MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive38

[[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive38|0|-0}}|«]]	Community Portal / Archive38   e	[[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive38|0|-0}}|»]]
from~? to~? notes:

Proposal: Reorganizing movie character pages?

The general arrangement of the fiction sections for the movie character pages has... not annoyed me, per se, but made the back of my brain itch for a little while now. They take an approach of trying to present all the events that happen to a character in a chronological order, which is a laudible goal, and an approach taken in many, if not most other pages of the wiki, and one that in those other situations, I generally advocate. However, becuase there are so many different pieces of ancillary media for the movie, which take place before, during, after and aaaalll around the movie and each other, they're getting very muddled. The "Titan" seciton is often placed before the section for the first movie, since it begins in the past... but then has to summarize events, including its alternate timeline, which take place after the movie... before the movie's event have been related in the article. You follow me? Further, I feel that this approach tends to create the appearance of one cohesive timeline, and we all know that's just not true - there are innumerable discrepancies between the movie and the ancillary media, and - avoiding any spoilers - ROTF is one of the worst examples of key parts of the movie's backstory conflicting wildly with what the ancillary media has said. So, I think that a more divisive, clinical approach is necessary, and I've quickly knocked up this.

I think that the movies should be the first thing on the page, just there, on their own. They are the core of this universe and its characters - they are the pieces of fiction around which all the others are written. Everything takes the movies as its starting point and works backwards or forwards from there. Making them the first thing on the pages frees us up to more freely explore past and future depicted in other media. Also, I'm in favour of just making sub-sections for "IDW continuity" (again, the discrepancy between what the IDW comics have shown and what is actually in the ROTF movie is prompting this line of thought), and describing the eventts of all of its comics in one, long section, rather than splitting in two like we had it before, is preferable. As a follow-on from this, Titan gets its own section, with a sub-section (a la "Marvel UK future timelines") for its alt. universe, rather than just a note, making the division between the stories a lot clearer. Also, it removes the need for odd notes like the one on Scorponok's page which has to mention that he only dies in the Titan comics and nowhere else - now, it should be obvious, because the continuity has been isolated instead of interspersed with all the others. The prequel novels are about the only thing I'm not sure on - I haven't actually read them, so I don't feel capable of making a decision, and have just put them under their own heading like this for now (after the movie, but before the comics since surely, more ordinary people on the street have read the books than the comics?). Could they potentially just be put under the "Movies" header, around the movies themselves, or do they feature any major conflicts?

Right, then. Thoughts? - Chris McFeely 09:06, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

I agree. How does Wookiepedia arrange all that ancilliary stuff I wonder? Drmick 09:15, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

As the person who has been doing the most work on the movie articles on this wiki: I am not really enthused with the idea of rearranging the articles and re-learning how to deal with them. A few months ago, I determined the layout of the fiction sections (with the exception of the Titan stuff) on the assumption it is in one rough continuity (continuity errors and contradictions and all), and nobody objected, probably because nobody cared very much about movie fiction at the time. In my mind, if you ignore the Titan section, from start to finish, it reads reasonably well. May I suggest we just fence off Furman's Crackpot Titan Continuity? --FFN 10:11, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

FWIW, I don't think the IDW Prequel comics from the first movie are supposed to be in-continuity with RoS/Destiny. (Or at least, I don't think Mowry used them as references, just the scripts for the movies, so if it all matches up it's kind of coincidental.) --Jeysie 10:28, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

IDW has stumbled over its own prequel material continuity twice, which is not encouraging. The Planetfall story contradicted the first prequel which established the Decepticons landing in America, and then The Reign of Starscream contradicted Planetfall by showing Starscream's crew getting to Mars via starship, not by transition form. --FFN 10:37, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

I remember at some point saying, verrrrrry explicitly, that there will be errors and contradictions and inconsistencies and multiple timelines in the Movie fiction -- I believe it was back when someone or other was arguing in favor of integrating Reign of Starscream et. al into the main movie summaries, and italicizing them like we do with the UK comics. It seemed like a bad idea then. Sounds like a bad idea now. Sorry if my protestations weren't fervent enough to register at the time.

