MediaWiki talk:Community Portal
Archives
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)
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)
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.
- Vector Sigma -- It apparently knows everything, in addition to all manner of other qualities
- 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)
"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)
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)
- 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)
Questioning general use of certain continuity designations
Hi there everyone, this is PacifistPrime. I've originated some small articles about TF resource books, as well as the articles on Micro-Continuities and my biggest article, Scale. I just wanted to raise two related issues about the deliniation of Continuity here at Teletraan 1. Since they concern potentially extensive edits I thought it'd be better to raise it here for general duscussion rather than on specific pages' talk pages, in the hopes of getting a wider sample of the usership to contribute to the discussion. I certainly didin't want to unilaterally make any changes without consulting my fellow users.
What I'm talking about is:
1] I completely agree with the way that the site views the various different continuity families as taking place in alternative realities, however while they obviously require separate articles I find the consistant use of phrasing which treats Optimus Prime (and Megatron) in different continuities as wholly different people very poblematic. It has always seemed quite apparent to me that one should view Optimus Prime in (for example) G1, RID and the Unicron Trilogy as being alternate reality versions of the same character, rather than cosmically unrealated characters with the same name and very similar personalities, which seems to be the way this site treats them.
Although there is some argument to be made that this may indeed be the case in Japan where Convoy, Fire Convoy and Galaxy Convoy are not neccessarily "Alts" of the same person (especially in light of the proliferation of Prime-lookalike convoys in the BWII & BWNeo), I think that English-language fictions all consistently portray Optimus Primes as though different versions of the same individual, ala the common device of similar-but-different versions of the same person in alternate universes as used in sundry sci-fi, most prominently in Sliders and the Star Trek Mirror Universe. Now, granted, most other instances of name-reuse (particularly in the Unicron Trilogy) give no indication of implying that, say, Armada Cyclonus is in any way and alternate version of G1 Cyclonus, but I think that with Prime and Megs this is clearly different. I'm not suggesting that they are "universal constants" like Primus and Unicron supposedly are, merely that they are alternate incarnations of the same actual people. (Naturally I'm excluding Optimus Primal and BW Megs from this debate, as they ARE certainly different characters.)
2] On a similar note, I disagree with the inclusion of IDW's "neo-G1" continuity being included in the pages relating to other G1 characters and concepts. Although clearly very closely based on G1, the IDWverse is extremely different from any prior incarnation of G1, and is certainly far more different from any prior version than any of the orginal G1 fictions differed from each other (or even Dreamwave's for that matter), if you follow my drift. The entire war/premise/scenario is radically different and most characters have different altmodes and/or transformation schemes. All other versions of G1 have a broadly identical story premise and all have their characters resemble their original toy (or animation) designs.
Don't get me wrong; this isn't an anit-IDW thing. I actually really like what Furman and co. are doing in reimagining the G1 universe, but it's just that; it's such a radical reconceptulisation that I don't see how it can reasonably be included as part of the overall G1 continuity umbrella. For example, apparently the IDW Galvatron not only isn't Megs, but he even predates him...!
If the forthcoming G1-inspired live-action movie is being considered by this site to be adequately different from G1 that it should be designated as outside of the G1 continuity family, then I would argue that the IDWverse should be as well. I propose that the IDWverse should have its own separate articles for its characters, just as we distinguish between G1 Starscream, Cybertron Starscream and Movie Starscream, despite being essentially the same character.
Anyway, that's what I wanted to raise. I hope some of you will engage in discussion of these topics.
Cheers, PacifistPrime.
- I disagree with everything you said. --ItsWalky 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okay... fair enough. Would you like to actually discuss it though, please? -PacifistPrime.
- At a guess- no, he doesn't want to discuss it.
- The problem with saying 'this character is a cosmic analog to this other character' is that... it breaks down really quickly. RiD Prowl? Not a logician, but okay, he's Prowl. But what about the Unicron Trilogy? Okay, clearly UT Prowl is the Mini-con, right? His alt-decos were even in Smokescreen's colors, so he's the Prowl-analog. Oh- wait, no no, I take it back. UT Prowl is Energon Prowl, the racecar/cop car who isn't the same character as the mini-con (despite both a race/cop car of the same name in the same continuity). I mean- sure he's not a logician either, but that has to be him! ...or is it Checkpoint?
