MediaWiki talk:Community Portal: Difference between revisions

I don't know if everyone saw this, but we made Us Vs Th3m's favourite wiki definition of "human". It's nice to get a bit of recognition :) --Emvee (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Argh, I just realised they linked to the wrong wiki :( --Emvee (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Well technically it's our article.--Carrion (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Transformers: Human Alliance

I noticed the wiki has no article on the recent(ish) arcade shooter, "Transformers: Human Alliance". It's based on the live-action films. I played through the game while I was on vacation a few weeks back. Besides a few strange occurrences(There are a LOT of Ravage and Scorponok, as they're both common enemies in some levels, though a "King Scorponok" appears as a boss. Brawl is misnamed, this time as "Decepticon Brawler"...), it was alright. I was wondering if there should be an article for it? RazorSlash (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2014 (EDT)

Absolutely! --abates (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2014 (EDT)

Alright. Went ahead and created a page for it. First page I've created on this wiki, so feel free to correct any errors I may have made. RazorSlash (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2014 (EDT)

Toys vs. Merchandise

Okay, where the hell is the line meant to fall for these? Some stuff, like Heroes of Cybertron or Kabaya toys, I would definitely put under "Toys" is under "Merchandise". Merchandise is surely stuff like knitting patterns, M&Ms, tents, etc.

By the standards of what often goes under "merchandise", this should be merch, not toy... - SanityOrMadness (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2014 (EDT)

We had a discussion some time ago (Talk:Toy#What specifically is a "Transformers toy"?) but did not come up with any hard guidelines. My personal categorization would put Heroes of Cybertron, Kabaya kits and Dino Sparkers all into merchandise. --Khajidha (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2014 (EDT)

Yeah, this has always been nebulously defined. IMO, 'merchandise' should be reserved for stuff that's not actually a representation of the character (i.e. their face on a lunchbox or something) or where 'playing with it' is clearly not the intended purpose (i.e. a statue). It seems absurd to me that, say, the SDCC Shockwave HISS Tank is listed as 'merchandise' when it's clearly a thing that is a toy, and intended to represent Shockwave in-fiction. Jalaguy (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2014 (EDT)

I'm with Jalaguy on this. There could possibly be a sub-division of "toy" into transforming and non-transforming, or something like that, but the division as it is is (a) inconsistent and (b) insomuch as it is consistent, frequently irrational (HISS Shockwave being a good example of the latter) - SanityOrMadness (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2014 (EDT)

Maintenance

I'm going to take the server down briefly for maintenance in about half an hour. --abates (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2014 (EDT)

Maintenance is done. Please feel free to go about your business. --abates (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2014 (EDT)

Wikia links still in history pages

Here's a blast from the past: http://tfwiki.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Lord_Imperious_Delirious&diff=126966&oldid=126965

I know this had been discussed in the past, and people had mentioned some sort of program that was automatically stripping them out. But if there's one left, there are probably more. Anything quick & simple that can be done to scan and purge? --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2014 (EDT)

I thought I had a solution, but the import thingy is being annoyingly uncooperative. --abates (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2014 (EDT)

Third Party Unlicensed

This will probably never be allowed, right? I mean, some of them have pretty accurate depictions of in-fiction characters and machines, shouldn't they at least have a little info about their products on this wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Optimus Prime (Convoy) (talk • contribs).

The existence of unlicensed third party stuff is acknowledged on articles like Knockoff and Customizing, and that's all there needs to be. This is a wiki about official Transformers products and fiction, and unofficial toys are no more within our purview than, say, people's fan-art. Jalaguy (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2014 (EDT)

I know this topic was brought near two months ago but can't we at least make a separate page for 3rd party items? It's an entire subject in and of itelf. The page could be similar in structure to the Knockoff page in not listing everything but at least defining the term, talking about how the market for it expanded or a brief general history, talking about the impact on the fandom, legal analysis, toss in some notable companies or examples, maybe make a small section of their significance today or something, misconceptions including differences from a knockoff. It at least deserves it's own separate page, especially since it's not the same as a knock off and again, there's enough info about it to give it a catchall page.--BlackStarscream (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2014 (EST)

