)

The AllSpark and the Allspark

At the end of the Predacons Rising movie, after Optimus tells the others of how he had to put the energy of the AllSpark into the Matrix of Leadership, thus rendering his spark incapable of separating from the multitude of others, Ratchet asks him "Are you telling us... that you are now... one with the AllSpark?!" Smokescreen answers with "That's what you say when someone kicks the..." and all proceeding dialogue and action pertain to that meaning that Optimus is on his way to die and go into the afterlife. BUT, up until now, all instances of the term "AllSpark" have been used to refer to the life-granting thing on the physical plane of reality, while the afterlife has been referred to (by us fans) as the "Allspark" (lowercase S), as a means to differentiate the two (since the afterlife dimension first introduced in Beast Machines and the life-granting cube first seen in the movies were hardly the same thing at the time). Like, a TF who's dead is one who is "one with the Allspark."
But now, with the use of the phrase "[being] one with the AllSpark" in this scene, it seems to strongly suggest that the term related to source of Cybertronian life and the term related to the Cybertronian afterlife are now considered to be one concept containing all of the aspects of Cybertronian life, birth, death, and afterlife. And if such is now the case, does this call for a massive re-merging of the two separate articles with some McFeely-levels of rewriting? --Sabrblade 00:45, 29 October 2013 (EDT)

I'll just say I happen to be working on something already that pertains to this. But that that also seems like an overly specific reading of the dialogue on your part when it could just as easily mean the same thing it's always meant up until now (that the energy-AllSpark of Prime is, like all other AllSparks, merely a means of accessing the afterlife, rather than some physical manifestation of the afterlife in the material plane, and that Prime merely "became one" with it in an overly literal way that is not the norm that happened to poetically mirror the normal meaning of the expression), and that such a vague foundation is not one to justify a merging of the articles on. - Chris McFeely 06:06, 29 October 2013 (EDT)

Well, how many times has the phrase "[being] one with the Allspark" been used to refer to the Uppercase S life-giving concept of the physical plane instead of the lowercase S afterlife concept that it originally referred to? I highly (and sadly) doubt the folks at Hasbro bother to think of the two terms as referring to separate things like we fans do. --Sabrblade 11:25, 29 October 2013 (EDT)

I've never made the distinction as it has always been obvious to me that Hasbro didn't. --Khajidha 12:23, 29 October 2013 (EDT)

It's a vague distinction anyway. It's basically the same as all those times in the G1 cartoon that characters professed to be "joining the Matrix" or "entering the Matrix", or the time Rampage told Silverbolt it was "time to go back to the Matrix" at a time when the writers envisioned the Matrix as a protoform production facility. Characters in-universe talk a fair bit about returning to or becoming one with the object that spawned them; Beast Machines and subsequent work built on what that show did just lets us know there's more to it than that, without invalidating that sentiment either. - Chris McFeely 12:29, 29 October 2013 (EDT)

I had to reread this several times to even understand what your concern was. Suffice it to say that I don't view this dialogue as changing anything we knew about either concept. -LV 13:37, 29 October 2013 (EDT)

In that case, I now ask why we split the two in the first place back when the Cube info was being put on the afterlife dimension's page if the distinction is so vague as to be nonexistent/unnecessary. --Sabrblade 14:07, 29 October 2013 (EDT)

The Allspark is only one name for the afterlife. You could just as easily phrase your question "Why aren't the Matrix of Leadership and the Matrix dimension on the same page?" because that's exactly the same notion. And you wouldn't do that, now would you? Like I said, though, I'm gearing up to do some stuff with the Allspark article, which chiefly includes moving it to "Transformer afterlife" to separate out and better explain these distinctions and problems. I think it's the last major cross-universal meta-concept left after the Matrix, Energon and Transwarp, and the sparseness of the current article annoys me because, given how the Wiki is slowly but surely becoming a major resource consulted by the people creating the fiction, a thorough detailing of it can help mitigate exactly this sort of confusion in the future. - Chris McFeely

But wasn't the term "Allspark" created specifically to refer to the afterlife? To clarify that "the Matrix" was just its nickname and not meant to refer to the Matrix of Leadership? --Sabrblade 20:19, 29 October 2013 (EDT)

Wiki update issues

The recent wiki update seems to have affected the {{--}} template, in that it doesn't seem to work anymore. {{-}} seems to work, though. --Inkblot (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2013 (EST)

I see the problem. Mediawiki doesn't use a name tags for anchors any more. --abates (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2013 (EST)

And it's fixed. Thanks. :-) --Inkblot (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2013 (EST)

Also, I noticed that the galleries aren't bordered anymore. --Inkblot (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2013 (EST)

That actually appears to be an intentional change. If I use the gallery tag on Wikipedia, the gallery doesn't have a border either. --abates (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2013 (EST)

