MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


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

Specific Discussion Subjects
Moving From Wikia:

New Ad Policy:

Bookworm Database-Crash:

Server Move:

Relicensing:

Dealing With Vandalism:

GoBots Sister Wiki:

Wiki Technical Information:


MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive


Disambig page visual menus

In the interests of making this wiki more friendly for people NOT well-versed in micro-continuity and canon pedantry...
I'm thinking that for the bigger disambig lists for major characters, your Optimusses and Bumblebees and whatnot, under the main text list we have a "gallery" of the various major iterations of those characters in their most publicly-recognizable form, with the images linking to the relevant pages. So it wouldn't have EVERY Optimus Prime, just say G1, RID, Armada, Animated, movie, Prime/RID (perhaps simple collages for characters who change bodies in sequel series). It'd help counter some of this (WFC) and whatnot since kids would, say, know Grimlock from RID 2015 more than some game from however many years ago.
The "not to be confused with"s can go under that. --M Sipher (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

Ooh, yes, that's a good idea. Jalaguy (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
Thirded.--Jimsorenson (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
Hell, I'd go so far as to put the image version on the TOP, considering the size of some of the disambig lists. --M Sipher (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
Gallery goes at the top, nitty-gritty goes at the bottom. --ItsWalky (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
Like how Marvel Database does it? Saix (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
I'd like to think we could come up with something better-looking than that particular bit of Wikia coding, but this seems like a great idea. - Chris McFeely (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

I took a simple whack at it with a Gallery setup. Nothing fancy, but I think it gets the point across. The final version would probably mix Prime and RID15 Optimus into a single image.
Also, Optimus's disambig page needs some major cleanup to become readable. Those sub-sections are an eyesore. --M Sipher (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

Already looking much more user friendly. Great idea, well executed. My one suggestion is that you'd probably be better off using a movie screen capture for the movie version. Something like this: [1]--Jimsorenson (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
Well yeah, I wanted to, but I was just using whatever was immediately on-hand for example purposes, and movie OP's page is bizarrely bereft of actual full-body CG renders that'd make decent main images. --M Sipher (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
I did a little edit as a suggested way of condensing the sub-sections. - Chris McFeely (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

I like this decision, but how do we decide which versions of the character make it to the top? For instance, would Shattered Glass Optimus Prime be considered noteworthy, since he has multiple toys and fictional appearances? Grum (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

Pretty much nothing Club-originated would qualify. I say this as someone who produced a lot of fiction for the Club, but I would not call any of that "major" in relation to the six up there now. If it's not major-mass-market, it shouldn't really go up there. --M Sipher (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
Yeah, I think it's a fairly easy division to make - just do it for the main headliner franchises. G1/BW/BM/RID/UT/Movies/Animated/Prime/RID 2015. For characters of Optimus-level scope, anyway. When it's a disambig page containing only versions of a character from... I dunno, Universe and Timelines, then, sure, whatever. - Chris McFeely (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
Well, once you're down that far in the list of importance, not sure we'd bother with a gallery. Though I'm sure there's SOME name that's used often enough to form a long list, but rarely/never in major media to maybe justify Gallery-ing... --M Sipher (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

So how many incarnations of a character do there need to be before they get a gallery? BT383 (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2015 (EDT)

I've done a fair few of these now and I think we're down to a few borderline cases - guys like Grindor (UT/ROTF), Hightower (RID/ROTF), maybe Leadfoot (G2/DOTM) or Overload (UT/ROTF) and Sideways (who may or may not be the same guy anyway). Otherwise, I'm pretty sure we've covered all the major players. --Emvee (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2015 (EDT)

Movie pages

I've been looking at the pages for the Movie characters that are in the film. and they are really all over the place in organization. Is there anyway we can organize at least the dudes in the film so it read coherently? I feel like McFeely had some sort of sandbox for it. Escargon (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

I think I did at one point. My thought was, if I recall, to essentially ditch the attempt at presenting the pages as a continuous narrative, and make complete , uninterrupted sections out of the Movies, the IDW comics and the Titan comics. - Chris McFeely (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that. The 'chronological order' thing works well enough for Aligned pages where everything does more or less line up in order, but yeah, it's pretty much a lost cause for the film characters. Jalaguy (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
And shit, I think I was suggesting that before Dark of the Moon was even a thing! - Chris McFeely (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Yeah, I found the article in question, and ROTF is still saying the to be added when it comes thing. Escargon (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Here is that page. Wow, this was aaages ago. I don't even know where to start with a new one - I mean I think our movie sections are pretty grossly over-written as it is, like, no way does Optimus's role in the first movie take nine paragraphs to sum up. - Chris McFeely (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Gave it a tweaking to just show the section headers - this might be easier than it seemed. I've removed "Prepare for Battle" cause that should probably go with the Ride itself on the games page, otherwise everything slots together fairly neatly. I really hate, for instance, that we don't currently subdivide the Titan section to separate the alt. timeline or letters page stuff. - Chris McFeely (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Looks good to me. --M Sipher (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Agreed. Even just the contents list alone is a billion times more readable than the live article. Jalaguy (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
This is a really good iudea. And man, seeing convos like this makes me feel better about where we're headed. I mean, this is a shit-ton of work we're heading into (I'm still mulling some of the disambig deals), but I think this is a good direction overall. --M Sipher (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Splitting by species

Yeah, I'm rocking the boat this morning - here's another practise I think we need to stop, in the name of accessibility. I think there was merit early on when it was rare, and I think we'd agree it largely spun out of the absolute need to keep Masterforce versions of characters separate from their American counterparts, but the more times that, say, IDW turns a Nebulan into a Cybertronian, the more the distinction for characters like these becomes pointless. I'm inclinded to think along the same lines as we have to do when we discuss splitting a movieverse character - ROTF Lockdown and AOE Lockdown, for instance, are both iterations of the "factionless trophy-collecting hook-handed bounty hunter" Lockdown "archetype", so it would be dumb to split them. But by that token, say, Nebulan Tracer and IDW Tracer are both rooted in the same "he's Scoop's yellow gun" basis. Peacemaker and Headmasters Peaceman]are both "Pointblank's little gun dude". G1 Brisko and IDW Brisko are both "the guy who has Fangry's face on his back who hangs out with a guy who looks like Fangry". And when you get down to it, sources like the Ladybird Books and the Young Corgi books have been depicting Nebulans as robots since 1987. Let's talk about this. - Chris McFeely (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

I'm having trouble visualising what this involves, so to help organise it I'll add a list underneath of affected pages (please edit and update) --Emvee (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2015 (EDT)
I'll throw in - again - that I think we ought to have a sub-intro template, something that lets us write an intro paragraph for a guy like Fort Max at the top of his IDW or Headmasters cartoon section, calling it out visually that this is an important and somewhat different version of this character. -- Repowers (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2015 (EDT)
I'm for it. --M Sipher (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
I hadn't realised it was being split by species. There's a point to splitting up the main Masterforce characters and Nebulans we saw a lot of (like if IDW do a robot Galen) and honestly Serpentor (Wings Serpentor is pretty distinct from regular Serpentor), but most of them what's the point? Yeah, stop the splits. --Charles RB (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2015 (GMT)

Characters split by species

  • Aimless (G1)/Aimless (Headmasters)
  • Aquastar (Masterforce)/Aquastar (G1)
  • Blowpipe (G1)/Blowpipe (Headmasters)
  • Brisko (G1)/Brisko (IDW)
  • Caliburst (G1)/Caliburst (Headmasters)
  • Holepunch (G1)/Holepunch (IDW)
  • Peacemaker/Peaceman (Headmasters)
  • Pinpointer (G1)/Pointech
  • Spoilsport/Spoil (Headmasters)
  • Tracer (Nebulan)/Tracer (IDW)
  • Zetca (Masterforce)/Zetca (G1)