"Order of appearance" and another suggestion

Is there any reason why we do this? It doesn't really seem to convey any important information and is just tedious work for editors, especially on pages with many character appearances. Furthermore, I think Wookieepedia's "appearances" format is a lot better for our uses, since it includes mentioned characters and other stuff like locations and technology. As is, we don't really have a way to collect all of the concepts that appear in a piece of fiction and provide red links for pages that need to be created. Mimi (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2014 (EST)

For stuff like comics, order of appearance helps you identify characters. As in, if I'm wondering who a certain guy is, I can use the numbers to count along and find out. Jalaguy (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2014 (EST)

I know I've found it useful when writing up characters' articles, and have been able to use the appearance order to quickly find them within the episode or comic. - Chris McFeely (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2014 (EST)

I vote for keeping order of appearances. I do like the idea of mentioned characters, locations and technology being neatly listed as well though... --Ascendron (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2014 (EST)

Agree with Ascendron. --Khajidha (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2014 (EST)

I guess I'm alone in disliking the appearance numbers, but what about including lists of other stuff? We'd have to make up new templates and stuff for that, though. Maybe copy Wookieepedia's?. Mimi (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2014 (EST)

I can see the appeal of lists of locations and technology, but I'm somewhat leery of actually doing it. I'm not familiar with Wookieepedia, but over at Memory Beta (Star Trek novels, comics and other non-canon sources) a sample list of "other references" includes "balloon ... bench ... fiesta". Are such things what you are talking about listing? --Khajidha (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2014 (EST)

No. Things we actually make articles for. Null ray, Gorlam Prime, Afterspark, etc. Mimi (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2014 (EST)

Well, we would have to establish some guidelines before we implement this. I don't think listing "Null ray" every time Starscream shows up would be necessary. --Ascendron (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2014 (EST)

"Fusion cannon" might be a better example of how it would be a problem, since Starscream doesn't use the null ray on every appearance, but the fusion cannon is Megatron's primary weapon. --abates (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2014 (EST)

I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem? It counts as an appearance for the fusion cannon and it doesn't take up a whole lot of space on the article. We can implement show/hide options for the whole list if we have to. Isn't the point to note whenever X appears and give readers a convenient link if they want to learn more about X? Mimi (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2014 (EST)

Wouldn't there already be convenient links in the summary? How is this list more useful than what we already have and less silly than the sort of thing I mentioned from Memory Beta?--Khajidha (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2014 (EST)

Special:LonelyPages

And that's just the pages that have no links. Lots more have only one or two when they should have many more. Stuff habitually, systematically goes underlinked or downright unlinked at present. - SanityOrMadness (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2014 (EST)

The vast majority of those links are, like, production crew members. I don't think this problem is solved by the proposed changes. --ItsWalky (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2014 (EST)

@Walky: I know most of the zero-links are, but there's no easy way to get a list of "pages linked very few times", unfortunately, only the downright orphans, so I went with what I had. The fact that there's *any* examples of stuff that would be helped going forward there should be indicative of pages being underlinked in summaries.

(I've personally gone through and linked to pages that were on that list, or whose Special:Whatlinkshere revealed only one or two links, but I won't claim to have done much more than scratch the surface on that matter) - SanityOrMadness (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2014 (EST)

Underlinking

Just in light of the above, here's a few pages that are linked only from the images on the pages themselves and are thus de facto orphans even if they don't show up on Special:Lonelypages (notwithstanding the links below themselves!):

As of last night, there were a total of 731 pages that only had one link to them (including ones like the list above) and 511 that only had two links. (I could post the whole of both lists, but I didn't want to swamp the page) - SanityOrMadness (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2014 (EST)

By the way, how did you find pages that are only linked to in one place in the end? --abates (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Not simply. It basically involved comparing the entirety of Special:Mostlinked (shows two links or more when you drill down far enough) to the entirety of Special:AllPages, then taking the stuff from the resulting list and further knocking out the contents of Special:Lonelypages, Category:Disambiguation pages and the first few hundred of Special:Shortpages. Even with AWB, it took a while.