In general, our approach is and should be to divide up a character's appearances by media source. There are exceptions to this rule (UK comics, Animated comics), but they should always be approached with caution. I don't think the multi-timeline-spawning film series is a good candidate for this approach. Derrick Wyatt knew what was going on with Animated, but I doubt that Michael Bay really gives a crap about Alliance or whatever else. -- Repowers 10:44, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

That's not really the issue, though, Rob. We already do have the fiction broken up by media source - I'm just advocating a rearrangement of the order in which that fiction is laid out in articles, to make the individual, splintering "continuities" a bit more individual. Really, I'm not expecting a conclusion right away - I'm raising this now so we can get a bit of discussion going before ROTF hits in the US. Because I gotta say, I think the sheer failure of the IDW ROTF prequel stuff to line up with any of the backstory in the film will help convince folks that this is a good reason to go down this road, but it will require you Yanks (and Aussies!) to see the film to decide first! - Chris McFeely 10:51, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

It boils down to... when reading RoS and Destiny, you're supposed to treat the movies as part of those comics' timeline, as they're intended to fit, not be deliberately AU like the Titan stories apparently are. Hasbro had certain elements be changed because they would clash with the movies, and so on, so there was at least some attempt to make it somehow fit together. The Movies are an integral part of the RoS/Destiny continuity.

However, apparently the converse isn't necessarily true: the movies may not treat RoS/Destiny as part of their timeline.

So... *shrug* Structure that as you will. And the IDW Prequel comics are off doing their own equally separate thing regardless. --Jeysie 11:00, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Don't forget about prequel novels. I prefer FFN's proposal but I would definitely mix in The Veiled Threat fiction as happening near the end of Alliance. IDW+films seem to make up the backbone of the continuity, but maybe that isn't fair to the Titan comic. To be honest, from what I've heard, I'm prepared to treat the ROTF film as a micro-continuity, at least for my own fanon purposes. The adaptations seem to match the prequel material fairly well. - Starfield 11:43, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Something to consider - the fact that The Veiled Threat, a novel from a writer(s) and a publisher who has nothing to do with IDW Publishing has taken pains to ensure it fits (more or less) within the continuity of The Reign of Starscream and Alliance suggest that somebody, somewhere, most likely Hasbro, wants us to consider the prequel material (excluding Furman's Alternate Universe stuff) as one single continuity, and to address contradictions and continuity errors as we come across them. That's my view of the movie articles and how we should do them. Without the prequel stuff, you'd just get several fenced off sections where "Stuff just happens", and that's why off-screen material exists, to explain or expand upon things that cannot fit into the movie or episode because they're too complex or too geeky for the audience. This wiki exists to tell people what happened off screen or why Bay's movies are so incoherent, and the way I see it, if we fence off Furman's UK alt-universe stuff, it more or less fits in together, and you get a decent story out of it. Sorry to ramble. --FFN 23:56, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Here's the simple answer-- document the movie as it's own thing, and in the IDW section, use the IDW movie adaption as a stand-in for the movie, with all the retcons, mucked-up timelines, etc. Best of both worlds. -Derik 00:41, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

I meant leaving the damn articles as they are, except for fencing off Furman's stuff. I'm not about to track down those adaptation comics to (essentially) tell an abbreviated version of the same story already detailed in the same articles. --FFN 06:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Representing the tfwiki at an IMAX premiere?

