MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

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

	Specific Discussion Subjects
Moving From Wikia: Arriving Leaving Complaints New Ad Policy: Ads Bookworm Database-Crash: Damage Control Central Project:Bookworm Crash Leaving Take 2 Server Move: Arriving Take 2 Relicensing: Relicensing Dealing With Vandalism: Vandalism GoBots Sister Wiki: Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki Wiki Technical Information: A Not So Brief Summary of the Horrible Things That McFly and Co. Have Done To Keep This Wiki From Melting Down

IDW Revolution

So the preview for Rom #1 shows the EDC in it and we can probably expect more of this sort of thing. This could be a problem for recording stuff, since the EDC is a Transformers concept but if it becomes a Rom one too, we technically need to put a lot of Rom storylinks here.

So should we do a rule that it has to be specifically a Transformer appearing to get covered, and otherwise we'll put it in Notes ("the EDC also shoot Rom!!")? --Charles RB (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2016 (GMT)

I think the closest thing we have to an existing standard is G.I. Joe #138, a comic that is not an identified crossover with Transformers and contains the most minor of guest-appearances inside. The full issue is summarized on this site, and details of that issue appear in the fiction section of every character, even ones like Wild Bill who had no contact with Transformers whatsoever for the story.

Beyond that "standard", though, you're right that we will need to establish a rule for when Hasbro/IDW Universe stories are covered. Only when Transformers appear in the issue? Transformers characters? Transformers concepts? If Blackrock appears in MASK #3, do we cover that issue based on that alone? What if there's also a one-panel flashback of Blackrock with Galvatron? Do we cover it then? --Xaaron (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

My two cents. If it's not a piece of Transformers fiction, it generally only gets mentioned in the notes, even if a nominally-TF character appears. Major characters (you can decide who fits) can tip the scales, and situations like GI Joe #138 get included because that issue is essential to understanding issue #139 (where the crossover is first explicitly mentioned, but where the action is already well in play as the issue opens, and #138 is necessary to understand how we got there. Note also that a major TF character appears in #138, if only briefly). These general guidelines should be able to suffice for the most part. --G.B. Blackrock (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

Disagree on #138. It's completely unnecessary for understanding #139 ("Megatron is attacking the castle!" is pretty clearly conveyed by the splash page), and it actually confuses the situation, since the shadowy conversation in #138 is ignored or outright contradicted later in the story.

But regardless, that brings us back around to "What's a major character?" Only Transformers? Pre-IDW humans like Fairborne, Spike, and Blackrock as well? Jimmy Pink and Jones? What if Battle Force 2000 encounters the Enigma of Combination? What if MASK travels to Cybertron, but no identifiable Transformers appear? I realize a lot of these questions can't be answered until it happens, but some idea where everyone sits on the matter should be established ahead of time, if we can. --Xaaron (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

If it's not an explicit and branded crossover we should have minimal coverage. If an actual Transformer shows up in another book, we cover his appearance but that's it. 138 is probably covered in too much detail already. Transformers concepts and settings and human companions appearing in other books are notes. --Giggidy (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

I think if a Transformer or other Clearly A Transformers-Franchise Character like Blackrock, Marissa, Spike, etc. shows up in another title's issue, than that issue should get fully covered as a crossover regardless of "branding." A TF-originated concept, however, like the EDC, putting in an appearance probably doesn't need to be more than a note somewhere. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

No. We don't cover every Marvel Comics issue Death's Head's shown up in following his departure from the TF universe. And before you "WELL ACTUALLY" me, he's only not a Fully Legal Transformers Character on the most petty of technicalities. He was made to be a Transformers character and given a legal out to be used elsewhere without paying Hasbro.