Characters with multiple species on one page

Again, seconded. Plus this phenomenon will likely continue to worsen in the near future.--Jimsorenson (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

For whatever it's worth, IDW Zetca, Aquastar, Holepunch, Tracer, and Brisko (and maybe Wilder too) have never been human/Nebulan-sized beings, do not transform into weapons or heads, most likely will never transform into weapons or heads, and mostly do their own stuff apart from the IDW version of their -master partner. Isn't being a non-Cybertronian recruited to joining the (heroic or villainous) alien war a significant part of the character background of their archetype? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2015 (EDT)
We're not here to impose order where none exists, simply for order's sake. IDW Brisko is the IDW incarnation of Fangry's head-forming dude from G1, derived from the same toy and bio - that's pretty much beyond dispute. Separating them onto two pages... accomplishes what, exactly? Consistency? Which is good because... why? -- Repowers (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

Sure. --ItsWalky (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

I completely agree with Chris's contention. --M Sipher (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

What about Stratotronic Jet and Stratotronic? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2015 (EDT)
One's a thing, the other's a character. Why are you even posing this question? --M Sipher (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2015 (EDT)

Also on the topic of things that are unnecessarily separate: articles for the Predacons who were in Prime and their original Covenant of Primus counterparts. E.G. Predaking (Prime) and Predaking (COP). --abates (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

Eeeehhhhhn. I'm iffy on that, in that the Prime Preds are supposed to be clones in the same timestream. So like, derived from the originals, but NOT the originals. It strikes me as a different thing that "alternate universe incarnation". --M Sipher (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
Mmhn, yeah. I mean, I get that they're essentially identical, but they do "co-exist" with their own clones. I'm looking more at cases where okay, that dude's normally a nebulon but he's a robot but, but it doesn't matter because he's still this version's take on that same character. - Chris McFeely (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
I think it's clear that clones should get their own pages. e.g. Would we merge Dinobot (BW) and Dinobot II? Or Soundwave (G1), Soundwave (G2), and Soundwave (MW)? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
Just to play devil's advocate, those characters coexist with their clonal progenitor, the Predacons don't. I think abates is meaning that the Predacons could be seen as more reincarnation than duplication. --Khajidha (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2015 (EDT)

Bringing this up again. We doing this, now that we're less distracted by "Ask whoever"? --M Sipher (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

I vote for merging. Riptide (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
On this topic of clones vs. regeneration, if the decision does end up towards merging, might I suggest something along the lines of the entry for "The Patsy" for the Ejector page, and other similar entries? The original for a lot of these characters are basically just footnotes, important only because of their relationship to a more prominent character. Having a section at the bottom of the page for the "Original (Predacon name)" under "Related characters" might be a nice way to have an entry for the originals that distinct, but integrated into the clones' pages. Ascendron (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2015 (EDT)

A different kind of cleanup

In the same vein of "making this more accessible"... a skim of Tumblr posts about the wiki has turned up quite a lot of... well, let's politely call it "risque" humor. And I'm thinking we should probably trim that down. Tentacle-hentai jokes, dick jokes, etc. We've cut back in other areas that could cause hurt/offense, so maybe let's keep moving that way? We don't need to remove humor, but do we really need sex jokes? --M Sipher (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

Yeah, as I go through articles, I try to remove or replace captions with a certain color, but I'm only one dude, and there are 20,000 pages on this thing. --ItsWalky (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Just for reference, is there an upper limit on how risqué things should be? Obviously stuff like racial slurs and homophobia are right out, but what about captions like this? Grum (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
That's borderline, in that it's a joke that is not immediately, bluntly "ha ha penis". But removing it would not be a bad move.
As I think of it, we MIGHT want to have a template or something for... well, bluntly, to put at the top of some of some articles that warn about material that's really not suited for kids. It's be mostly Kiss Players articles that fall under this, granted, but still. It just feels like a bit of due diligence. --M Sipher (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
I do think it's important to not, like, declare sexuality of any kind as terrible and offlimits, but to keep the sketchier references off. Remove stuff that objectifies rather than stuff that's just in the general neighborhood of "this is related to how new biological organisms are made." --ItsWalky (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Oh, sure. I wasn't wanting to scrub the wiki "clean". I mean, Animated had a sex joke in its opening miniseries. But I don't think a warning on top of the KP stuff would be out of order, because... yyyyyyeah. --M Sipher (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2015 (EDT)

GoBots articles

Is there some reason why we're not having full coverage of the GoBots characters' exploits in GoBots fiction? It seems kind of silly to acknowledge their existence in Transformers media and then... not really provide relevant information. It's not really like there's any cohesive GoBots site with all information in one spot, you know? Saix (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2015 (EDT)

