MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive61

From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
[[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive61|0|-0}}Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".|«]] Community Portal / Archive61   e [[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive61|0|-0}}Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".|»]]

from~mid August, 2015
to~January 8, 2016

notes:

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. [1] 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)
I've added a suite to the (hopefully non-controversial) example of Silverbolt and Jetstorm. What do we think? Does it work? --Emvee (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2015 (EDT)
I like it. It's simple and elegant. --Giggidy (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2015 (EDT)
I find it pointless and cluttering. We don't slap "Galvatron" into Megatron's suite, despite better character continuity than Silverbolt and Jetstorm. Saix (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2015 (EST)
Oh yeah, I forgot that time Galvatron got turned back into Megatron at the end of the series --Emvee (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2015 (EST)
I guess you did? Saix (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2015 (EST)
Granted, but you're both stretching the definition of series and opening up a bit of a can of worms regarding where we draw the line at different "versions" of the same "character" anyway. G1 Galvatron and Megatron were treated separately mainly because the sheer volume of material for both meant it made sense for us to do it that way but all the times G1 Bumblebee became Goldbug (and sometimes went back again) are all covered on one page, as are UT Cyclonus/Snow Cat, Tidal Wave/Mirage, G1 Overlord/Gigatron, Hot Rod/Rodimus Prime and all the UT Megatrons and Galvatrons. Yet BW/BM Waspinator/Thrust, Rhinox/Tankor, Silverbolt/Jetstorm and Megatron/Noble are separate pages. That's a whole other debate and I don't particularly want to dredge up any of those cases as they've all been done to death a million times before (except for maybe Overlord/Gigatron, I feel there's a clear split that could be made there and linked this way) but I do think this as a good way of dealing with what we do have. It doesn't take up a lot of room and it would only apply to a handful of cases at best anyway. --Emvee (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2015 (EST)
In the case of the Vehicon generals, that's because they're different characters that happen to use the same sparks as pre-established characters. The others are functionally "same guy, but with a new name". I thought that was clear. (Megatron as Noble is detailed on his page, so I dunno why you brought him up.) Saix (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2015 (EST)
Looks fine and dandy to me. --Charles RB (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2015 (GMT)

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)

Online Transformers Games help request

So, I've recently been frustrated with the fact that many online games have been taken down, making it really hard to create articles for them. I've been doing well creating articles for them up to now, either finding copies of the games on other websites or cobbling together articles by watching play-throughs on Youtube. However, I've hit upon my first real snag with "Transformers Prime: Beast Hunters Game." I can't find any footage of it whatsoever anywhere, and the game doesn't seem to load on the Hasbro or Hub website. I never played the game, so I can't create anything from memory either. Anyone has anything to help me out with this? --Ascendron (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2015 (EDT)

GoBots 2015

Discussion moved to Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/GoBots#GoBots_2015

Repurposing vs Multi-family toys

Over on the discussion about Clampdown, M Sipher raised an excellent point about how silly it is to not have the Clampdown Kreon on the Clampdown Robots in Disguise page. This dovetailed nicely with my own musings on the subject. Right now, technically, the way the wiki is organized if we wanted to have that toy on two pages we'd have to arbitrarily declare one Clampdown to be a repurposing of the other, which I find to be ridiculous. I had a discussion on one of the talk pages about removing the repurposing label from toys that were simply imported from one continuity family to another, only to be shot down.

As a compromise position, I've worked up a related idea: "multi-family toys". That is to say, a toy that seems to exist more-or-less unchanged across multiple families. This seems like a distinct idea from a straight-up repurpose. To me, at least, there seems to be a fundamental difference from someone like Armada Dirge, which is a brand-new character based on a toy with a different name and bio, to someone like IDW's Lockdown. Furthermore, Ask Vector Prime has formalized the idea that Hasbro's been running with, namely that a character can comfortably exist across multiple continuity families and that this is no big deal.

This is my go at introducing the idea: User:Giggidy/Sandbox/Multi-Family Toys. Any feedback would be appreciated. --Giggidy (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

I agree with Kre-O but ROTF Lockdown figure didn't meant to be G1 Lockdown when it was produced. He meant to be Movie version of Lockdown. so G1 version is indeed a repurpose.--Primestar3 (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2015 (EDT)
I like the idea of separating the concept of "Foo was repurposed as Foo" from that of "Foo was repurposed as Bar". I still think it would be better to have the Kre-O and various Iocus-cluster toys on their own pages while leaving only a heading and a link out from the pages of characters they are visually based upon.--Khajidha (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2015 (EDT)
I don't feel strongly one way or the other about Kre-O. I'm solidly on-board with the way the merchandise is currently handled and disagree with making Iocus-cluster pages for all the merch. I can see how it's an intellectually coherent position to want to do so... but I don't like it. If we do decide to keep merchandise on its own page as its own character as well as on the local pages, then I'd consider it a Multi-Family Toy. --Giggidy (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

Multiversal singularities

Now that AVP on Facebook has publicly acknowledged the splintering of singularities (albeit via a now semi-unaware TransTech Vector Prime), should we merge all the Thirteen's mainstream multiverse and Aligned pages together? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Having waited to see how it all shook out, yes, I still stand by the original suggestion I made a couple of months ago, which is to merge the individual incarnations of the Thirteen's pages into singular ones (except for Alpha Trion and Aligned Optimus Prime), treating them more as concepts that will probably require "conceptual history" sections. - Chris McFeely (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2015 (EST)
What about the SG versions of Unicron and Primus? We typically give new pages to SG versions of characters, as per countless previous discussions on separating out the SG versions of other characters from their positive polarity counterparts. Except, since it's Primus and Unicron we're talking about here, them being them and their SG versions being SG versions of them makes this a little fuzzy. --Sabrblade (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2015 (EST)
I completely disagree with Chris's proposal and would rather treat them like every other character, but my opinion doesn't mean much, so. Saix (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2015 (EST)
I'm kind of torn on this. On one hand, splitting by continuity family will lead to pointless micro-articles like "Vector Prime (TransTech)", and don't even know how one would begin to deal with Fun Pub Nexus Prime. On the other, Aligned Megatronus really has very little to do with Dreamwave Fallen and ROTF Fallen and having them all on one page would seem antithetical to the goal of accessibility. Jalaguy (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2015 (EST)
I, too, am torn. I like keeping the Aligned stuff separate. Maybe just go case-by-case? Like, the Movie Fallen could probably be split from the Dreamwave guy, but I'm not sure Vector Prime (TransTech) is a thing that needs to exist. Do any other members of the Thirteen have a substantial amount of fiction to them?--Giggidy (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2015 (EST)
Maybe use suites? And like, point out that they were all at one point considered to be incarnations of The Same Dude. I wouldn't be opposed to merging most of the Aligned Thirteen, though. --Riptide (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2015 (EST)
Using suites does sound like a good idea, particularly for the SG versions of Primus and Unicron. It keeps them together with the main versions allowing them to be separated onto their own pages. I like it. --Sabrblade (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2015 (EST)
Me too. Seems like a good compromise for the cases where we do decide to split. I still think we should avoid articles that are too short. --Giggidy (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2015 (EST)
Also if we utilize a suite, then we can keep main version(s) of guys like Primus or Unicron at their own namespace. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2015 (EST)
Suite's suit. We should do that. --Charles RB (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2015 (EST)

