MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive57

[[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive57|0|-0}}|«]]	Community Portal / Archive57   e	[[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive57|0|-0}}|»]]
from~July 10, 2013 to~October 29, 2013 notes:

Sizes

I brought this up on the scale talk page but got no response. Basically, for a wiki that tries to include as much as possible, tfwiki doesn't really address the sizes of the toys. For someone who's never actually bought any toys, terms like "Deluxe" and "Mega", or "Small Headmaster" and "Large Headmaster", or "Autobot Car" and "Mini Vehicle", aren't useful for telling how tall the toys actually are. Pretty much the only place this is addressed is the pages for the original Fort Max and the new Metroplex, which actually have numbers (22" and 24"), and seem to be the only place on the wiki where this is addressed, despite articles on both Scale and Size class. --flicky1991 11:00, 10 July 2013 (EDT)

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

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

Khajidha, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Nothing on the wiki actually indicates how tall any of these toys are. You mention Beast Hunters Starscream, but all it says on his page is that that toy is "shorter than his First Edition toy". As far as I'm concerned, he could be anything from a couple of inches to over a foot! Everything just seems to be described in terms of other toys - as another example, the original Omnibots are only described as being "shorter than Autobot Cars". I'm not asking for a true average size - just enough to have some point of reference. --flicky1991 14:25, 10 July 2013 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign Localization placement - again!!!

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

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

Some Transformer Knock-off cartoon

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

To Story:

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

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

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

Korean, not Indonesian

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

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

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

Grouping American/Japanese divergent fiction

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

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

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

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

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

The problem with that is that a casual reader of the page may not know the connection between the US and Japan cartoons. Whichever way it's written, it will be clear that Chromedome was introduced separately in both the US and Japanese cartoons - however, grouping the two together would signify that, despite the difference in the portrayal of the character, these are two similar universes, as opposed to the fairly different Marvel universe or the radically different IDW universe. I don't like it when the wiki assumes too much prior knowledge on the part of the reader - just because we know the story behind the Rebirth/Headmasters timeline split, someone who only knows Chromedome from the IDW comics may not be as aware, and wiki articles should above all aim to be informative. --flicky1991 03:26, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

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

The point I'm trying to make is that, assuming the article is written clearly, there would be no confusion as to whether there is a linear chronology, as the sections would be labelled "US continuity" and "Japanese continuity" or something similar - so as long as we've made that clear, we might as well point out that these two separate timelines were once the same timeline, but branched off before this character was introduced, so as not to give the impression of a completely separate "Japanese cartoon continuity" that is unrelated to the US one, unlike the actual situation which has a split timeline. Looking at Chromedome's page, both the Rebirth section and the Headmasters section mention Galvatron, but the page as written gives no indication that both "versions" of Galvatron, unlike the two Chromedomes, experienced exactly the same events for a while before Chromedome appeared - if Chromedome's page was the first page I ever read on the wiki, I would conclude that the Headmasters series was as unrelated to the US series as it is to the IDW comics. Grouping the two together would prevent any such misunderstandings without going into too much detail, and the reader could then consult the page about the Headmasters series if they want a full explanation. --flicky1991 11:19, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

I'd rather have "obnoxious" continuity notes than a confusing article. --flicky1991 17:17, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

New templates

Template:Nihongo, same one as used on wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

trying to find a template

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would support it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We'd use a different visual obviously...

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

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

Disambiguation suffixes

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

We don't strictly follow that first rule - see the various "Great War" pages, for example. --flicky1991 14:26, 2 September 2013 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stub Templates

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

From the Marvel Comics portion of the Generation 1 continuity family

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

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

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

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

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

The AllSpark and the Allspark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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