I've managed to get myself into an IMAX premiere or screening of Revenge of the Fallen tonight, and the promotors/Hasbro want to do a photo op/press thing with aussie fans. Should I like, hold up a sign that says "TFWIKI.NET THE TRANSFORMERS WIKI"? Or would that bring down unnecessary official scrutiny on us? --FFN 22:19, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, thanks for your advice, guys :/--FFN 23:01, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Do you have a "decaf" setting? --ItsWalky 23:18, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Well the promoter let us know at the very last minute so plans are rushed. I have to time manage this thing with the free time of other people I am probably going with. Because frankly, the only reason I'd want to do the photo thing for the promoter is to represent the wiki, and if I was given the go ahead by you, I would have endeavoured to turn up if at all possible. I hope you at least appreciated that dedication to the wiki. --FFN 23:25, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Oh, and another thing - we were invited due to our association with Ozformers, but instead of promoting Ozformers, I want to promote the tfwiki. --FFN 23:27, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Guess you know where your bread is buttered! --ItsWalky 23:34, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Hell, give of us a break, it hasn't even been an hour. I say do it, give us some representation, it might help us in the Google rankings and get us past the craptastic Wikia.--AWT88 23:05, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Not good enough, Jan. *folds arms* --FFN 23:14, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Doesn't Hasbro kind of know about us already, seeing as how they answer questions from us every other month and their licensees send us pics and stuff sometimes? It's not like they're not scrutinizing us already if they're gonna. --Jeysie 23:10, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Now I gotta make a sign... --FFN 23:14, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Try the Universal Greeting Dance. They'll reciprocate. -Derik 23:32, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Or they'll try to eat you! --ItsWalky 23:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Is our motto "Transformers is Serious Business"? Or am I associating Shortpacked!'s motto? --FFN 23:44, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

"Toys are serious business" is a Shortpacked! thing. I don't think the Wiki has a motto. The one on the Twitter feed is "We know more about Transformers than you." --ItsWalky 23:51, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

That sounds a bit confrontational, though, like people may not realise we aren't being aggressive or jerkish. Hasbro AU and Eric Siebenaler thought it was funny when I interrupted somebody complaining about Robot Heroes and Mighty Muggs by saying "Transformers is Serious Business". --FFN 00:08, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Considering how many TF creators use us as a reference as of late, I feel like it ought to be "We know about Transformers so you don't have to."

But I have to agree that something like "Transformers is serious business, yo." would make for an amusing sign blurb. --Jeysie 00:37, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

"Transformers are serious business" is thrown around as a joke a lot, but I don't think it's actually our motto.

• TFWiki.net: We know more about Transformers than you want to.
• TFWiki.net: Cooler than Star Trek, not as cool as Star Wars
• TFWiki.net: Great, there go 4 hours of my life
• TFWiki.net: Nerdgasm Evolved
• TFWiki.net^[1]

[1] amusing footnote

• Transformerology: Finally, a degree you can use in real life.
• TFWiki.net: serious intellectual debate about transforming space robots
• TFWiki.net: Disambiguiously Gay
• TFWiki.net: A Gold Standard of Geekdom
• TFWiki.net: Amazing and Kinda Scary

-Derik 00:44, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I've chosen the serious intellectual debate and we know more about TFs than you want to, as it fits my sense of humour. I'd do more signs, but I am the only TFWiki guy there, so two signs is already pushing it, and there's every chance they'll just crop the sign out or tell me to put it away. Cheers, guys. --FFN 00:58, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Incidentally, I love "serious intellectual debate about transforming space robots." Also:

• "TFWiki.net: Remember that one guy? He was so cool!"
• "TFWiki.net: We remember who Groundshaker was, so you don't have to." (alternately: "TFWiki.net: Who the hell is that!?")
• "TFWiki.net: Come for the information, stay for the inevitable flamewar about funny captions."
• "TFWiki.net: Unhealthily fixated since 2006."
• "TFWiki.net: Because you're just dying to know what they called Thundercracker in Hungary." Hooper_X 07:41, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I just got back. I have no idea if the sign got into pics or not. However, I am pleased this discussion spurred creative ideas in potential official slogans for the wiki. --FFN 09:16, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

"Come for the information, stay for the funny." has a certain ring to it. As does "We remember who Groundshaker was, so you don't have to." Or "Revering and ruining your childhood all in one website." --Jeysie 11:33, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I agree with Walky: "TFWiki.net: Yeah, this makes no goddamn sense, but here it is." - Jackpot 00:04, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Meanwhile, in other promotional exploits...

