MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

	Specific Discussion Subjects
Moving From Wikia: Arriving Leaving Complaints New Ad Policy: Ads Bookworm Database-Crash: Damage Control Central Project:Bookworm Crash Leaving Take 2 Server Move: Arriving Take 2 Relicensing: Relicensing Dealing With Vandalism: Vandalism

Mold reusage list

I've been working on a list that lists the most reused molds. Sorted after Toyline and alphabetical order. Now I would like to know if this would be a useful piece of information or if it's uninteresting for the wiki. Check out the current poor and far from finished version here. Should I continue working on it or stop and erase it.Dead Metal 13:09, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

It's almost worth it just for that picture. LiamK 09:20, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I think it would be worth it, just have all this info in one place. That and the comedy possibilities. I can see where it could be considered redundant though. --Tigerpaw28 17:33, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

Armada: The Air Defense Mini-Con Team, with 10 to 12 different decos (depending on whether you count minor differences between the Hasbro and Takara verisons or not).

Energon: One of the combiner limbs. Which one depends on whether you count Hasbro/Takara differences or not (some of the tank limbs in particular are considerably different). Also, do the unreleased Movie Target Scouts count?

Cybertron would be Legends of Cybertron Starscream (8 different versions, with notable differences between the initial Hasbro and Takara releases) and Optimus Prime (7 versions, also with notable Hasbro/Takara differences), with larger toys Deluxe Hot Shot (5 or 6 different versions, minor differences between initial Hasbro and Takara releases), Sideways (not sure on Hasbro/Takara differences here, therefore 5 or 6 different versions), Crosswise (some differences between Hasbro and Takara releases, 6 versions), Scout Clocker (notable Hasbro/Takara differences, 6 versions) and Voyager Leobreaker (5 to 7 different versions depending on Hasbro/Takara differences for Ligerjack/Leobreaker and Dark Ligerjack/Nemesis Breaker).

Classics winner is Deluxe Starscream (15 different versions, with Hasbro and Takara releases being considerably different in all instances), followed by Voyager Prime (6 or 7 versions depending on whether the unreleased black Takara convention exclusive counts or not).

Movie... Deluxe "Concept" Camaro Bumblebee, hands down. There's a running change variant for the Hasbro version (not a Hasbro/Takara difference, the later Hasbro version is identical to the Takara release), depending on whether that counts or not, we're talking about nine or 10 distinct versions here (including ROTF Cannon Bumblebee, who features 2007 Bumblebee's legs). Then there's Voyager Prime (7 definitely different versions, with minor but notable differences between Hasbro ROTF Voyager Prime and Takara's convention exclusive "Optimus Prime Revenge Edition". There might also be minor differences between the battle damaged Voyager Prime from the Sam's Club exclusive Prime/Starscream/Arcee three-pack and the Asia-only "Autobot Optimus Prime" single pack.)--Nevermore 15:13, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Damn, I'm starting to think I was retarded just to think of starting it, but I think I'll continue working on it and once I think it's near complete I'll "publish" it and let it be updated by others that are more in the know. Danke für die hilfe werd mich reinhaun.:D Dead Metal 15:19, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Marvel UK issue pages

I feel that we need to make a change with how we handle Marvel UK comic issues. The UK comics split most of its stories up over multiple issues, and even reprinted some of the split up in a different way. This has led the story articles to become bloated with non-story info (covers, letter pages, other comics from the same issue, contests, ads) for multiple issues on a single story page. Also, navigating the UK comic is a pain in the ass, as many issues having two stories (one issue has three!), as well as the reprints.

Here's what I suggest we do:

• Make "hub" pages for the individual issues. These pages will cover issue-specific things. Those UK cover scans clogging up every Marvel Transformer story? They go here. As does information from that issue's letter pages, ads, TransFormations, and anything else that isn't a part of the actual stories. Also, there will be a list of what each issue contains, mostly the TOC from the issue itself. Non-Transformers backup strips (Machine Man, Action Force) should need nothing more beyond the name of the series and the title of the story unless more info is given in the cover, letters page, TransFormations, Coming Attractions or the like. The TOC will also have links to our story articles.