Tell you what, I'll post the lists (technically incomplete, since I purged some unlikely stuff to get the numbers down a bit) on Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Underlinked in a moment. - SanityOrMadness (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Cheers! I'm surprised there's not an extension to add a special page to construct that list. I mean, it'd just be Most Linked Pages backwards, but it seems like it would be sensible. --abates (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2015 (EST)

I agree. (And more than "just" - if MostLinked is set to cached (as Wikimedia and Wikia do), then only the first thousand results come up, so building that list would have been impossible.) - SanityOrMadness (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2015 (EST)

The Almanacs

(Thread started in response to someone asking him if had any regrets on past works, leading to Derrick bringing up "Getting the Almanacs in line"

http://ask.fm/DerrickJWyatt/answer/120967236212

http://ask.fm/DerrickJWyatt/answer/120968889460

I just wanted to note there that conservation with Derrick J Wyatt about the Allpsark Almanacs gives some pertinent insight into their construction.

Now from what I can parse, they’re set in a kind of bizarre “Reverse Alignment” scenario, where despite being published officially, Authorial Intent states that they no not match up with what the actual production team made. Now, I’m not the tfwiki pro some folks here are (I still think IDW being g1 is a load of crud but bygone and bygones…) so I don’t know how best to handle this. A note I suppose? Lush City (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2014 (EST)

There's nothing much to handle. I suppose a note and a link to those answers could be put in somewhere, but it's not really anything special for Transformers to have additions to a franchise/continuity not made by it's original creators not line up with their unrealized intentions. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2014 (EST)

I get what you mean, but in this case what gave me pause was that this is less "unrealized" and more "unseen" as opposed to say, the creator's personal vision, in this case it's a gap in oversight. The way he speaks, there is an actual TFA timeline they used in the series and otherwise information, that the Almanac isnt accurate to, in that case, what we have is material that exists as was used as the background of the canon show, but was pre-empted by a canon release that was made in error. Basically, what I'm saying is, by circumstance and accident, a timeline was published in an official release that does not match the one used for the actual canon product. Thus me saying "unseen" rather than "unrealized" given the show itself is the realization of those intentions.Lush City (talk)

"Made in error"? What was the error? If there are contradictions between the Almanacs and the actual show, comics, or other canon materials, those would be errors. If there are contradictions between the Almanacs and things in a production bible or something like it, or concepts and timeline ideas the showrunners had that they never actually put in the show or anywhere else, or just stuff people who worked on the show don't like, those are not errors at all. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2014 (EST)

I added a note about Wyatt's criticisms to the bottom of the first Almanac article. But until these other production materials that were used by the show's creators or some other conflicting timeline or storyline elements are released (which may never happen), then there's no reason to overhaul the existing article. A note about creator dissatisfaction seems all that's really necessary at this juncture. --DrSpengler (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2014 (EST)

Besides, like Kil said, this is so common in Transformers stories. Furman's planned timeline for IDW G1 is probably nothing like it at this point, for example. Escargon (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2014 (EST)

Good point. --DrSpengler (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2014 (EST)

The sooner folks disabuse themselves of the idea that Derrick Wyatt's headcanon is the be-all end-all of Animated, the better. Animated isn't some special snowflake to be entirely defined by one or two guys, it's the same as any other TF franchise, free to be interpreted and added to by other creators. - Chris McFeely (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2014 (EST)

True, but the way he spoke (both about possible re editions and the "us") made it seem more like the crew just didnt vet them as well as they could. That and the whole "Mass rewriting of the bios" would lead me to believe a note is in order. Obvious a rehaul is impossible unless we get acesss to the materials, and even then probably wouldn't bear more than a note until the possible pie in the sky Alamanac re issues.