AT MOST, non-Transformers books should be lumped together in a fiction section on the franchise in question's page. Personally I have grave doubts as to just how much character bleed there actually will be, as well as how long any of these titles are even going to last. --M Sipher (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

WELL ACTUALLY another difference there is that, like you said, Death's Head departed the TF universe. He was taken away from the TF franchise and given to Marvel-at-large. This has not happened with say, Marissa Fairborn, who is still a Transformers character. Her "home title" is still The Transformers. A hypothetical Marissa Fairborn guest appearance in an issue of M.A.S.K. is, IMO, just as much of a TF crossover as an appearance of, say, Cosmos or Soundwave would be. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

Which should still be relegated to a singular fiction section on the not-Transformers franchise page. --M Sipher (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

But the fact that that legal out was created would, I think, make him a Marvel-by-way-of-Transformers character. He may have been created for Transformers, but he was also created to be used outside Transformers. Plus, uh, what Kil said.

My proposal: only issues with Transformers in get their own pages; any other appearances of TF characters and concepts go on a single page for the whole franchise/comic. Doesn't leave anything out, but also doesn't overstep the wiki's bounds. --Riptide (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

Death's Head's legal reality is exactly why he's in those non-Transformers stories in the first place; I don't think he's a good example. I think sticking to things that cannot exist out of a Transformers context (i.e. the Enigma of Combination, Optimus Prime, etc.) is a okay baseline. The EDC can always serve as a generic "defense against aggressive aliens" organization independent of Transformers, but things like the Matrix can't. Saix (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

Transformers get full writeups and bestow full writeup coverage on the issues in which they appear. TF-originating non-TF characters and concepts (Spike, EDC, the Enigma, cosmic rust) get very brief mentions within the main bodies of their articles, in proper chronological order in the IDW Fiction sections, with storylinks properly annotated; these storylinks would be redirected to the main non-TF-franchise comic page. IE "storylink|ROM #6" just goes to the ROM comic. ROM (character) does not have any of his own adventures chronicled ever except when he's doing it right next to a Transformer, regardless of title. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

"Transformers get full writeups and bestow full writeup coverage on the issues in which they appear." No. A one-panel cameo does not mean we write up the entire issue as its own article. --M Sipher (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

We've got full pages for the non-Transformers Infestation comics and Unit:E, just putting that out there. It's not like covering issues in which Transformers appear is going to lead to people insisting we cover the entirety of okay actually I may be giving the average wiki user too much credit --Riptide (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

I'd much rather just lose the full page coverage for Unit E and non-TF Infestation than start giving it to all these new comics. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

BINGO. It's not before anymore. We live in a very different world than when a lot of this wiki's "standards" were crafted. What worked when TFs was a healthy-yet-niche franchise, perhaps not so much now that it's being used as a tentpole for a lot of other things. --M Sipher (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2016 (EDT)

Disagreed, I guess. I feel like if it's a book by a Hasbro licensee using their Transformers license to use Transformers in the story, it doesn't particularly matter what the name on the book is. Sure, if it's, like, a 1-panel flashback or something we wouldn't even mention otherwise, we can leave it out, but if they have a bigger role, it shouldn't need "The Transformers" on the cover to get a writeup. --Riptide (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2016 (EDT)

I'm down with "Transformers get full writeups and bestow full writeup coverage on the issues in which they appear", with the caveat of "except when it's a minor cameo" (i.e. not Megatron showing up in Joe #138 as he's the cliffhanger but like how Nick Fury's making a cameo in TF #3 to go "look this guy's paying attention). Anything else goes in Notes unless & until it explicitly impacts on a Transformers comic, i.e. crossover stories. --Charles RB (talk} 04:05, 8 June 2016 GMT

Gobots Sister Wiki Progress

Has anyone ever made any progress on the Gobots sister wiki? I have no experience in creating wikis, but would love to see this get made. -Halfshell25 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2016 (EDT)

"Foreign Names"

The original Mandarin names of the Chinese MMO characters are not their "foreign names" and it is factually inaccurate to label them as such. The AVP replacement names are actually the "foreign" ones. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

Wouldn't the same objection apply to Ricochet (Headmasters) and the entirety of the Unicron Trilogy's characters? Perhaps a change to the title of the section would be appropriate, but I just read the heading as "names in a language other than English". --Khajidha (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