• Leave the story articles mostly unchanged The UK comic usually treated the stories like serials (think the early Flash Gotdon films or the original Doctor Who series), so splitting them up makes no sense. Aside from moving the issue-specific stuff to the hub pages, the only changes needed will be removing the story navigation box from the UK-original stories, removal of the UK navigation from the stories written for the US comic, and adding any needed "Reprinted in" links, and putting "Originally printed in" links on the stories written for the UK comic.

Marvel US 33 & 34 (Man of Iron!) and Action Force 24-27 (Ancient Relics!) would be handled in the same way. --FortMax 17:40, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

So you're suggesting that any issue which contained multiple discontinuous stories get a page for the issue, and a page for both stories? -Derik 22:37, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

Not exactly. Marvel UK is a special case because these multiple discontinuous stories are broken up over multiple issues. We would still have one page for Time Wars. I'll put together a sample tommorow. --FortMax 00:51, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

I have a very rough example at User:FortMax/Sandbox. The main reason I feel this needs to be done is because not only does the UK comic non only have multiple stories in each issue, these stories get spread out over multiple issues. For example, Time Wars was printed over seven issues. --FortMax 12:04, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

That makes sense... a 'landing page.' I'm tentatively in favor of it... but I'd like to see what others say. -Derik 15:40, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

I think this is a really good idea, because it enables us to show the very different format of the UK comic. Formats, in fact - something I didn't realise till I completed my collection is how very different the first 30 or so issues are from the rest. More like a robot enthusiast's magazine than a comic, and much more 'British' in feel. Unfortunately I've only got my scanned copies of issues 1-5 to work from at the moment, but I can mock something up to show you what I mean. --Tribimat 06:25, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

I've never been overly happy that a big, "blockbuster-that-changes-everything" story like Target: 2006 or The Legacy of Unicron only gets one issue, whereas, say, the issues leading up to US #75 get a page each. There's examples of serial storytelling and individual-issue focuses (eg, Prime surrendering, or the introduction of the Wreckers) in each. LiamK 09:25, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I've done a fair bit across the UK comics lately and I'd be hugely in favour of breaking T:2006 (especially) into its component issues - just because they weren't individually named they get lumped together in one article which I think does a great disservice to the story. I'd compare it to a six-issue series like Devastation which gets six pages labelled issue 1, issue 2 and so forth, so I don't think articles called Target: 2006 issue 1, Target: 2006 issue 2 etc. would necessarily be beyond the pale. I don't know how far I'd want to take it though - splitting up stories like City of Fear or Legion of the Lost seems a bit pointless, more so The Fall and Rise of the Decepticon Empire which wasn't meant to be split in the first place. --Emvee 15:07, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm in favour. I also think that a standard link to the appropriate letters page on transfans.net (similar to the way we do tfu.info for toys) wouldn't go amiss. --Emvee 15:07, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Need Disambig Help

Deathsaurus and Landcross need to be moved, but I remember us doing different stuff with the Victory characters, so I didn't know if I should move them to (G1) or (Victory). --Jeysie 22:09, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Relevant discussions suggest "Deathsaurus (Victory)", etc. --abates 22:16, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Okie dokie. Thankee! --Jeysie 22:19, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

*Derik growls*

...you growled, sir? --Jeysie 22:59, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Derik likes the G1 parenthetical when applicable. Interrobang hates it with a passion. We are going to put them in Thunderdome.--Rosicrucian^Talk 23:44, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Derik thunderously proclaims that the (G1) parenthetical is a reference to the umbrella franchise that contains all "Generation 1" franchises. If we truly named characters for franchises, we would have "Optimus Prime (The Transformers)." We're not-- ergo we prefer to use the umbrella franchise for disambig when possible, and that should apply to Victory characters as well! -Derik 00:01, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

Uh, no. More like it's one of those cases where we have to make an exception because the result caused by following the rule would be ridiculously unhelpful. Otherwise we do in fact disambig by franchise. --Jeysie 00:36, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

I disagree! -Derik 00:41, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

With which? You disagree that (The Transformers) is unhelpful despite the conversation on the matter (to whit: "Because, having 'The Transformers' be the name of a specific franchise and continuity family would be insanely confusing, when technically 'The Transformers' is the also name of the entire general franchise and continuity family that encompasses everything. Having two different concepts named "Generation 1" is already confusing enough without making it ten times worse."), or you disagree with the fact that we disambiguate by franchise?

