MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive27

[[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive27|0|-0}}|«]]	Community Portal / Archive27   e	[[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive27|0|-0}}|»]]
from~? to~? notes:

Movie project?

I know there's been some real concern about leveraging our content, so that content which is, for the most part, identical to Wikia's is better positioned to etc etc etc... I've (mostly) stayed out of the discussion because I think it's moot- at this point our true overlap with Wikia has to be ~80% and dropping. They've picked up a decent edit volume finally-- but it's almost all IP-users.So, yeah. I'm of the opinion that our prominence will take care of itself over time as our content edges them out. With that in mind, I'd like to propose a new wiki-project. "Movie Characters." We're pretty good when it comes to movieverse characters... but we could be better, and I think the expanded universe around the films (which is very tight) is gonna be a traffic draw for us. It seems like most of these characters have put in an appearance someplace-- but they also tend to be small appearances. Bringing all the movieverse articles to completion or completion-in-progress as the PR machine ramps up for the movie seems, to me, like a good way to leverage ourselves.Thoughts? -Derik 02:28, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Yea I would love this as I'm really interested in the new Movieverse. And having a complete and good Movie section full of articles would be awesome. But what do you mean with the PR machine thing I don't quite understand do you mean we should start making articles of ROTF based on what has been revealed?Dead Metal 05:01, 31 December 2008 (EST)

I just mean that as peopel start searching for info relating tot he movie or its characters, they will find out we have info nd Wikia does not.

Ok I'll see if I can help out with the few comics I have, damn comic shot screwing up my orders.Dead Metal 05:20, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Japanese Movie/BW crossover?

Okay, I know I read about this somewhere on the wiki. Where? -Derik 06:11, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Kiss Players timeline. I believe it was... a pack-in mini-comic with the Japanese release of the Fast Action Battlers? Maybe? Perhaps? I think? - Chris McFeely 06:55, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I think it might be related to the Telemocha Series... the story cards from the two SP-editions (the redecos of the 1996 leaders) show the movie guys on them in the background (are those the FAB's?) and it looks like the cards Hydra translated begin with file#2-- something else came before these events. (I suppose someone could just ask Hydra. Someone who is not me.) -Derik 08:00, 22 December 2008 (EST)

In fact Dragoyell's Telemocha bio card is given the file number 1.5, and it has Movie Prime and BW Primal chatting in the corner about how the mission depends on him.

...the Telemocha line seems to have a storyline to it, going through the bio cards, that involves a crossover with the Movieverse. This isn't Sparta. (Do the movieverse bio-cards compliment this, I wonder?) -Derik 08:10, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I think it seems that Movie Prime and Optimus Primal stand together are just part of the, um, show, promotion, or selling toys. I don't think there is any connection related to storyline.

As for the story within the Telemocha, IIRC, it is about the original story --TX55^TALK 10:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)

The SP bio-cards I linked to include a story (albeit a scant one) set in the first season of the BW cartoon, where the Energon on the planet undergoes some sort of change causing it to radiate out of control. Look at the 1-2-3 pannels on those cards. "What Power!" as the Energon goes nuts-- and the movie cast is standing behind the BWers.

I cannot by any stretch of the imagination that they just randomly threw in some movie toys for the photoshoot relating to the BW biocards. This is a story, the biocards are numbered because they tell in in drippy little stages (we're missing the first part) and stuff happened. I see no indication that what's going on here is "the original story." -Derik 10:26, 22 December 2008 (EST)

On toy image sizes

Perhaps this is a bit... I dunno, but I just thought that while I was going about cleaning up toy pages, I'd explain my general thoughts on the image sizes, so others can play along with the reasoning.
Personally, I hate thumbnail images under 200px wide. These should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. Most of the time, for "first toy" images and any major new-mold toys a character gets, I shoot for 300px. 250px works too if 300px is too large for the layout (some toys just don't have much to be said about them, really, and a big image can push too far down or leave too much blankspace). Any redecos of a toy already in the section I stick with 200px. There's less need to draw the eye to those. 200 is also good for the non-transformable Titanium figurines, though those also need a healthy dose of writeup padding in the text.
So uh, yeah. I try to keep the images at multiples of 50. It ends up looking cleaner yet draws the eye to certain "more important" images to use different sizes. --M Sipher 05:04, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Special:Preferences, "Files" tab, you can change your default thumbnail size, up to 300px.

