MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive11

Current troll problem

Is there a way to keep the IP addresses our resident troll has been using from creating accounts? --FortMax 00:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Presumably that's the "account creation disabled" part of the block log. So I think he's hopping IPs before creating winners like Optimus the F22--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The staff at Wikia would probably be able to help. They are aware of Assautlhead, and consider him a cross wiki vandal. -- SFH 01:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Wikia's block log, and the logs shows when it is used. So apperently our admins haven't been making use of it. --FortMax 01:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Or at the least that there's a difference between local account creation and global account creation. I'll admit I'm a little fuzzy on the distinction regarding how Wikia works versus a more standard wiki.--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess who recently got handed a permanent block at Wikipedia and is back to haunt us?--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this is the same guy that's been trolling here for awhile, if I recall correctly, Walky was the one who asked the rest of us if he should ban the guy immediately, because he was too entertaining. True, while the guy could have returned as easily as he later did regardless of how quickly he was banned and Walky wouldn't have known the guy would continually return if banned, tolerance of trolling stupidity just encourages more stupidity, I've observed. --FFN 23:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We are indeed aware of Assaulthead. He has been globally blocked, and informed of the reasons for it, and we are encouraging him to find another community on the Internet where he would be more welcome. Your best course of action now is to allow his exit to be a quiet one. Talking about him on the wiki only encourages him to come back and keep reading and "retaliating", instead of moving on and getting involved elsewhere. Please delete and any similar pages discussing his disruptions. You may of course continue to delete his edits, and to block the accounts or IPs he uses to evade his block, but please use neutral, boring edit and blocking summaries. Thanks, best wishes, and let me know if there's anything else I can do to help this wiki out! — Catherine<staff/> (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Teletraan-1:Blocking Policy

Is there any chance we can get a blocking Policy? Why does SFH's Wiki has one while some Wikis do not?(EDD! 00:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

Indonesian version

I noticed than an Indonesian version of this wiki was just launched- could we link to that from the same pull -down menu on the front page that currently just links to the Hungarian version? --TVsGrady 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrators

Any chance we can get at least one more administrator for late hours? If the current idiot rage is any indicator, we need it. Interrobang 09:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the admins aren't normally online during these hours, because I assume they are located in either the same countries or timezones that aren't too far from each other, which is a problem as this troll guy knows that's the time to attack with less risk of administrative intervention. --FFN 09:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of site name

I feel like this has been discussed repeatedly, but we still haven't actually done anything about it, and it recently came up again on Help talk:User page. We've taken to generally writing the name of our wiki and the computer it is named after as "Teletraan I", although the site database still uses "Teletraan-1" instead, meaning that text appears anywhere the wiki SITENAME variable is called. "Teletraan I" is the way the name appears in the original G1 episode scripts and the G1 cartoon bible. Some later but still official spellings omit one of the As, or use an arabic number instead of a roman numeral, or include a hyphen, or any combination of these things. I feel as if we should stick with the original spelling, even though that spelling was only "discovered" in the last 5 years or so and, for all I know, might not even be the most common spelling. Regardless of the spelling that we pick, I am really tired of the inconsistency between our graphic logo and the SITENAME variable, and think we should take one and go with it. I would appreciate it if other users would express their preferences. --Steve-o 04:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Teletraan I. I'd prefer not to go with fan-originated spellings. Interrobang 05:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I say "Fuck it, we rename the whole thing Vector Sigma, which is a way better name for a repository of TF data anydamnway." -hx 11:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In THAT case, Underbase. But no, we're probably a little too established as Teletraan I (however you like it spelled) these days. --Sntint 12:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and changed the Sitename to "Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki" -- if you change your mind after more discussion, I can change it again. (I'd suggest leaving the "tranformers wiki" portion, however -- this improves your ranking in search engines.)I have also added "TeletraanI" and "Teletraan1" as additional domain names, so [[1]] and [[2]] both redirect to [[3]] -- hopefully this will also help people typing "teletraan" into search engines to find you. Good luck! — Catherine<staff/> (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --ItsWalky 02:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Elements of ideal comic issue

We really should standardize pages for common things like comic issues, fer instance. We should find an accepted page that is perfect in format and either use that as the standard or just build an "example page" based on that. Using Infiltration issue 0, I propose the following:

• the top of the page should have the 2 most-common covers, rendered to 250px wide, and usually with a humorous comment. Other notable covers can be listed in the Covers section below.
• The Comic Nav box should have the "pretty title" be the exact title as published, and in italics (but linked to the appropriate page)
• 2 lines below the nav box (for spacing), should be a credits listing, usually the Writer/script, Artist/Penciler and inker, Colorist, Letterer and Editor in generally that order. The titles should be bolded.
• Next should be a bullet point for Major characters (in order of appearance): (title in italics)
• Next, bullet point for Originally published:, also title in italics. If published date is unknown, cover date.
• If available, a 3rd bullet for Continuity:
• after this, use a spacer symbol:
  There should be 4 sections using a level-2 header: Synopsis, Quotes, Errors and Items of note. If information is unknown for any of these, please include a bullet point for
• None yet identifiedSynopsis:
• General overview of the important elements of the issue's plotQuotes:
• in quotation marks and italics. The second speaker (if there is one) should be indented. Below, using an m-dash, the speaker should be listed in Bold.Errors
• self-explanatoryItems of note
• Connections to other issues/continuities/properties/whatever
• special items
• notes about recurring sections such as a letters section, etc.
• Also under Items of note, in level-3 headers, should be a Covers section and a Advertisements section
• Covers should list the number of covers, a very brief description of each and the artist(s)
• Advertisements should at least list Transformers-related ads, although a complete list would be nice.Whew! OK, let the debates begin! --MistaTee 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How about instead of a paragraph for characters, we use that multicolored appearances box like we do for episodes? I like that. It's easier to read. Granted, some issues it'll be huge, but that's true for the cartoon as well. (If worse comes to worse, individuals on subgroups can be condensed down to just the group name.) --M Sipher 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Might have to rearrange of few things. --MistaTee 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, I think maybe we can use a format similar to that we use for the cartoon episode. --TX55 03:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I too support the multicoloured box. Consistency is victory. - RolonBolon 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I did a mock-up using that style and some re-arrangement. Have a look. --MistaTee 04:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's get some more feedback so we can get a standard nailed down. --MistaTee 12:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I really do think that for quotations that contain more than two text-boxes worth of dialog, a script format is just simply easier to keep track of, (and this better) also slightly more compact. Oh, and I think my page-by-page listing of character cameos in Beast Wars #1 was cool and should have been kept - even though it's not standard, but that issue did have a ton of characters. Oh, and I really don't like having headers for empty categories, so they should be left out. Since they just make the wiki look incomplete when maybe there just aren't any errors or references or whatever in the issue.--Zodberg 16:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zodberg about going script-style if there's more than two speakers. Also, I don't see the point of indenting a second speaker -- why not just put a break in and call it a day?

On a related note, I've seen some really confusing breakdowns of quotes from comic books, attempting to follow the speech bubble pattern by putting each bubble's worth of text on separate lines, even when it's all one speaker. This gives some strange, hard-to-read results and I'm kinda opposed to it. -- Repowers 15:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "script style" exactly? Here's another idea for 2 people exchanging quotes: first person in normal font and second in italics. --MistaTee 16:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Script-style is when you put each speaker's name before each line of dialogue:

Optimus: Wheeljack, bring back my Doritos!

Wheeljack: I didn't take 'em, Prime! It was Jazz! I don't even have a mouth!

Jazz: Wheeljack, you big tattletale.

Optimus: Jazz, you know the punishment. Give me your agonizer.

Putting all the attributions at the end can be very confusing when there are several people speaking back and forth. JW 16:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what JW said. For one speaker, "Quote" -- attribution is fine.

For two speakers... why do they need to be distinguished? Thta's what line breaks and quotation marks are for.

"Oh yeah, well, your mom is a cheap -- "

"Hey! Not in front of the humans!"

-- Ironhide and Ratchet

I don't see how there's any confusion there. -- Repowers 17:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Rob and JW here, I think you're severely overcomplicating something that doesn't need it. This is how I handled the quotes from the various Cybertron episodes I did up. (I should get back on those sometime. I'm pretty sure they're still available online.) --M Sipher 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the script style looks greta for 2 or more speakers --MistaTee 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we start using the character appearance infobox with bullet point listings as the standard for comic appearances? I've noted that comics contain MANY character appearances, so the traditional listing method just appears as one confusing paragraph of names and links. --FFN 01:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the [Characters] box?