UT characters are in a much different position, since they were developed with both the English-speaking audience and the Japanese audience in mind, they weren't created for Japan and then imported elsewhere. I would also note that "Foreign names" isn't used to mean "names in a language other than English" on the Beastformers' articles, which list their English names under that header. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

What kind of a change would you suggest? Is it a matter of semantics, like we could change the headers to "International names"? Personally, I never thought the "Foreign names" header intimated something suggesting that the names were "secondary", just that we use English language names where appropriate and list the international/foreign ones at the bottom where appropriate. I don't think country of origin ever really factored into it. And we use the Foreign names section even when characters have the same names across languages, but render them in that language's alphabet for ease of reference (admittedly, we've been rather sloppy about that, particularly the similar Foreign localization sections of episodes where sometimes we list a language's info and sometimes we don't). While we could definitely stand to be more complete/precise across the board, I think altering the section titles based on country of origin would only confuse things for casual browsers. --DrSpengler (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

Honestly the main thing I wanna suggest is un-reverting the changes to the MMO characters back to "Original Mandarin Name" in place of "Foreign name" as that just more accurate, IMO. I also think that if the intent of the wiki is that "Foreign names" be read as "non-English names" then maybe "English" shouldn't actually appear under that header, as it does for Beastformers and Omni Producion dubs. And if "Foreign names" is actually supposed to mean "Names given to character in foreign markets" then should the name given in their original market actually be under there? Should a character's original name ever be labelled "foreign"? My gut instinct is to say "no" to that. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

They are foreign to our main readership, which is primarily Americans. That's what it means, regardless of whether the character is a foreign creation. We've had examples like Ricochet/Stepper, Snowblind/Beacon, and Optimus Prime/Fire Convoy for years. Why is this any different? Saix (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

I don't know! Maybe it isn't! Maybe all characters should always have their original name listed as such instead of just being under the "Foreign names" header! Maybe they shouldn't! Maybe! --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

Foreign is always understood as being in relation to the speaker. As this wiki is English speaking, all non-English names are foreign, even if they are the original names for those characters. --Khajidha (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

Again, if "all non-English name are foreign" then maaaaaaaaybe the word "English" shouldn't be appearing beneath the "Foreign names" header on any articles? --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

That's a more valid point, though it is mainly used for the Omni Productions dub which is pretty foreign to anything close to English...or good.--Khajidha (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

As we currently have it set up for English/Omni names, it looks like this:

• English: Billy (Omni Productions dub), Blaster (Omni Productions dub Twincast)

While it seems pretty clear by having the Omni Productions note in parenthesis by the names, maybe it would look better like this?

• English (Omni Productions dub): Billy (as Blaster), Blaster (as Twincast)

Is that better or worse or not even worth the effort? Personally, I don't have a dog in this race; I kinda think things are okay as-is. --DrSpengler (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

I was walking about the presence of "English" beneath a "Foreign names" header at all if the intended meaning of "Foreign names" is "non-English." So this isn't really addressing that? --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

There isn't really any other good place for these names to go. Unless you want to elevate them to the level of legitimate English variants (like Hot Rod vs Rodimus Prime or Bluestreak vs Silverstreak). I would find it a lot more disturbing to see "Also known as Billy" in Blaster's intro. Oh, and I agree with Speng's new version of the listing. --Khajidha (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

Okay, but then, what else could we call it? How else could we catalog that info? Should we put the Omni names at the top of the article alongside the "Sometimes he is known as..." notation at the bottom of the intro? I dunno if anybody would like that. I get what you're saying about having "English" under Foreign names when we default to English as a standard, but I'm not sure of a better way to catalog their Omni names aside from how we have it (English with Omni in parenthesis) (EDIT: Ah, Khajida beat me to the punch by 2 minutes). --DrSpengler (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

I mean, I suppose just listing "Omni Productions Dub" without the word English next to it would read better? Or listing it's country of origin instead of language, rendering the meaning on "Foreign" as "non-American" rather than "non-English?" --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

The Omni dubs are a very strange situation, though, and probably not something we need to build a whole policy around. Surely if we have a working system in place that reads a little strange in this one case we don't need to revamp everything. We can make some kind of reasonable exception just for Omni and call it a day.--Giggidy (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