I was interviewed this morning for the Fayettesville Observer. Soon North Carolina will know alllll about Shortpacked!, our wiki, and Starscream's French-Canadian name. --ItsWalky 13:11, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Totally read that as "Fattysville". Home of the BBQ Double Stackticon! - Chris McFeely 13:21, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

And here we go! Got all the "important" stuff right, though apparently User:LV is now sixty years old and bought a Camaro. --ItsWalky 12:25, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Huh. Not too far from where I live. I should see if some folks I know there can keep a copy. --M Sipher 16:07, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Ridiculous Transformers

The StreetLevel blog recently posted a list of the Top 10 Most Ridiculous Transformers, Ever.

It is very dumb. I want to counter with a better list.

Anyone have any suggestions? Legion and Pepsi Convoy are already a lock. -Derik 13:16, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

It hurts my braaaaaaaaain. (And don't forget there's a Megatron that transforms into a shoe.) --ItsWalky 13:18, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

And Esmeral. --ItsWalky 13:21, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Piano Transformer guy?

Is this just for ridiculous transformations? Are there any in-universe guys who are ridiculous?

...I'm so putting Drift on this list. -Derik 13:23, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Don't be that guy, man. You might as well start adding Nightscream and Wheelie. --ItsWalky 13:25, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

They have redeeming features. Drift is Poochie. "Designed-by-committie awesome" always looks ridiculous. He's not just a traitor or a samurai-- he's an albino-japanese-streetracer-taciturn-former-Decepticon-honorbound-samurai-ninja.

So then I hope you're putting Animated Prowl on that list, too! --ItsWalky 14:28, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Much less ridiculous than Drift. I am adding Break though. There are more ridiculous transformers, but "Penguin Antagonist Naruto" is easy to shorthand. -Derik 14:51, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I'll give him a fair shake and note he hasn't been that annoying in the fiction itself... but in concept he's clearly ridiculous. -Derik 13:28, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Looking at that list, I'm assuming that "ridiculous transformation" is the one major factor. I could nominate Signal Lancer and his friend Pay phone refugee on that criterion.

If we're going for the whole package, Misfire's gotta be on there somewhere. I have a big soft spot for the fellow, but there's no getting around a Con that can't shoot being ridiculous. Plus he's the only male TF I can think of off-hand that canonically has pink as his main color. --Jeysie 13:43, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Energon Wars Sky Lynx. He's pointlessly obscure, to boot! (And yes, definitely the Victory Decepti-wives.) Hooper_X 16:15, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Eh, their focus seems to be different than ours. They're internet hipsters mocking things you thought were cool when you were a kid (something that's in plentiful supply on the interwebs). They're not looking very deeply, and have constrained themselves to US G1 because that's all most people even remember exists. So it plays to their target audience, rather than people that actually pay attention to the brand.--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:35, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

True, but I've always been of the firm belief that if your parody doesn't focus what actually is wrong/stupid about the thing you're picking on, instead of just generic put-downs, you should step back and let someone who actually knows comedy do the writing. --Jeysie 13:43, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I don't have a problem with their targets being so generic... I just think the nits they picked were so... obvious. And not very accurate. (Apparently Blaster is inherently racist?)

Sky-Bite! Awesome and ridiculous. -Derik 13:47, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, yes, pretty much. Saying Megatron or Scorponok are ridiculous is kind of missing the mark. Especially when, as you say, there are TFs who are quite delicious in their actual ridiculousness.

