MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive6

Improvement drives and new templates?

So some brief perusal of Wookieepedia showed me a few things they do that could really be co-opted here, both to make the site look better and be a litlte more functional.

EDIT: Example page was changed -- M Sipher, who is having problems with "loss of session data" on this motherfucker and it's really starting to piss him off.

I like the idea of an "improvement drive", taking a dedicated focus on certain areas... some sections really DO need work. I think some of the more confusing and semiforgotten eras of TF fiction or toylines should really get fleshed out and soon, like the RID show, Enegon cartoon (ugh), late-G1 characters, Omega Point, etc.

And then there's the templates they use. I like the use of images and quotes. Looking through their bigass template section [1], there are a lot we don't need, but a few might be good, like the image and argument templates, plus the aforementioned improvement drive template. And this one is just awesome.

Also, we should totally add an image of a Quint with death-face forward for the "marked for deletion" template.

Just a few suggestions. Let's discuss. --M Sipher 17:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the 'Bobba Fet, where?' template... do you have a thought on an equivalent sentiment/piccie for TF? -Derik 01:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Something with Reflector, natch. Alternately, "Hot Rod, look! There's a hole in the shuttle! article!" Also, we probably need to work the various generations of TF in across the board. Use some RiD, some UT, some G1, etc. Mix it up. Have Vector Prime for the "upcoming events" template, maybe the Ratchet/Megatron monster for "this article is self-contradicting." (alternately, Galvatron vs. Megatron). -hx 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, for a page that's had a lot of debate, use cartoon Galvatron, with "Well, all I have to say about that is... BWAAAAAAAH." -hx 03:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Dinobot and "Again your democracy fails us"? (paraphrasing.) -Derik 03:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tech-spec template

The tech-spec numbers, I think, should be archived, but people kept wanting to put them in the main profile section, which is not where they need to be. Then it hit me... why not at each toy's description? You know, where the TS numbers specifically apply? Maybe after the ID number...

STR	INT	SPD	END	RNK	CRG	FRP	SKL
7	6	6	6	5	9	7	7

Just a thought. It's info that we probably really SHOULD archive. If someone wants to make this prettier, feel free. --M Sipher 12:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm out for the weekend, but I'll take a stab at it when I get back, hopefully some format that remains small and un-annoying even if you have multiple stats. (I doubt you'd list ALL of Optimus Prime's, but you'd probably list the original, and his G2 spec where he's Rank 9...) -Derik 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a Wiki is far from the best format for archiving tech spec numbers. I agree that such information should be archived, somewhere, it already is archived in many places, and in dedicated lists and databases that are way, way better for that sort of data. I'm not going to say that it's a "bad" idea to include them here, but I think it should be a low priority. Certainly below things like writing articles for cartoon episodes and comic issues. Anyway, I do agree that if we include them at all they should be included in the "toys" section since many characters have more than one set of numbers depending on which toy you're looking at. Also, any template we make for them should have switches in it that can change FRP to FRB and also trade in the Mincromaster teamwork/coop stats. --Steve-o 20:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good thought, both on the location and the optionals. -Derik 20:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not about to go on some huge TS# update spree, don't get me wrong. There are certainly a load of things I think would take higher priority (like that whole more-colorful-header thing brought up a while back). But I'm just thinking it's a piece of info that can be somewhat unobtrusively added to a relevant section, might be worth looking into at some point. --M Sipher 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some UK exclusives with little to say abotu them BUT their tech-specs. -Derik 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the LOCs. Having the numbers there would also help fill some of the vertical space to prevent messes like what we see with Jetfire's page. The "Attacktix" sub-section really needs to be "page-breaked", but doing so will levae a LOT of blank space. A TS number addition would solve that nicely. --M Sipher 00:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

i was looking at wookipedia and saw on the search toolbar that they had a wookie on top of it. could we do something like that with bumblebee on it.also it would be cool to have a background for the site like mabey cybertron or a picture of an autobot decepticon gen 1 battle, or just a big autobot logo.

A little more color?