Of course, setting a size on the page overrides everyone else's preferences... - SanityOrMadness 08:27, 31 December 2008 (EST)

For those looking for large, clean Hasbro stock photos...

This could be your chance: Unprotected directory, sorted by product codes. [[1]] Use my toy checklists at TFArchive to find the product codes for the toys you need images of.--Nevermore 08:08, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Got a link to those selfsame product lists? -Derik 10:00, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Classics/Universe, Animated, 2007 Movie. THink those are all the relevant lines. Though I think I spotted a few Cybertron pics in there too.--Nevermore 11:21, 29 December 2008 (EST)

• yawn*

There's a lot of crap mixed in here... I think there was about 20,000 pictures on Hasbro's website... (I kept ~10%, which is 2000.) Each picture set got about two tenths of a second to say "keep or ditch," and there's a LOT of star Wars still mixed in (How do i tell what's a transforming star wars toy?)

At any rate, here it is. Every hasbro stock TF image on their website. Total size... ~350mb.

This was a boring project. (I had to write server-size file-handler software because my FTP client choked on directories containing more than 5000 folders!) I hope it's useful to someone. -Derik^Talk 03:30, 5 February 2009 (EST)

You crazy, hardworking bastard, you! --FFN 03:51, 5 February 2009 (EST)

It's meta-work. I can feel okay about not sitting down to make proper contributions to an article or writing up a character bio in over 10 days... because I've been coding Javascript, updating templates, organizing things, proctoring several thousand linkfixes, proposing splits, experimenting with CSS, writing policy pages, participating in discussions and hammering external servers.

There is not a single piece of content you can point to sand say I added in that time, but the crap I've been doing enables others to work... or so I tell myself.

It's just as well. I've been too distracted to sit down and get int he proper mindset to write wiki. But coding DOM-transformation scripts? That's just mindless grind, one step at a time until it's working. And kinda fun! I got to advance my theory of functional anti-design with this project! -Derik^Talk 04:49, 5 February 2009 (EST)

(In retrospect, FFN may have been poking fun at my own horn-tooting. I've been up for 20 hours, it's hard to tell.) -Derik^Talk 04:50, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Side-note- I think I'm missing 2 o the TECH blasters, must've gotten deleted along with the Nerf stuff. -06:46, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I certainly appreciate these. I thank you, sir. - Magnus Maximus 05:55, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Continuity Families...

Right now our franchise pages double as continuity family landing pages-- the Armada (franchise) page lists all the continuities in the Armada franchise (well, it lists all their installments-- good enough...)That's not good enough for Shattered Glass. It and Shattered Expectations are both members of the same "Shattered" continuity family-- but there is no toyline/franchise "about" Shattered glass to act as a landing page, it simply lacks one, and a lot of the info about the Family is instead of the page about Shattered Glass continuity.I'm fine wit the franchise pages serving double duty for everything else (frankly it's better that they do,) but we need a "franchise" page for SG-- which lacks a franchise. What sounds better? "Shattered (continuity family)" or "Shattered (family)"? (I'm leaning towards the latter.) -Derik 12:05, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Armada (franchise) redirects to Armada, which then links to Armada (cartoon), Armada (Dreamwave comic) and so on...how is that different to Shattered Glass as a catch-all page linking to Shattered Glass (comic)? I don't see the distinction here --Emvee 12:11, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Er- isn't Shattered Expectations in the same continuity family? Making the home page for that family "Shattered Glass" totally excludes the better universe. -Derik 13:52, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Oh I agree that Expectations is the better product, but I think Shattered Glass is a better name for the continuity family here - after all weren't Dungeons and Dinobots and Do Over both advertised as in the Shattered Glass universe? It just seems unnecessary to invent (or contract) a name when there's one that everyone's familiar with. --77.102.93.200 14:10, 2 January 2009 (EST) Gah, logged out somehow --Emvee 14:11, 2 January 2009 (EST)

I for one don't think of Shattered Glass as being a "continuity family" at all, but rather a wacky part of the G1 family. --KilMichaelMcC 16:42, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Started a discussion on that over at Talk:Continuity family. --KilMichaelMcC 16:47, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, and on Derik's actual question here, I think the Shattered Glass article is just fine as a "franchise" page as it is. --KilMichaelMcC 16:50, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Word-linking