Summary of the multiversal singularities:

My feelings if we're going the "we don't want small pages" route. Saix (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2015 (EST)

You know, another thought just crossed my mind. Why didn't we think of using a suite for the many versions of Sideways too, instead of turning his disambig page into his main page? --Sabrblade (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2015 (EST)
Because then we'd have to put the explanation of his whole deal on all the pages. I think that putting a suite on his pages isn't a bad idea, but I do like the set-up we have now. --Riptide (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2015 (EST)
Agree on splitting out Movie from the rest of the Fallen's page; SG and Aligned Unicron's are different enough, and with enough fiction in the latter's case, to get a-splitting. --Charles RB (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2015 (EST)
Movie Fallen should definitely split.--Primestar3 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2015 (EST)
I don't really think that UT Primus is that different from G1 Primus, or at least from the G1 Primuses of fiction that was contemporary of the time (Dreamwave, late 3H, early Fun Pub, etc.). Granted, back then was when the singularity concept was in full swing so UT Primus was viewed as the same dude as G1 Primus anyway, but I don't see anything in particular that would distinct UT Primus from 2002-2006 G1 Primus that much to separate him out. After all, the heavily Marvel G1-influenced Primus/Unicron/Thirteen backstory of that era of was attributed to both the G1 and UT versions of Primus via things like 2004's The Ultimate Book (G1 Primus), the Armada Fleer trading cards (UT Primus), and even Takara's "World of the Transformers" website that told the backstory with imagery of Armada Unicron, Cybertron Primus, and Cybertron Vector Prime (and War Within's G1 The Fallen) among the Thirteen. --Sabrblade (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2015 (EST)

Formatting of Year pages

So I noticed the pages for 2007 and 2012 are formatted VERY differently from any other Years' pages, being built out of subpages. As a result, the parent page ends up taking on any categories its subpages are tagged with even if they're not really applicable to the larger page (Toys, Media, Games, etc.), plus it creates an inconsistency with the rest of the Year articles. (Plus I'm not so sure this subdivision really makes the editing or upkeep process any easier). Should we move all the information to a single page like the other Year articles, or perhaps change the rest to match these two? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2015 (EST)

At one point we had all the year pages with separate subpages at one point, and then they got merged and then some of the pages got separated again. I'm not sure that there's any benefit to having subpages for each section. It just means the smaller pages come up pointlessly when you do a search or sometimes when you hit the random page link. --abates (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2015 (EST)
Understood. I've gone in and moved all the 2007 and 2012 content (and 2006, which I guess I missed the first time) back to their main pages, and tagged the subpages with speedy deletion. If someone could take care of those, it'd be much appreciated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2015 (EST)

Why is Glyph not credited in the Character Roster list for the G1 episode 'Five Faces of Darkness part 4'?

She is an official retcon, no different than a bunch of other Botcon retcon characters (eg. Ion Storm), or 'Acid Storm' who was retconned by another official means.

Was her exclusion from the Character Roster done on purpose, or simply forgotten and needs updating?

Update: I've made a change to include Glyph on the 'Five Faces of Darkness part 4' Character Roster...but I do not have the information as to when she appeared, in relation to all the other characters. All the characters have a number beside them to indicate the numerical order they appeared in. So, does anyone know Glyph's number? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zackmak (talk • contribs).

1) Please sign your posts.
2) Please don't make edits to fiction you have not personally watched or read, because of the very problems you suffered above. --Xaaron (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2015 (EST)

Still getting used to how this works. My apologies for the newbie mistakes. Wondering though why even one of the many TFwiki administrators don't make the change? It seems like a no-brainer...but that's why I asked the initial question - to find out why she was left out of the 'Character Roster'--Zackmak (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Because editing the wiki is not an automatic thing. Saix (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Page names for planets

Some planets in Transformers with numbers in their names are variably parsed with the number in regular Hindu-Arabic numerals, Roman numerals, or in words. (i.e. Hydrus Four) When I search on the wiki, I generally think of Roman numerals by default, especially since Transformers is science fiction. Does anyone else think that we should put planets' pages in Roman numerals as long as such parsing is not overshadowed by different parsing? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2015 (EST)

So, if I am reading your proposal correctly, you suggest that if there are two canonical parsing of the name of a planet, and one uses Roman numerals, that one should have primacy? --Giggidy (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2015 (EST)
Correct. That is, as long as a different parsing is not more prominent. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2015 (EST)
I guess I don't see what that gets us. Mind you, I don't see any harm either, I'm just not sold. What are we doing now? Most prominent? First official text parsing? --Giggidy (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2015 (EST)
I thought it would help navigability. Not sure what we're doing now, but I think it's first official text parsing. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2015 (EST)
I guess you can put me down as a tentative yes. --Giggidy (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2015 (EST)
I think that seems unnecessary so long as there's a redirect in place, which there should be if the planet has been named with Roman numerals in fiction. --abates (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2015 (EST)

Italics in headers for toy sections

I've noticed that most pages' toy sections don't italicize the toyline section name, but some do. Examples: in my memory, Optimus Prime (G1)/toys and Optimus Prime (WFC)/toys have never italicized their toyline name headers but the Brawn (G1) page currently does. Do we have a rule on this? If we do I haven't been able to find it. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2015 (EST)

Proposal: Temporary Moratorium on AVP

After GoBots, after Ulchtar, I think we have decidedly reached a point where the act of editing the wiki according to the latest "official" information is getting in the way of wiki informativeness and quality standards. To be frank, the privilege of creating canonical material has been perverted for the sole purpose of changing this website. I propose a two-week cessation on adding any material to this site that appears on AVP or any of its upcoming iterations. I would like to see what discussions we have here, and how the pages are modified, when we're not lurching to the organ grinder's tune.