There is such a site, and its existence has been cited in the past here as one of multiple valid reasons why adding GoBots to this wiki has never gotten off the ground. http://counter-x.net/gobots/ --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
As good as that site is, it doesn't go into nearly as much detail about its topic as we do about ours. Also, it is maintained by a much more limited set of editors (maybe even just one?). Our larger editor base could bring more eyes and viewpoints to the material. --Khajidha (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
It's been discussed in the past with some trepidation, and the idea of a "sister wiki" for GoBots content was floated, but nobody really seemed into the idea and we haven't talked about it since. At this point, though, with more and more GoBots stuff working its way into TF fiction, along with the complete release of the GoBots cartoon on DVD, perhaps it's time to talk about giving the GoBots show and characters their full and proper due on TFWiki again. - Chris McFeely (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
I don't actually know all that much about the GoBots *coughthatswhyweneedinformativearticlescough*, but I'd be more than willing to help with article maintenance and setup if we ever decide to go ahead with it. Saix (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
As I've said before, when the GoBots wiki was proposed I was told that there were technical issues to be taken care of before it could be opened for editing and that the community would be told when it was ready. The next I heard about it was that it was being shut down as not having attracted interested editors. I am still fully supportive of either option, a sister wiki or integration. --Khajidha (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
A sister wiki seems like an weird excuse to overcomplicate things. Is there really any reason to not have all the information in one spot? Saix (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
At the risk of overcomplicating things further, since we'd be including Go-Bots because the characters were retroactively made into alternate universe Cybertronians/Transformers, would we also provide complete coverage of Robotix since it was retroactively altered the same way? --DrSpengler (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
I'd say no, because we wouldn't be covering GoBots specifically because they were retconned to be alt-universe TFs, we'd be covering them because involvement of their universe and characters has become a recurring thing, and the two franchise have always been paired in some capacity or another. Maybe when Robotix actually does something that matters and isn't just a winky in-joke; otherwise covering them would amount to covering something like Jem or Inhumanoids in full. - Chris McFeely (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Oh god please no to Robotix.--Jimsorenson (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
For the sake of argument: TFWiki don't have complete coverage of G.I. Joe, despite it's many interactions with Transformers. TFWiki has relevant articles, but not complete coverage. Why do so for GoBots? --Crockalley (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Can you REALLY not see a difference between G.I.Joe, Jem, Inhumanoids, etc and GoBots and Robotix? Really? GoBots and Robotix have both been said to be counterparts of the Transformers. Joe, Jem, and the Inhumanoids haven't. Covering GoBots and Robotix fiction IS covering TF fiction, covering Joe, Jem, and Inhumanoids fiction is not. --Khajidha (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
For the love of God, NO. We already feature all the GoBots characters and stories that were published under the TF brand label, just like the relevant Avengers and G.I.Joes. We don't pull in all of the everythings that all of their colleagues ever did in unrelated, non-Transformers stories. It will never belong here. Adding 80 characters and 100 hours of programming? No. As someone said in one of the prior iterations of this, if Vector Prime said that Pandora was a transdimensional embodiment of Cybertron and Eywa was its Vector Sigma portal, we wouldn't fill this wiki with every character and animal from Avatar. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Avatar isn't a property owned by Hasbro nor something that's been constantly involved in the Transformers multiverse, so I'm not seeing the comparison. It also has its own dedicated fanbase and resources, which isn't really something you can say for GoBots; its presence in real life almost wholly overlaps Transformers. (It'd be around 26 hours, to be accurate.) Saix (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
And, ultimately, why does it matter that much if we make one exception for this? It's not going to result in a full-blown biography of Spider-Man from Earth-616 (which exists elsewhere in plenty of places) or full coverage on G.I. Joe (which has its own fanbase that can make a resource if they want to). We're talking about a small subset of articles that you aren't required to work on. Saix (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Why wouldn't it result in a full bio of Spiderman? The distinction between the two offtopic properties is arbitrary and insignificant. If you want to talk about ownership, Hasbro owns Visionaries and we know they canonically exist in the Animated galaxy. Shall we bring in articles on Leoric and Heskidorr and the Pig Imp? If you break down the rule of "TF branded material only," then the only thing keeping all the Inhumanoids out is personal preference and "oh, come on!"-ing. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Logic. Any potential revival of Visionaries is not going to be done under the Transformers brand. Spider-Man does not exist under the Transformers brand, G.I. Joe does not exist under the Transformers brand. GoBots now, for all intents and purposes, does. A full revival being hilariously unlikely, anything Hasbro does with the IP in the future - as well as everything it is currently actually allowing licensees to regularly do with the IP in a capacity beyond "referential nudge-nudge wink wink jokes" - is under the Transformers brand. - Chris McFeely (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
On the contrary - the only published Visionaries story material in 29 years was under the TF brand. It is far more likely that like Inhumanoids, the Visionaries will continue only as a hanger-on of Tramsformers fiction Easter eggs forever. And all of the GoBots material that was published under the TF brand, and is in any way related to real TF characters and stories, is already here. Which is all that belongs here. Hasbro owned Battle Beasts from the start and we currently include all the actual TF branded appearances of Battle Beasts / Beastformers. But we give only the most sparse coverage to the American comic book and American Battle Beast characters because it wasn't a real, branded, linked TF story the way the Japanese material was. We have to stick with standards and not just what people might personally find fun. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
That's why I stipulated a capacity beyond referential in-jokes for fans, which is all the Inhumanoids or Visionaries references amount to. I think where the disagreement lies is in whether or not we think of GoBots as another franchise that is being "referenced" or having "crossovers" with Tranformers - that's what Visionaries is, but my stance is that it is no longer the case with GoBots, but that GoBots is now part of the Transformers franchise and warrants broader treatment than Spider-Man-style articles where we pretend we don't know who Leader-1 is. - Chris McFeely (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Also, slippery slope arguments are silly, unless the people involved are idiots with no judgement capacity, computers, or state legislatures. You're concerned about things that no one is advocating or interested in. Regardless, I think everyone gets that you're against the idea.--Jimsorenson (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
That's not a slippery slope argument. That's pointing out that putting in Go-Bots would be inconsistent with how we treat other non-Transformers franchises. And, frankly, I think Jim Sorenson should probably recuse himself from this discussion since he's the guy trying to use official means to marry TF and Go-Bots with rubber bands, Elmer's glue, and footnotes. It feels a little disingenuous. --ItsWalky (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Fair point. I'll bow out. (Though I'm far from the first or only person to play in this sandbox. In fact, expect more from others in the very near future.)--Jimsorenson (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2015 (EDT)

IF we decided to do this, I think we'd want strict guidelines from the start about what is and is not in scope. Since the toys were mostly licensed from Bandai, a Hasbro competitor, I would say they should NOT be included. Also, ancillary media has been pretty much ignored by TF fiction.

My gut says that The Challenge of the GoBots cartoon (65 episodes, 1 movie) is about the extent of what we'd want to include. No coloring books, no Machine Robo, none of that. It's the easiest bit to do, the most influential, and the bit that Hasbro mostly has claim to.--Jimsorenson (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2015 (EDT)

Hasbro has a claim to the cartoon? Then how come Time Warner sells it, no probs, without any Hasbro logos anywhere? --ItsWalky (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
The text on the back of the original mini-series DVD refers to "Hasbro's GoBots". - Chris McFeely (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
And the newer ones? --ItsWalky (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
They don't mention it, no, but I'm just pointing out that Warner's put it on there. Hasbro don't own the cartoon, we know that. I think we can all at least agree GoBots is a weird case, where Hasbro own the "idea" of the property and the characters and story and such but none of the actual physical assets. It's my contention that those "ideas" are now a part of the Transformers brand, and not guest-stars from another franchise. - Chris McFeely (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
As far as I can discern, they own the name, what other trademarks they've maintained, and that's about it. They don't own the character likenesses and they certainly don't own the toys, and it's confirmed they don't own the cartoon, either. We're not going to catalog a non-Transformers cartoon Hasbro doesn't own on this wiki, no matter what Vector Prime says. If you want to cover the "idea" of what they own, that can be accomplished by adding to the already-existing "Gobots" article. Hasbro owning part of a sliver of an idea of GoBots doesn't mean we need a "Scratch" or "Sparky" article. --ItsWalky (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Agreed. - Chris McFeely (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
I'd still like to see all the other stuff done up, but am willing to leave that for another day if it helps get this moving along. --Khajidha (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Same. Saix (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
This has been asked about 6 times in the recent past, including after the Gobotron incorporation, and it loses every single time. I think it's insppropriate to seriously discuss going ahead with it after about 2 hours of talk. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
I'm not sure what you're defining as the "recent past", but the last time I can find was in 2010. We're obviously going to wait for more input before we start pumping out articles. Saix (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Here's 2011: http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Talk:Cy-Kill_(GoBots)
Here's 2012: http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/GoBots --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
I am with Thy. This has been argued to death a billion times over, and nothing has changed. We're not about to start cataloguing stuff that isn't Transformers media on our Transformers wiki. That's the opposite of what this wiki is about, and no amount of Vector Prime answers will make some Hanna-Barbara series into a Transformers one. Folks who want to catalog Go-Bots should make their own wiki, and if they can't drum up the interest to do so, and have to piggy-back on ours in order to get it done, maybe that should tell ya something. --ItsWalky (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Full agreement with Thy and Walky. And I'd like to point out that I'm one of the bastards who created the lion's share of TF-branded GoBots material. --M Sipher (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
If we can't document that time Cy-Kill dressed up as George Washington, what's the point of cataloging any of it at all? --Monzo (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2015 (EDT)
Well, you just made my day.--Jimsorenson (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (EDT)

I understand that we're trying to move towards a less cluttered version of the Movie series character pages, but I sometimes feel it's a shame that a lot of media goes unlisted on these characters' pages, since they are merely adaptations of the more prominent movies. Especially since some of these media contain slight changes to the storyline, albeit ones too insignificant to warrant their own section on the page. I was thinking of maybe including notes such as these after the story summaries for Transformers (film), Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (film), etc.

(This character)'s involvement in the preceding events, or events mostly similar, were also chronicled in the following media: Transformers: Beginnings/ Bumblebee Rumble/ Transformers: Movie Adaptation/ Optimus Prime Versus Megatron/ The Quest for the AllSpark/ Sam's New Car/ Transformers (interactive Play-a-Sound Storybook)/ Transformers (novel)/ Transformers: The Junior Novel/ Transformers: The Movie Storybook

Of course, the note would vary depending if the character actually DOES appear in the adaptations. Thoughts? Stupid idea or not? --Ascendron (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

I don't think storylinks are meant to be used in notes. It ought to be something like "were also chronicled in the motion comic "Transformers: Beginnings" and the books "Optimus Prime Versus Megatron", "The Quest for the AllSpark"" and so on. --abates (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
That's fine by me. --Ascendron (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

Proposed solution for Sideways debacle, because this isn't going away any time soon, apparently.