I know it is the tendency of wiki editors to link things to other things. I know that since this isn't Wikipedia, there is perhaps a... giddy freedom for the fact that we won't always automatically revert or block someone for a humorous phrase or blind link in service of a joke. However, I am coming out right now to say that it has grown increasingly unfunny to the point of idiocy to link every instance of "crazy" to Galvatron, or most recently an instance of "moral ambiguity" to TransTech Shockwave of all characters. I mean really, that character's personality wasn't even defined until a few months ago. Why would we even link to it as if it's a well-established cliche? So personally, I'm putting my foot down. Unless something is genuinely a reference to another character, or could reasonably be construed so, I am going to be reverting these when I find them. I hope others will join me in this.--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:02, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I've always gotten rid of them whenever I notice. It was mildly funny the first couple of times, but not to the extent it is now. (And I maintain that God was never anything approaching funny.) —Interrobang 13:28, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Along these lines, can someone in a free moment please kill off "Insane"? --Thylacine 2000 13:43, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Yea, cool. - Starfield 13:53, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Point of clarification: Are "funny captions" exempt? - Starfield 14:10, 3 January 2009 (EST)

The consensus of your fellow users can easily determine if a caption is actually "funny." I am just stating, as one of your fellow users, that most of these that I find I will revert. I reserve special prejudice against entire sentences composed of links.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:14, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I was with you until you said that last thing, because sometimes that's an efficient way to convey information. For instance, in the third paragraph here (the summary of the live-action script reading) I used strings of text like "a team of Minions" and "were all Autobots (albeit from different dimensions)" to link to all of the characters involved, rather than interrupting the narrative flow to spell out acres of names. I've never been certain that that's actually kosher, but I've also never seen it get specifically negated, and I know I prefer that it be allowed. So since you brought it up.... - Jackpot 15:41, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Right, I sometimes use sentences full of links that way too- but i think Rosicrucian was talking about non-informative "funny" links. And I agree with him. I don't think sentence-link-lists are a very good way to convey information, and should be avoided except when they really seem like the best choice, so it always irks me to see it done unnecessarily-- especially when the results aren't even very funny.

Really this all comes down to "removing things that are allegedly funny, but aren't." We're just bitching about word links because they're the most frequent offender after the phrase "compensating for something." -Derik 16:07, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, and I'm totally down with that principle. I just wasn't sure if Rosicrucian was limiting his criticism to joke-related linking. Even then, I don't think I'm particularly bugged by that form of humor... sometimes it can be used to good effect by quickly suggesting a relationship between various characters or ideas that might not be obvious, or by simply pointing out a notable prevalence across a spread of references. I think the phrase "reserve special prejudice against" made me bristle a bit because I don't want to see good/funny observations neutered for the sake of an arbitrary rule. In the same way that joke-memes can dig themselves into people's brains and create widespread comedy-fails (like the god/Primus thing Interrobang mentioned), I'm wary of the unwashed masses taking up notions like "a string of word-links should NEVER EVER BE USED" and effecting needlessly proscriptive editing trends. I think Rosicrucian does have a good sense of things, and his first post in this thread has all the right qualifiers in it, but I'm just making sure the issue stays in perspective. - Jackpot 17:02, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Derik has the right of it. If it can be used to convey information, that's great. If it's "hee hee, I am linking things aren't I clever?" then that is what is getting my ire in this instance.--Rosicrucian^Talk 22:26, 3 January 2009 (EST)

There are a handful of instances where doing this actually is clever. The rest... actually somehow anti-clever. -Derik 23:22, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Functions?

Hey guys, new guy here.One thing I've been missing on all the character entries are their functions. I mean, the intro paragraph has info on the characteristics, often summing up the Tech Specs and/or TF:U entry, and (often) also a blurb about various names used througout the world. Only thing missing in that sense is the characters' official functions. One thing is to add it to all pages (I wouldn't mind, since it's my suggestion), but then there's the whole issue of the design. What's y'allses thoughts? --Fighbird 03:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)

The problem is that specifically-stated functions, like tech-spec ratings, change frequently for characters with multiple toys. And for the last few years, most characters never get any. Plus the non-toy characters. --M Sipher 04:15, 5 January 2009 (EST)