I've got no problem with that (I was just noticing how horrible the giant mess of character in ascending looked as a paragraph.) It's a table right now, which does make it kinda a pain to implement. Want me to take a pass at making it a template? -Derik 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go for it, thanks. What I did for Ascending 1 was to gradually cut-paste the names from the giant paragraphs into the character box. Took quite awhile. --FFN 12:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a greater discussion, and perhaps a decision on the issue of listing character names either by appearance or alphabetical order in the character box? Because currently the episode writers are (and have been for over a year) writing them in order of appearance (except for the last 2 Animated episodes), while the comic issue writers have only recently adopted this format and are listing the names in alphabetical order. I still say we should stick with what we have been doing, since it's a waste of time to change formats for the majority of the articles using the character box simply to suit a minority of articles. --FFN 03:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Somethign to be said for both approaches- but Chronological is traditional, and is communicates more information, so I say go with that. -Derik 08:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

VICTORY! --FFN 09:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Recurring Troll Problem

Wikia people re looking into... solutions. Until then, I propose this plan whenever the recurring troll returns.
1) DO NOT REVERT HIS SHITTY EDITS. This just causes the changes page to be filled with idiot bac-and-forth. Instead, just write them down for a mod to revert/delete.
2) DO NOT TALK TO IT AS IF IT WAS A HUMAN OR A MONKEY. Do not engage.
3) GO TO WIKIA HOME AND GET IN TOUCH WITH A MOD. They can enact wide-reaching bans and such.
--M Sipher 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. -- SFH 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

By Wikia home you mean... what? #wikia? -15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cartoon Episode Format

I realize we've got a Help page that cites "The Agenda (Part 1)" as a model cartoon episode. But...First of all, that up-front section on that page looks pretty hideous. IMO, stuff like air date, characters, and writers is less important than the story summary. Second, while Beast Wars and Beast Machines follow this format, Generation 1, (some of ) Armada, and the handful of completed Cybertron episodes do not. They have a different layout, typified by "City of Steel"... and again IMO, it looks and works much better, with all the messy stuff like character appearances and air date condensed into a Stats section near the bottom.One-line summary: Following the example set by comic pages, I feel that one-line summary ought to be bold, regardless of the format. It lets your eye jump right to the one sentence which immediately tells you what the page is all about.Quotes: Oh, those quotes! There must be a dozen different formats for them, most of them ridiculously complex or strange. My nomination for quote formatting on all episode and comic issue pages is thus:A single speaker:
"We've got to pull ourselves together and win. That's what makes us a team! Because if we don't act like team we won't be together anymore. And that could mean we'll lose."

-- Rad or Carlos or someone

Two speakers:
"So you're saying that if we work together, we'll be more of a team? Golly, I never thought of it that way."
"Uhhhhh?"

-- Carlos and Hot Shot, the latter drooling.

Three or more speakers or lines:
Rad: "I know if we keep trying we can do this! We musts succeed! For the good!"
Alexis: "That's the spirit. If we try then we can win!"
Hot Shot: "So what you're saying is... huh."
Carlos: "Hey you guys, wait up!!"
Hot Shot: "I guess what Carlos is saying is true. We'll have to give it our best shot. What do you think, Leader-1?"
Optimus: "I think that we have to win in order to defeat Megatron. And GET THOSE MINI-CONS!"
-- Repowers 23:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing it this way for months, because the old style kind of blows. Maybe somebody should edit the Help page so we aren't giving newcomers the wrong idea about what we expect in a episode article? It creates a fucking shitload of work to correct an episode article if we go around telling people to do things the wrong way and then we have to fix it ourselves.