Right. I think we're digressing from Kil's original complaint. Saix (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2016 (EDT)

Striking Unit:E from the record

As someone who has been adding a bunch of pages for the newly introduced Hasbro properties that are part of IDW's Revolution, I think we're hitting a bit of a snag: Unit:E. Unit:E was supposed to spin-out of Prime, which would put it in the Aligned continuity, while all the Revolution stuff is based in G1 continuity. As such, including info on both IDW Action Man and Unit:E Action Man on the same page doesn't make sense (especially when that page was built solely with IDW in mind.) However, this is a Transformers Wiki, and I don't think we need Action Man (IDW) and Action Man (Unit:E) This kind of thing WILL spiral out of control, and will only get worse with things like G.I. Joe characters (who are all G1 based) and Micronauts (because Acroyear is so different between the two incarnations.) As such, I propose that we set a precedent to excise ANY Unit:E-based material, with the exception of how it directly relates to the Transformers. Meaning the page on the actual group mentioned in Prime and the comic itself would stay, but unless Transformers were involved, the events aren't referenced. DannyBoy (talk) 19:57 15 July 2016 (EST)

Or we could just leave them on the same pages like we already are now. Don't overcomplicate things. Saix (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2016 (EDT)

The way we handle non-Transformers original characters is to keep all appearances together on the same page. So, if Destro shows up in Animated, and again in G1, we don't make two articles. No need for an Action Man (Aligned) and an Action Man (G1) under this scheme. Having them on the same page is a simple and elegant solution. --Giggidy (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2016 (EDT)

My issue with Unit:E is that none of the characters actually interact, and the multiversal nature of the story means that the Action Man featured there may not even have Transformers in his own universe, meaning his adventures would fall into the Megaverse, and thus outside this wiki's domain. The Unit:E information is therefore superfluous. Unit:E is also not a Transformers-branded piece of media. Notice we don't record the G.I. Joe events of Infestation. --DannyBoy (talk) 20:53 15 July 2015 (EST)

Because those issues do not have Transformers in them. Unit:E does, and I'm seriously having a hard time seeing the harm in detailing an one-shot issue that didn't amount to anything and that nobody else will cover. Saix (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2016 (EDT)

The Unit:E stuff is G1 already though. Arcee, Jazz, Optimus Prime and Bumblebee are all seen as distinctly G1 incarnations of those characters. There isn't even a need to consider the fact that one spin-off is G1 and another is Aligned since that's not the case. --Ascendron (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2016 (EDT)

Aligned characters

As brought up here on the Allspark, is there any momentum to split the RiD2015 incarnations of characters such as Grimlock (WFC), Sideswipe (WFC), and Kickback (FOC)? A highly broken concept as it is, the Aligned continuity family does roughly fit together as one timeline. As the three aforementioned RiD characters quite obviously do not share the looks and personalities of the WfC/FoC characters, I, for one, do not see how to reconcile them as the WfC/FoC characters at a new stage of their lives. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2016 (EDT)

Yeah, I've come around to the idea that they just don't have that much in common between names and altmodes (or, er, robot modes). I vote to split. --Riptide (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2016 (EDT)

For the reasons I've laid out on the AllSpark and on Sideswipe (WFC)'s talk page, I also think they should be split. --Xaaron (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2016 (EDT)

I also vote split. And just because I think this is a really useful way to conceptualize things, I want to repeat my formulation from the AllSpark thread:

Let me present this little thought experiment. Let's say that the RID 15 guy was named "Trapjaw", an early name for Grimlock. Maybe for copyright reasons, maybe for creative reasons, we don't know specifically. Would we still be inclined to keep the pages merged? This is an issue that has been a part of the Transformers brand since 1984 (see: Jetfire and Skyfire, who do indeed share a page). Shockblasts comfortably share pages with Shockwaves, Silverstreaks with Bluestreaks, Jazzs with Meisters. Likewise, characters since G1 have shared names and yet not been the same characters: Sky High is the earliest example. In this case, take away the name, and is there any reason to keep them merged? If your answer to this question is no, then you should probably be in favor of a split. 