I mean, now that I think about it, in addition to my nominations above, there's also Shortround, a toy-collecting dork of a Con with a hopeless crush on the "hot chick", who can also be mistransformed into looking like a toilet just to polish it all off. --Jeysie 14:04, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Heinrad is definitely up there with the most ridiculous, as are the Jointrons..but I'm sure you've already thought of them. -Mazenoise 14:19, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Much as I love the KP TFs, Glit's profile always makes me wonder why A.) he is a Decepticon and B.) how on Cybertron he's still alive. Gary Stu right there. Geewunling 14:49, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Dude. They used Wikia as their resource. Of course they, and their article, suck. Hooper_X 16:16, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

List is up, thanks for all the help guys! -Derik 22:21, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Consensus on the Allspark seems to be that your list has much better choices but needs more humor in the descriptions. --Jeysie 11:05, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Aww. I think the Wiki has ruined me with it's dryly informative style. -Derik 12:27, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

You just need practice in channeling copious amounts of sarcastic hyperbolic incredulity when chronicaling stuff that's ridiculous. --Jeysie 17:38, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Four hour downtime of June 24

So, was today's downtime caused by massive server backlog of people wanting to add info to Revenge of the Fallen, or did we just get another unforseen downtime again? -- SFH 17:23, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Probably the latter. We'd more likely get a shitload of visitors than a shitload of editors. --FFN 17:28, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

It was most assuredly the former. The server has not actually been down at all. --Suki Brits 23:53, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Wow, so we actually had would-be-contributor overload? Guess I'm gonna have to see the movie by this weekend or I won't be able to visit here at all w/o accidentally getting spoiled for every little thing before I get the chance to watch it. --Apcog 01:46, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Ouch, well, I didn't expect that. --FFN 04:39, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

If the problem was a flood of people trying to edit the movie articles, would locking some of them against unregistered users prevent a repeat of yesterday? Or is the flood likely to be over? --abates 07:17, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

It happened again today, at roughly the same time for almost the same period. Did anybody else experience this apparent downtime or is it just me? I tried to make a comment about it earlier, but it stopped loading again. --FFN 02:42, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

Yes, it did. McFly's been working on the problem. --abates 03:08, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

Ahh good. I thought it was only happening to me/I was going insane. --FFN 13:52, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Lag's been pretty bad today, though it appears to clear up now and then. (I'm taking advantage of an apparent lull right now to post this.) I guess we just have to be patient until McFly and/or Scout get a chance to do something substantial about it. Do we have any clearer idea of what it would take, both in terms of money and effort, to alleviate this sort of thing, at least?--Apcog 18:14, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

When I asked about upgrading to a more expensive hosting plan, McFly said that wouldn't help because we're not utilising the current server fully[1]. --abates 21:12, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, we are now, in that Apache (the web server) is fighting for resources against the database, and Apache is, to put it mildly, a fucking pig. I can spend days going on about how utterly broken Apache is, as it is effectively a wonderful Swiss Army Knife when all we need is a working goddamned X-Acto, but to make a long story short: We can either cache pages for anons (as we currently do by running Apache with Squid caching most of the content,) or we can process PHP code (that is, EVERY FREAKING PAGE) faster, without the benefit of caching, as every test with Squid in front of a lighter web server (nginx in our case, though lighttpd is similarly sparse on feedback) has resulted in Utter Goddamned Failure. To say that I'm at my wit's end is a bit of an understatement, though the bigger scare for me is trying to figure out what can be moved where in order to skirt around these problems entirely while staying within a reasonable budget. --McFly 23:15, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

I assume you don't mean now. According to the Google Trends data for Transformers... search volume for Transformers spiked at ~950% of "normal" on the opening weekend of "Transformers (2007)." We can expect them to drop back down to 'merely' twice normal within 5-6 weeks (maybe a 50% drop in the next 10-12 days) and long curve out from there. -Derik 00:06, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

