Is there any way to scrub the changes and that username from the recent changes? Because now we've got a slur on multiple pages, and it'd be nice not to. We should probably also see if there's a way to prevent usernames from having that word too. --M Sipher (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2019 (EST)
I believe we're on a late enough version of MediaWiki that somebody with access to our LocalSettings.php (abates?) should be able to switch on the 'revision delete' function for sysops. That would let us scrub the offending edits from the article histories. Jalaguy (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2019 (EST)
Well, I found a way to rename the user, at least. Which scrubs SOME stuff but not everything. But yeah, if that works, let's. --M Sipher (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2019 (EST)
He had another account that got banned yesterday; we should scrub all those too. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2019 (EST)
Sounds good, I'll see about enabling revision deletion for admins. --abates (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2019 (EST)
All right, I've redacted a bunch of revisions from both instances. --abates (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2019 (EST)
The one instance that wasn't able to be gotten is McFeely's banning of the original username, since it hadn't been changed yet, but that's only in the "Recent changes" view; it should be fixed everywhere else. Unless you want to undo the edit summaries of all the reversions to strike his name(s) entirely from the record, we're probably all set. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2019 (EST)
Thanks, I've changed the usernames in Recent Changes manually. --abates (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2019 (EST)
Scheduled downtime
Our host has to do some maintenance on our server, so there's going to be some downtime on Jan 8, 8:30am UTC. --abates (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2019 (EST)
Creating a new page for Dropkick
I think that we should separate the 2007 Dropkick with the BB Dropkick just like we did it with Crosshairs and Hound —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crosshairs (talk • contribs).
I'm rather inclined to agree. Bumblebee Dropkick has nothing concretely connecting him to Transformers Dropkick. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2019 (EST)
Why? They're both whiny blue movieverse Decepticon grunts who hate being on Earth. Other than altmode, what makes them more different than ROTF and AOE Lockdown? --Riptide (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (EST)
ROTF and AOE Lockdown are both based on the same character (Animated Lockdown). The Dropkicks aren't. Omegatron (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2019 (EST)
Help With Where To Store Images For 'Fritos Poster - The Power Struggle' and 'Hi-C Poster / Calendar Battle In The Desert Valley'
I have high quality scans of all the images on the Fritos Poster 'The Power Struggle' and Hi-C 'Battle In the Desert Valley', but don't know where to put them. It does not appear you put all images of something (like a book) onto this site; that's why there are external links. It also doesn't look like you could make a separate subpage with all of the images on it. I do not know if I could upload them on this site, or if you have a recommend place to upload them or send to someone's website (like where the Transformers Manga is stored) and then include appropriate links when the images are up so people could read the whole thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheScarletSpider (talk • contribs).
We have no problem with hosting full posters, actually. In fact, we already have images for Battle in the Desert Valley and The Power Struggle. If yours are cleaner than ours, though, we'd love for you to upload them! You can use the "Upload a new version of this file" link for each image to replace the existing versions. Please be careful about the filesize, though; we generally prefer JPG files at 150 kb or less for bandwidth reasons, though given all the small text, we can probably make an exception for these as long as they're not too big. (Also, please make sure to sign your talk page posts! Just type four tildes at the end (~~~~) and the wiki will take care of the rest.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2019 (EST)
Yeah, so both posters are scanned 2 pages each so you can actually read it, but they are in the 4-7MB range, so they would probably need to be hosted elsewhere, and then a link provided on the TFWiki Page to it, if anyone knows any good places to email someone / a website about hosting them. I also have scanned the 4 advertisements on the back of the Battle Desert Valley Poster, as well as the Reinforcements Ad scanned that came with the Power Struggle. (----)
Wiki page titles with diacritics
I recently read about how SEO is somewhat unfriendly towards searches containing diacritics, resulting in diacritic-containing page titles getting found less often by Google. In that case, how should pages such as that of David García Cruz of Spain and Gabriel Rodríguez Pérez of Chile be titled, additionally considering that IDW in the U.S. often doesn't spell their names with the diacritics in business material? Far be it from me to advocate not spelling personal names natively, but comprising on that seems to be most helpful for the wiki's Internet presence. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2019 (EST)
I don't think we should base our spellings of creators' names on what's relevant for SEO, but more the correct way it should be spelled. Though I do notice from googling both of those names that even they themselves spell them both with and without diacritics on their social media. --abates (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2019 (EDT)
"Core Concepts" and the Main Page
Okay so here's a thing, kind of a big major cascading-ish thing. Abates brought this up on the Allspark in the discussion of the Comics page revamp, and let's discuss it here. Namely, the "Categories" box on the Main Page is useless. Categories are a TERRIBLE "first step" to finding information on a wiki. Just a big wad-list of links. That space would be better served with links to actual pages, particularly "core concepts" pages that are good "basics"-level starting points/hubs to find more information, like the new version of the Comics page.