I think this is an abstract enough test to be useful in a variety of cases where there is name reuse but little else. I've tested it against various counterexamples and (BW vs G1 Megatron, Octane and Tankor, various Unicron Trilogy Mini-Con nameslaps, toon vs comic Blaster) and it always seems to produce the 'correct' answer. --Jimsorenson (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2016 (EDT)

This test is a fantastic measure and one I wholly advocate, but I'll note that this metric places ROTF and AOE Lockdown's merger on relatively shaky footing. Whether that's a good or bad thing is uncertain, but I'd say it's worth it to make sure these RID articles are split. Sky Shadow (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2016 (EDT)

Spectre makes a good point here about the distinctiveness of Grimlock and Sideswipe. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2016 (EDT)

So...absent any complaints or counter-arguments in the next 24 hours, I say we go ahead and begin splitting these three characters. --Xaaron (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

As much as my vote matters, I agree with splitting them. Stealthyboy (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

So far what I'm getting from the Allspark thread is that it's highly subjective whether anyone thinks FOC Grimlock and RID Grimlock should share a page because they're both based on G1 Grimlock, or whether the differences between the two characters are enough that they should get separate pages. --abates (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

Really? I got the sense that there was one guy that really thought they should be together, several people that really thought they should be separate, and a few people who seemed on the fence. --Jimsorenson (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

Keep them merged. Any argument for splitting them is either arbitrary and could be applied to numerous other characters (Brawl (Movie), Vortex (Movie), Sideswipe (Movie), Swerve (Movie), Hound (Movie) and Lockdown (ROTF), to name a few), or based on authorial intent.--Nevermore (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2016 (EDT)

None of those guys have the same problem of irreconcilable fiction and lots of it, and none of them right now have new material coming up on a regular basis. (The only big issue there is Brawl because Titan went "oh uh it's twins" and in practice that's been easy to skim over) --Charles RB (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2016 (GMT)

Yeah, if we'd got any significant fiction for Movie 1 Hound or ROTF Lockdown, I'd argue that they should be split. Hell, I'm still not convinced that the Lockdowns should share a page, but I'm flexible on that. Most of the ones you've brought up, I would think should share a page only because they both are based on the same vague concept and don't have large amounts of fiction in contradictory incarnations. --Riptide (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2016 (EDT)

I would be up for splitting Brawl, Vortex, Sideswipe, etc though I think it would be unnecessary give how little material their non-screen versions received. But we already have Jetfire (Movie) and Jetfire (ROTF) split despite the former having no fiction whatsoever. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2016 (EDT)

I think, fundamentally, what it comes down to me is: will splitting help casual fans to understand better/stop them being confused? In the case of RID Grimlock, Sideswipe, and probably Kickback, I think that yes, it would. With Movie Hound and Sideswipe and Vortex, there's very little understanding that would be improved by doing so, and would likely just confuse fans searching for "movie Hound", etc. In the case of the Lockdowns, they're arguably the same character by virtue of Q-Transformers, though that's obviously kinda shaky. (And splitting Brawl would be the most unnecessary pedantry in the whole world, damn.) --Riptide (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2016 (EDT)

I'd vote to keep them merged, with the stipulation that we add a note of some kind explaining the discrepancy. Grum (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2016 (EDT)

Split. They're wildly different characters with no visual similarity and aren't based on the same toy (WFC Grimlock not even originally from a toy!) and it means anyone browsing to look up RID Grimlock, the one they most likely will be, atm has to get through a lot of different Grimlock. --Charles RB (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2016 (GMT)

A lot of what I'm hearing from the "Keep them merged" crowd is that they don't think some of the reasons for splitting are good reasons. Let me flip it around for a minute -- can anyone think of a benefit to keeping these characters merged? Besides a slippery-slope argument that it may, someday in the future, be used to justify other splits? --Xaaron (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2016 (EDT)