...What in blazes are you getting at? What, precisely, does a spike in 2007 have to do with a server that was only brought online in mid-2009? This is an issue with the performance of the current server, which is utterly unrelated to ANY search volume OR traffic spikes in 2007, back when Wikia was doing the hosting for free, with many more servers, much more infrastructure overall, and more server-side staff. Of course, if you would like for us to start obscuring content with CSS-breaking ads of minimal relevance and relatively low conversion rate, I'm sure we can arrange that. "Normal" has nothing to do with *anything* that you're currently talking about, and everything to do with the stats of the current server, which has close to 2 million hits only halfway through TODAY. --McFly 12:16, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I think he's trying to say that 2007 could be used as a traffic predictor, McFly. As in traffic spiked by a similar amount then, and can probably be expected to return to "normal" levels at a similar rate. I don't think it's a commentary on Wikia's hosting practices at all, just as an indicator of "this is what a major motion picture does to the number of people looking for Transformers information."--Rosicrucian^Talk 12:42, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

That makes sense as a bit of analysis, but not in the context of the conversation. Alden quoted my claim that we weren't using the server fully. I updated with the fact that we *are* using it fully at this point, in that there are points in time where we are using up all but a few megabytes of RAM just trying to serve up pages. Derik attempted to correct with stats that are completely irrelevant to that situation. We already knew about the "why," and at this point, we're just assessing the damage in order to shore up the levees for next time. --McFly 12:58, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I was not attempting to correct your assessment of server stats-- I don't even have access to them.

You seemed to be suggesting some sort of major reconfiguration in order to handle these kinds of traffic levels and "skirt around these problems while staying within a reasonable budget."

I was just pointing out that our current traffic level was very temporary, tied to the movie, and presented a google search traffic chart as an illustration of the way the generalized interest in Transformers spiked around the 2007 movie, and showing that the 2009 movie was (so far) following the same patten, and our traffic would probably see a radical drop-off within the next few weeks.

So what I was asking is... "are you suggesting we do something to restructure now, or should we weather the problem for another 2 weeks, knowing that a 50% drop in traffic is probably coming and try to fix it when the server isn't vomiting everywhere?" I wanted to know if you were talkign about long-term changes we needed to make, or immediate-term ones.

I don't know where you got Wikia out of it. -Derik 18:24, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

So, upshot is that we're stuck like this for the foreseeable future, barring a major revelation from on high to you of a workable solution. Dang. Well, your effort's appreciated, regardless.--Apcog 01:40, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

"What in blazes are you getting at? What, precisely, does a spike in 2007 have to do with a server that was only brought online in mid-2009? This is an issue with the performance of the current server, which is utterly unrelated to ANY search volume OR traffic spikes" Wow. This quote is brilliant. Encapsulates a lot of......... real life and Transformers issues. Like a microcosm of the fandom, in a single quote. Drmick 13:03, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Admittedly, I was a bit... enthusiastic in my reaction. However, as noted in my response to Rosicrucian, feeding contextually irrelevant info doesn't really help out. It's not that we didn't know about the incoming spike, it's that we didn't know just what we'd need to throw at the problem. What we don't know about the two previous hosts (Wikia, then Bookworm) could fill a few bookshelves, and it's all of that info which we're stuck at digging up solely via trial and error. It's basically crash-testing a scratch-built car without any notes about how to set up crumplezones or airbags or seat belt tensioners.--McFly 13:34, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Can you still learn a lot from a dummy?--Apcog 13:44, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Well, we did buckle up. Problem is, the seat belts didn't retract fast enough, the airbag suffocated the driver, and the crumplezones failed, pushing the engine through our shins. On the upside, our prototype car has decent handling, acceptable acceleration, and it passed emissions testing! Now if we can just tackle those pesky side-impact explosions...--McFly 14:02, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

9000 articles

Not long now until we hit 5 figures! --abates 20:09, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Yep. :D So we've got...

• 8000th article: Ego on January 25th, 2009
• 9000th article: Michael York on June 28th, 2009

Whoo-hoo! --Jeysie 20:17, 28 June 2009 (EDT)