Just an idle thought. Is there a way to tweak the colors of the picture thumbnail borders? Like, say, for a Decepticon character page, their pictures would be bordered with a pale purple, while the Autobots would have light red... and uh... blue for humans? Green for Quints and miscellaneous aliens? Black with white text for Unicron?
Yeah, it's functionally pointless and a lot of "going over old pages" work, but the graphic design part of me is screaming for a little more visual "oomph", and since TFs don't lend themselves well to the kind of "core data table" whatchamadoozie you find on most other character-centric wikis... --M Sipher 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We've started to hash this out, and I've constructed a mock-up of the idea. Also see the talk page, for M Sipher's proposal on colours. If you have any thoughts, please post them, as this is obviously a MASSIVE sweeping change to what the wiki will look like. --Suki Brits 02:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC) how do you do that?-grimlocker

Sitename

So, like, this is completely frivolous in the large scheme of things, but it's always sort of bothered me. I don't like the name of this wiki! I mean, even beyond us needing to get it spelled right when you type {{SITENAME}}, I just don't think it's a very apt one. Now, Teletraan I could answer just about anything on the cartoon, so long as it was pertinent to the plot, but it never struck me as a Repository of All Transformers Knowledge. There are at least two much better options.

1. Vector Sigma -- It apparently knows everything, in addition to all manner of other qualities
2. Underbase -- A dedicated Transformers knowledge database.

Now, of the two, I vastly prefer Underbase, firstly because scores of fan sites already use "Vector Sigma." (The same problem is present with "Teletraan I.") And secondly, it sets up all sorts of jokes about how too much knowledge about Transformers leads to madness or death. Ha ha ha.

Anyway, I mostly wanted to get that off my chest. --ItsWalky 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but. At this point, the Teletraaanagh-eleven name is pretty much associated with the wiki. Rebranding your product right after it's finally starting to get name recognition in the fandom seems like kind of a dumb idea.-hx 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Teletraan I is not the coolest possible name for this wiki, but I think Hooper_X is right that it's too late to change it. It's certainly an adequate name, and honestly it has much broader recognition than your other suggestions, which is probably a good thing. Pretty much anybody that knows anything about Transformers will recognize the name Teletraan I. Most of those same people will have never read or heard of the Underbase story and probably won't remember the name Vector Sigma either. The name we have is good enough. Also, I imagine getting the SITENAME variable changed is as simple a matter as leaving a note on Wikia:User:Angela's talk page. --Steve-o 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

yah i dont like the site name either.we could call it "autobots roll out!" the transformers wiki.

"Sunbow universe"

I've noticed a number of pages that mention the "Sunbow universe" of the "Sunbow portion of the G1 continuity family" or pictures that state the source as anepisode of the "Sunbow cartoon". I remember a discussion about this awhile back, and I seem to remember that we decided against calling the the G1 cartoon the "sunbow" anything, as there was only one G1 cartoon that didn't already have another title, and there's about as much stuff in there that wasn't done by Sunbow anyway (most of it it Japanese fiction, but still...) --FortMax 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's usually me (since I prefer the exact terminology.) I haven't been doing it since we had that discussion I think, just had a brain-fart today. So, uh, yeah, you're right, we did decide that. -Derik 22:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Botcon 2007 Battle of the Boards

From Brian: "Faction Feud – The Battle of the Boards

This Transformer trivia game show pits different Transformers web sites against each other in the battle for all Transformers knowledge. Faction Feud was a huge hit at BotCon 2006, so don’t miss out on the chance to compete this year! There are eight slots available for this tournament so sing up ASAP! It will truly be a battle of wits! How to enter: email Christie@mastercollector.com with your web site’s URL and the 5 names and screen names of your 5-member team. Deadline to enter: June 1, 2007."