If people think this suggestion is totally out of line, by all means say so. If they agree, please say so as well. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2015 (EST)

That's actually exactly what I was considering suggesting. This is all getting a little silly; I'd be more than happy with that, as it'd curb "to-the-wiki"-ism while not banning AVP content entirely for no real defensible reason. --Riptide (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2015 (EST)
YES! So much yes! (with the sole exception being the archiving of AVP-and-its-ilk Facebook posts onto their respective archive pages). --Sabrblade (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2015 (EST)
I'm not really sure what this is supposed to accomplish. I've never had a hard time ignoring the parts of something that annoy me or that I have no interest in. If a robust discussion on a minor character like Ulchtar bugs you so much, maybe you should take a two-week moratorium from editing the wiki. I vote no. Fine. --Giggidy (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2015 (EST)
Are you familiar with the expression "the straw that broke the camel's back"? Ulchtar isn't The Thing, but The Latest Thing In A Long Line Of Things. I say yes. --Andrusi (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2015 (EST)

Yes. --ItsWalky (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2015 (EST)

I'm down, and let me add this to it: going forward we put stuff from AVP and its mutations on the same waiting period as all the other FP stuff we've had basically forever. No, it's not part of the "paid content" blardeeblar. But maybe it'll help stem the blatant wiki-gaming going on, and also cut back on the amount of corrective/speculative editing, especially when they have to apologize/retcon/whatever something posted two days prior. Maybe trim it to two weeks rather than one month, but still. The immediate TO THE WIKI! needs to fucking stop. --M Sipher (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2015 (EST)
Since Escargon brought this to my attention, I'm going to break my usual policy about commenting on my own work and vote yes. It won't kill anyone to wait a couple of weeks to edit this stuff, and may in fact improve the caliber of the questions we're getting. --Jimsorenson (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2015 (EST)

Yes. In addition to the reasons mentioned, this should stop the back-and-forth occasionally seen of
1) AVP posts something.
2) Someone rushes to add it to the Wiki
3) Someone else disagrees with the interpretation of AVP
4) First someone goes back to AVP and asks for further clarification on the first post
5) AVP responds
6) Second someone is too busy arguing on the Wiki to check for updates
7) First someone does victory lap because official source confirmed their idea
8) Third someone stops by to say this is why they hate AVP.
We are all children of the internet. We like winning arguments. But being able to ask official sources in real time to contribute to internet arguments tends to escalate the arguments and the tensions underlying the arguments. New information comes in? Fine -- let's let it breathe for a while before deciding what to do with it. --Xaaron (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2015 (EST)

Regarding what I said above about updates made to the Facebook post archives being the sole exception to this, it has been suggested that those should have at least a one-day wait after each post is made on Facebook, which sounds reasonable. --Sabrblade (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2015 (EST)

I can get behind this. I've drawn attention to this resurgent "OMG TO THE WIKI" attitude while commenting on this problem before and putting a cap on it sounds good. - Chris McFeely (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2015 (EST)

Since the idea of immediate-term write-ups is apparently problematic to a large number of editors, is there any reason to limit the 2 week cooling off period to just the FP material? Given concerns about spoilers and similar (if less heated) arguments about interpertation of ongoing IDW offerings, perhaps a 2-week wait should just be the standard wiki policy for all fiction. --Giggidy (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2015 (EST)

You KNOW all "immediate-term write-ups" is not the issue at play. Don't even. --M Sipher (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2015 (EST)
I actually don't. You and Chris both talk about "TO THE WIKI" as if it's a well understood problem without explaining why. Chris, meanwhile, posts detailed summaries of the comics before American comic shops even open. Aside from some people not liking Ask Vector Prime, I honestly don't understand the difference. It offends my sense of order, but I will admit that's probably more my problem than yours. --Giggidy (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2015 (EST)
The difference is that comics- and the information they reveal- are set in stone; people can't just obsessively demand answers from James Roberts/John Barber/Mairghread Scott about background trivia just for the sake of changing the wiki. Grum (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2015 (EST)
I guess I see. Maybe. Maybe not. Looking at the Ulchtar thing, which apparently was very annoying for people, there was a question asked on the 18th of November. Then an answer on the 28th of November. There were a few follow-up questions but none of them got an answer. The answer was never edited. Then there was three days of debate about what the implications of the answer meant. I don't see how, if we had the debate from December 13-15 it would have been appreciably different, or less annoying. But then, I didn't find the debate annoying in the first place, so again, this could point to my inability to understand such things. --Giggidy (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2015 (EST)
This is a recurring, AVP-specific problem that doesn't affect other prominent fiction. The Carcer thing was an isolated incident. - Chris McFeely (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2015 (EST)

ThisIsWhyWeCantHaveNiceThings.jpg --DrSpengler (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2015 (EST)

So, like, are we starting this today or what? I will of course respect the consensus and wait till the 14th if we are, but Cy-Kill just had a new adventure if we're still debating. --Giggidy (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2015 (EST)

I'm going to assume that, yes, this is starting today, and that current content will be added no sooner than two weeks hence, December 14. --Giggidy (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2015 (EST)

Mystery Science Theater 3000

Does anyone object to me making a page for Mystery Science Theater 3000 now, rather than waiting the 2 weeks? I only ask because the latest AVP plugs the MST3K kickstarter campaign, which is over in 4 days. Given the time-sensitive nature, it seemed an exception might be warranted. --Giggidy (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Results

"I would like to see what discussions we have here, and how the pages are modified, when we're not lurching to the organ grinder's tune."

It looks like the discussions we have when not lurching to the tune is... more of the same. --Giggidy (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2015 (EST)

There are 63 new "official facts" about Grand Galvatron hitting the wiki every single day, most of them by wiki editors feeding them through a revolving door Facebook page in order to validate their own ideas? I must've missed it. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2015 (EST)
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were complaining about an argument about Ulchtar, one which Grand Galvatron has already exceeded in length. One that started when someone saw some half-translated info and immediately declared TO THE WIKI. --Giggidy (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2015 (EST)

Notes and whitespace issue

A while back I put up some notes in several characters' pages, in order to include a link to the The Transformers: The Movie's adaptations within those pages' fiction sections. Unfortunately, it didn't work out quite as well as I wanted. Unlike the Live-action film series, where a similar note would always come up at the end of a section's write-up, the note came right in the middle of the section for many Generation 1 characters. On top of that, because of how some images were included in the section write-ups, several characters got large amounts of white-space in their section write-ups to accommodate the note.

At the time, I had heard that there was a piece of code that could fix the white-space issue, but I've been looking for a while and found nothing. (The closest I got to any sort of result with was: <div class="floatright">Text on the right</div> but that didn't solve much either.)

I'd still very much like to keep the links to the movie adaptations on those characters' pages, as those are still pieces of fiction wherein those characters appeared. But at this point, I've given up on finding a solution that will make the note look like less of a mess. And I will admit that the amount of white-space the note sometimes generates is rather unseemly. I figured a note pointing out that characters appeared in an adaptation of the G1 cartoon movie could be put at the bottom of the article, in the "Notes" section.