- The total lack of restraint in homage naming/deco/characters combined with Japan willfully ignoring the characterizations these guys are supposed to have has resulted in an unholy mess- "Hi, I'm the analogue of someone I'm nothing like." "Hi, I was designed to look like another character, but they changed their mind." "I'm designed AND deco'd to look like Wheeljack, but I'm not a scientist, at all." "We're both analogues of the SAME character!" or "I'm an analog for two separate, unrelated characters who in G1 were based on the same mold!" (That one's Inferno/Hoist.)
- Maybe we can agree Prime is Prime and Starscream is Starscream- but is Shockblast Shockwave? Is Soundwave Soundwave? Is Arcee Arcee? Is Battle Ravage Ravage? Is Ravenous Swoop? Is Skyblast Skyfire? (I thought Jetfire was Skyfire!) Is Hot Shot Hot Rod? Wait wait- is Red Alert Ratchet? Is any of the Blurrs Blurr? Surely Longrack is Longrack, right? Surely Wing Saber is Star Saber! And Evac is Victory Leo, right? Is Overload Ultra Magnus, or is Ultra Magnus Ultra Magnus?
- It's so slippery, how do you say who 'is' who?
- As for the IDW thing- it's Generation One. The movie probably is too- I'm just waiting for people to admit it.-Derik 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I wish he'd actually argue his points, as I don't see how we're supposed to give his argument credence if he won't even explain it in the first place. But thank you for stating your case, Derik, even though you do disagree with me.
- I TOTALLY concur about the ridiculous use of non-analogue name recycling (which I think has been pretty definitively proved to a technique Hasbro uses to retain copyrights), there's clearly no way that Battle Ravage is Ravage, and Shockwave/Shockblast is awkward at best. But that's actually not what I'm arguing. I'm only talking about Optimus Prime and Megatron. Period. Although your argument is entriely convincing for any other characters, could you please focus on just Prime and Megs, as that is the only trans-continuity issue I'm raising here.
- As to the IDWverse, could you please elaborate on your reasons for viewing it and the new Movieverse as deserving inclusion in G1, despite their radical departures in premise and character presentation? No offence, but simply stating that your point of view that "it's Generation One" as though a definitive fact isn't really helpful, sorry. I'd appreciate hearing your reasons.
- Thanks, PacifistPrime.
- Part of the problem is, I don't even know what you're trying to accomplish. If the Optimuses are more similar across the continuity families than other characters -- so what? Do you want a simple change of wording, or...? And why? Who cares? (The Megatrons are clearly distinct.)
- And I think "radical depatures in premise and character presentation" doesn't represent the IDW universe at all. At all. Everyone's pretty much themselves, personality-wise, and either in their G1 bodies, in pre-Earth bodies, or in updated versions thereof. I'm not about to move all of Banzai-Tron's fictional appearances to Banzai-Tron (IDW) because Prowl is a newer year Datsun. It would be ridiculous. --ItsWalky 14:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, PacifistPrime.
- Personally, I find a strong cognitive dissonance in the idea of treating all (or most) Optimus Primes as alternates of the same guy while treating all of his friends as completely new guys that happen to have the same names as the friends of other Primes. That doesn't jive with my idea of parallel universes, because the only thing that is actually parallel is Prime. (I'm with Walky on Megatron -- I think the various Megatrons are much more different from each other than the various Primes are.) So, I also disagree with PacifistPrime on that note.
- Regarding the classification of IDW and Movie into their proper continuity families... That is an inherently subjective thing. I have been planning to do some minor rewrites to emphasize that. To me, personally, I still think of the movie as being a G1 variant, not a whole-new-thing. I may change my mind. I may not. I don't know. I agree that IDW has some major differences from most other G1 continuities, but it's not nearly enough for me personally to consider it a new thing. I mean, Movie is more different than IDW, and I still think it's G1, so obviously...
- PP says to Walky, "No offence, but simply stating that your point of view that 'it's Generation One' as though a definitive fact isn't really helpful". Thing is, though, that your own statement "radical departures in premise and character presentation" is also not helpful. That's a very subjective evaluation. I see the premise behind IDW as being almost identical to that of the classic G1 stuff from the 80s. The characters have been tweaked only a little bit, in some cases bringing them more in line with their origianal bios than they've ever been before. The only departure as I see it is that they aren't stranded (big deal) and they are actually trying to stay hidden for once. (Even if I agreed that their altmodes were "different", I think that is totally irrelevant. A character is not defined by their altmode.)