We need to do this. I'd like to volunteer, but I realize I haven't been the most active contributor to the wiki. I'll step aside if need be. I just want to see Team TFWiki happen.Chip 03:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we argue collaboratively about the answers before arriving at a consensus? -Derik 03:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful. But maybe we can find a way to work awful jokes into our answers. Chip 03:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish to hell I could get in on this one. Oh well. Maybe next year. -hx 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to go ahead and submit our entry. I volunteer, and I need 4 more players. Who's with me? Who will give up the power to transform to... wait, no. Chip 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can count on me / Though I know not UT. --Rotty 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You absolutely do NOT want me on your team, since I don't know crap, but if it's down to four people and nobody else will step up, I'll totally do it.

At the very least, I will totally get some pom pons going. --Suki Brits 01:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am... willing. But there would be plenty of better choices than me. I guess the contest seemed pretty easy last year, so I could probably perform well, but Walky, Sipher, and LV would all be way better than I. --Steve-o 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Graham, Sipher, and I would also be way better than you if they use the same questions as last year. 'Cuz, y'know, we wrote them. --ItsWalky 03:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's probably reason enough for you three to bow out, I guess. We'll get by.Chip 03:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah... sure, why not. I'll sign up. Someone will need to keep an eye on me near gametime so that I don't forget to show up, though. --Monzo 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. That makes 5, but I'll give it another day. If anyone else wants in, or someone on the team changes their mind, let us know.Chip 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah hell, I'll toss my hat in too. If necessary, I'm totally happy being a B-list sub in case someone who already volunteered or is just plain more knowledgeable than me bows out. - Jackpot 22:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've sent the e-mail! After a little bit of discussion, we ended up with me, Rotty, Steve-O, Monzo, Jackpot, and Blitz as our alternate. This is gonna be great. Chip 02:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The deadline has come and gone. Other sites have received their confirmations; we have not. So... apparently we're not in? A polite "piss off" e-mail would have been preferable to just not hearing ANYTHING... Chip 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good job, everybody who actually ended up on the team when they let us in at the last minute. (Who was in the lineup, again?) It would've been damned embarrassing if the Wiki had been out-trivia-ed, so thanks for doing us proud. I think we need that photo of Monz with all the medals on the BC07 page. - Jackpot 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Titles for characters with multiple names

I want to predicate this by admitting that at some level it doesn't matter at all because of the existence of article redirects.

In looking over the recent changes, I noticed the Wing Dagger article, and wondered why, if our rule for characters who got new bodies with new names is that we list them under the name they first appeared in-fiction with (such as Hot Rod and Overhaul (Cybertron), the Wing Dagger article is a redirect. Walky said it had been discussed at some point and decided to do "name of the first TOY". I found mention of this on Talk:Overhaul (Cybertron) where LV seems to basically settle on that after realizing that all the more sensible options lead to conclusions we seemed to have already violated.

Currently, Help:Article types and titles says, "Characters with multiple names (as in the case of alter-egos) should have their article listed under their most prominent name..." Leaving aside the issue that prominence is ambiguous for a few characters, this seems, to me, to be by far the best option. Our wiki has developed into something HIGHLY fiction/character centered. The toys are almost an afterthought. Basing something as seemingly fundamental as what to name a character's article on what name happened to be applied to their first toy is totally out of left field.

I admit that the first-toy rule would be unambiguous and solve nearly all the tricky cases (I sort of have a problem with Overhaul/Leobreaker, but not a huge problem). However, it still feels wrong to me. In principle, some canon source could state that a character who is extremely visible in some franchise was a new body for some random no-fiction toy character from the previous franchise, and we would end up listing them under their old and irrelevant name for perpetuity. It pains me to replace the phrase "most prominent name" with "name applied to their first toy". It's not a rule that has any logic or sense behind it. It's a kludge that happens to solve most of the practical problems but doesn't fit my idea of the "spirit" of the wiki.

I would appreciate hearing suggestions/comments from other editors.

--Steve-o 04:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. The fact of the matter is that TF fiction is a patchwork of ambiguities, contradictions, dangling threads, and irregularities. Oftentimes there just CAN'T be hard-and-fast rules; we have to bite the bullet and accept that the only logical option is to allow for subjectivity. In this specific case, the standard has to be "prominence." Sure, such a thing might lead to arguments and fights and what-have-you with no clear Law to arbitrate, but that's what we get for putting together a wiki on Transformers of all things. - Jackpot 18:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template for continuity organization?