I think one of the major problems with Sideways as a chracter, is that we're trying to treat him as any other character, when he kinda isn't. He's the result of multiple authors' conflicting authorial intent. Just like Primus and Unicron get special treatments for their pages (once they've been established as multiversal singularities, everything get worked together on one page), I propose Sideways gets his own special treatment for his page. But Sideways is a unique case, and so should get a unique treatment. I propose Sideways's disambig page to be made into his main page. There, a short bio can take up the top of the page, explaining his multi-dimensional shenanigans. A follow up note clarifying that, since Sideays ISN'T a multiversal singularity, any of the following Sideways could or could not be the same Sideways, be Sideways other Sideways have interacted with, impersonated, killed, been cloned from, etc. Each Sideways article could also have a note that links back to the disambig page, reiterating the situation. Thoutghs? --Ascendron (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

That sounds ideal to me, and a lot more elegant than either merging the pages or what we have at the moment. Riptide (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Sounds interesting. Could you mock up what you think the disambig page would look like? --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Sure, I'll whip something up. --Ascendron (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Now, see, this is the kind of thinking we need more of. Break the rules, fer goshsakes! - Chris McFeely (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Here's my mock-up:

User:Ascendron/sandbox: Sideways (disambig) Didn't take the time to look up some dates, and I'm open to suggestions to polish/rework some of the paragraphs, but this is more or less what I have in mind. What do you guys things? --Ascendron (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

Much better. We need to be doing more stuff like this, rather than trying to shoehorn shit into things that don't fit. --M Sipher (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
I'd say that the pages should be RID, Armada/Cybertron (including Robotmasters), Movie, Animated, and Kre-O. I'd also put the notes about the history of his dimension-hopping-ness on the disambig page, along with a fiction section for stuff like Ask Sideways, which kind of has "a blend of all the Sidewayses" as its selling point. Riptide (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
A stunning display of rationality!--Jimsorenson (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Sounds good to me. --Ascendron (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Looks good, although I wouldn't split the UT Sideways into Armada and Cybertron, mostly since the Hasbro edition of AVP made it clear that Hasbro thought of them as the same character. Escargon (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
I'll let you guys make the finishing touches to this page, as I have to go to work and then Celebrate Canada Day. I think this is as much as I can do for this page anyways, as I said earlier, I'm not overly familiar with the bulk of this character's fiction. I am very happy this is getting a lot of positive feedback though! --Ascendron (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
Like like like like like. -- Repowers (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
I went ahead with the article, as there didn't seem to be any strong oppositions to it. Also, thank you Riptide for your contribution to the page, they were very useful. The whole thing needs some work, with the "individual" Sideways's pages needing work, but I think this is a good start. --Ascendron (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
The pages certainly look neater this way. Just curious - what makes Robotmasters Sideways a special case? Is he explicitly stated to be the Armada guy? -- flicky1991 04:07, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

Cloud characters' toys

Now that all the Transformers Cloud Autobots and Decepticons have been moved to their G1 pages, should all the G1 pages' toy sections note when Cloud characters repurposed FoC designs? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

Yes. Saix (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

Probably an unpopular thought, but...

Considering the unique overlap, should we be keeping Primax and Viron versions of RID characters on separate pages? Saix (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (EDT)

No. --ItsWalky (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2015 (EDT)
That discussion seems to be about renaming (RID) to (CR) or whatever. I'm asking why Sky-Byte (RID) and Sky-Byte (G2) are separate pages when the former already occupies both continuity families at once. I just think it's a case where trying to adhere to the purity of continuities/universal clusters is resulting in a half-assed and contradictory presentation. And all over a franchise that has only a cartoon and one comic story as fiction. Saix (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2015 (EDT)
I'm trying to think if this affects any other characters besides Sky-Byte, because honestly, if he was the only one, I'd probably be inclined to go for it. - Chris McFeely (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2015 (EDT)
Side Burn (G1), Slapper (G1), Dark Scream (G1), and Wrecker Hook. Wrecker Hook should probably be merged anyway, since all of the CR-to-G1 stuff is kept on Sky-Byte's and Fortress Maximus's pages. Saix (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2015 (EDT)
But Robots in Disguise is a separate continuity family to Generation 1 in the English speaking world, and we've always approached things from a Western mindset where applicable. I don't see why Car Robots being part of Generation 1 should mean we should merge RID characters with their G1 counterparts. --abates (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2015 (EDT)
But the characters still exist in both families regardless, especially as Japan makes more fiction for those characters and we're left with a needlessly patchwork situation where some G1 stuff goes on this page while other G1 stuff goes on other page, both with notes out of the wazoo. I just think merging the pages and expanding the identifier at the top would result in a better presentation. Those G1 guys are functionally "RID guys, but in Wings/IDW", anyway... Saix (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
Functionally identical characters existing in two different continuity families is one of those weird corner cases like Sideways and should be approached as such. This is a perfect case for making rule exceptions. Having massive write-ups duplicated except for the names is silly and a waste of everyone's time, so I would suggest using the Notes section to clear up any oddities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giggidy (talk • contribs).
I fail to see how this merge would be productive. What about Megatron (RID)/Gigatron? It'll be a fine mess trying to merge those two pages. --Ascendron (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
Mmn, see, now that I'm seeing it goes beyond Sky-Byte, I'm not in favour of it. Sky-Byte's got that messy bit with the Legends comic on his RID page, where we have "the Sky-Byte who was in the RID cartoon" getting blasted into the Legends Universe, except he's ALSO "the Sky-Byte who originated in the G1 continuity family", so that is a bit messy and a merge or a move or something would help that. But in the case of other characters, no, I don't think it helps anything at all, and in the particular cases of Side Burn and Gigatron, it seems like an especially bad move. - Chris McFeely (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
With the recent influx of storylines involving Axiom Nexus and the multiverse, having notes indicating a character is from a specific universe traveling to another is kinda par for the course anyways. I don't see it as that big of a deal. --Ascendron (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
That's not what's happening at all. Car Robots Gelshark has JG1 stuff beyond the cartoon and so does other characters from that specific continuity (Wrecker Hook, Black Convoy, and Brave Maximus). He's not travelling to a different continuity family. Saix (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
I posted a half-formed thought there. I meant more, if we're really inclined to make the distinction on which Sky-Byte is involved in, say the Transformers Legends pack-in comic, we can put "The Sky-Byte from Primax 43213whatever Delta came to the Legends world. My argument boils down mainly that the concept of Car Robots being part of G1 continuity as far as english-speaking audiences are concerned is little more than a footnote. But I nonetheless see the validity of your argument. It's not a bad point. But this whole merging thing would wound up more complicated an affair than just plopping everything together on one page. Some experimenting with some sandbox pages might be necessary. Ascendron (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
Well, the idea of RID being its own continuity family/universal cluster is a footnote to begin with, no? People reading Empire of Stone don't think "this Gigatron guy is a Primax individual who is in-fiction completely distinct from the Viron Megatron who appeared in the RID cartoon". They just think it's RID Megatron in IDW continuity. It's a categorization system that exists for our personal convenience; I keep wondering if we'd be having this discussion if AAII hadn't made Viron a thing and canonized a distinction the wiki made because of reasons. Saix (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
A big part of this discussion stems from the fact that Hasbro says one thing (I do remember reading somewhere that they said Robots in Disguise is its own thing before AAII) and Takara saying something else. And here we are trying to maintain that they are both right, even though they are saying things that are incompatible. That being said, RID does hold a unique position as being the first true "reboot" of the Transformers franchise (everything before had been a sequel to G1). Being a separate thing is part of its identity as a franchise in that manner. I kinda see the characters as they are now like rectangles and squares. A square is a kind of rectangle, but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square. The character on Sky-Byte (RID) is both a Viron and (in japan) a Primax character, but Sky-Byte (G2) is a Primax character that's not a Viron character. But I'll admit that this might stem from a personal bias. Maybe a new kind of tag for these pages might be the answer? Or a new format for the page? Ascendron (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

