MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive19

Character Main Images, MTMTE, TF: Universe, boxart and stuff

Some of you may know I've been uploading UK G1 covers, after a bit of debate {see above} as to how these should be presented. One of the biggest sources of debate I see on the character pages is on the choice of main image. When I first started I was told that only one main image is picked. I have yet to determine the logic as to how the choice is made between the various images. I assumed it was all round quality. However the articles on Grimlock, Bludgeon and Springer prove that the (non-controversial?) humour can the main deciding factor.The UK G1 covers have been put into galleries at the bottom of the UK story pages. Is there any reason a similar structure could not be adopted for the profile images? As I understand it the following profile images are out there:

• Box art (it rules! We need a book of them, dammit Hasbro/Takara, Wall scroll will not suffice!)
• MTMTE (some are excellent, some defecacious)
• Character models/Marvel Universe Images
• Some Japanese character models from later seriesAm I missing any?As well, a cover gallery could be included to show all the covers each character has graced, these images mostly already exist on the wiki. It might too big a gallery for Prime and Megs, but it could be useful for some. I mean Windsweeper got a whole (admittedly crap) UK G1 cover for himself.With this whole new ad/skin it might be a useful way to collect the main images. Thoughts? Drmick 12:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys it would have nice to been told "No" before I spent maybe an hour scanning and editing MTMTE art. I mean the "Combiner dumb question" and the "Unicron trilogy designs" questions gained a response, yet a question about wiki policy (which is, like, what the community portal is for) did not. "Dumb stubbies"...... Drmick 10:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, but at the moment the I would guess the entire staff and the major contributors (except myself) are discussing the problems Wikia's new changes have made and debating if we should move or not. And besides, people's talk page questions get ignored all the time. --FFN 11:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had enough presence of mind to ask if people wanted such a collection of images in the first place, you only have yourself to blame if you went ahead and did all the work for it before you got a response. --Xaaron 14:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, scanning every single MTMTE image is, well, illegal. It's no better than scanning every single page of a comic and putting it up here. --ItsWalky 14:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Userpage limits

Can we start making some hardline limits on userpage fluff? This isn't fucking MySpace. One, maybe two images and that's it. Limited text (with limited exceptions made if people really want to start listing big contributions they've done). I'm frankly getting sick of the Recent Changes page getting cluttered with COMPLETELY usless mass vanity-edits. --M Sipher 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We definately need to lay down the law. I've seen this on Wookieepedia. People who are here to edit their userpages are wasting our time. -- SFH 19:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Very yes to everything. The content not related to the Wiki itself should be minimal; nobody here particularly cares for your personal style, information, or opinions that are irrelevant to the Wiki. —Interrobang 04:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I remembered from signing up that we actually have a thing saying you only get to upload one userpic for yourself. (Or is this about the guys who just play with existing wiki pages on their userpage? -Derik 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Some examples of the worst offenders would be helpful in this argument. When I first found this wiki, like most, I waded in with little regard for the rules. I was curtailed, but still was able to get some stuff of my chest with the use of Userpage and sandboxes. My userpage has some stuff but it is specifically TF related.

On a similar vein, I notice that the big hitters here seem to be Derik, FFN, ITswalky etc. I have often looked at those users pages in the hope that I can get a feel for which type of fan they are (e.g predominantly a fan of toy/comic/cartoon or G1/Japanese/Beast Wars or Marvel/DW/IDW etc etc). No such information exists, but I think it would be useful. And oddly, M Siphers page is essentially blank, but his discussion page is not. In theory, a suitable userpage might pre-empt a lot of unnecessary discussion. Personally, I ended up having a discussion about my homage sandbox in 3 different places. Drmick 10:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My userpage tells you I am the type of user not the be emulated, since I am TT1's most banned active contributer!

In all seriousness, you raise a legitimate point. My userpage is a collection of stuff useful to me as I edit pages. We've rejected character box templates, but I think it might be worthwhile to look at a template to create a 'nutshell' summary for users, for the very reasons you say. -Derik 13:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be useful for the staff members to identify themselves as such on their user pages if they haven't already done so. --FFN 16:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Unicron Triolgy Transformer designs

Who else thinks that Transformers Animated should feature the Unicron Trilogy Transformer cartoon graphics? Now THOSE were good looking transformers, not these new age transformers. Armada had the good graphic designs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Racecarlock (talk • contribs).