Either that, or I could double up links within the cartoon section like this: The Transformers: The Movie Transformers: The Animated Movie Transformers the Movie. I'm also open to any other suggestions. Either way, I wanted other people to weigh in and give their opinions before I started any kind of wide-spread editing. --Ascendron (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2015 (EST)

I think the extra storylinks look lot better than a note. It's what we already do for flashbacks. Saix (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2015 (EST)
Multiple storylinks make me think that there is something more to be written up, rather than them being multiple versions of the same events. Putting a note at the end of the page seems to divorce the adaptations from the source material. My personal preference is for the note templates, regardless of the whitespace issue. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2015 (EST)
I'm not convinced that multiple story links or notes are needed at all, at least on a character page. If there are multiple tellings of the same event, probably a character only needs the primary one. Then, anyone who clicks off to the primary story can see a note that there are other adaptations. I'm not sure it adds anything to Bumblebee, for instance, to know that yes, he did this in the Transformers movie but also in a novel and a comic and a story book. --Giggidy (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2015 (EST)
I'd rather keep some indication of which adaptation which character shows up in on their own pages, considering it is inconsistent from character to character how many adaptations they show up in. Some characters show up in all of them, some show up in only some of them, and others show up in none of the adaptations. --Ascendron (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2015 (EST)
I guess I just don't see what the value is of that. Especially because the adaptation itself will have the character roster. Mind you, I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or the other. --Giggidy (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Proposal: A "Former multiversal singularities" category

As probably know, a recent story has split up multiversal singularities into separate characters, or something like that. Because of this, the "multiversal singularities" category has been dissolved, and is no longer linked to on character pages. But why? The idea of multiversal singularities shaped several years of Transformers fiction. My proposal: a "Formal Multiversal singularities" category, so that we can acknowledge the characters who were once multiversal singularities while not inadvertantly implying that they still are multiversal singularities. Thoughts? -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (EST)

Isn't that, like, only the Thirteen, Primus, and Unicron? Saix (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2015 (EST)
Yeah. So it'd be an easy thing to do. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2015 (EST)
Or we just re-instate "Multiversal Singularities" as a category because categories have NEVER been predicated on current status. BW Blackarachnia doesn't lose her "Predacon" category because she ultimately ended up a Decepticon after being a Maximal for a while. --M Sipher (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2015 (EST)
Did we ever have that category? I mean, we should, but yeah, we wouldn't have removed if we had for exactly the reason Sipher states. - Chris McFeely (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2015 (EST)
I checked a few relevant articles at random. Went back to last version before this October. Couldn't find that category in their category lists. --Khajidha (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2015 (EST)
I was probably mistaken. I probably just happened to notice Unicron/Primus/one of the Thirteen didn't have a multiversal singularity category on their page, and assumed that it was deleted because of the because of the retcon. My bad. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2015 (EST)

Vandalism

Um, yeah. So one of the pages on the Wanted pages list is...Spiral Vagina. That means that someone tried linking to a page called Spiral Vagina at some point. I'm not really sure how to handle that or who to let know about it, so I'm just posting it here. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Genital System. I'm very sorry. Incidentally, if you wanted to find what pages link to that, you could have used this page: http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Spiral_Vagina --Riptide (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2015 (EST)
Oh. Thank you. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2015 (EST)

"Kiss Players! No, It's Really Not Vandalism, This Actually Happened." --Xaaron (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2015 (EST)

The entire page should just be this discussion. Chip (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2015 (EST)

I seriously want to make that page, but something so epically horrible might need s comitte just to handle the comedy potential. Lush City (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2015 (EST)

We're all sick of arguing about GoBots

But here we are again. I restate my position as detailed in an AllSpark post: since moving to its own page, with Cy-Kill returning to his own universe and talking exclusively about "unmade" GoBots episodes, "Renegade Rhetoric" has become GoBots fiction, not Transformers fiction, and we do not cover GoBots fiction. Events from Challenge of the GoBots "season 2" do not warrant coverage on the wiki, and I think that any events described from the original, actually-existing cartoon should be reduced to minimum, and all GoBots characters only mentioned in these stories consolidated into simplified "List of Guardian" and "List of Renegade" pages with only brief write-ups, linking readers to our archive of the Facebook posts if they want the full scoop. Characters such as Cy-Kill and those who have actually appeared in Transformers-universe stories should, of course, retain their own articles. We have editors actively working in bad faith, manipulating Renegade Rhetoric by asking leading questions to force the inclusion of GoBots on this wiki when it has been repeatedly decided that it won't be, and I am all for an exception being made so that this type of behaviour is not rewarded. - Chris McFeely (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2016 (EST)

THIS WEBSITE'S EMPEROR-KING AGREES --ItsWalky (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2016 (EST)
Thirded. GoBots fiction, and cheating, do not belong here. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2016 (EST)
100% agreement. --M Sipher (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2016 (EST)
EDIT: See BelowEscargon (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2016 (EST)
I'm in! -- Repowers (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2016 (EST)
I don't mind either. If nothing else, this entire debacle has taught us that GoBots and Transformers will never be able to peacefully coexist, on toy shelves or otherwise. Grum (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2016 (EST)
I vote yes. Consolidate the GoBots pages, keep the Renegade Rhetoric page and archive. I would argue that this is a case similar to how we only documented the issues of the GI Joe Marvel comic that contained Transformers; once it stopped being Transformers, we stopped covering it. Also, you know, hopefully this will mean people will complain about the Facebook pages less. --Riptide (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2016 (EST)

Changing my vote. The RR page links to the Club page. AVP references and comments on RR. This is canon just as everything else, gaming the system or no. I may be weary, but I won't buckle. Escargon (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2016 (EST)

I second Escargon. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2016 (EST)

I don't think anyone will be surprised that I disagree. There seem to be two arguments. 1, it's not Transformers fiction. 2, editors working in bad faith. Going case by case, 1: I don't see how Renegade Rhetoric is GoBots fiction and not Transformers fiction. It's being broadcast on Axiom Nexus News, on Cybertron. It stars Cy-Kill, the hybrid Hanna-Barbara/TransTech version. It features a number of characters who are proper Transformers, from the Aligned continuity and the Unictron Trilogy, and more who are powered by sparks stolen from Mirror Alpha Trion's lab. That seems to be the main intellectual foundation for the argument, and I'll grant that it's novel, but I think it's flawed. 2: Were some editors (including me, I'll admit) asking leading questions? Yes, we were. It seems to have largely stopped, mostly because the column stopped rewarding it. But that applies to ALL of Ask Vector Prime, and that's undoubtedly canon. Are we going to start trying to look at the motivation of every creator now and altering coverage accordingly? Milne draws Hot Shot as dead to poke at Walky, should we undocument that?

And now, additional factors. I hate making slippery slope arguments, but really, the real reason we're having this conversation and everyone knows it is that there's a sizable block of people who don't like the content. That's what all of this boils down to. And if the wiki starts picking and choosing what to document, or at what detail to document, based on that, then it will have well and truly lost its way. Because if we decide that we can come up with a pseudo-logical justification to exclude this content, then we'll use it as precedent and do it again. All of Ask Vector Prime. Kiss Players. The Beast Within. That weird retcon about Cyclonus and Bombshell from a video. Big swaths of the Dreamwave run. I don't see it ending. Yes, people are sick of arguing, but this policy will lead to more, not less, arguments.