Split. They're very different characters. And there's no conflict between Hasbro statements and author intent here; the most relevant Hasbro statement is the one that would indicate that FoC and RiD do take place in the same timeline, in which case there can be no "different interpretation of the same characters" between them; characters who cannot be the actual same individual at different times in the same timeline therefore must be different ones with the same name. NovaSaber (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2016 (EDT)

Can I vote that there should be no blanket policy here, to just evaluate on a case-by-case basis? --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2016 (EDT)

Absolutely, and seconded. --Xaaron (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2016 (EDT)

So I count Split: 10 (Xaaron, SHIELD Agent 47, Charles RB, Jim S, Riptide, Sky Shadow, Stealthyboy, NovaSaber, abates, Sabrblade), Keep: 2 (Nevermore, Grum), with no guiding hand from Admin/Owners. Can we go ahead with splitting these three characters, with the understanding that no larger administrative policy is being established, and future cases should still be evaluated on an individual basis? --Xaaron (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2016 (EDT)

I mentioned it on the Allspark, but I don't have any particularly strong preference so long it's applied consistently for all the applicable Aligned characters, and not just Grimlock. I do kind of question the sense in still treating Aligned like it's still a single timeline under Squint Test rules, since it seems reasonably certain, between RID Grimlock's existence and the departure of Hasbro folks like Archer, that that concept has been thrown out the window. But I also feel like splitting these characters has benefits in terms of accessibility for the casual user, and I guess that's why I'm not going to vote against – I think I probably would if it felt entirely like meaningless "furniture rearrangement" (as Sipher puts it). I think it's worth putting out one final call for people to 'vote' on the Allspark thread before going ahead with the split. Jalaguy (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2016 (EDT)

Also, as a postscript: if the splits do go ahead, links will need updating pretty hasty-like, or else there'll be a hell of a lot of potential for confusion. Jalaguy (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2016 (EDT)

Relinked episodes 1-12 and the main RID series page so far. Moving on to the non-show relinks now. --Charles RB (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2016 (GMT)

Every image and linked-to non-TV-story on Grim's page has been relinked, plus the RID toyline page. Just the rest of the eps and other character's pages to go--Charles RB (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2016 (GMT)

Eps and main Autobots relinked--Charles RB (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2016 (GMT)

I think I've got all of the remaining articles, so there's just a pile of images with links to the wrong Grimlock in their descriptions. --abates (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2016 (EDT)

Throwing my vote in while I still can. I said it on The Allspark an will say it here that I'm in favor of splitting the Grimlock, Sideswipe, and Kickback articles. Although... Blurr (Prime) might be a fourth contender for splitting as well, but I'm not as eager to see that one split as the other three, so I won't fight for that one as much if enough people object to splitting the Blurr page. --Sabrblade (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2016 (EDT)

Hrm. Yeah, I'd say split the Blurrs, too. They've really only got "car what goes fast" in common, and really, what else is a bot called Blurr going to turn into? With that one in particular, they're so different that there's no way to reconcile them for an opening paragraph other than the faux-narrative of "first he was this, then he was this". --Riptide (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2016 (EDT)

I'm actually in favour of split. Not sure I'm particularly worried about Kickback, but Grimlock and Sideswipe definitely. --abates (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2016 (EDT)

Starting on Sideswipe now. Though, come to think of it, is it necessary to title Robots in Disguise Sideswipe at "Sideswipe (RID 2015)" since the 2001 guy has a space in his name? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2016 (EDT)

No, strictly speaking it wouldn't need the 2015, though it's probably a case where an argument could be made for making an exception? Jalaguy (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2016 (EDT)

Generations toyline page

A thought: do the Combiner Wars and Titans Return sublines merit their own pages? The Generations page has exceeded the length of even the U.S. G1 toyline page, and barring some unforeseen financial disaster at Hasbro, we know that the Prime Wars Trilogy will get another entry after Titans Return. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2016 (EDT)

I agree. Given how the "Combiner Wars" and "Titans Return" names overshadow the "Generations" name on the packaging, I think we should give them their own page. The fact that each also has a franchise page I think warrants this expansion. --DannyBoy (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2016 (EDT)