(The Transformers) is a uselessly ambiguous disambiguation, and it is a fact that we disambiguate by franchise. --Jeysie 00:47, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

But... we don't use the "umbrella franchise" for anything else. We don't do it for the UT. We don't do it for Beast Wars (who some would argue falls under G1). We don't do it for the movies. Why only G1? And "Generation 1" is the name of the franchise, as established by numerous product. —Interrobang 12:33, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

Bah! Humbug! -Derik 22:45, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

Let's make sure we've got our terminology straight. At the very top level, we have the Generation 1 continuity family, which, NOT being a franchise, is never used for parentheticals. Underneath that, we have the G1 franchise, G2, BW, the 2003 Universe, etc. The G1 franchise is synonymous with "The Transformers", so Derik's point above about how we don't say "Optimus Prime (The Transformers)" is nonsensical. Every time we say "(G1)", we are saying "(The Transformers)". This franchise could be considered an "umbrella franchise" because it contains all the Japanese franchises like Headmasters, Victory, Zone, etc. So does a Victory-exclusive character get a "(G1)" or a "(Victory)"? Both technically count as franchise-of-origin. The only reason I see to get granular about it is to follow the example of the Japanese BW sub-franchises. For example, it would be perfectly valid if Skywarp (BWII) were "Skywarp (BW)" instead, but for whatever reason, we've decided those sub-franchises deserve their own parentheticals. I favor consistency, but I can't think of any clear logic that demands one outcome or the other. - Jackpot 22:19, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

It's the 'for whatever reason' I'm stuck on. I don't think we ever actually made that decision so much as some contribuitors have simply been pushing that view-- thus the periodic outbreaks of "What? Why the fuck is ArticleName now at such a retarded location?" followed by block reversions. -Derik 22:49, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

IIRC, I think that the reasoning was that we should always be disambiguating by franchise rather than umbrella franchise, so (Victory), (Zone), (BWII) was more correct. Basically, it was a change to make our disambiguating more consistent. --Jeysie 22:52, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

I can think of one umbrella franchise we do disambiguate by: the 2008 Universe. With the exception of the "Action Blast" Flash animations, all it does is subsume other franchises, but when a new character comes out of it, we use "Universe" as the parenthetical instead of whatever franchise they're from within that. I've argued against this, but to little avail. - Jackpot 23:06, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

Copyright notice for logos

I've been spending a fair bit of time lately adding to and updating our collection of logos, but it's occurred to me that of all our thin-ice copyright practices, displaying Hasbro's trademarks is pretty damn questionable. So I checked out how Wikipedia deals with it, and I think we can pare down their boilerplate into something that fits our typical copyright templates. What do you all think? - Jackpot 23:16, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

Logos are something you put out as a metonymic symbol for yourself. Mangling them or presentignt hem badly is bad... but simply presenting them should be fine.

Trademark infringement is an entirely different thing than copyright infringement-- it only occurs if we were trying to use their names/logos to represent ourselves. Creating "Genuine opportunity for confusion" between ourselves and Hasbro. We're not using them that way... we're usign them to represent Hasbro, which is entirely proper.

(It wouldn't hurt to work up a {{logo}} template for image credit though, that underlines that this is Hasbro's Trademark, not an image they own copyright on.) -Derik 23:37, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

I've done a first draft. Feel free to mangle it so that the language is more sound.--Rosicrucian^Talk 23:51, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

A solution for all this Goldbug/Galvatron/etc. madness

Would it be possible to design a template or other standard that allows for an intro-style paragraph in the middle of a page? So, rather than Fortress Maximus getting a footnote under his intro paragraph about how his Japanese portrayal is totally different, his Japanese fiction section gets its own introductory writeup, maybe complete with its own main pic, with some kind of standard disclaimer that it applies to this particular fictional section only?