Another, lesser factor, is that these pages are already made. So we're proposing going through some 200 articles that are already created in compliance with this wiki's policies and changing them due to an exception, making more work for ourselves to make the wiki less informative.

And a third factor, is that these posts are popular. Ask Vector Prime's readership is in the thousands. Every post gets liked, shared, commented upon. People are enjoying it, and some of them will come here to see what we have to say about it. The cost of having a possibly extraneous article is negligible, but the cost of not having an article is real.

I also think that we should do what we always do on weighty matters, and have the debate first and THEN call for a vote. I would suggest that all the "seconded" to the proposal are premature. --Giggidy (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2016 (EST)

I'm with Gigs, I know we are volunteering, but this s still service, and we are still educators. There is a responsibility to inform the populace, if RR content was exclusively GoBots, there may be some argument, given we don't cover FunPub Gi Joe fiction or even Diaclone fiction(if it exists) even though the later is a TF universe technically. But given the bleed of TF lore and concepts I feel it is in our scope. Also it's kind of really petty to ignore like, reams of content because of a parliamentary beef. I vote to keep the GoBots season 2 stuff. Lush City (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2016 (EST)
the real reason we're having this conversation and everyone knows it is that there's a sizable block of people who don't like the content. That's what all of this boils down to.
NO. No. No no no. I don't give a rip about the content itself either way. (I mean, okay, I think the endless supply of numbering universes and other such non-story wankery is dumb and pointless and has made a Big Giant Thing of something that was meant to be just a sidelong atmospheric technical footnote in a couple of years-ago stories, but that's not the point.)
No. The point is that this content is being created explicitly and for no other purpose than to circumvent the wiki's rules, to alter its content and organization, by fans who otherwise were unable to get their way on the very content in question. It's not being done as part of a story in any meaningful sense. It's not a unintended side effect by some uninformed pro writer. It's not part of a carefully considered larger universe. It's not something dictated from on high within Hasbro. It's purposefully, transparently, and most of all pointlessly manipulative, seemingly all because a handful of OCD minds can't handle the thought of a 30 year old cartoon not being related to another 30 year old cartoon.
THAT is what I and, I presume, other editors don't like. Because it's bullshit. Canon generated by bullshit -- maybe we should consider treating it accordingly. -- Repowers (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2016 (EST)
This is true, but irrelevant, the wiki picking favorites with the AVP 2week limit was down the slope enough but using the out of universe background of something as an excuse to ignore fiction is totally hugged. Its not as if Jim and co are mindless robots, this is official fiction with all the research, skill, heart and passion that entails, blanking it out and other such special efforts is parliamentary minutiae. Who cares if people are gaming the system, the writers are big boys, they know what they are doing and in fact are often intimately aware of how this goes down. We have to stop acting like AVP is some puppet of a nebulous group of wiki villians instead of a dozen grown ass men and women making editorially supervised official fiction that happens to be done by fans like so many other franchises. We can't play diddle the lasagna with our rules just because the creators are iniated into our wanky insanity, if Ichikawa is going to make a Prowl 2 madcap adventure, Jim is going to make Cloud G1 for some reason and GoBots stuff starts bleeding, who are we to judge? That's basically with this whole thing, the wiki's "purity" is to be impartial, if snarky, recorder, we log it all and may be smart asses about it, but it's all in.

Besides the funpub stuff doesn't have the HB/Bandai legal issue anyway. Lush City (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2016 (EST)

I call bullshit on your bullshit. Because if you have been reading Renegade Rhetoric, it's hilarious. It's practically daily new episodes of an 80s cartoon that get the tone spot-on perfect. It's passionate, it has good stories, it even manages to have good characters despite most episodes being about 2 pages long. And none of it is about circumventing wiki rules. If it was, they'd have stopped doing it once they got everyone in, but they haven't. They're telling new stories, and they're quality, and I defy anyone who is actually reading them to disagree with that. Because, really, I'd love a show of hands, how many of the people who are voting no have actually read a single Renegade Rhetoric Season 2 episode? --Giggidy (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2016 (EST)
You yourself said you and others "were asking leading questions until you stopped getting rewarded for it." This is not the place for such a "reward." That kind of "reward" does not belong here and the entire mechanism for gaining it is what really subverts our rules for inclusion. Any alleged humor in Renegade Rhetoric now is just, as the saying goes, the fruit of the poisoned tree. Also, the debates have been had, since 2007 at least. Also also, "people will want to come here to see more RR/GoBots articles" leaves me quite unmoved. They can see RR on RR, they can read about GoBots on Counter-X, and in the year 2016 they can make their own GoBot wiki. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2016 (EST)
Your "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument leaves me unmoved. Because, according to this proposal, ALL OF THAT STUFF WILL STAY. Because that's all from the Axiom Nexus bit not covered by Chris McFeely's proposal. So you'll leave the poisonous tree, and get rid of all the fruit. Because that makes sense. --Giggidy (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2016 (EST)
This was created because the fans voted for it, after a whole month of guests colummist. Some of these fans have been taking advantage of it, yes, but that's not why it was created.Escargon (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2016 (EST)
The thing is that the RR stories are funny and clever and well-written, but fundamentally they don't have anything to do with TFs. They're using characters and settings that were never created by Hasbro/Takara. If, say, Renegade Rhetoric wrote a story where Cy-Kill was on an adventure and bumped into Optimus Prime, then yeah, that particular escapade could be added to the wiki, but fundamentally Renegade Rhetoric is Gobots fanfiction; well written fanfic, but basically completely outside this wiki's coverage sphere. Grum (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2016 (EST)

I vote no to this proposal as a whole. Whilst I'm not a fan of wiki gaming, the GoBots stuff happening these days is nothing like that. They're fun stories for the sake of fun, and I'd be sad to see them banished. (I could probably deal with "List of Guardians" and "List of Renegades" articles, though.) Sky Shadow (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2016 (EST)

Yeah, or at least group articles for a good number of them. Escargon (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2016 (EST)

If I say yes, will people actually go back to making significant contributions instead of complaining about everything AVP does? Saix (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2016 (EST)

No. If you say yes to this proposal, it will lead to more arguments, more complaining about AVP, and then Thy will say, "hey, it worked well for GoBots, let's undo all 1000 AVP articles." Remember, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I urge you to vote with your conscience and not give in to a crowd to try to forestall an argument, for this change WILL open the floodgates. Plus, it will lead to people spending time UNDOING informative articles they don't like rather than making informative articles they do. --Giggidy (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2016 (EST)
It was really a rhetorical question. I don't give a fuck about GoBots being on this wiki because it doesn't impede my ability to edit pages I care about and I really wish people would focus their energies they clearly have on filling out articles and not complaining. Saix (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2016 (EST)
Just upthread you were saying that this is allegedly "really" about people just acting out of some low personal distaste for GoBots. Yet this is now the second time in as many days that you've posed your own actions as being some sort of reaction / pre-emption of me personally. Do not do that again. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2016 (EST)
Actually, I meant a low personal distaste for the FB content. Happy to clarify. And yes, I dropped your name with a probable course of action. That was probably crossing a line, and I apologize. On the other hand, was I wrong? Are you willing to commit to no further proposals, votes, or executive actions to try to minimize the footprint of AVP? --Giggidy (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2016 (EST)
I didn't even think about this, but it makes a lot of sense. Any breaking of the rule of putting What Is Canon before anything else (when that's been the wiki's entire modus operandi up until this started) is a dangerous path to follow. Sky Shadow (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2016 (EST)
I got Armada and Energon DVDs for Christmas. Sure. Escargon (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2016 (EST)