I think there's a bigger debate to be had here. Continuity Families made an awful lot of sense a while back in terms of segmenting characters. In fact, I was strongly on the side of the 'disambiguate-by-continuity-family' debate. But I'm starting to think that this system isn't working so well anymore. Many of the friction points come when we've got two ostensibly the same guy in the same continuity family who are nothing alike. Admittedly, that's been a part of the franchise since almost day one, but it seems to be getting worse. On the other side, we're starting to get cases where you have the same guy in two different continuity families (Knockout is a very recent example) who gets two separate articles for no good reasons. This didn't used to happen, it used to be that if we had a new continuity family, then almost everyone in it was more or less brand new, sharing only perhaps an archetype. But now, guys like Gigatron show up and it's recognizably Gigatron. Or Sky-Byte. Or Breakdown. Or Rattrap (who is NOT considered a new character because Beast Wars happened before we decided on continuity families and got sorta grandfathered into G1.) Or Bulkhead. The list grows and will almost certainly continue to grow.

I'm not making any specific proposals here, but I think we should at least consider just going case-by-case and ignoring continuity families WHEN IT MAKES SENSE TO DO SO. (I'm not suggesting in any way, shape, or form that we scrap our existing organizational scheme, because goodness knows we need something and what we have works in maybe 90% of the cases.) We've already, for instance, separated out Marvel Shockwave from Sunbow Shockwave from IDW Shockwave, because they're three very different interpretations. We should at least be willing to consider allowing Knockout (G1) & Knockout (Prime) to live on the same page, because they're the same guy with the same design and the same personality. --Jimsorenson (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

The Shockwaves were separated out not because of differing characterizations, but in order to reduce the size of some gigantic pages for multiple "legacy" characters. It had nothing whatsoever to do with characterization. Unless you think having a separate page for a character's toys means all THOSE are somehow some "very different interpretations" of the character we consider separate from the others. --M Sipher (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
Which works out to be exactly the same thing. We break where there's a logical break point when it makes sense to do so. Or have you not noticed that, say, Grimlock's Marvel page also includes things like Regeneration One and Classics, or his cartoon page includes the Japanese G1 continuity and Wings. It's clearly not JUST space, because many of those little sub-sections are tiny. Offshoot and splinter timeline versions of those characters are kept together. Which is entirely sensible.--Jimsorenson (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
I'm not going as far as to say that the Knock Outs should be merged. I'm only arguing for the RID characters because of the overlap that already exists. Saix (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

At the very least, we could take this opportunity to sort out whether this kind thing should be modeled after Fortress/Brave Maximus's page (keeping both the English Viron and Japanese Primax versions on the same page) or after Wrecker Hook's page (separating the Japanese Primax version onto it own page from the English Viron version), as those two instances are very much polar opposite solutions for the same type of character (as each and as Sky-Byte). Currently, Sky-Byte (RID) is like Fort/Brave Max's page, but if it's to be changed to be more like Wrecker Hook's (i.e. - creating a separate "Gelshark" page), then would the same happen to Fort/Brave Maximus? Or if we keep Sky-Byte's page as is, would that stand to reason that, by the same logic, Wrecker Hook's page should be merged back in with Tow-Line's? --Sabrblade (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

I think Wrecker Hook is the one case where it should definitively be merged. Saix (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
I second that motion. Reconsidering my position on this. Considering maybe making some sandbox mock-ups for proposals. Ascendron (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

A new proposal, this time to help along with this whole "Iocus" nonsense

I'm currently at work, so I won't be able to post up a mock-up until tomorrow afternoon, probably, but I've thought up another proposal, as the back-and-forth over "Iocus" characters, such as the hero mashers and Bot Shots is, apparently, still the source of debate. I'm not big on simply recycling the idea I had for Sideways, but maybe it'll satisfy now just as it did then. So for "Iocus" incarnation of characters, I propose that we create a new section on their disambiguation pages. It would have a short write-up along the lines of:

"The following representations of Ironhide are not necessarily meant to represent any one specific incarnation of the character, but should be taken as a representation of the "Ironhide" archetype as a broader concept. In fiction and meta-fictional settings where a strict categorization of Ironhide's incarnations is necessary, these representations of Ironhide are said to be part of the Iocus cluster. Ironhide's Kre-O incarnation is also said to be part of the Iocus cluster, but those are relegated to their own page (listed above) due to being more fleshed out in nature."

There would then be a sub-section for game appearances (since Bot-Shots had a game accompanying the toys) and a list of the toys/merchandise that are appropriate to the section. I would still recommend we keep a link on certain pages that redirect to this list on, for this example, Ironhide's G1 and Movie toy pages. It would just be a short blurb telling readers to go see the list on the Disambig page.

Thoughts on this? I'll start working on the mock-up tomorrow, or I'll start working on thinking up an alternative proposal if I get mostly negative feedback on this one. Hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us soon, and concentrate our energies once more on recording fiction and whatnot. Ascendron (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

Kre-O is Fornax, not Iocus. In any case, I don't agree with this; filling up the disambiguation pages with content beyond, well, disambiguations seems like a bad idea, and I don't think it'd have any benefit that wouldn't also result from keeping the Iocus pages. Riptide (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
Yeah, disambiguation pages are for disambiguation, not for sticking toys and fiction on. --abates (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
Duly noted. I'm retracting my proposal then. Ascendron (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
New plan:
Step 1) bring back the dedicated pages for the Iocus cluster <airquote> "characters" </airquote>. Possibly harmonizing all of their disambig tags (to Iocus or Merchandising or Sideline or...), with generous helpings of redirects.
Step 2) put link out sections on the pages of any character that a particular Bot Shot (Hero Masher, Construct Bot, etc) was designed after. These would be in the toy sections, have a picture and a "for information on the Bot Shot toy designed to look like this character click here" notice." There would be no description of the toy or its history of redecos on these more mainstream character pages to prevent data drift. --Khajidha (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
Whatever solution we come up with, I just don't want this wiki to ignore something that's... well, official, I guess. I understand that lots of people dislike the idea of "Iocus" as a universal cluster, but since it's established as an official concept by "Ask Vector Prime," there's no turning a blind eye to it. We can't just decide to ignore something official because of our personal tastes. There's lots of other things Ask Vector Prime established that have proved... divisive. We haven't ignored them, so why start now? Ascendron (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
That's my big thing, too. --Khajidha (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2015
I'd be okay with that. It'd help with the issue of ambiguous continuity characters without duplicating information, too. Riptide (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
I don't think that we're ignoring Iocus because we don't like it. I think were trying to treat it as it was designed, which seems at least partially to reduce wiki clutter. Also maybe to deal with all the questions about "what's the home universe of Optimash" and the like. It really doesn't seem to be it's own place, much like Axiom Nexus isn't. It'd mostly a place where other universe versions of guys go to be strange. Hero Mashers or Bot Shots or Battle Masters. We don't make a page for Needlenose [TransTech] just because he's in Axiom Nexus fiction. Maybe it's fine not to do it go G1 Starscream who just happens to be a Hero Masher. But, following that line of reasoning, maybe it is OK to have a few pages for guys who are so amalgamated that they have no clear universe. Battle Masters certainly seems to have its own esthetic. --Giggidy (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
Yeah, this return to moving stuff to existing characters was prompting by Attacktix being declared Iocus, which are all very unambiguously based on specific existing characters. I think the description of "Iocus is populated by gimmicky versions of characters from other families" is quite apt, and I'd say that putting stuff on existing character articles is the best way to deal with it. I mean, we've already been doing that with Q-Transformers, which is very much "these movie and G1 and so on guys all just coexist here and that's normal" rather than being any sort of multi-dimensional crossover deal. In the cases where the inspiration is clear-cut, then it's far more helpful for the uninformed user to be able to find these ancillary toys on the appropriate page (rather than them being hidden off on a page full of all sorts of random stuff), and where they're more of an amalgam, then I agree with Sipher that simply duplicating listings is the best course of action. Probably the one thing where I might argue an exception could be made is Battle Masters, since the majority of them (barring Optimus, Bumblebee, Grimlock, etc.) bear nearly no resemblance to previous versions of the chaaracters. Jalaguy (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
Also, Sorenson himself came out against moving all the Attacktix guys to the Iocus pages. (Mr. Sorenson, if you're reading this, apologies, I know you're not a fan of Authorial Intent.) So he isn't acting as if he feels his work is being disrespected. --Giggidy (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
How does putting them on the inspiration character's page help more than putting them on their own page? If I knew very little about Transformers but had a Bot Shot of Ironhide why would I ever look on the Ironhide (G1) page for information about it? Yes, we as fans are aware of these homages but to an outsider the most logical place to look for information on Bot Shots Ironhide would probably be somewhere like "Ironhide (Bot Shots)". --Khajidha (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
Oh, I was talking about the reverse - if somebody is, say, looking for toys of G1 Rodimus, it would be helpful for Hero Mashers Rodimus, which is inarguably a toy of G1 Rodimus, to be on the G1 Rodimus article, rather than squirreled away on a different article. I get what you're saying, but with the same logic, could one not argue that, say, RID15 Bumblebee ought to go on a separate article to Prime Bumblebee to make it easier for people to learn about his RID15 toys? Jalaguy (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
1)That's why I advocated leaving the link out sections. 2)This is where the "generous helpings of redirects" come in. I have always thought that we needed more redirects for when a character in one franchise is released in another. That is, Hot Shot (Armada), Hot Shot (Energon) and Hot Shot (Cybertron) should all exist and link to the same page. 3)So "why not just redirect to 'Blankity-blank (G1)', then?" Because the one real piece of information we have about them says that they are not G1, but Iocus. And that "inarguably" is quite arguable because of that simple fact.--Khajidha (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
Locus is meant to put all that Bot Shots, Construct-Bots things to the same contiunity named "Iocus". Like Primax being G1. For example all versions of G1 Optimus Prime is placed on a single page, so why not do the same to the Iocus characters? Like placing all Iocus versions of Optimus Prime to a single page. Prime Bumblebee is based on the appearance of Movie Bumblebee but he's not the same character and thereof, not shares the same page. Bot Shot Acid Storm is based on his G1 appearance but he's a different character too. It's the same.--Primestar3 (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2015 (EDT)