- So, yeah. I disagree about parallel Primes. I agree that IDW is more different than most G1 stuff. I think the Movie is more different than IDW is. I consider them both G1, but it's not a huge deal to me because those judgements are inherently subjective.
- --Steve-o 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Steve-O's hitting it on the head when it comes to subjectivity. The question of whether this Prime is similar enough to that Prime to be each other's parallel twins reminds me of the old "Beast Machines is a new continuity because the characters are different" debate. In the end, every individual has his or her own standards of what makes a character a character, and applying armchair psychology to the fiction can never lead to definitive answers.
- The broader question of what makes a "continuity family" is similarly subjective. Hell, when half the Energon toys are blatant G1 homages, you have to admit that the distinctions are blurry. To my mind, the only truly rational separation would be based on linear story connection. If one series is meant to directly continue from another, then they should be on the same page. But whenever a continuity-reboot occurs, that's a new page altogether. Therefore, IDW-G1, the UT, DW-G1, RID, DD-Joe/TF, Marvel-G1, Sunbow-G1, etc., would all be wholly separated from each other. Even the Beast era would be distinct because it doesn't flow directly from either the G1 toon or comic, but rather a never-seen third G1verse with aspects of both.
- But while I hold that that's the most rational approach, it's not at all practical. Should literally every G1 toy character have a separate page that sums up his DW profile? Should Sunstreaker, who's been in basically every G1 incarnation but never done anything of note, really have a half-dozen pages saying, "He's Sideswipe's brother and doesn't like getting his paint nicked"? If not, then we have to start bunching them together in a way that will ultimately be arbitrary. Story-wise, BW has more links to G1 than Armada, but Armada is far closer to G1 in look-and-feel and premise, both in toys and in animation. Yet Armada is considered separate. DW-G1 also has no actual story-links to Marvel-G1 or Sunbow-G1, but its look-and-feel apparently crosses some inclusion threshold that Armada doesn't. Is there some objective standard involved here that everyone would agree on? I doubt it. And I doubt it exists at all. If anyone DOES have a standard they'd like to share, I'm all ears. Like I said, the only one I can come up with is wildly impractical, so I just have to shrug and go with the established flow.
- (Incidentally, my instinct is that IDW-G1 is in the same family as the other G1's, but the new movie isn't. It's not a defensible position, just a feeling. But like I said, if someone's got a better standard....)
- -- Jackpot 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, been off at a wedding and stuff, so I'm pleased to see you've been busy. Well, clearly my points of view have not gone down well at all! Oh well. I don't find anything you've said particularly convincing in substantive terms, I still think it is reasonable to view different Primes (and yes, even Megatrons; one of the core concepts of alternate realities is that different versions of the same people can have quite different personalities) as variations of the same person. It simply seems like common sense. I'm sure that's not a piece of reasoning that's going to impress anyone's logic circuits, but I don't think it's an invalid instinct.
And I also remain quite convinced of my argument that "neo-G1" such as the Movie and IDW should be in a different category (or even just subcategory) to original G1 fictions, and even Dreamwave. Obivously they're more-G1-than-thou compared to clearly non-G1 stuff like UT etc, but my point is that I still think they nevertheless should be regarded with substantial distinction from prior G1 sources. And although Steve-O is quite scornful of the idea, I actually do think having original altmodes is important. Yes, of course character is not wholly determined by an altmode, obviously. But G1 is, at its foundation, a mythos based on a toyline. IDW represents a (wonderful!) continuity reboot of G1 characters and ideas, but it is very much that; a reboot. I feel that that it, like the new film, deserves to be considered a considerably more significant distinction than merely comparing the differences between Sunbow and Marvel continuities. And if you all still disagree, then I think your own logic should therefore dictate that standalone articles for movie versions of G1 characters should all be merged back into their larger G1 profiles. If cosmetic and story differences aren't important like you're saying, then it only makes sense.
...Buuuut, I also agree with what most of you are saying in that it is all obviously subjective. I'm quite convinced of my view, but I don't want to ram it down anyone else's throat, and I certainly don't want to get into any arguments over it. It would seem that there is a consensus (at least amongst the small number of users who have posted) rejecting my proposal for some recategorisations, so I'm not going to labour the point any further. Thanks for your input, folks.
Cheers, PacifistPrime.
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)
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)