Like Escargon and Giggidy, I am against this proposal. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2016 (EST)

So I'm only a recent editor of this Wiki, but I've been reading it religiously for years. And as a deeply devoted and long time TF fan, despite what some may feel, AVP, RR, and the collective of Club FB Pages have been some of the most entertaining pieces of TF canon. Yes, Go-Bots has a different lineage than the rest of Transformers proper, but at least since the Almanacs, and especially through these FB Pages, Go-Bots has become recognized as legitimate canon within the TF Multiverse. While I admit to being a completionist, and ideally, I'd love to see the entirety of Go-Bots, Brave, Zoids, etc. covered on this wiki due to their relation with Transformers; but worry not, for I understand that realistically, that truly would become far too distractedly cluttered - which is why I can even agree with not having extensive coverage for anything Go-Bots related that is outside of anything under the umbrella of Transformers. But as it was mentioned earlier, Renegade Rhetoric is treated with the same regard as Ask Vector Prime, Spacewarp's Logs and all the Axiom Nexus News Pages. It may not be "directly" Transformers, but it's far more intertwined than the 80's cartoon. No, people shouldn't be abusing to ability to have canon produced just for the sake of the Wiki, but that REALLY doesn't seem to be the case with what RR is producing currently. They're great stories in good fun, and I believe they should be treated as being just as much canon as any other TF media. I vote to include it. Hail Cy-KIll! IKY

I vote Yes for removal. Let the Talk:Main Page read forevermore: THE FUNNY STAYS. GOBOTS DO NOT. --Xaaron (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2016 (EST)

A lot of people seem to be in favour of retaining them because they're good, entertaining stories, but I don't think anyone on the "get rid of them" side is disputing that. The issue is they are GoBots stories, not Transformers stories. --abates (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2016 (EST)

I posted a detailed rebuttal as to how they're Transformers stories. The fact that it's done under a Transformers license. The conceit that, in universe, these are pirate broadcasts on Axiom Nexus News. The fact that many of the Renegades are, in story, Cybertronians. (Puzzler, Monsterous, Wendy's GoBots, more.) The fact that Cy-Kill is the TransTech design. The fact that Vector Prime comments on the occasional question posted on Renegade Rhetoric. It brings us to a fascinating philosophical question... what is a Transformers story? But these stories seem to fit. Just as a thought experiment, if one of the issues of Transformers: Sector 7 followed around, say, Rasputin for a whole issue, and didn't have any Transformers in it... would it still be a Transformers story? I guess I'm saying that yes, it would. --Giggidy (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2016 (EST)
If an issue of Transformers: Sector 7 did not have any Transformers in it, I think people would be asking IDW some rather pointed questions about WTF they were doing. Also I think the important part here is these are still GoBots characters, even if they have been relabeled Cybertronians. If the club started producing Voltron fiction where the Voltron lions were actually inert Cybertronians, I think we'd avoid detailing that too. --abates (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2016 (EST)
I don't think either hypothetical is helping the discussion. (The answer is that we would detail both because they unambiguously fall under the Transformers brand.) Saix (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2016 (EST)

Walky Calls It

So anyway, I see a bunch of votes in favor from people who've actually been on this site more than five minutes, versus mostly one folk who's admitted they've done exactly what was pissing us all off to begin with -- ie, asking AVP stuff for the express purpose of making stuff canonical. Like, literally gaming our decade-old website in bad faith. With that in mind, INCLUDING THE KIND OF IMPORTANT FACT THAT THIS WEBSITE IS NOT ACTUALLY A DEMOCRACY ANYWAY, I pass Chris McFeely's motion, as your Emperor-King. It is done! Discussion over, forever and ever and ever. The wiki is saved. --ItsWalky (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2016 (EST)

One person? I count at least 7, with only one who had just signed up. Escargon (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2016 (EST)
And just because you own the wiki, doesn't mean that all decisions are up to you, nor are they all necessarily correct. Ex: The splitting out of the G2 Gobots pages from their main G1 versions. Escargon (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2016 (EST)
I mean... it kind of does? He owns the place. He's the head admin. He has veto power. The userbase voting on things is just convention, not actual rules. --Riptide (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2016 (EST)
Sigh, "more than five minutes" was hyperbole. What I meant is editors who have been here since 2006 instead of WEEKS. --ItsWalky (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2016 (EST)
First recorded activity of Sky Shadow: August 2011. My first recorded activity: Febuary 2013. S.H.I.E.L.D Agent's: April 2015. Giggidy's: June 2015. Foffy's: December 2015. Escargon (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2016 (EST)
Thank you for helping me out! You're handing my own point back to me giftwrapped. --ItsWalky (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2016 (EST)
I doubt this counts for anything, but I've been reading the wiki since, like, 2011 or so. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2016 (EST)

So, Chris makes a proposal at 19:46 on 1/6. This is something that he's specifically floated past the forum where old-school wiki editors hang out and driven up buy in, so they he naturally gets a slew of votes immediately, sans any discussion. I rebut, to the best of my ability, and over the course of (checks watch) eleven hours, votes start to come in on an admittedly hot-button topic. A disproportionate number of votes come in from the younger, newer editors, many of whom seem to have come in specifically because of an interest in the material being covered. (Which, in and of itself, might tell you something.) The vote starts to not go towards the proposal, so, again, after less than half a day of debate, Walky calls it. Not because he's so clearly winning, but specifically because he's losing. Well, yeah, I guess it is your wiki, but I never got the impression that this meant the rest of us don't have a vote. I find that highly dispiriting.

Now, again, I'll point out what I said above. Normally for big decisions, we have a discussion. There's a back-and-forth. People state their cases, other people answer them. And we have a bit of that here. But normally we'd debate this for two, three days, let everyone have their say before we even START voting.

As to the quality of the editors, you're absolutely right, we're a younger crowd. But three of us voting are in the top 10 for number of edits in the past month, and I'm much lower than I would have been before the 2 week delay on Ask Vector Prime. Hell, Foffy the Sheep ALONE has more edits in the past month than EVERYONE voting against him COMBINED. SHIELD too. We're the actual worker bees, keeping the wiki running.