I agree on all counts. If nobody objects after a day or two, I say we change that Help link. -- Repowers 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As the person who did the Cybertron episode pages, obviously I agree. --M Sipher 16:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed it anyway, because even if we later disagree and any episode recap is made in the meantime, it's far easier to edit a recap down to the old style than it is to update an old recap style to M Sipher's Cyb ep style. --FFN 16:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All sounds fine to me. One thing I consider important is that all the RID episode pages open with haikus, as a bunch (but not all) already do.  :) --Steve-o 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate you. :P

RID ep recaps are largely dependant on those of us who go to the trouble of importing those UK DVD sets. Does anybody here actually own them? --FFN 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

*raises hand* I've thought about doing summaries, but for whatever reason the Japanese shows won out in my head. I'd do RiD before I'd do Victory, though. Yeeargh. - Chris McFeely 22:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Any recaps are hard to do. We're struggling to do the Beast Wars recaps, and it's the best series we have... then again BW and BM are very complex, so that helps in difficulty of writing. Off-topic question: Did Metrodome ever fix that subbing problem (where a sub from a later episode is used on an earlier episode) in Headmasters for the big Takara boxset? Trying to weigh which version to get. --FFN 22:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be a proportionate thing - the better-written the show, the tougher it is to write up. For example, I've only managed half of the really-rather-good Masterforce in three months, whereas the gut-wrenchingly stupid Headmasters was done in a month! Heck, maybe I *should* do Victory, it's the worst of the three in my book, maybe I'd get it all done in a week...

The error didn't get fixed for the Takara Collection boxset, unfortunately... and although I don't have absolutely confirmation of this, I doubt it's fixed for the Madman set either, since there are several other unfixed errors reported. - Chris McFeely 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I think the information such as writer, air date, etc. absolutely does belong right up front, before the summary, for cartoon episodes just as we have it there for comic issues. --KilMichaelMcC 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignorant question about Korean Beast Wars

Hi folks. Been a little while. I was just wondering if anyone could give me a little clarification about something, and if so perhaps could add it to some relevant articles (unless it's already in there somewhere and I'm just not seeing it)?What I wanted to know is: What is HasTak's position and (presumably) thus our position on the officialness of the widely available Korean releases of Beast Wars II and Beast Wars Neo? I'm sure you know the ones I'm talking about; you often see Big Convoy, Galvatron, Magnaboss, Megastorm etc in these Korean releases. They come in large windowless boxes with pimp box art and are packaged in moulded white plastic trays, and as far as I can tell the toys are absolutely identical to the Japanese releases.I've long heard many eBay sellers (but I'm not going to blindly trust them) swear up and down that these Korean releases are fully official and liscenced for the Korean market by Takara, and they're also sold by BigBadToystore (who don't generally have much truck with knock-offs) alongside the Japanese releases with only the proviso "Korean Box" stated.So, does anyone have any clear knowledge on this question? Can one consider these particular Korean releases to be as official as the Japanese releases? I'd really appreciate knowing if someone has any definite info on this. Cheers, PacifistPrimeSo far as I know, they are definitely official releases. Dj convoy 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

They're official releases under Takara's South Korean subsidiary or distributor Sonokong. I believe it's a way for Takara to get around the cultural divide and resentment in South Korea towards Japan by selling their products through a local company. --FFN 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, that's a load off. I take it this is the consensus then? If so, it might be good to add it to a few pages there, for others such as me who might be wondering... PacifistPrime

TV's Grady made this. We still don't know that much about them. --FFN 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It could also be a legal thing-- didn't we get the Antex TF's because laws at the time in Brazil required the brand to be managed by a domestically-owned company? That would explain why the Korean TF's got their own separate production run instead of just being produced in China like the Japanese TF's. -Derik 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Europe/Japan/etc-"only" character categories

So I was thinking about this today... how hard would it be to change these categories a bit? IDW and the Club are pulling characters once found only in Japan and Europe left and right (and 3H grabbed a couple to boot), so "only" is a bit of a misnomer, but the category group is still, I think, an important one to have. Perhaps "-only" should become "-origin", indicating characters whose first appearances were in non-US-first fiction/toylines, regardless of later US appearances? Could a bot handle this change? --M Sipher 20:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Japanese-original characters", "European-original characters", "South-American-original characters", mayhaps? --M Sipher 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you strongly. Thus we can make something not to be confused later day. (e.g. I've already heard someone say Lio Convoy originate in IDW continuity. Gosh...) By the way, if we really use "-origin", I think Car Robot/RiD characters can be also in this category. --TX55 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Would the original GeeWon characters be Japan-origin as well? Is this toy-origin or fiction-origin? --MistaTee 15:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good question. I think that, since A) this is a fiction-oriented wiki, and 2) "toy originated in Japan, fiction originated in America" is the "default" for the core characters, then we should use the "fiction-origin" definition, unless the character only has a toy.