Is there a page somewhere that lays out a standard for how the continuities are grouped? Like, one massive article filled with headers and subheads for every possible universe, which families they're under, and what order they should go in? Because I'm a little confused as to the specifics sometimes, such as in this discussion, but that died with no resolution. It seems like a good idea to have a template-page where we can hash out the details. - Jackpot 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Toy-photo policy?

What's our policy on toy photos, officialness- and copyright-wise? I imagine pics from Hasbro's site and publications are preferable, like how we only use Hasbro-approved art and never fanart. But what about shots from places like Toybin and TFU.info and Remy's photos and all the galleries of the various TF-news sites and so on? I've certainly seen such photos in articles, but I've also seen people discourage the use of specific sites' images (like TFU.info). What's the principle at work here? - Jackpot 21:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, my principle is "TFU.info's images look horrible and have depict toys which are sometimes fan-painted and have stickers all over the wrong places sideways." Also, I think as a general rule of thumb for the wiki, the background of a toy photo should be white. Not "you can see the unwhitebalanced panels of cascaded posterboard in the background," but actual white. But these are just my thoughts! --ItsWalky 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like our policy is 'official is always good, if Hasbro's stock photos aren't too off, but if you're usign another source, they'd better look good, and make sure you give them full credit with a link.' (Or at least that seems to be how we've handled it thus far...) -Derik 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can agree to that. "Official toy photos are best, if they're the non-photoshop-retouched kind and the toy is transformed correctly and the paint apps are the same in the production version." If you can't get that, take your own. If you can't get that, steal! --ItsWalky 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a 'how to construct an Article' page? Not just format- but 'places you should really look for information, link to, etc'?-Derik 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the input. The one other time I've seen discussion on the matter (I don't recall which article it was in), someone was discouraging use of TFU.info pics because that site exists almost entirely to show photos. So swiping photos from there seems more like intellectual-property "damage" than if you take from, say, the more diversified Seibertron.com. Thoughts on that? - Jackpot 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I was part of that convo. And yes, Seibertron is my theftable-of-choice even though their pictures tend to have blacks a bit too sweet (Remy is second,) in that case IIRC I swiped from TFU because they had just the right angle I needed to highlight something. -Derik 22:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Archival time

I'm moving everything that hasn't seen a reply in two months into the archive. If you still want a topic raised on this page, don't hesitate to either start it again, or copy it back here. --Suki Brits 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler template

FFN fixed a glitch the other day with Frenzy's spoiler template overlapping his picture quote. I just found Arcee's the same way. Barricade's page has an odd manifestation where the template doesn't overlap anything important, but it does cover the top edge of his picture. It then, presumably because of the picture, line-breaks inside the template, causing the Jazz image to cover the words of the template.

I brought this up in the channel, and Walky said it looked fine on his screen. So I checked it in IE (I normally use Firefox), and it looked fine there, too...

So I'm not going to go altering a bunch of pages just because of something on my screen, but I want to put this out there to see if anyone else has the problem. Apparantly FFN did at least once. It appears to be browser-related, and I'm not sure what the precedent is on that situation. --Sntint 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got that same exact problem with the Barricade page, using Firefox. Looking at it with IE, the spoiler template doesn't overlap the picture of Barricade there, but the beginning of "follow" in its text is still covered over by Jazz. --KilMichaelMcC 17:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a result of the spoiler template being after the picture- and the main bod doesn't get shoved left properly. I feel liek there should be a solution to that... I'll look at it, but for the mo ment, if you just move the spoiler template ABOVE the picture, the problem disappears. (This may actually be a problem with Firefox's float implementation, neither browser does layout 100% spot-on perfect.) -Derik 20:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks awful in Opera, too. In both Opera and Firefox, I'm not seeing any words covered up. It's just that crazy wrapping thing happening. --Steve-o 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly how it looks in Firefox on my computer. --Sntint 22:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, done with pure styles, the messagebox stays behind, but somethign with the wikipmedia's messagebox styles (which were intended to be banners across the tops of articles) doen't play nice with floats.