The issue, though, is that many of the big "core concepts" pages... well, range from "are in need of work" to "are dogshit". "Comics" was clearly thrown togther 15 years ago then not touched significantly since then since it was not a glamourous page to work on... but it's an essential concept. SO. I want to gather a list of candidate pages for this "core concepts" section, stuff that's broad but important, and it'd be good to have folks really work at polishing them up and making them approachable, current-standards pages.
Comics - Well, most of that work's been done recently.
Cartoons - We don't have this yet, but we prolly should. Same general idea as the Comics, but should be a LOT simpler. I'll probably work on a version of this in a few days.
Toy - I mean, it IS the reason this whole damn enterprise exists. A brief glance at this page shows it too could really use a revamp. It's not awful, but it's... not up to our current standards.
Video games - I'm not convinced the current setup of this page is the best way it could be done. At the very least it needs some pictures.
Continuity - This page is solid but could use a brush-up. But it's at the core of a lot of related concepts... better to ease someone into "continuity family" talk with the broad-strokes of "continuity" first.
Franchise - Hoooooo boy does this page need work. What an ugly kludge. BUT the page idea is a perfect hub for people to find out more about that thing they remember from when they were a kid.
Transformer - Another good hub for the broader concepts of TF biology and whatnot.
Factions - Maybe? Abates mentioned it as a possibility. Wouldn't be a bad lead-in to reworking the individual factions' pages.
Maybe call the box "Getting Started" instead of "Core Concepts". And honestly? It should probably go ABOVE "Continuity Families", which I'm... increasingly unsold on the need for on the Mainpage, but I'm not calling for it to be deleted (yet). --M Sipher (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2019 (EST)
What about Character? As for the general name for these, "the Basics" would be good ... except McFeely's already taken it. --Khajidha (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2019 (EST)
Christ on a tilt-a-whirl, that page needs SERIOUS culling. It should be MAYBE a third of its current size. There's no way in hell I'd recommend that as a "starter" page. *looks at edit history to see who did the most work on the page* of fucking course --M Sipher (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2019 (EST)
Hey, I make no claim as to the quality of the page, I'm just saying that "character" is a core concept that should be in this group (whether the current version of that page or some totally new one or something in between, I have no opinion on).--Khajidha (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (EST)
I'd be willing to take a crack at the Video Games page, but I wonder whether we should continue to split them up by continuity, or do so by console generation instead? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2019 (EST)
It's a good question. I'm not wild about breaking them up by continuity. Breaking them up by pre-Nintendo gaming systems, 8-bit/16-bit era, uh... whatever the PS/Xbox/GC up to now would be considered, mobile apps, and arcades? That what you're thinking? --M Sipher (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2019 (EST)
More or less, yeah. I'm thinking we split it up into 3rd gen (8-bit systems), 5th gen (PS1/N64), 6th gen (GC/PS2), 7th gen (360/PS3/Wii), 8th gen (XB1/PS4/Wii U), mobile, and arcade, with a separate link to the Online game page because trying to merge all those in might actually bloat it too much. Depending on how the final breakdown looks, I might split off handheld games into their own section as well. Not sure yet whether to list games twice if they appeared across multiple console generations (like how some games were on both PS3 and PS4) or just once. I'll see how each approache looks, then decide where to go from there. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2019 (EST)
I'm'a be honest, I think distinguishing between 7 & 8 is kinda pointless, especially when you consider how many of those games were also on PC/Steam. 5 & 6 too also seem pretty much the same. --M Sipher (talk)
Fair enough. I started a draft and sorted all the games accordingly into categories (though I haven't done any curation beyond that like putting them in release order). I'm gonna try and drill down further later, but I don't even know how to approach the mobile games section; whittling that one down into something digestible and/or writing a summary will probably require help from someone who actually plays the mobile games. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2019 (EST)
You know, this might be a place for us to get a shade fancy. I'm thinking tables. Title, release date, system(s), franchise, with that little arrow in each column header that lets you sort the list by that column. Side benefit: not a bullet list leaving a lot of whitespace. I mean, still broken up by the current categories. Something to consider. --M Sipher (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2019 (EST)
I did a quick and dirty mockup for the console games, with the systems themselves being a non-sortable column because it's not gonna make a difference when you've got like five or six of them in a single box. If this looks good, I'll do the same for the other sections. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2019 (EST)
Yeah, I like that. Has all the stuff most anyone might want to find a particular game, in a format much easier to find the variables in than our normal bullet points. --M Sipher (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2019 (EST)
Okay, the page is almost ready. There's still more to do, but I suggest we move further discussion to the sandbox talk page so we're not taking up too much space here. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (EST)