Nav templates have gone a bit wibbly. I kludged a fix for the BM one there, but it would probably be easier converting them all to use a base template at {{Nav}}, and just having the links and logo entered in the individual navs. Similar to how {{Messagebox}} and many of the copyright templates work. - SanityOrMadness (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2013 (EST)

Yes, that seems like a good idea. It'll keep them standard! --abates (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2013 (EST)

Marvel G1 Cover Artists

Hi, can I just ask where we got the info for US cover artists from, as they weren't credited in the issues themselves. I only ask because this wiki says that Mark Texeira did the cover for both US#3 and US#4, but on the Comic Book Database (comicbookdb.com) they list Mike Zeck as the cover artist to #3. So, which site is correct, the TFwiki or comicbookdb? And if the wiki has the wrong cover artist for US#3, is it possible some of the cover credits to other issues might also be in need of correction? Cheers! --Ryan Frost (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2013 (EST)

Even worse, while we credit the cover to Mark Texeira on the image page, the actual issue page credits it to Michael Golden. I think most of the Marvel cover credits really need to be double-checked against a reliable source, but I'm not sure where to find one. The Titan reprints had an intro which often named the cover artists, ISTR, but not always. --abates (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2013 (EST)

Bing

I've noticed that tfwiki doesnt show up in bing searches. Rather you'll get the wikia site even if you type in "tfwiki." Has this been dealt with?

--Lush City 20:47, 29 November 2013 (EST)

I think it's one of the crawlers that got blocked for hammering the site. --abates (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2013 (EST)

It was. I've re-enabled it now that I've got the wherewithal to deal with things using a method other than the banhammer of rage. Give it a few days. --McFly (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2013 (EST)

Optimus Prime (Covenant of Primus)

Given what the COP book has put out, we know that the Thirteenth Prime is Optimus Prime. Which brings up some questions that Hasbro has saw fit to tease us with for a whikle. Now, that said, we still need to compile the information. I suggest, since we dont know HOW exactly that is supposed to work, we treat it like Sideways after the Second Allspark Almanac. We make a new page Optimus Prime (COP) detailing the history outlined in the Covenant , and then place in his and Optimus Prime (WFC)'s note pages that they may or may not be the same person, or reincarnations or whatever.

Thoughts? Lush City (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2013 (EST)

Well, as far as I understand, the Covenant is all stuff that had been planned from the very conception of the Aligned universe. It's not a retcon; Aligned Optimus has been one of the Thirteen all along, so I don't see that it necessitates a new article. Jalaguy (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2013 (EST)

They way it's presented, we dont know if it's LITERALLY the same Optimus, or some kind of G1 Optimus/ Optimus Primal thing or what. The book calls him Thirteen the whole time , and then on the last page or so goes (oh yeah, he's OPTIMUS PRIME) so I dont think we can be certain if he's the same character or if the name is just the same (Like Megatronus and Megatron). Thus the idea of a separate linked page until we get confirmation on how it all sussses out. Lush City (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2013 (EST)

Otherwise I'm just going to edit COP stuff into Optimus Prime (WFC) main page.

What's with the completely different formats?

I noticed it at the beginning of this month, maybe it's been around longer than that. Some pages randomly seem to be in a completely different format than the one I've been used to seeing for years. It looks like it might be a mobile format or something but there's nothing different in the address that would indicate that it's the case. I don't really know the technical side of this wiki or what kind of decisions are officially made, so instead of trying to explain it I'll just use screenshots.

http://i.imgur.com/lF4KWnA.png Dark Cybertron 3 page looks like this

http://i.imgur.com/rXR7cIo.png but clicking to the next issue looks like this

I hope this isn't some kind of new official format that's slowly being rolled out because I find it less user-friendly overall. And if it isn't a new format you've decided on, then what is it, a mistake being caused by the wiki software itself? As far as I can tell from this discussion page, no one else has mentioned it, but I can't be the only one who's seeing it can I? Arborday (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2013 (EST)

@@ Line 508: / Line 508: @@
 Otherwise I'm just going to edit COP stuff into Optimus Prime (WFC) main page.
+==What's with the completely different formats?==
+I noticed it at the beginning of this month, maybe it's been around longer than that.  Some pages randomly seem to be in a completely different format than the one I've been used to seeing for years.  It looks like it might be a mobile format or something but there's nothing different in the address that would indicate that it's the case.  I don't really know the technical side of this wiki or what kind of decisions are officially made, so instead of trying to explain it I'll just use screenshots.
+http://i.imgur.com/lF4KWnA.png  Dark Cybertron 3 page looks like this
+http://i.imgur.com/rXR7cIo.png  but clicking to the next issue looks like this
+I hope this isn't some kind of new official format that's slowly being rolled out because I find it less user-friendly overall.  And if it isn't a new format you've decided on, then what is it, a mistake being caused by the wiki software itself? As far as I can tell from this discussion page, no one else has mentioned it, but I can't be the only one who's seeing it can I? [[User:Arborday|Arborday]] ([[User talk:Arborday|talk]]) 11:52, 24 December 2013 (EST)