Since Spoiler and some other templates are frequently used mid-stream, it looks like we (I) need a separate approach for these mid-stream templates. -Derik 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Blackout's is REALLY bad... but only in Firefox, again. It has some glitches in IE, but they aren't as obstructing to the article itself.

The problem boils down to placement on the page. We could easily get around this by deciding on a set placement for the spoiler template. That would let us work around, but not actually solve the base issue.

It appears that the writing in the spoiler tag accounts for the image and line-breaks appropriately, but when it does so it no longer accounts for its own template image. This happens in IE as well as Firefox.

Additionally, in Firefox, when the wording line-breaks, the border box fails to shorten itself so that it matches the end of the writing, and instead extends across the screen presumably to the end. This only happens in Firefox and, at least once, Opera. --Sntint 13:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories in redirects

Is there a reason that we have categories on redirect pages? I can sort of understand the reason behing it, as G1 Prime isn't an e-hobby exclusive but Orion Pax is. Yes, the article is (indrectly) on the category page, but the actual article is not in the category. This means that you can get to say, Spiderman from the "Journalists" category, you can't go the other way because Spidy isn't the journalist; Peter Parker is. You wouldn't even know the category existed from looking at the Spidy page.

I propose a fix for this. All categories from character redirect pages get moved to the character's article. Others, like where a city redirects to the city-state it's part of, the city get it's own article. If Telemark VI, which got nothing more than a passing mention, is important enough to get its own article, so is Kolkular. --FortMax 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? --FortMax 17:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with having Rodimus (G1), Rodimus Prime, Hot Rod, and Rodimus Major all being in the Autobots category. I don't care if they're not all individual articles. If someone wants to look for one of those, they shouldn't have to already know to only look for Hot Rod. --ItsWalky 18:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is more about when a redirect is in a category and the actual article isn't. --FortMax 16:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that either! --ItsWalky 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Movie/nonmovie parsing

On a few different topics, the problem has come up that the movie -- which is arguably the central, primary feature of the franchise -- spells or parses words one way, but all other aspects of the franchise spell/parse the word another way. The examples I'm thinking of are AllSpark/All Spark, Brawl/Devastator, and NBE with "entity" versus "extraterrestrial". And I think there are one or two more. I feel like whatever solution we pick, we should stick with the same solution for all words where this has come up. My personal inclination is to use the dominant words even if that is not what the movie itself goes with. I see the movie's different usage as an inconsistency or aberration, even though all the other fiction is descended from it. However, I don't feel all that strongly about it. I mostly just feel that we need to apply the same logic to each case, whatever that logic ends up being. --Steve-o 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course the movie nomenclature is wrong. It's not real. The ARG says so.  :)

Seriously, though, I do agree, and I think Brawl/Devastator is the archetypal example. Every single damn thing - from toys to games to comics - calls him "Brawl" except the ONE time he's named in the movie, and even Hasbro calls that instance a "continuity glitch." And since he's such a hi-then-die, there's very little chance of his "Devastator" legacy perpetuating into the sequels. So the current situation - where we mention "Devastator" as a side-note and then move right along - is ideal and should be the model for all such nomenclature issues.

- Jackpot 15:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If I recall, one of the upcoming issues of the UK movie comic, probably #2, is all about Devastator. And they called him Devastator in the solicits. Before the movie came out, we were all STUPID FURMAN THAT IS BRAWL NOT DEVASTATOR YOU FOOL, but oh how wrong we were. --ItsWalky 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It was we who were the poor fools. --ItsWalky 15:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Their entire kingdom, united or otherwise, is dead to me. You hear me? DEAD. - Jackpot 16:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But then who would write every single Transformers story ever? --ItsWalky 17:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Timelines