The games page has officially been updated. I also have a WIP Toys section for Transformers that turn into gaming devices like consoles and controllers, but I decided to leave it off for fear that it'd bloat the page. If anyone else thinks it's worth including, though, I'm happy to add it as well. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2019 (EST)
Just want to note that I feel like these links should be consistently pluralised? "Franchises", "Continuities"... - The Wadapan (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2019 (EST)
Okay, so, re-opening this discussion, since several of the above pages have gotten their overhauls. I'm feeling like both the "Continuity Families" and "Categories" boxes on the main page should go bye-bye in favor of a single "Fundamentals" section, with the pages listed above. Any thoughts to the contrary? (Sandboxing a box now.) --M Sipher (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2019 (EST)
That looks like a great improvement over what we've got at the moment. --abates (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2019 (EST)
Unless someone's got any kinda objections/additions to discuss, I figure I'll just make the change once I get the "Movies" page sorted... and also once we slap a warning or something on Character because jeezus, that page needs worrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrk. --M Sipher (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2019 (EST)
Generation 1 toyline labeling
Of late, I have observed some "Generation 1" toy headers get changed to "The Transformers" (e.g. on the pages "Blowpipe (G1)", "Prowl (G1)/toys", "Roadhandler (G1)"), presumably because "The Transformers" was the actual series name on the original packaging. Is this a trend we want to propagate throughout the site? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2019 (EST)
Oof. I'd definitely prefer keeping "Generation 1". "The Transformers" is so unhelpfully generic. Using G1 may not be technically accurate, but it's such a universally known and intuitive retroactive term that it just looks better, especially with toys that have "Generation 2" releases right below it. --Xaaron (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2019 (EST)
Thing is, "Generation 1" gets used for both the franchise AND the wider grouping that sits above it (whereas Unicron Trilogy → Armada, for instance). That's why other stuff has been changed to The Transformers in the past (e.g., articles for the cartoon/toyline/etc; as well as Fiction section headers), IIRC - to make it clearer whether (e.g,) G1 cartoons in general (including the JP Headmasters/Masterforce/etc sequels) or the series running from MTMTE pt 1 to The Rebirth pt 3 is the subject at hand. - Mammalian Verisimilitude (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2019 (EST)
I can say that personally, I've been using "The Transformers" only when I'm talking about the media and toyline specifically called that, and almost always something along the lines of "Marvel's The Transformers comic" or "Sunbow's The Transformers cartoon." When I'm talking about a character or whatnot, I'll say "Generation 1 Xnamehere." Escargon (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2019 (EST)
Well, that's in line with what Xaaron's objecting to, I think. Making (e.g.) the first subheader (under Toys) on Optimus Prime (G1)/toys say "The Transformers" (or a variation, like "The Transformers (1984)" - which would have precedent with the likes of Transformers (2007)/(2010), Robots in Disguise (2001)/(2015), Universe (2003)/(2008), etc) - rather than "Generation 1".
(And I was saying that I agree with the change, since if they're on the page of a "Generation 1" character, they're all "G1 toys", even if they weren't in the 1984-1991 toylines. We use "Generation 1" on multiple things whereas in other "continuity families" with multiple franchises, we use a term distinct from any of the constituent franchises, like Unicron Trilogy, live-action film series or Aligned) - Mammalian Verisimilitude (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2019 (EST)
Kind of related question: Why DO we consider the first franchise to officially be "The Transformers"? I know the "the" is right there in the logo, but it's in the same font as the "More than meets the eye" tagline which we don't consider part of the title. Aside from that, if we REALLY wanted to match the franchise name to the logo, wouldn't it be "The Trans {insert faction symbol here} Formers" or, at least, "The Trans Formers"? --Khajidha (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2019 (EST)
Knew I'd seen one of these somewhere around here Well, the Marvel US series was formally "The Transformers", even after the "The" was dropped from the front cover logo... - Mammalian Verisimilitude (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2019 (EST)
Quotation punctuation on Siege toy entries
So, I noticed that pretty much all of the Siege toy entries use the American quotation style (commas and periods outside the quotation marks, like "this,") instead of the British/logical style (commas and periods inside the quotation marks, like "this",). I've never liked the American style, but personal opinions aside, I kinda find this odd, considering this wiki perfers the logical style. Granted, our style guide also says "Respect other editors' style choices", but honestly, I think it'd be better to change to the logical style. After all, are those commas and periods really part of the weapons' names? ShootingStar7X (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (EST)
It seems to vary by personal choice of the editor, and in spite of that guideline, most users on this wiki prefer U.S.-style punctuation inside quotation marks (which is unfortunate, but oh well). S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
Rename IDW Generation 1 continuity to IDW 2005 continuity?