Browsing the site, I've noticed that the various Star Wars-related pages have a nifty little template that takes the clicker over to Wookieepedia. Would it be a bad idea if I made similar redirect boxes for properties that have been involved with major and/or repeated crossovers with Transformers? (I'm thinking Marvel, Angry Birds, maaaaaybe Animorphs.) Or is this something that we don't do anymore? Grum (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2015 (EDT)

I'd be down for this. I've always really like the Wookiepedia template, expanding the idea to other wikis, within reason, seems like a good idea. Ascendron (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
Part of the reason we did this was because Derik wrangled an informal partnership between the sites (Wookieepedia has a link to us on their main page). Not sure if we should worry about doing so with the other sites as well before adding custom templates for them (I see Marvel Wiki already has some links to us too). --abates (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
Should Wikipedia itself be also included if this template project is to go through? Ascendron (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
I wouldn't be opposed to it, but there'd be a ton of pages to add it to. --abates (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
We'll take it one Wiki at a time. If someone else can make the templates, I'll help out updating the appropriate pages, I don't mind the workload. It just might take a while, is all. Ascendron (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
The important thing to remember, I think, is whether the other wikis are worth linking to. We link to Wookieepedia because it's an exhaustive resource, but there's a reason we don't link to the G.I. Joe wiki. - Chris McFeely (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2015 (EDT)

I threw together a quick mockup of a Marvel redirect template. I'm not entirely sure of the red; I just did that so that it could be quickly distinguished from the Wookieepedia template. I might do Angry Birds too, because that one probably isn't going away for a while. Grum (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2015 (EDT)

Email marked as spam

Hello, this is my first time editing so forgive me if I do it wrong, but I just wanted to let the admins know that the confirmation Email was marked as spam, at least for me. Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I didn't want to go digging through the entire archive looking for the topic. Wheelpath (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2015 (EDT)

That's up to your email client, not us. Saix (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
Huh, well okay then, thanks. Wheelpath (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
Many email clients will have a button or link so you can mark emails as not spam, and also in many if you add the email address into your address book it'll override your spam filter. --abates (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2015 (EDT)
Yeah, I fixed the issue by selecting the name and choosing to 'report as not spam'. Thanks for the tips, I hope other newbies can avoid this problem. Wheelpath (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2015 (EDT)

Upvoting or whatever else it's called

Sorry to bother again, but next to edits I've been seeing +# or -# and I was wondering how to do that? I decided to check Wikipedia to see if it was borrowed from there, but I couldn't find anything about it. Granted, I didn't really know what to look for. Wheelpath (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

That's the number of bytes added to or removed from an article. Saix (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2015 (EDT)
Oh, Well I guess this was unnecessary then. Wheelpath (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2015 (EDT)


Reorganising Regeneration One

User Saix has proposed that some of the Regeneration One sections should get moved out of "Marvel Comics continuity": specifically, characters, teams and concepts that only appeared in the UK comics and Generation 2, as they aren't from the US run that RG1 is sequel to and their stories aren't linked. What do people think? Charles RB (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2015 (GMT)