Sorry, this isn't a message board/forum. This page is for discussing Wiki policy. --FFN 08:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... Does anybody else feel that this wiki could do with a dedicated forum? It would certainly be more user friendly, searchable and archivable than the discussion pages. Drmick 10:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Walky, to clarify that (in case you missed his point,) Wikis can be set up with, like, talk pages that (in some manner I'm vague about) are friendlier for high-volume discussion. -Derik 13:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If the original post is an example of the kind of discussion we'd be looking forward to, then no thanks. --ItsWalky 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A-damn-greed. --M Sipher 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No. But hot damn, we need to put that fluffy marshmallowy Ironhide SOMEWHERE. -hx 15:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC) (hey, guys! i'm in an internet cafe on my honeymoon! - it's 7 AM here, before you start in with WHY AREN'T YOU FUCKING YOUR WIFE.)

WHY AREN'T YOU KILLING YOUR LONELY?! --FortMax 15:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's one of Sally's stuffed toys. She has a stuffed "Softimus Prime" too, which still looks less fat than the real thing. -Derik 16:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Section re-linking

While updating the characters featured in Spotlight: Cyclonus, I noticed that some used the anchor to the "IDW comics continuity" section for that character, while some didn't. So I thought, maybe it's a good idea to link IDW stuff to other other IDW stuff (if available). For example, On G1 Cyclonus's page, there is a "IDW comics continuity" section that describes his actions in IDW comics. Within that section, he has interacted with Ultra Magnus, Hound, etc, so I made the links for them anchor to Ultra Magnus and Hound. Detour didn't seem to like this, so I thought I'd post it here for a discussion. --MistaTee 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of linking to specific sections, where appropriate. For instance, toys in particular I always link as specifically as possible (such as here). But I don't usually bother with fiction-sections, since I think it'd be a huge pain in the ass to do all the time. Also, there's been no naming convention established for the various branches of fiction, so section-titles have been known to change according to personal taste. Or maybe a character makes new appearances in different continuities, and what used to be general section-titles have to become more specific. So there'll be a certain amount of windmill-tilting involved in maintaining the links you make. All in all, if you feel like putting the effort into it, I say knock yourself out, but I don't see a need to do it, myself. - Jackpot 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are 6,578 articles on this wiki. Even if we assume an average of 10 links per page (and I think that's low balling it), that would mean somewhere around 65,000 individual links on this site would need to be updated from "X" to "X#The Relevant Subheading". That's a bottomless black hole of pain and despair. I think we should just trust visitors' scrolling abilities, and let them find the specific subheading on a page themselves. --Xaaron 21:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well like I said earlier, this is not high on the priority list, but I'll just fix as I see them, and I'm only gonna do the IDW links right now. One benefit I've come across while doing this is making the header "IDW comics continuity" consistent in caps, spelling, etc. If I notice anything else weird I usually fix too. I've touched lot of pages throughout the site, but I tend to "specialize" in the comic section. MistaTee 23:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying, though, is that this isn't something that should "only" be done for IDW comics, or even "only" for the comic sections in general that you "specialize" in. This is a radically different idea for how links should be created and maintained on the site, and so should be accepted completely and done everywhere on every link, or not done at all. I strongly disapprove of the idea of you just doing this to IDW links and any other link you happen to come across. That's just so...random and incomplete. --Xaaron 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what Xaaron said. If we do it for one, we have to do it for all. It'd ridiculous, pointless and more trouble than it's worth. Just because it's a section you happen to be editing doesn't mean you can dictate unique linking conventions for it. --Detour 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm I reading Hot Rod's article, and I see it mention his teammate Gizmo, and I click on that link-- and it snaps me down to the IDW fiction section... I'd get irritated. I didn't click on that link to see a representation of the exact same info I already read in Hot Rod's article (the events of their fateful mission,) I clicked on it to find out who the heck he was, which is up at the top of the article.Especially in fiction section... I think a link to- "Along with Character X..." or "He fought character X..." while it would seem to make sense (from a contextual standpoint) to link to the equivalent of this 'spor' in their article... in actual use, you will very infrequently desire that functionality.So basically, I think there's some really good reasons not to do it aside from the technical and logistical problems it would entail.(I actually had an interesting idea about how to encourage better section naming conventions passively, without being actively obnoxious about it. But it's not-yet-ready-for-primetime.) -Derik 01:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point of it being a monster to complete, and agree that if it's done for IDW, it should be done for every section (at least fictions) -- a large undertaking. I'll put a hold on doing it until I see some more positive opinions. I didn't hit that many pages, maybe 30 or so where I did this. I do think we need to be more careful/consistant about naming conventions though and would like to hear Derik's ideas.--MistaTee 01:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This conversation has seemed to spawn a drive to do away with ALL section-linking, which I think is uncalled for. In the case of toys, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to link directly to the toy in question. Whereas the fiction-links are about the character as a whole (including the intro), every toy-link is about one specific toy. I see no value in adding a step of effort for the reader. The argument that we would then need to immediately update every toy-link ever is ridiculous. It's okay to have a preferred style and an acceptable style. To my mind, a direct toy-link should be preferred, while a link to just the page is acceptable. - Jackpot 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Does your finger hurt too much from clicking the first link to click the second link in the table of contents? Besides, this is a character-based wiki. What if someone looks at the Universe listing and sees, say, Storm Cloud, and think "I wonder if he's a new character or a totally obscure guy I totally missed...." and clicks the link. Well he ends up at the far bottom of the article where the toy is listed and has to scroll all the way back up to find out anything about the character. I think section-linking should only be applied for specific references, like New Rodimus's mention on the Brave page, or the reference to Mirage's legs on Sunstreaker's Universe toy caption, because clearly in those cases you need that very specific reference. --Detour 20:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And in a list of specific toys in a specific toyline, those links clearly need that specific reference as well. The list of toys in a toyline isn't ABOUT the characters. It's about the toys. It's not a list OF characters. Here's a question: Does your finger hurt too much from scrolling back up? --ItsWalky 20:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's so useful, why has it only been done to the Classics and Universe articles then? If you were such a supporter of this you'd be implementing it on all the Toyline pages. --Detour 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also a proponent of every single page on the wiki being completed, and just because I don't spend my every waking moment doing such does not mean I am against the idea. Because I personally don't have time to do something is not a reason for me to delete the efforts of others who are doing the right thing. You're ridiculous. --ItsWalky 20:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