Also, a bit tense on the text aint you Mr. McFeely? Not trying to come at you bro. Lush City (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2014 (EST)

.....did you listen to a single thing he just said? Just because the "us" (I'm presuming the other one in this is Isenberg) didn't agree with some of the bios doesn't mean everything in the book is invalidated. Escargon (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2014 (EST)

If I am being tense on the text, I, likewise, am now trying to come at you. I've just seen this attitude around and it bugs me. - Chris McFeely (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2014 (EST)

What was published was published. That is what the wiki places importance on. We are not unwriting bios to remove canonical information. --ItsWalky (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2014 (EST)

Dude (Lush City), I already added a note, but only commenting on the dissatisfaction of 1 creator which is all this situation really amounts to. The Almanacs were approved by Hasbro. They're canon. They count. They're legit. Whether Wyatt likes them or not. A small note about incongruity with creator intent is about all that's called for (and it's been added). --DrSpengler (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2014 (EST)

Didn't I just say what the four of you did? I don't know why you felt it necessary to get aggressive when I agreed with you that the note was probably all that would be placed until a published contradiction. In any case the note last I saw it was a bit jury rigged, I'll tighten it up a bit. Lush City (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2014 (EST)

Help archiving an old game

Hello. This game Transformers Energon: Battle for Megatron was apparently lost to time. This link where it was hosted is defunct, but now, I found it here [1], on the same site, by digging through the source code of the Google Cache version of the page. I downloaded the file but if I open the local version, the game doesn't start. The file 94.dcr is a Shockwave file made with Adobe/Macromedia Director. This is actually not a Flash game, but a Shockwave game. How can we properly archive this game? Alexvoda (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2014 (EST)

I tried the lmpd.com link, and the game worked for me once I installed the Shockwave plugin. The dcr file wouldn't run off my hard drive, but when I stuck it on a web server it worked fine, so I guess it just doesn't like running locally. --abates (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2014 (EST)

TFWiki.net... pages

Shouldn't all these be in the Transformers Wiki: namespace, rather than the article namespace? - SanityOrMadness (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2014 (EST)

Still purging talk page redirects?

Just in case, I'll leave this here ;) - SanityOrMadness (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2014 (EST)

[Huge list snipped]

And then they were all deleted! --abates (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2014 (EST)

Fight! Superlifeform whatevers...uh I think I have a holy grail or whatever?

I have a special edition of the transformers movie and it comes with a Japanese exclusive bonus episode called Scramble City. There is this clip before the episode that has More than meets the eye Part 1, 2 and 3 together. Is this one of the lost clip shows? --Wavage (talk) 7:38 AM, 13 December 2014

Sorry, no, those are part of Scramble City: Mobilization according to the trivia on that page. --abates (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2014 (EST)

Transformers Asia Page

Should Transformers Asia maybe have it's own page? It's been a venue of a number of releases and it's certainly tied to the brand. Also it would help clear up misconceptions about whether something released through Transformers Asia (or Hasbro Asia as it's popularly called) counts as a Hasbro or Takara release (for instance the upcoming MP11SW which I've seen argued as a Hasbro release and not a TakaraTomy due to being released through HasbroAsia even though there's a TakaraTomy label on it). It'd also be a place to list the various special releases done through them just like we do with some of our store pages such as Toys R Us or Target--BlackStarscream (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2014 (EST)

When I google Transformers Asia, I get what seems to be a fan website. Any article should probably stick to Hasbro Asia to avoid confusion. --abates (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2014 (EST)

I'm fairly certain www.transformersasia.com is the actual site for it; could be wrong but that's the closest thing I can find in googling either name (most news posts end up refering to that site as well) Not sure if Hasbro Asia was ever the official name to begin though--BlackStarscream (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2014 (EST)

Well, their about page says "TransformersAsia.com started with a group of "DIE HARD" Transformers fans, Our mission is to share information related to Transformers such as Asia Exclusive, Promotion, Event which happen here in Asia." which seems to suggest it's a fan site disseminating information rather than an official site through which exclusives are released. --abates (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2014 (EST)

charstubfictions -> Bibliography?