I want to create a category for the various timelines we've got here, but I'm not sure what to call it or where to put it. Category:Timelines is already taken since we have a franchise by that name. Additionally, one of the timelines we have is a real-world timeline of the TF brand, rather than a timeline for a fictional universe. That means the timeline category should not be a subcategory under some fiction-releated category. (I was initially going to put it right under Category:Stories (which by the way still needs a real name)). Any thoughts on these issues? --Steve-o 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd suggest maybe Category: Chronology since Timelines is taken. Put that as a sub-category of Transformers in general if it must be under something else, and then put the individual timelines also under the category of their own franchieses (of course) and the real world one under just Transformers or create a Real World category for it and pages like it.--ZacWilliam 19:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh the Humanity

Would it be possible to use less anthropocentric metaphor and phraseology when speaking/writing/describing the mechanoid denizen of a planet/empire not based on or around the carbon atom,and by extension human or fleshling life? ChoHIlqoq 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• I.E. "cut his teeth" "bloodthirsty" and other such terminology,fine if you're depicting Maximals or Predacons,but the Old Cybertronians it's not especially fitting or accurate.

But Transformers do have teeth, which is supported by countless, well, pictures of Transformers with teeth. From Optimus Prime to Longtooth, these robots gots teeth. --ItsWalky 04:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it... If you prefer to use more colorful robot-ish figures of speech, feel free to do so, as long as you don't make up any non-canonical robot anatomy. --Steve-o 13:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki is written for humans. Trying to eliminate human-anatomy-based phrasing is senseless. If a word like "bloodthirsty" is wrong because robots don't have blood, well, it's wrong for humans too because most "bloodthirsty" people aren't actually thirsty for the taste of blood. But when you're communicating to a specific audience, it's okay and even preferable to use the idioms of that audience, no matter their literal accuracy. They're idioms, so they probably aren't literally accurate in any circumstance.

And personally, I find "robotic" reworkings of English phrases to be kind of annoying. What the hell does "oilthirsty" mean? I don't begrudge people for doing that (it certainly has quite a history in TF fiction), but it's always read more awkwardly to me than leaving metaphors as-is.

- Jackpot 16:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No love for Oceania?

Something I've noticed in the G1 Toylists is a) there's only lists of releases in the US and Europe and b) many figures are incorrectly being referred to as "European exclusives" - Australia got /everything/ Europe did - Classics, Overlord, Motorvators, AM Elites, Turbomasters, Predators, Pyro/Clench and their crews etc. - in the same years as Europe. So is it planned to create a list for Australian releases, and can we correct this whole "European exclusive" nonsense that's been going on for so long?

(I know no one really cares about Australia, but still..) --Specimen-17

From the "Europe-only characters" category page...

"Europe-only" is a bit of a misnomer, as many of the characters' toys listed here have also seen release in Canada, Australia, and parts of Asia. However, as the primary market for these items is the European market, it is used as a general umbrella-term. (Obviously, this caveat doesn't apply to the comic characters)

--M Sipher 00:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Character page quotes

Some people are clearly fond of the new "putting a representative quote at the top of character pages" thing, but I am against it. A recent rash of additional quotes only makes me feel this more strongly. My objection is that the quotes are highly visible/prominent on the page, as if they are supposed to embody the character in one sentence, and yet the choice of what quote accomplishes this task is highly subjective. Some of them I think are appropriate (although even the good ones add very little to the article that the capsule didn't already cover), and others I think are abysmal. I don't think that policing them and getting rid of the bad ones is enough. I think they all need to go. Otherwise the existence of some quotes will only lead to quote-bastarding and disagreements. Anonymous editors will constantly be putting up their favorite stupid quote, uncited and with mangled grammar. People will change existing fine quotes into no-more-fine quotes that they personally like better. It's not worth the trouble. Am I the only one thinking this? If so, I will just keep my mouth shut and let the rest of you deal with it, but on the off chance that people agree with me I wanted to raise the issue. --Steve-o 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh... isn't that also a problem with EVERYTHING ELSE on the wiki, due to the very nature of wikis? --M Sipher 23:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm an admin over at Wookieepedia, where we're very liberal with quotes, so I haven't got a problem it. Granted, I'm used to seeing them at the top of the page, but that's not a big thing. Also, I've added a few quotes from time to time, so my neutrality on it might be debated. -- SFH 23:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... no, it's not a problem with everything else. Not in practice, at least. We know from experience that image captions are more prone to annoying edits than other parts of the wiki, for example. They seem to make tempting targets. And the majority of the content here is not subjective, or at least nowhere near as subjective as "this quote is the quintessential essence of this character", and therefore much less of a (potential) hassle. --Steve-o 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit, I've started a few articles with quotes- but not character pages I think. It's just so rare that you have a quote that serves as the perfect intro point for an article.