True, that... but how about it was listed only where applicaple? Possibly in the same section as the various foreign names as the character (if the toy only has one release) and/or for each version? I dunno... it would definitely enhance my TFWiki enjoyment if it were listed *someplace*... :) --Fighbird 11:07, 5 January 2009 (EST)

My 2¢: I think functions are an unfortunate omission. I see the arguments against them, but I'm not sure how strong the arguments are. Maybe that is because I don't know of the top of my head how many functions changed significantly over time. I know Grimlock went from "Dinobot Commander" to "Lieutenant Commander" but that's about it. I think the inaugural function could be used. Another argument is when fictional portrayals of a character do not match the Tech Spec function. Even then, I think it is interesting to see how they clash, and maybe how the character has outgrown his Tech Spec to become something more (like Thunderwing (G1)) or just different. - Starfield 11:27, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Cheetor: he's Maximal Jungle Patrol, Robotic Jungle Patrol, Jungle Patrol, Warrior, Nocturnal Warrior, Scout. Just to name one of many. -- Repowers 11:44, 5 January 2009 (EST)

The functions could be added specifically to the toy sections--Cheetor (1996, Deluxe) Function: Maximal Jungle Patrol--thus removing any risk of causing confusion in an actual paragraph or at the beginning. I don't think it's worthwhile, though I also didn't think the techspec numbers were worthwhile either. If people really are going to systematically add greeblies to every toy entry ever, then this is just one more little thing to add and the appropriate place to add it. --Thylacine 2000 11:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I'd really we rather just made it a policy of finding links to stick in the toy sections... "here is a link for the specific toy" (as opposed to 1 TFU.info link @ the bottom of the page) that way you'd be able to read the full tech-spec (not just the numbers/function) for yourself if that's what you're interested in. -Derik 12:15, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I second this, and not just because it's a good opening to complain about the TS numbers template's ugliness and layout-destroying properties. I think a small template similar in looks to the [Template:note|{{note}} template]] (a simple block of color with "External link: ____ at TFU.info" or the website gallery of choice) for external links to specific toys wold be a good idea... plus, if they're put at the bottom of the writeup, help fill space for many toys that would not have much to say about them. --M Sipher 14:25, 5 January 2009 (EST)

All of this, plus you get some really obtuse ones in RiD - Sky-Byte's function is "Shark" and Bruticus's is "Dog." -hx 13:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Orphaned Pages

I always find that orphaned pages (case study: Magmatron (BWN)). I think that we should be getting rid of those, to avoid people getting confuzzled.- User: Donut Prime

I don't know what you're trying to say, but I suspect that you are mis-using the word "orphaned." -Derik 13:56, 6 January 2009 (EST)

I think he'd like us to get rid of all these pages who've been waiting to be deleted for ages. It has my vote.Geewunling 14:19, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Comic parenthetical

Is there a reason we've been using (comic issue) as a disambiguation parenthetical, instead of just (issue) or (comic)? Or can I go ahead and move all the (comic issue)s and (Marvel comic issue)s and (US Marvel Comics comic issue)s to (issue)? -- Repowers 09:21, 7 January 2009 (EST)

IIRC, the first issue of the Marvel comic is called "The Transformers." And disambiging it as "The Transformers (comic)" leads to madness and death. -Derik 12:37, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Who drew this? (in b4 shitstorm)

Can someone with an eye for Marvel UK art styles tell me who drew this?I'd like to know who wrote it too since it lacks credits, but I figure I'll start with the simple stuff. -Derik 01:43, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Generics

I've been writing up the UK comics a bit lately and struck by the enormous amount of generics in them, thought they should recieve a bit of recognition here. I've added a Generics section to A Small War! - rather than clutter the Generic page too much - and would like to roll it out to other stories with notable or interesting generics. It would provide a place for characters like Hideous giant brain guy (who is cool but doesn't do anything) or the green guy who beat up Outback (who does more than some named characters) without creating awkwardly-named extra pages with just a sentence or two on them. I don't want to step on the Obscure Transformers guys' toes too much but a lot of these generics get ignored even by them, and surely deserve a mention somewhere.Anyway, I'd appreciate input if anyone has any thoughts on this. Cheers --Emvee 13:06, 8 January 2009 (EST) Added Out to Lunch! and Mind Games as examples too --77.102.92.218 18:44, 8 January 2009 (EST)