This allows us to keep characters who are clearly related in a meta-fictional sense on the same page, while allowing us to acknowledge the vast differences in their characterization and/or backstory. Then we have a much smaller debate about who should or shouldn't get such a subsection, instead of an unwinnable argument about disambiguations with all the associated link and header messiness. -- Repowers 12:02, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

That is a very good idea, I like it a lot. But how would that work, will we need a software update or something? Dead Metal 12:06, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

=Section title=

The single equal sign header currently isn't used. - Starfield 12:10, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

That's because a single equal sign header produces an <H1>, which should only be used once per page per webstandards. --Jeysie 12:13, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

From a web-standards standpoint, there's no reason not to use a H2. I the goal is just to have a horizontal line... um... I bet that can be made to happen, I'm just blanking on how.  ;)

I'm not opposed to the idea of a 'mini-bio template' (or something) to call out these kind of mini-bios... but I'm also wary of them, because I fear that they could become a crutch; a "default" approach used whenever there are different portrayals of a character instead of achieving actual consensus.

I really don't want to discuss this until after we've come to a conclusion on the Bumblebee/Galvatron thing. With the original argument deadlocked, (and seriously, calling for an up-and down vote so early into the discussion was not helpful) it's now spilling over and opening 'new fronts' to argue on. Any 'wide ranging' layout change we make will stem from the resolution of that argument. Attempting to begin such a change now, with the problem unresolved is bad policy, pisses everyone off, and could be (read: is) interpreted as a pressure-move by one side seeking to advance its agenda by presenting a fiat-accompli policy revision to strengthen its position. :D -Derik 12:37, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

We probably should mention Blaster (G1) in this mess as well...

I'm honestly not sure how to feel about the whole thing. My inclination would be inherent personality/concept. So if you have character incarnations who have different origins but their personality ends up being the same, they go together. If you have character incarnations with similar origins but who otherwise act very different, they don't go together. And if you have character incarnations who act similarly, but most have a certain origin as a key part of their identity and one incarnation lacks that origin, that one incarnation would still be different.

Of course... that's obviously a pretty darn subjective thing to be trying to decide on, and I'm not sure it'd be ideal. I'm just really not sure how else to handle it in terms of a way that would be objective. Seeing as how once you get past continuity/franchise divides, all we have to go on is how the individual stories handle things, which usually aren't clear-cut. --Jeysie 12:51, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

We've got plenty of evidence that Unicron can create Cyclonus and Scourge out of any robot-- the individual going into the transformation has no bearing on the individual that comes out... it's just a 'stock' body/persona Unicron seems to use a lot.

I suspect that Galvatron is similar. (Though the evidence to support this view is much more circumstantial.) Because the dudes who get turned into Galvatrons tend to be alive going in (unlike the 'doners' for Cyclonus and Scourge) their personality obviously carries more sway.

I think that treating Galvatron like that makes a lot of sense without dis-servicing the material... but I'm not sure we can reach an consensus to do so. Can anyone think of any similar instances of a character with wildly different 'incoming' origins? (Orion Pax doesn't quite cut it. We'd need a separate origin where T-Spoon was rebuilt into Optimus Prime...) -Derik 13:05, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Sunbow Dinobots vs Dreamwave Dinobots immediately come to mind. I've been thinking along the lines of your "Unicron's mass-production type" for a while now.... which still leaves both IDW and Henkei Galvs as outliers. But even those two weirdos fulfill basically the same character roles in their respective continuities, and there's no evidence Hearts of Steel Scourge was built by Unicron either and he's still "himself". Honestly I think they should all stay where they are. --Thylacine 2000 13:25, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Cartoon Constructicons. Built on Earth? Brainwashed Autobots? Decepticons who've always been around?

Any rate, I really don't see the point in moving stuff around. People are actually talking about wiki-wide changes to account for maybe that %0.1 of characters that don't fit neat-and-clean into the way things are set up now. As it stands, I'm not exactly sold on the "mini-profile" proposal, I'd have to see an example Sandboxed up before I could get behind such a thing. --M Sipher 13:44, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Leave it as is. Galvatron is still more or less the same guy - he's a crazy badass killer guy who wants to betray his masters. Goldbug is a fucking nonentity. (On the other hand, is there ANYTHING to suggest that Spotlight: Metroplex doesn't take place in the future and that Bumblebee became Goldbug at some point we haven't encountered yet?) Hooper_X 19:34, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

There's a note on the inside cover that says it takes place immediately before AHM#1.