Obviously, we have an imminent reboot, which the wiki will almost certainly classify as G1, 'cause that's what it does with comics. But even until now, the "IDW Generation 1 continuity" is not the only G1 based continuity IDW have published - Star Trek/Transformers has just finished, and there's been a bunch of other G1 "micro-continuities" they've done. "IDW Generation 1 continuity" only really works as a name if it's the only IDW G1 continuity. And even if you ignore the small stuff, that's not the case as of later this month. So how about switching to naming it by date? - Mammalian Verisimilitude (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2019 (EST)
Date seems to be the most future-proof naming scheme, in case they reboot again in another 10 years. --abates (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, I'm all for switching to date as well, but I'd like to get a few more folks to weigh in before I start updating things, since this change would effect a LOT of articles. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2019 (EDT)
Problem is, the longer you wait, the harder it becomes to actually do it, if people start slipping in "IDW Generation 1 (2019)" and similar styles that would get caught by find'n'replace. - Mammalian Verisimilitude (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
Perhaps, but again, I think this is a big enough change that there needs to be some level of consensus before it starts getting implemented. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2019 (EDT)
In line with our RiD headers, I suggest adjusting that to "2005 IDW continuity" and "2019 IDW continuity". S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2019 (EDT)
It seems we've got a category problem on our hands. I'm seeing pages marked under "IDW 2005", "IDW (2005)", and "2005 IDW". Can we just pick one category banner name and stick with it?--NexusShard17 (talk) 13:23, 04 April 2019 (EDT)
There was some further discussion on AllSpark, and it sounds like the current consensus is "2005 IDW continuity". -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2019 (EDT)
The main continuity page stands at "2005 IDW continuity" while categories should become "Category:IDW (2005) x" in line with our precedent of "Category:Robots in Disguise (2001) x". S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2019 (EDT)
Guideline for fan opinions?
Hi, I'd just like to ask if there are general guidelines for citing fan opinions on pages (e.g. Revenge of the Fallen is bad, Masterpiece Prime is considered one of the best toys ever)? I noticed that some pages cite subjective opinions and some don't, but I'd just like to figure out when it's acceptable or not to do so. --Samus Aran (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
Uploading Images
Hi, I'm new to this wiki. I've made contributions on other wikis (Marvel, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, etc) and was going to upload images, starting with two regarding the Autobot Fleet (IDW) but I keep getting the message that I don't have permission to create new pages. I've followed the instructions and continue to get that message. What am I missing or are only certain individuals permitted to upload images?
New users are restricted from creating articles (which image uploads fall under) as an anti-spam measure. After you've made more edits (I forget the exact number, hopefully another admin can come along and say?) that functionality will be automatically unlocked for you. Jalaguy (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2019 (EDT)
General policy regarding toy writeups for toys with multiple releases, reissues etc.
I feel like this has been discussed a few times already, but do we have a general rule regarding how we treat toys that had multiple releases in the respective characters' toy sections? For example, both Tracks and Wheeljack still have their "Classic Heroes" releases tacked onto their original G1 toy writups, whereas others such as Jazz, Prowl and Sunstreaker have them separated out into separate writeups. (On top of that, the date for "Classic" Tracks was off by one year! It originally said "1992" twice before I fixed it.) Meanwhile, G1 Silverbolt's Unite Warriors writeup itself mentions the 2019 re-release, but the top of the writeup only mentions the original 2015 release date (presumably because the exact date would make adding the re-release date look awkwardly clunky, unlike a simple "2015/2019" date). The other Aerialbots' UW writeups don't mention the 2019 re-release at all.
Generally, I think the guideline should be more or less "if there is a new production run in largely unaltered packaging within a few years of the original version, it gets added to the original writeup, but if the official branding on the packaging changes, it gets its own separate writeup", which made us separate stuff like the Transformers Collection, Commemorative Series and Encore out into their own sections. But that doesn't really cover the "Euro Classics", which had their own distinct packaging designs but were still part of what we consider the "Generation 1 line"... and then there are a bunch of other complicated cases:
The 1989-onwards Chinese releases are generally ignored entirely in the toy writeups, even though some of them were released more then half a decade after their original US versions, around the same time as the "Euro Classics".