Seems needlessly complicated. It'd be a lot of work for dubious benefit. --Giggidy (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2015 (EDT)
It only applies to about a dozen pages that don't have the Marvel US -> RG1 link and it's not a whole lot of work. Saix (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2015 (EDT)
It is still an extra complication though: the stories continuing Marvel continuity are now not counted as part of a Marvel continuity but separated into their own thing? Charles RB (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2015 (GMT)
Couldn't that just be solved with a "Regeneration One is a continuation of Marvel US but not anything else" note template, rather than making the super-false declaration that they are no longer in Marvel continuity? --ItsWalky (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
How is omitting "Marvel Comics continuity"—meant to indicate a continuous narrative for a character—a false declaration while collecting unrelated characterizations under the same header isn't? Lots of articles have just one section, like "Armada cartoon"; is it a false declaration that we don't use an extraneous "Cartoon continuity" header? Saix (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
And we've already got one of those. Charles RB (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2015 (GMT)
I will point out here that Saix's proposal is similar to how the Wiki treats the G1 cartoon at the moment. If a character appeared in the first 95 episodes, there's a overall G1 Cartoon continuity header, followed by subheaders for The Transformers cartoon and Japanese cartoon continuity. If the character only debuted after the split, like Chromedome, then American continuity and Japanese continuity are two separate but equal headers, not grouped together as part of the overall G1 cartoon. For characters like Blacker, his appearances in Victory and Wings are completely disconnected, with no indication that both are splinter continuities of the main cartoon branch.
I disagree with Saix and the cartoon format. I think all G1 cartoon streams should be clustered together and identified as such, and all Marvel streams should be as well. But perhaps more importantly, the Wiki should follow a consistent theme -- all one or all the other, yes? --Xaaron (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
I've said it here before and I've no doubt I'll say it here again: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." -Ralph Waldo Emerson. Not that there's no place for consistency, but making a bad choice in one arena because we've made a similar choice in another is still a bad choice. Most of our users care far more about being able to quickly and accurately find the information they're looking for than if what's being done on one page matches up with what's being done on another.
As for the specifics, obviously, keep the RG1 stuff as close to the Marvel US / UK / G2 / Classics stuff as possible. I don't think this needs to be generalized to the much more complicated and varied G1 cartoon tree. I'm not sure if it should or shouldn't be, but I am sure that the cartoon situation is a lot more complicated and needs a lot more thought.
Oh, and PS, for the record, the tangentially-relevant Ask Vector Prime that's going to hit in a few hours was written and scheduled weeks ago--Jimsorenson (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
Why is it the job of character pages to detail continuity relations that are irrelevant to the subject? Saix (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
Because they're not irrelevant. RG1 and Wings are not full continuities onto themselves -- the underlying framework of the stories comes from the main cartoon or Marvel universe. No character article exists in a vacuum. Even if RG1 Springer himself has no previous history in the US Marvel timeline, >90% of the other characters and concepts he's interacting with do. Putting it under the Marvel Comics header gives readers the overall context necessary to interpret everything in Springer's history other than him. --Xaaron (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
We have pedantic templates that spell out the continuity now. And, again, we don't do this for every piecemeal continuity section that's in isolation on a page. Beast Machines cartoon sections aren't automatically under "Beast Wars cartoon continuity", Energon cartoon sections aren't automatically under "Unicron Trilogy cartoon continuity", etc. What makes Regeneration One so goshdarned special if it happens to be on the same page as other MG1 branches? Your logic doesn't follow. Saix (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
The Beast Machines and Energon cartoon sections are usually under "Cartoon continuity" (with Beast Wars/Armada respectively).Charles RB (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2015 (GMT)
"In isolation". Jetstorm (BM), one of many examples, doesn't have a "Cartoon continuity" header because it's pointless clutter. Why do only the Marvel offshoots require the "overall context" that justifies the header? Saix (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
Jetstorm doesn't exist in Beast Wars! Arguing that characters who are only in RG1 and no other Marvel-based continuity is a different argument to saying it about Jhiaxus, the Wreckers, or the Mayhem Attack Squad. Charles RB (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2015 (GMT)
Saix, let me turn this around on you. You're strongly advocating for a reorg against mostly uniform opposition or indifference. So what advantage do you see to a new schema? --Giggidy (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
I thought I made that clear already. G2 Jhiaxus and RG1 Jhiaxus have nothing to do with each other and do not belong together. There's no continuity or narrative between the two brances, regardless of the fact that they come from the same tree, and putting them under the same header pushes a false impression. Saix (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
G2 Jhiaxus is the leader of a faction of Cybertronians operating out of a series of interconnected mechaformed planets called the Hub in a series written by Simon Furman to continue the story told in the US G1 series, while RG1 Jhiaxus is the leader of a faction of Cybertronians operating out of a series of interconnected mechaformed planets called the Hub in a series written by Simon Furman to continue the story told in the US G1 series. I can see why you'd be arguing that they're dissimilar, I mean it's not as if they look identical too. --Emvee (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
So they're in the same continuity? Or is this strawman supposed to have another point? Saix (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
They branch out from identical starting points, though. Moving one piece of fiction out of the Marvel section while keeping others in seems like it will needlessly obfuscate things. Grum (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
That's not what anybody is arguing. This is a discussion over having sections under "Marvel Comics continuity", even when none of those sections on a page have anything to do with each other. If an article only has some combination of G2, Classics, or RG1 without Marvel US G1, then I'm arguing they shouldn't be mushed together as if there were some narrative thread. Saix (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
And in the case of Jhiaxus, don't some of his RG1 details qualify as offscreen G1 events that therefore apply to G2 Jhiaxus's background? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
No. The RG1 backstory only applies to RG1 and makes no sense with G2. Saix (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
I think we all understand your argument. We just aren't persuaded by it. And you haven't really ever answered my point about the advantage of upending the existing system. The closest you've come is that you feel that the two interpretations of Jhiaxus have nothing to do with each other and you'd like to separate them with other stories. I don't find that a compelling argument. All else being equal, inertia alone would suggest we not make this change. And all else isn't equal, we've heard plenty of arguments about keeping them together. Unless there's something of substance to be added that's been missed, I think we can all reasonably consider this proposal tabled. --Giggidy (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
What was it I said about being imperious, again? But keep on insisting I haven't elucidated my position and making appeals to tradition, I guess. Saix (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
Actually, I'm saying just the opposite. You have made your point, and as far as I can tell Charles, Walky, Sorenson, Grum, Emvee, S.H.I.E.L.D. Xaaron, and myself seem unconvinced. But keep on regurgitating the same arguments. It's a wonderfully productive use of everyone's time. --Giggidy (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
You are free to leave the discussion if it bothers you so. Or you can actually address my points instead of constantly saying I didn't make any. Saix (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2015 (EDT)
Nobody else is into this. Quit cluttering up the recent changes page. --ItsWalky (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2015 (EDT)

Fire in the Dark characters

Now that "Fire in the Dark" continuity has been classified as a Primax-influenced Aurex universe, what shall we do about the Maximal and Predacon characters from the story? Keep the details on the G1 characters' pages or make new Armada pages for them? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

As always, I think it's really silly to make pages for "X (UT) is just like X (BW) except he's from the Unicron Trilogy." Inferno makes a little sense because he has a toy and fought in the Universe War. But most of these guys, I'd say no. But I'm almost always in the minority on that.--Giggidy (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2015 (EDT)
I agree with Giggidy here. We'll probably never ever revisit this universe again and it seems pointless to make tiny article stubs for every BW character that appeared in the story... especially when it seems like the only reason for any of this is because the author didn't do a lot of research on continuity. Grum (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2015 (EDT)
Strictly speaking, we should make pages for each one because it's a new continuity but, y'know...
Unless AVP adds more info then it's not really a priority. Charles RB (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2015 (GMT)
Maybe just add a note in the "Transformers Legends" section of the characters' fiction write-up? I think they're worth their own pages, since between AVP, the toy bios and "Fire in the Dark," this is a fairly elaborate micro-continuity. I think maybe leaving the header in the original (BW) character pages with a link to the (Armada BW) pages would be nice though. Ascendron (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2015 (EDT)
This may be more complicated than at first glance. Character page disambiguation isn't done by continuity family (i.e. universal cluster), but by franchise of origin. If these were brand new characters in this continuity family, wouldn't (Legends) be their closest franchise of origin? Not to mention the Armada franchise already has Rhinox and Cheetor as modern era Autobots. Would FitD versions of those two go on their existing (Armada) franchise character pages?
I say this is a unique situation that requires a unique, rule-bending response: leave them on the existing Rhinox (BW), Cheetor (BW) pages. Add a Note saying "This version of the Beast Wars occurred in an Aurex cluster instead of the typical Primax cluster." --Xaaron (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2015 (EDT)
Agreed. Rather than create 18 dead-end three sentence pages, let's add a special disclaimer to the FITD page and to the sections of each BW / AR characters' pages. Other approaches are much too much work for no reward and losses of clarity. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2015 (EDT)
An amazing outpouring of common sense! (Don't get used to it, Jim, you'll only disappoint yourself.) --Jimsorenson (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

Then how should we do the pages for the mentioned Mini-Cons who have previously appeared in Primax fiction? List the "Fire in the Dark" appearances on the same page? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

I think we should keep it on their main (Armada) pages, yeah. The whole "Primax influence Aurex universe" seems more-or-less code for "It's an Aurex Universe with some Primax Universe bits shoved into it." The Primax bits, obviously being the Beast Wars characters. A lot of these questions recently seem to be hinting that sometimes, the differences between some universe is a bit of a blurred line. And the Iocus universe are where there are too many blurred lines to figure anything out so they're shoved into their own "miscellaneous" category or something. That's what I'm getting out of it, anyway. Really, we shouldn't forget that in-universe, the classification system isn't some absolute truth handed down from Primus himself. It's a classification system made up by a bunch of guys. Highly advanced guys, but still. And they seem to occasionally have trouble finding a perfect slot for some stuff, just like we do. Ascendron (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2015 (EDT)
Looks like we were the TransTechs all along. --Riptide (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

Who's that Pokemon character?