dont have time? guess its true since staring out the window for three days straight waiting for a package and doing four little comics a week is soooooooooooooooooooooo time consuming! especially with all of wiigii giving you ideas for the comics—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.195.119.14 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 17 July 2008.

Oh wow, I think Walky's e-mail buddy found the wiki.--Rosicrucian^Talk 04:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

TF has more than 700 episodes, 3 movies, 500+ comic books, thousands of toys, at least 5 novels probably over 100 short prose stories (often featuring dozens of characters that may appear nowhere else...)

In case you've missed it, in order to document TV series, comics, and characters, this wiki has over 6000 articles. Even though we often have 1 article for comics containing multiple stories or story-arcs that were told over many issues, or place truly minor characters in a sub-section of someone else's page instead of giving them their own. The sheer scope involved is mind-boggling. There is a fundamental upper limit to how much one person can make a dent into that. The Optimus Prime (G1) article probably represents hundreds of man-hours of work-- and it's still nowhere near "completionist," both the Cartoon and comic sections are just rough overviews of about 2 pages each.

Each person does what they can, places their efforts where they feel they get the most return. One of the constant struggles we've had (and wikipedia has) is how much formatting we can, or should mandate. You can require as much detailed-linking and anal-retentive cross-footing as you want... but either people are going to ignore it (and you have to decide whether to undo their not-up-to-snuff updates or mark them as 'in need of improvement,'- knowing the parts you're marking are the ones people least like to do and thus will languish incomplete,) or people are going to be so intimidated by the stack of prerequisites you places before them if they want to contribute... that they won't contribute at all. "It's not worth my hassle."

Walky think linking to toy sections from articles about toyline is a good idea- but as an ideal, not a requirement. I think it's a terrible idea for functional reasons (when I click on a character list, I don't want to be akin to information about their fucking toys,) and practical ones- it's not gonna get done. And if it is done, it'll be in a shoddy manner, like the links to Bumblebee (G1)#Classics that a) link to the wrong article. b) don't distinguish WHICH Classics toy this link is supposed to refer to. We both agree that the proposal is completely ridiculous- but he wants to aspire to it, and I think we'd do more damage (sloppy mis-linking in this case) in the aspiration than we would good.