Um, but what then do we do if a character is produced as only a toy, only in Japan, and then ten years later his first fictional appearance is in America? JW 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Where applicable, consider the Japanese tech specs/bio its first fictional appearance. Even the Operation: Combination Micromasters and such had minimal write-ups in TV Magazine before the reissue bios gave some of them more personality. Otherwise, note the toy existed under a given name in Japan, but did not exist as a character until brought into U.S. fiction. Mind you, the only Japan-original toys that come to my mind as qualifying are the limited-edition Mini-Cons/Microns. There are doubtless many I'm forgetting.--Apcog 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's overcomplicating the issue. The Boosters and limited Microns that are getting first-time Club bios would fall under the Japan-origin deal. I mean, just because a toy doesn't have a bio, that doesn't mean it's not a character... it just doesn't have any characterization. It's still an individual. Otherwise, even several Japanese-ONLY characters wouldn't qualify, like Shuffler or the Godmaster Warriors... and most of the South American guys wouldn't qualify for their own national-origin category. The Diaclone / Microman-origin TFs from 84/85 would not fall under this because their premier as Transformers was in the US. One could make a case for the Car Robots characters being in the category, but the RID additions to the line would not. --M Sipher 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea. The change can be made pretty easily with the DiagnosticDrone, but that will have to wait until I'm back at my home PC instead of travelling for the holidays. In the meantime, continue to hash out exactly how you want to do them. --Steve-o 04:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I can help with the work during my holidays after the decision is made. :D --TX55 06:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother. It's a task that can be accomplished by the bot with almost zero effort on my part. Also, bot edits are hidden by default on the Recent Changes list, so that way nobody will have to look at a hundred category-change edits in a row. --Steve-o 05:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! ;D --TX55 12:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I figured that "how we want to do them" would be to basically take every instance of "(nation/market)-only characters" and simply change them to "(nation/market)-origin characters". It'd really only be a category name-change, effectively. We would probably then add a few guys to it, like Stepper-Ricochet and the Car Robots original dudes. That's about it. --M Sipher 06:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of potential wordings, though. A few have already been mentioned in this discussion. "Japan-origin characters", "Japanese-origin characters", "Characters of Japanese origin", "Japan-original characters"...? I kind of prefer a "characters of..." form because it sounds more natural, but it's also wordier. --Steve-o 04:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It also runs counter to all the other "________ characters" categories we have, like "cartoon-only characters", "Masterforce characters", etc.

I think I like the "Japanese-original characters" wording. It's a bit less ambiguous. Of course, the category page would need a slight "these appeared FIRST as characters outside of US stuff, even though they may later have been put in US stuff"

disclaimer (if there isn't one already). --M Sipher 06:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe we should rearrange the categories & sub-categories. Something like:

• Category: Characters of Japanese origin (temporary name)

• (sub)Category:The Headmasters characters
• (sub)Category:Masterforce characters
• (sub)Category:Victory characters
• (sub)Category:Zone characters
• (sub)Category:Return of Convoy
• (sub)Category:Operation Combination characters
• (sub)Category:Beast Wars II characters
• (sub)Category:Beast Wars Neo characters
• (sub)Category:Car Robot characters
• (sub)Category:Japanese Unicron Trilogy characters (temporary name)

--TX55 09:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad idea; not everyone in each of those series is J-origin. In fact, the overwhelming majority of, say, Headmasters characters are not. Also, why would we have a "Car Robots characters" category? There's already an RID category, and everyone in that sure isn't J-origin. All this is supposed to be is a category rename to accommodate the international borrowing that's become more prevalent in the last year or so while retaining the point of the categories; noting characters that weren't created by/for Hasbro US series. --M Sipher 12:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to make it clear. I didn't mean all characters from "Category:The Headmasters characters" are J-origin. But some characters such as Raiden, Bodiless Headmasters and some others are surely J-origin. Umm, but there is still some problems as you said, it's really difficult to separate FortMax, Chromedome and others from the category. And there's similar issue for CR guys.

Errr, I'm not good at explain. --TX55 15:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)