I would suggest that our perspectives matter. I would suggest that it's normal and natural and healthy that the new guard looks at what the old guard is doing and says "we can do better" and vigorously attempts to do so. And, further, that it's normal and healthy for the old guard to look at what the new guard is doing, and say, "those crazy kids. They're ruining everything. Why, in our day..." And then the new kids can learn from the old, and the old can perhaps temper the new, and everyone wins. But short-circuiting that process because we're new and young is absolutely the wrong move, sends the wrong message, and will cause more harm than good in the future. I urge you to reconsider, and let the discussion and eventual vote run its course. Because, again, the cure may be worse than the disease.--Giggidy (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2016 (EST)

A bit of a digression, but I don't think what you said about me and several others being top contributors is very accurate. If I make 200 edits to fix a link (such as going through pages and changing every instance of [[Lightfoot]] to [[Lightfoot (Masterforce)|Lightfoot]], for example), have I really contributed more than someone who made one edit to write an entire summary? That's a matter of opinion, really. To clarify, I'm not saying that people who make minor edits are worthless, I'm just saying that the number of edits you make aren't necessarily a good representation of how much you've contributed. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (EST)
Chris, Walky, Thy, Sipher, Repowers, Grum, me, Xaaron, Jalaguy and Tigerpaw28 vs Escargon, SHIELD, you, Lush, Sky Shadow, Foffy, and... IKY, who I've never heard of before. That's 10 to 7 in favour, even without Walky's proclamation. I'd argue against Walky using veto power here if there was a clear consensus against it, but there isn't. --Riptide (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2016 (EST)
I'm, uh, late to the party, but I would definitely throw my support behind the McFeely Proposal. And that's coming from someone who'd fight tooth and claw to keep other AVP content on the wiki. But regardless, Walky still had every right to call it as he did. Jalaguy (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2016 (EST)
Also late to the party, and also in favor of McFeely's proposal. As he said it is effectively Go-Bots fanfiction. There's next nothing in the Rhetoric answers that actually ties it to Transformers fictionally. Tigerpaw28 (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2016 (EST)
There's not a clear ANYTHING, because the debate lasted less than 12 hours with many prominent voices having yet to weigh in. What we have is schism, and typically on an issue this big we want an overwhelming majority. The vote is extremely skewed by the front waiting, due to drumming up support for the proposition offsite. More than half of the yes votes came immediately after the proposition was made, with no votes trickling in gradually but steadily all night.
But, really, Riptide, your opinion doesn't matter on this at all. Neither does mine, or Escargons. Walky has decided that this topic doesn't warrant debate, so the only person whose opinion matters on undoing this decision is Walky's. I'm hoping he at least reads and consider is my argument. --Giggidy (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2016 (EST)
Well, yes, that's my point. We have a schism, which is why I think it's fair enough that the head admin gets to call it in the absence of an overwhelming majority. Should he have waited longer? Probably, but I don't think the concept is inherently unfair. --Riptide (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2016 (EST)
The seniority argument is a bit creepy though. Do we really want to say "you've only been here since last June, you count less"? I've been here since 2007, I don';t think it helps anyone if I can pull out the Old Guard card if I'm having a spat with someone more recent. --Charles RB (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2016 (GMT)
Giggidy, whatever you have to say on this matter is absolutely worthless to me. As you yourself have admitted, you tried to create canon on this wiki by gaming AVP for answers. The problem is you. Why would I listen to you? The weeks-old folks are in the top edits now? That's because the current AVP-heavy focus is discouraging all the other regular editors, because it's such an avalanche of bad faith canon addition that to some it just doesn't seem worth it any more to contribute. If there's a dispute? One side Asks Vector Prime. It's a fucking cancer. It's squeezing out the rest of this wiki. Nobody's here anymore to finish up articles that need updating, they're just here to create canon via AVP. That is how my limited time is wasted on here now, managing all this dumb AVP shit, and lately I've found it too aggravating to even bother. If you keep making this whole enterprise a worthless bad-faith chore? Yeah, the website's going to go away, because why am I spending fucking money on this? So, yeah, I kinda do make the final call! Super sorry, guy who's only been here since June and only does the shit that frustrates everyone else away from here! --ItsWalky (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2016 (EST)
That's...really meanspirited Walky. You have every right to make that call, but a wiki like any community is a evolving system, if the majority of the user/editor base has shifted to Y, then as a wiki, Y is the nature of the scene. The idea that the community doesn't matter because of what the owner believes is a real strike against the spirit of this all. A straight vote would have been fine, but the precedent that if the editors shift one way that the wiki tells them to hug off, instead of the wiki naturally evolving with it's users is a dangerous precedent. We all came here as a celebration and communion of our fandom, what fandom means and how we express that differs but we all hold the true heart of the fan within us, and no one deserves to be shut down because there passion doesn't match up totally with anothers. To a significant portion, that Ask Vector Prime shit is there Transformers, it's there fandom, and cutting it out or stomping it down because you feel it should not be here is to neglect the heart love and passions others have for this. I spent all of my college career and most of High School here, I have spent hundreds hours on this site being whisked away into this fantasy; seeing countless adventures and mythos and drawing connections and ties between lore like some comparative mythologist of old. That was my fandom, that was my passion, and I know it is not yours and I would never say yours doesnt have a right to exist; we are equal here and there is no reason why we cannot peacefully and respectfully co exist and give proper due to all facets of the fandom. This is a demographic shift, a culture clash, between the "original" community (itself not how the wiki began as) and a newer culture grown from the seeds sown by our for bearers and a shifting attitude in the media that has changed this little mystery cult over time. But that's okay. Fans have grown up gone pro, influenced fiction, beget fans of there own and now what they bred has come into it's own. I am not asking for a free pass on anything, I am not trying to fight for special treatment, all I am saying is that differing views and experiences of the fandom and the wiki itself should be allowed to exist , grow and change without one voice lording dominant because they are the owner.