I'm going through posting pics up for Cybertron's Most Wanted, but need you guys' help to identify some of these guys! This is the first character I can't identify. (He is listed as the question mark in the number 7 slot of the featured characters section.) He's not Starscream (TransTech) as I initially thought. Starscream appears later in the issue, and is definitely visually distinct. This is the second character I can't identify. (The green one, not Windblade, listed as the question mark at #23 in the featured characters section). Although there is a slight possibility that he's supposed to be a generic, I highly doubt it since every single other character on the page is a specific guy or gal. Ascendron (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

Maybe the first guy is just Starscream misdrawn? This post and picture from the Rook blog indicates so. [2] S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2015 (EDT)
Ah, well, if that post says so. That's also a much nicer version of the image I just uploaded... Ascendron (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (EDT)
By the way, what about that dog-looking thing on the streets on page 1? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2015 (EDT)
That's just a turbofox, I believe. Not an actual "character" per se. Ascendron (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2015 (EDT)
Actually, Jesse's said on the Allspark that it's meant to be the wolf Mini-Con from Classics. Escargon (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2015 (EDT)
Shows what I know. Ascendron (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2015 (EDT)
Here's another guy I can't identify. He's mostly obscured by text boxes, which makes it even harder. However, he's in the same panel as the other unidentified green guy, as well as the two Windblades. He may or may not be a double to the other green offworlder, considering who else is in the panel. In any case, we're looking at the back of an orange head, big green shoulder kibble, with some yellow details on the arm from the looks of it. Ascendron (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2015 (EDT)
Here's another bunch. I Think the red guy's Ironhide? But the vents on the side of his head are throwing me off. The two bug guys at the bottom, I have no idea. Ascendron (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2015 (EDT)
And another. I'm assuming some of these guys are homages to non-Transformers franchises. Ascendron (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2015 (EDT)
Hmm. The guy on the bottom left of the one with Hellbat looks like a Kamen Rider that Matt drew in Spotlight: Trailcutter. Escargon (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2015 (EDT)
Oh, yeah! The colour scheme between this one and "V3" are pretty different though. Is it patterned after another character of that franchise? That way I can give it a "nickname".Ascendron (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2015 (EDT)
Don't know much about it, sadly. Escargon (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2015 (EDT)
That "unknown inmate" is totally based on Kamen Rider Amazon. -Ookalf (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2015 (EDT)

AllSpark Almanac

So I noticed this guy in the second AllSpark Almanac. I was not gonna bother with it, but then decided of anyone might recognize it as an actual character, and not just some generic critter. Mainly because, this is the AllSpark Almanac, and it has homages and Easter Eggs out the wazoo. If no one can think of anything though, I'll just assume it's a generic that's not noteworthy. --Ascendron (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Catillia, according to Forster's deviantart. Also a snake on that page is named something like 1412 or something like that. Escargon (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
Thanks, I looked it up, and he says he "stuck in" his real life snake (named 1812). I don't particularly feel that's worth including. If anyone feels otherwise, I can be persuaded to upload the picture and make the page, however. --Ascendron (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Apocrypha and Vector Prime

There have been a few parallel discussions about apocryphal works. Alignment, Doomsday Redux!, Bumblebee at Tyger Pax. User Grum went ahead and removed the Apocrypha template from Bumblebee at Tyger Pax, prompting a short discussion. I put forth the question on Doomsday Redux!, and by extension on the other unreleased Energon comics that scripts are available for, and got little response. Alignment had quite a robust debate when the AllSpark Almanac came out, but not much since then. All three have been declared to have happened by Vector Prime, and in their primary universes as opposed to in some splinter timeline. Is there value to keeping the Apocrypha template, versus just having a note detailing the unusual circumstance of the publication? It seems like something that should get a greater discussion than it's getting. --Giggidy (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

They're. Still. Fucking. Apocrypha. --M Sipher (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
Since Doomsday Redux was approved by Hasbro and declared to be canon even though it was unreleased, I think that one maybe merits a little more discussion. The others, not so much; even if they're canon from an in-universe perspective, they still aren't Hasbro-approved. --Riptide (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
A story that was officially commissioned and scheduled, then yanked because of licensee bankruptcy, should be listed as no different than a canceled toy. An explanatory note afterwards can be enough. But something that was never licensed cannot be licensed after-the-fact just through assertions and "oh, come on!"-ism. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
I tend to agree. I'd suggest that Vector Prime's statements be added to the notes section, and perhaps the stories be slotted into the appropriate position in the navigation track. --Giggidy (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Galvatron II style linking

So I've noticed that there's been some disagreements on how to organize articles such as, say, Spychanger Prime or Balancing Act Prime. Perhaps we could implant a Galvatron II style system; link both in the main article, along with a suite. Also it could be used for the Thirteen and their Uniend selves, for the time being, I suppose. Escargon (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2015 (EDT)

What if we did something like this for Screech since he is 1 version of G1 Skids? Or Razorclaw since he's 1 version of Tigerhawk? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2015 (EDT)
Quite honestly, I don't think I would have a problem with that. Escargon (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (EDT)
Seems promising. Maybe sandbox one? --Giggidy (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2015 (EDT)
Unfortunately, I couldn't make a sandbox to save a life. Escargon (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2015 (EDT)
There are a couple of other characters that might also benefit from this - BW Megatron and Noble, Overlord and Gigatron maybe... I think it's probably worth looking into. --Emvee (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2015 (EDT)

Notes and images

I seem to remember that there was some clever way of adding notes so that they don't break onto a new line when up against a left-aligned image, but for the life of me I can't find it by searching. Can anyone hit me up with the codez? --Emvee (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2015 (EDT)

I have noticed that where it is so, a Timelines story's primary previous or next story arrow points to the BotCon comic if it has the closest release date. However, the primary previous and next story arrows on BotCon comics' pages always point to other BotCon comics because they actually have a "Volume" order to go with. It seems inappropriate to me a story point to another which is not also linked to it. So what do we do, for instance, with "Burning Bridges", the first non-Facebook Timelines story to come out after BotCon 2015's "Cybertron's Most Wanted" and "The Return of Blurr"? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

I think the idea of putting all of the disparate Timlines stories in chronological order for the template is stupid. What exactly is gained there? Saix (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2015 (EDT)
It was probably workable at some point, but it's long since lost any functionality, I think. We keep winding up with stories that have like three or four "previous" or "next" links. - Chris McFeely (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2015 (EDT)
Right. It's excess that only exists to do stuff like link "Collections" to "Head Games" because... why? How does that really help readers? It really should just be limited to the specific media (script readings, etc.) and continuity (Wings Universe, etc.), not a grab-bag of random stories that just happen to be under the Timelines banner. Saix (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2015 (EDT)
Would anyone object if I went and removed all previous and next release order story links, leaving in only previous and next continuity story links? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2015 (EDT)

Harmonic resonance

So throughout Ask Vector Prime, the theme of "trans-dimensional harmonic resonance"/"quantum harmonic resonance" has come up as an in-universe explanation for most commonly used characters (i.e. the franchise tropes of Optimus Prime, Megatron, Grimlock, etc.), design re-use across continuity families (i.e. pre-Transformer toys which got recycled as Transformers toys), mistaken use of story elements which seemingly don't belong (i.e. Armada Beast Wars in "Fire in the Dark"), other things (i.e. RiD Unicron as a seemingly mundane Transformer who (not) coincidentally became a universe-destroying planet), etc. Do we want to make a page(s) about this and how should we handle it? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2015 (EDT)

Same way anything else is handled? Create an article and document the things VP said about it? --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://tfwiki.duckdns.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal&oldid=1013649"