...but why am I explaining this to you? You're just here to troll David. Okay, here; David Willis eats his own poop. You satisfied? Good, now go away. -Derik 05:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Detour, we haven't implemented it on every toy section page because we obviously haven't gotten around to doing it Have ya noticed all the work this wiki still needs to have done? I don't think it hurts to make this place more user-friendly. We place too much emphasis on how we can easily navigate this place. Believe it or not, the TF Wiki can be confusing for people who aren't familiar with wikis or who aren't regular visitors. And Walky is right - people who look at toyline pages are searching for the specific toy, not the character history. --FFN 20:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who added toy section-links to Classics (2006), so why haven't I done more? Well, every time I've edited a toy section in any article, I have linked to specific toys; that just hasn't been as visible. And I haven't gone on a link-changing crusade because this new method just builds on the old, it doesn't invalidate it. I prefer section-links; that doesn't make the old article-links WRONG. Change like this can happen slowly; it's okay. But when you start undoing people's work in the name of a rule that never existed, THEN we sit up and take notice. - Jackpot 21:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-iterating my reasons stated above for why I think section-linking is a bad idea. If I'm on the Beast Wars Telemocha Series page and I click on Wolffang- it's because I'm curious why such a minor character was included in the anniversary line. Directing me to the toy section means I'm more likely to miss "And he's a new character created for this," which is the info I was looking for.

I often click on dozens of links that look interesting as a surf, openign them in new tabs and then going through them when I have a chance. Having those tabs open in mi middle or articles is incredibly disorienting. "I was reading the Hot Rod article, and I clicked on a link to a Transformer called 'Dealer,' who I'd never heard of before. 10 minutes later I'm getting around to going through my tabs-- and I'm in the middle of an IDW fiction section and I have no idea what character I'm reading ABOUT."

Yes, I agree, there are some circumstances where linkign to specific sections is appropriate, even beneficial... but I think those circumstances are very, very rare and should never be done as a matter or routine. -Derik 23:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And more tot he point in the very article we're discussing- there are two 'Bumblebee' links. The first links tot he 'Classics' section of his toys. The Second (due to a fuck-up) links to the classics FICTION section. Because the anchor was applied blindly and not checked.

The negligence involved aside-- if the point is to link to 'that toy' on the toy page-- you've failed. You've linked to his Classics Section, which includes multiple toys. Both links should be directed to named anchors created using the {{anchor}} template.

And the "Well you just need to scroll down a little bit" argument doesn't cut it. By that logic we should jsut be linkign to the page with no sections at all. -Derik 23:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know the "anchor" template existed, and I absolutely support it being used instead of toy-section-linking. Not only does it achieve the necessary specificity, but it also circumvents the problem of our ever-changing headers. - Jackpot 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Detour, when I look at Beast Wars (cartoon), I see a list of characters, and when I go to Beast Wars (toyline), I see a list of toys. If I'm on the toyline page, and I click on a link that sends me directly to a toy entry, I consider that expected. If what I really wanted was character info, then scrolling up to find it is the price of having gotten there through a link about a toy. But if I'm looking at a list of toys, and my click takes me to the top of a character article, I feel like the extra effort to find the toy is an unnecessary inconvenience that diligent editing could've avoided. Especially considering that we have characters with entirely separate toy pages, which would then require another click. In the grand scheme, these are small potatoes indeed, but any user-experience designer will tell you that every iota of effort you put on the user's shoulders will add up.

Now, that having been said, I think our principle point of disagreement is not over the existence of toy-links, but where they should be used. The extreme example of "x is a repaint of y" is something that I think we all agree calls for a toy-link. But what about lists? Stunticon, for example, has links to specific toys in its own Toys section, under the list of various incarnations of team members. I don't know if you agree that those are appropriate, but if they are, then what's the real difference between that list and this one?

- Jackpot 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's a thought. What if we have a direct-subsection/anchor-link thing on top of linking to the top of the character page? So, when you say "toy X is a redeco of Y*", Y is a link to the character page, while * direct-links to the relevant subsection or anchor point of that page. --M Sipher 06:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean like "Bumblebee - (toy)" ? A double link? (Though presumably with a more compact markup than that.) -Derik 06:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Something like that, though probably a top-justified one like the reference/footnote links. Maybe in a tiny gray box like the storylinks. I definitely think that when you say a toy is a redeco of a toy of a character who has a dozen or so toys to their name, usually under a single franchise name, a specific jump to THAT toy is damn well in order. --M Sipher 06:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That is one circumstance when I think linking directly to a toy-section is a good idea-- "This mold got recolored into..." If I'm clicking on that link I'm probably curious what the recolors look like. "Whut? They recolored Landmine into Rhinox? What does that look like?" -Derik 07:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a decent compromise if we can't get consensus on toy-links. Thumbs-up from me. - Jackpot 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)