You know what Tf means to us, you know what it means to all of us. We all do. So please dont declare this war, please, allow everyone on the wiki the right to act edit and function for the harmony of us all and our readers. We can do this, together. Lush City (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2016 (EST)

I, uh...
Huh.
I honestly thought I was helping. --Giggidy (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2016 (EST)

Epilogue: It's all over but the crying

This was supposed to be a short reponse to Lush City, but it quickly grew, and as it did so, I began to re-evaluating my initial opinion on this matter. Bear with me through this wall of text, won't you please?
*clears throat* I think part of the reason some many of the editors on this wiki, including myself, have grown to resent GoBots so much is because of the mass amount of bullshit that is generated every time they're discussed. This discussion grew more in a day than most others do in a week; even big, huge drawn-out arguments like the Grand Galvatron fiasco that have reached an ungodly length pale in comparison to this one, and there are several other GoBots discussions just like this one. You know what they all have in common? They NEVER. GET. ANYWHERE. This exact discussion has been rehashed several times over the course of the past 6 years or so, and I imagine that's pretty tiresome for the people who have been here to each and every massive GoBots bitchfest unfold one after the other. Hell, I've only had to deal with one day of GoBots discussion and I'm already sick of it! I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to deal with this shit on multiple different occasions over the course of several years, but I bet it's unpleasant.
When we first starting mentioning the GoBots and making pages to discuss their relevence to Transformers, it was like taking a puppy we found on the street and bringing him into our house. He was so cute and harmless, how could we not let him in? So we fed him and played with him and took care of him. As we did so, that cute little puppy slowly but surely grew into a vicious 80 pound behemoth that had a trail of destruction following it wherever it went. It may be the cutest dog ever, but it's harassing the neighbors and covering the house in fecal matter. Not only that, but it ate the sofa. It's more trouble than it's worth.
Dog metaphors similes aside, seeing this discussion has really changed my tune regarding Go-Bots. It's fun to have it, yes, but not fun enough to justify the massive bitchfests that take place every time someone tries to discuss what the length and scope of GoBots coverage should be. When Walky said he was ending this argument, I don't think he was just talking about this one particular instance of the debate that took place over the last 24 hours so much as the entirety of the various GoBots arguments over the past six years. And perhaps it's for the best; it seems that the inclusion GoBots on MediaWiki has brought nothing but suffering. I think we should really only be covering GoBots stuff from official Transformers fiction, and if we're honest, Renegade Rhetoric no longer falls into that category. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2016 (EST)
Somewhere around this point, I remembered that Walky had already kinda-sorta ended the debate. (I say "kinda-sorta" because it continued on in spite of this to some extent.). I took a look at what I'd written, said to myself "Well, shit. I gotta do something with that." So I slapped this note on here and posted the whole kit and kaboodle onto the community portal, relevance be damned. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2016 (EST)
I get what you are saying, but does that make GoBots the problem, or the fighting? Even so, I don't see that as a necessarily bad thing. We come together, debate, and reason out the best course of action, then keep on it until the situation changes and we come to a new consensus. That's exactly what a healthy Parliamentary body should do. When RR came up we discussed it and came to a decision, what I was showing concern about was Walky using judgment calls to prerserve demographic integrity, it felt a lot like there is an image of who this wiki is for, and that it would be enforced despite the actual editor/userbase. The idea that a wiki, or any community is served by the people instead of the other way around is a dangerous precedent so I am concerned of what will happen with future "culture clashes." Lush City (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2016 (EST)
I say leave tomorrow's worries to tomorrow. We'll handle them when we get to them. --Ascendron (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2016 (EST)
You make a good point, Lush City. Yeah, we will have to get together and lay down the new rules for this or whatever, but it's best if we give everyone a little time to simmer down and take everything in before we do so. This will eventually all be worked out in good time. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2016 (EST)

how unfair do i have to make this place for lush city to leave --ItsWalky (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2016 (EST)

Let's not be overly harsh. We shouldn't make people feel like they are unwelcomed unless they are being purposefully offensive, or disagreeable for its own sake. Or are outright breaking rules. --Ascendron (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2016 (EST)
I am being exactly harsh enough. I'm pretty sure I kind of said to end all this shit because it's strangling the fucking wiki to death! Being able to put a foot down like that is WHY WE HAVE ADMINS. But sure, by all means, let's argue GoBots for the sixteenth billion time and continue to alienate everyone, because having someone even nominally in charge is fascism i guess. --ItsWalky (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2016 (EST)
Isn't Lush City the guy who argued that IDW somehow wasn't G1? Escargon (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2016 (EST)
I'm sorry that I came off as disrespectful, that was not my intent. I just wanted to say that so long as people are able to abide by administrative decisions, and respective the of the hierarchy, I bare no ill will towards them. I didn't mean my statement to be seen as an attack towards you, or an attempt to undermine your authority. It came off that way though, so I apologize again. --Ascendron (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2016 (EST)

Questions and self reflection

So, Walky said basically that I'm the problem, or part of it. And I don't want to be. I've got a lot of energy and I find wiki editing a relaxing way to unwind. I like puzzling through the connections and figuring out those ah ha moments when I feel like I can glimpse into the author's head and guess what they were thinking. So. How do I use that to be useful? I've done thousands of edits since I signed up and I really thought most of them were welcome and appropriate. Please, someone, point me in the right direction. --Giggidy (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2016 (EST)

All I can offer is the same advice from our Ulchtar discussion: "Be helpful, don't just be busy." I mean this as helpful criticism, but you do seem to confuse the two. Above, when you tried to call attention to Foffy the Sheep's value by saying, "Look how many contributions he makes a day!", even Foffy pointed out most of that was just adding links. Valid contributions, no doubt, but it isn't what makes someone a VIP contributor. I've been here since 2006. I created many of the original G1 character pages, filled out the fiction sections for every Mini-Con in the Armada cartoon and every secondary character in Headmasters, but I still consider myself a mid-level contributor at best.
Part of the problem is you came in during the AVP flurry of activity, which wasn't a good example of how the Wiki typically operates. Moving pages back and forth, renaming articles, votes on content...these used to be extremely rare events around here, once every six months or so. So what you might have seen as standard, day-to-day activity here was really a rare hassle becoming increasingly more common and grating on the nerves of the admins and long-time contributors without you even knowing it.
I haven't read through your contributions section, so I don't know what besides AVP you like to contribute. I know some of the fiction sections have become drastically out of date. With so many contributors focused on using AVP or cleaning up after it, pages like Rodimus's IDW appearances haven't been updated in nearly two years! I routinely troll the character stubs section linked on the first page to find things to do. Depending on your preference, there's also Images Needed and Wanted Pages to create linked on the front page, too.
Only other advice I'd offer is, for the moment, work more on contributing to the Wiki in its current format, instead of questioning or trying to change the format itself. That's my advice. --Xaaron (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2016 (EST)
I've found that another good way to help is by going through Orphaned pages list and linking them to the relevant articles, or making sure that the disambiguation pages mention every applicable character. Some of the character disambig pages are missing links to their Angry Birds counterparts, and I suspect that the same may be true for some of the Kreon versions of characters. There's also this list of articles that aren't linked to enough; it might be slightly outdated, but it's pretty useful.
I thought maybe my experience as a fairly new editor might be helpful to you; I hope this turns out to be the case.
(Side note: I was unaware that moving articles and such used to be a rare occurence; I'll try to keep that in mind and avoid such things whenever possible.) -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2016 (EST)

User:TAZ

Someone should probably ban User:TAZ. For whatever reason, he seems to really hate File:DonMurphy.jpg, and has gone out of his way to either blank the page or removes links to it. (I waited about half an hour before posting this in case he was hoping to get a kick out of someone mentioning him.) -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2016 (EST)

Done! Jalaguy (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2016 (EST)
Thank you. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2016 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://tfwiki.duckdns.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive61&oldid=1090067"