Most of the 2000-onwards Japanese reissues in (mostly) unaltered packaging get their own writeups, but Predaking and the individual Predacons, as well as Sixshot, have the reissues added to the writeups for the original 1986/1987 releases instead.
The unreleased redecos of Generation 2 "Hero" Optimus Prime and Megatron get separate entries, even though based on the packaging, they were intended as mere color variants like the G2 Dinobots and Constructicons had. The only reason they're considered as separate items is because of the fabled "Combat Heroes" name, which is likely the result of a persistent outdated working name seeping into the fandom's collective consciousness. (See here for more.)
What about the very odd case of the Toys"R"Us exclusive Universe Unicron, a straight re-release of the Armada figure in an identical deco, featuring the same Hasbro product code number and UPC barcode as the Armada release, but sold in completely redesigned packaging and branded under the Universe line rather than Armada?
What, then, about the "Dollar store" releases of Legion Class Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Starscream and Grimlock? Originally released in 2014, in packaging mimicking the overall look of the then-concurrent Age of Extinction line, Optimus, Bumblebee and Grimlock were re-released a year later, now in completely redesigned packaging mimicking the overall look of the then-concurrent Combiner Wars line, complete with new Hasbro product code numbers and UPC barcodes compared to their 2014 releases... and then Optimus, Bumblebee and Starscream were re-released again in 2017, this time in slightly altered and updated versions of their 2014 releases' packaging complete with the old Hasbro product code numbers and UPC barcodes. Optimus, Bumblebee and Starscream mention the re-releases both in their writeups themselves and in the writeup headers (though I had to remove an incorrect mention of an alleged 2015 release for Starscream), whereas Grimlock only mentions it in the writeup itself, but not in the header. Do we consider these all as variations of the same releases, including the 2015 versions?
My head hurts.
New admins
Several recent incidents seem to indicate a need for more admins. How do we go about getting some? --Khajidha (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
I think Walky is the only person with the power to appoint admins, so you'd need to talk to him. Grum (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
Fixing up the category system
Our category system at the moment is a mess, in no small part because the wiki is old and over time people have added stuff in different places. One of the rules we should be sticking to is that if an article is in a subcategory, it should be equally able to fit into the parent category. By example, Optimus Prime (G1) is in:
Optimus Prime is a character, a robot, and a Transformer, so he can fit into any of the parent categories, so this is a good structure. Meanwhile Destro is in:
While Cobra is a human organization, Destro is not. If you're navigating into a category for "Organizations", I don't think you should find a category containing a bunch of characters.
The Cobra category has been categorized as though it's the Cobra article when it's actually "People and objects related to Cobra". It contains Cobra personnel and things like Cobra Island.
So I think the Cobra category should be removed from both its current parents, but I'm not sure where it would go. Do we need a top-level category for categories of "articles by subgroup" perhaps? (there are a bunch of categories like Cobra) Thoughts? --abates (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2019 (EDT)
Parentheticals for way-too-similar page titles
Okay, this has been brought up on Allspark (link to the start) in the wake of the whole "Bring Me The Head Of Optimus Prime" deal, but let's talk about this here.
"Transformers Generations", "Transformers: Generations" and "The Transformers: Generations" all link to considerably different things, and none of them are redirects. So, tell me, without clicking any of the links... which does each link to? Really shouldn't HAVE to go to a disambig page to find out which is which.
And I don't think we need to make up a ton of redirects to clutter the searchbar with every variant depending on ":", "the" or minor capitalization change. Hell, "Generations (toyline)" already exists and is sufficient, "Generations (books)" can lead to the disambig page seeing as that list is like 80% books titled "Generations".
But let's consider other other cases, like how we got "Energon grid" and "Energon Grid (episode)", and how that's a bit more helpful than making people page-bounce. --M Sipher (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2019 (EDT)
Goes without saying, but I'm all in favor. It might also be a worthwhile idea for someone to do an audit of our list of redirects, see which ones aren't really necessary. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2019 (EDT)
I've never liked the idea that "well, it isn't EXACTLY the same title, so it doesn't need disambiguation". These sorts of things are REAL WORLD ambiguous and we shouldn't be making it hard for people to find what they are looking for. Titles with or without "the" or "a" or "an", capitalization differences, spacing differences (Motormaster vs Motor Master), use or non use of a colon, terminal "!" or "?" all are horrible things to depend on for disambiguation. Translation: I'm all for this. --Khajidha (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2019 (EDT)
I'd redirect all variant spellings to the disambiguation page and tag all of the individual articles with their franchise of origin. Even if the name in franchise X is spelled differently from the name in every other franchise, I guarantee you people will get confused and it is quite likely that any particular spelling will eventually be used for another version of the character. --Khajidha (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