I'm on board with that.--Nevermore (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2016 (EDT)

Given that Combiner Wars, Titans Return and the next line are under the "Prime Wars" umbrella, maybe we should make a Prime Wars subpage for Generations, similar to the way certain character pages have a separate Toys page, and put the toys in those three lines on that page.Stealthyboy (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2016 (EDT)

Anyone in opposition to this motion? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2016 (EDT)

Splitting is probably the least unwieldy option, or will be eventually, so I don't see why not. Item42 (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2016 (EDT)

I'd been considering this myself for a while. My suggestion, I guess, would be splitting it three ways, by logo/branding - original, FOC/T30, and Prime Wars. Jalaguy (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2016 (EDT)

I think the original Deluxe line, FoC, and T30 can all stay on the same Generations page since their packaging has "Transformers: Generations" as the main thing. I'd even argue splitting up Combiner Wars and Titans Return into their own pages given that (as far as I know) Prime Wars wasn't mentioned on their toy packaging. --DannyBoy (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2016 (EDT)

Of course the argument "size of the logo on the packaging" opens a whole can of worms again regarding Reveal the Shield, which we currently consider a subline imprint of Transformers (2010)… Long story short, the title "Reveal the Shield" on the packaging has the same size and font and all as the concurrently available original Generations Deluxe line's title (seriouly, just judging from the packaging alone, how is the right one a toy line and the left one only a subline imprint?)… on the other hand, all the Reveal the Shield assortments were continued from the 2010 Transformers line's general retail assortments (same assortment numbers), which were simpy branded Transformers with additional stickers for the Hunt for the Decepticons promotion and Jesus Christ on a bicycle 2010's branding was confusing as hell.--Nevermore (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2016 (EDT)

Combiner Wars and Titans Return, though, are subline imprints with noteworthy fiction due to their status as multimedia branding. If and when I get to separating out the toylines into their own articles, I believe I will focus on those two. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2016 (EDT)

Masterforce humans and transtectors

Um, why are we separating the human Minerva, Ginrai, etc. from the robot Minerva, Ginrai, etc? Especially considering that we just fairly recently combined the organic Nebulan Peacemaker (et al.) and the robotic Peaceman (et al.). --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2016 (EDT)

Well, it's not really a comparable situation to Peacemaker and co. - this is robot and human versions of the same character co-existing together in the same world, not a character being variably robot or human in different universes. With new fiction (and probably more to come) of the humans and robots off doing separate stuff, splitting them out is probably the solution that leads to the least-confusing biography write-ups... Jalaguy (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2016 (EDT)

We already did this almost two years ago for Shūta Gō and Goshooter when they appeared simultaneously in order to keep track of them better. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2016 (EDT)

What Jalaguy said. Otherwise we get alternating paragraphs of human and robot Minerva fiction which only confuse readers. Saix (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2016 (EDT)

Should their toys be split onto subpages as well then? It seems redundant to have exactly the same section on both pages.Omegatron (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2016 (EDT)

They're not that long and they don't have the exact same set of toys. Saix (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2016 (EDT)

Bios by Universal Stream

For characters like Jhiaxus who have totally different personalities, I think we should have individual bios placed above their fiction. Though we do note that certain characters have wildly different portrayals, we never really explain their personality, simply listing what happens in their fictional appearances. This could also count for locations as well. For example, Cybertron is a very different planet in several continuities, yet we don't usually have individual descriptions of each version. Currently we (for the most part) only list the history of the planet, not its defining physical characteristics. I'm not talking about a long bio, just a few sentences to clarify the differences with its other versions. Does anyone else agree? --Halfshell25 12:31, 04 September 2016 (EDT)

Titan Master toy info accessibility

To account for Titans Return Titan Masters whose names and personalities match the large classic dudes instead of the small classic dudes they tend to physically resemble, I have added links in the 1980s Nebulans' toy sections pointing to the large guy's Titans Return toys. How does everyone feel about this? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

Sounds good to me. I was going to put the full entries on their pages, but this probably works better. --Riptide (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