Would a MoS for {{quote}} saying ti shouldn't be used to lead-off na article unless it's actually a good jump-off point solve the problem? (It would give a firm justification to delete sucky ones, or ones where the quote isn't inteegrated intot eh flow of the write-up.) -Derik 00:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe it's just that I grew up on G1 tech spec cards, but I like character quotes as part of a character profile. I'd personally stick to ones that had them on their bio cards, but given that we are a Transformers wiki above all else, stylistically it seems to fit.--Rosicrucian 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem there is that the quotes went away for a long time. Also, for characters with multiple toys... which quote? You'd end up with major characters pretty quoteless. --M Sipher 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As the guy who put "These fools worship Transformers!" on the Fandom page, I think there are some quotes that in context are frankly too good not to use. I strongly disagree with the idea that there must be a blanket policy forbidding all of them anywhere. I think the choices should be ad hoc, dependant on how well the quotes clearly personify the characters ("Make deals, not war," "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings") or pithily speak to events or locations (as per the Wookiepedia example, "wretched hive of scum and villainy"). Snipping away inappropriate quotes should be no more or less significant than snipping away poor writing or unsupportable conclusions. --Thylacine 2000 02:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The last part is my basic point. It's not like we're actually creating MORE whatever to be policed. It's the same shit we go through every hour, only with a certain template involved. I like the quotes, as noted above it's a very TF-y thing to have, plus presents a little nugget of information in a new, eye-catching way. --M Sipher 02:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We demonstrably are "creating more". We are adding a new "piece" that will be appearing in a lot of articles. As to the appropriateness, I agree that it's a neat idea, but I still feel that in practice it is not shaping up. I just did a count of character articles using the quote template for top-of-the-article shoutouts, and well over half of those are, in my opinion, weak to poor choices, and I'm not simply counting ones that were put up by random IPs. I think the quote for Falcia, for example, is marginal. Maybe I'm interpreting the "point" of the quotes differently than you guys, but, I thought the idea was to pick something especially evocative, but a lot of them right now are simply memorable or "cute" lines that say little or nothing about the character. (I think I only read Linkage once, but judging from Falcia's capsule bio, I would think a quote that shows her to be unambiguously difficult would be far more appropriate than one in which she is seemingly giving an attitude justifiably.) My biggest fear, I suppose, is that people will get it into their heads that character articles "should" have a quote, because I really can not believe there is a decent sum-up quote for every, or even most characters unless we are just going to plaigerize their tech spec or MTMTE mottos. I would love to go on a deleting spree and zap over a dozen of them right now, but I know that some users -- most notably Sipher -- really like the quote idea. That's why I decided to speak up and whine rather than just doing it. I am hoping that I might get some sort of concession like, "sure, you can delete the ones that are bad or so-so". Then at least all we'd have left to discuss is why I think so many of them are bad or so-so and should be deleted. --Steve-o 03:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Rhinox's is clearly a piece of shit. I have no problem with discussing quote quality/appropriateness and deleting stuff that doesn't live up. Just because I like having quotes, doesn't mean I'm gonna like every quote someone barfs up. --M Sipher 04:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are enough people who don't mind - or do enjoy - keeping an eye on quotes and policing them for taste, then I don't see the problem. As with the captions, a community-wide sense of appropriateness will emerge. When done well, a quote can add a lot to an article, and like Siph, I think a baby-with-the-bathwater approach is too much. - Jackpot 17:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

From Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki, a Wikia wiki.