First, major applause for Ascendron for getting all the micro-continuities labeled on all the individual character pages. While working through them, though, I feel like there has to be a better way to reflect some of these. Trying to come up with in-fiction explanations for what characters did in some of these stories is excruciating. There were 62 characters depicted in The Beast Within, but for 52+ of them, all that can be written is "There once was a battle and X was present for it." There are 34 characters for the storybook Battle for Earth, and most can be described as "There was one panel in this book where they appeared." A short write-up for one episode of Sunbow or one issue of Marvel/IDW fades into the crowd, but now we'll have one bold header after another with one line descriptions of all these sticker books, coloring books, etc. Even once its all filled in, I don't think it will look good -- describing the roles most characters had in these books isn't informing or benefiting the visitors.

Instead of the current format, how about compressing some of these micro-continuities into a single Fiction Bibliography, or miscellaneous section, at the bottom of the Fiction section. It could be headed with something like, "(Prowl) also had a minor role in the following stories: *list". --Xaaron (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2015 (EST)

I'd be down for something like this. A subsection for "Fiction" labelled "Minor Appearances" or "Cameos" would be interesting. I just request that the link to the corresponding articles are preserved.

On another note, although I did try to do a pretty thorough job on every character's pages to make sure they were as complete as possible in this regard, I didn't bother to go through western comic book series (IDW, Dreamwave, Marvel comics, etc...) or any television shows, American or Japanese. There's also a few fiction pages that were too incomplete for me to know which characters appeared in them. Not asking anyone to do these for me or anything, just a heads up. --Ascendron (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2015 (EST)

RID Chinese

So I recently found out (slowpoke me) that RID(2015) had several episodes reelased in a Mandarain dub. are there any fan projects, or links within the Chineese TF Community, to where we could get enough informatuion to make pages for them all?

That many episodes means that we basically have a wealth of information to go on, just packaged in a bit of an odd nut to crack

Lush City (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2015 (EST)

I think it's safer to wait for the English screenings. Translations could easily turn out to be wrong and context lost. --abates (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2015 (EST)

20,000 Articles!

Hurrah, right? Big round number? --Emvee (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2015 (EST)

Newbie

Hi, Pzzone here, and I'm new to this site. I was wondering if there's like a guide for editing on the wiki or wiki rules or something, in fact I'm not even sure this is the right place to post questions.

Help:Contents has links to our policy pages and help documents. --abates (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2015 (EST)

Thanks

Question

Is this the right place to put questions, if not where. Also how do I insert captions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pzzone (talk • contribs).

That depends on what type of question (this page is for discussing the wiki as a whole). Also please note that new sections on talk pages should go at the bottom (if you click on the "+" tab next to the "edit" tab it will do that automatically, and you should sign talk page posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of your comment (the second button from the right on the toolbar immediately over the edit window will insert that for you). --abates (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2015 (EST)

/* Question */

Like this? Could you answer my previous question? Also how do I link a page without directly writing it's name. Eg. Linking God to Primus (I'm not actually going to)

Oh never mind void this, I saw your message. Thx and sorry for pestering you.

Revision as of 06:19, 12 February 2015 edit Pzzone (talk \| contribs) 27 edits →/* Question: */ new section ← Older edit		Revision as of 06:25, 12 February 2015 edit undo Pzzone (talk \| contribs) 27 edits →/* Question: */ Newer edit →
Line 218:		Line 218:

	Like this? Could you answer my previous question? Also how do I link a page without directly writing it's name. Eg. Linking God to Primus (I'm not actually going to)		Like this? Could you answer my previous question? Also how do I link a page without directly writing it's name. Eg. Linking God to Primus (I'm not actually going to)

			Oh never mind void this, I saw your message. Thx and sorry for pestering you.

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:25, 12 February 2015

Contents

Minor internet fame