Personalities? I am intrigued. How do you know what their personalities are? There are no bios or anything. - Gimmick (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

Haven't you seen the packaging backsides? Or the available on the Internet catalog? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

I know about the catalog bios, but the single-packed Titan Masters really don't have bios anywhere on their package. NovaSaber (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

Yeah, the single-packed TMs don't have their bios on their packaging, just in the storybook/catalogue and on their Hasbro.com listings. Jalaguy (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2016 (EDT)

I haven't read the Comic-Con storybook, but thanks for the heads up on the Hasbro.com bios. The Wiki could probably say more about that. Although I think I would rather not have known that some Titan Masters have their big-guy personality just because in the real life universe, their toy was packaged individually. Personal canon: Titan Master Fangry's superpower is that he comes with Google Maps preinstalled. - Gimmick (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2016 (EDT)

Should the same system be used for Emissary on Spike and Galen's pages? At the moment the full entry for Emissary is on Spike's page with nothing on Galen's, even though the G1 toy is on both. Omegatron (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2016 (EDT)

Emissary is designed to look like Spike and Galen's armor, though. That's more in common than there is between the single Titan Masters and their corresponding Nebulans, who basically have "turns into the same head" as the only reason to associate them. NovaSaber (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2016 (EDT)

I suppose, but there are a lot of toys that look very similar to a previous character but aren't on their page. Omegatron (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2016 (EDT)

Add links to uploaded videos of episodes in the articles for episodes?

I have been watching the G1 on dailymotion and all thanks to this wiki, I just check the list of episodes and look for it in a couple of chosen favorite channels. I thought that maybe it'd be cool if we could simply add links to the episodes in the articles themselves?

As a bonus, we could also form a team and:

• Set up our own channel.
• Collect the best quality versions of the episodes from various sources.
• Link to those videos in the articles. --Furhun (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2016 (EDT)

Nope. The wiki is not going to endorse piracy. Jalaguy (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2016 (EDT)

That would give Hasbro a nice, easy reason to shut the wiki down, which is not what we're after. When it's all out for purchase, it's not fair to them to put it up illegally. AkibaSilver (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2016 (EDT)

Christ no. --M Sipher (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2016 (EDT)

Animation/continuity errors

Hey, this is just a little thing - I'm not proposing anything, just mentioning this with a view to moving forward, but I really dislike how on episode pages we put errors first. I get why, it's a carryover from our G1 episode pages being some of the first things we ever did, and errors being perhaps the most famous, most catalogue-able thing about that series. But it's an out-of-place, and frankly I think demeaning, thing to have as the first entry for an average modern cartoon episode when there's plenty of other, more "relevant" information to provide ahead of mistakes. We don't do it for comics, and I don't like it on episodes either. - Chris McFeely (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2016 (EDT)

I'd say go ahead and make a proposal to change it. You have my vote behind you. --Khajidha (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2016 (EDT)

I'm beyond okay with this and absolutely in favor of making this a broad-scale change to existing pages. --M Sipher (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2016 (EDT)

Yup, also very much behind this. Jalaguy (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2016 (EDT)

If we're re-ordering anyway, does anyone else think it would be more informative to "continuity errors" always follow "continuity notes" for episodes that have both, even if it means "continuity errors" is no longer consecutive with "animation and technical errors"? NovaSaber (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2016 (EDT)

I wouldn't be adverse to making the errors a subset of notes, really. I mean, a continuity error IS technically a note about continuity. --M Sipher (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2016 (EDT)

I'm not sure, with modern shows, that we even need separate sections for "continuity errors" and "animation errors." Again, with G1 - yes, we did, because there were so many. But such things are so rare now that a simple "Errors" section seems like all we need to everything effectively.

Ehn, I feel like keeping all the continuity bits together, be they complimentary or clashing, makes more sense than lumping the continuity-clashes with "someone forgot to texture that panel in that one shot". --M Sipher (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2016 (EDT)

I agree. Although, personally, I don't see a reason to bundle it up under one "Errors" heading. As a reader, I would like them to be under relevant headings. --Furhun (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2016 (EDT)