As for the subsection-intro idea, I like it a lot - it's an idea I've had since I first started reading the wiki, and it applies to WAY more than the "0.1%" of characters that have had actual debates around them. Save the main intro for universally-applicable info, and elaborate on the conflicting details in the subsection-intros. The big issue I see is overall readability - as Siph says, it'll need some sandbox-testing to see if it would actually work in a practical sense. It could easily make our articles even harder to parse than they are now. But there's no way to know without trying.

- Jackpot 19:50, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Considering that Blaster's page is already set up like that... really, go look at it—there's three separate intros already, one at the beginning of the cartoon section, one at the beginning of the Marvel comic section, and one at the beginning of the IDW comic section.

We'd maybe have one normal Fiction section with Dreamwave and TF/GI Joe, and then three different H2s with "Cartoon continuity Blaster", "Marvel Continuity Blaster", and "IDW continuity Blaster" each with their own separate H3 Fiction section. If that makes sense? --Jeysie 20:22, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Speaking solely in terms of 'the insertion of more time fixing the problem...' Goldbug's 1987 tech-spec says that he possesses the mind of Bumblebee. ('tis a very odd phrasing.) It also notes that he has become "More serious, assertive, mature than he was. Realizes what others think of him isn't nearly as important as what he thinks of himself."

Now, I happen to think that "Spotlight: Metroplex" presented Goldbug as joking, passive, naive and deferring to what others think instead of trussing his own judgment. (Caveat: These are subjective judgements, YMMV.) Which would make "Spotlight: Metroplex" Goldbug is simply Goldbug prior to the state his tech-spec describes. He will grow into being the more assertive etc etc etc individual the tech-spec describes. It's entirely possible that at some point in the future Goldbug's mind will be merged with G1 Bumblebee... at which point the character would no longer be in conflict with the tech-spec (but still a distinct character.)

Let me stress; I don't think that this is likely. But I'm reluctant to make sweeping changes aimed at "addressing this completely irresolvable situation" when the situation is (at least potentially) resolvable. And in the scenario above, even if the discontinuity with the tech-spec were completely resolved... we'd still need a separate article for the character; addressing who he was prior to the merge— just like the hapless trooper Straxus rebuilt into a clone of Megatron is a distinct character.

Reiterating: I am not saying this is the case, I do not think it should go on his page, etc. I am merely demonstrating that it's possible to have a scenario where even if the problems with the tech-spec were resolved this Goldbug would still need a separate article. With that in mind: can we back away from the "conflict with tech-spec = new character" argument (because I don't think either side is actually proposing that Beast Changer be split into a separate article from Noble) and start looking at at Goldbug's article for what it is; an odd and fairly rare circumstance which lacks a clear precedent in the form terms of how we treat other articles (Since Galvatron's article has that's been regularly argued about since it was set up... to a conclusion that "this sucks, but no one can agree about how to do it better" I don't think it qualifies as "a clear precedent.") for which open non-acrimonious discussion is required to determine the best treatment.

Now, *I* see no urgent need to make a decision this second. I propose a 4 day cooling-off period where all parties desist working on the article or pushing their points on talk pages so that everyone can calm down and it can be re-visited with fresh eyes on Monday. -Derik 00:21, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

We should just plainly present the character as the fiction presents him while taking as little stances on anything as possible. The only way to do that, I think, is to have all Goldbug-related information on the "Goldbug (G1)" page, and just give the information, perhaps linking to Bumblebee in the appropriate fiction sections to prevent duplicate information. Having separate Goldbug pages gets the whole process off on the wrong foot, drawing subtle conclusions before any text is actually written. - Starfield 00:47, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

But that's a terrible way to present (for example) the Marvel comic, where he goes back and forth between being Bumblebee and Goldbug. To say nothing of Hot Rod/Rodimus Prime. -Derik 01:27, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

You know, the more I think of it, the less certain I become about what works the best for the wiki. Think of Optimus Prime (G1). We're mostly pretty happy with his article, right? But then, sometimes he was rebuilt from Optronix, sometimes Orion Pax. To me, that seems like a pretty analogous situation to the whole Goldbug / Bumblebee situation. So, whatever we decide for Goldbug may apply to the cartoon vs dreamwave Optimus Prime. Or not, just kinda thinking out loud. --Jimsorenson 01:54, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

The Keepers Trilogy established that Orion was a friendly nickname for the 'bot known as Optronix.

Try to keep up with the retcons man! -Derik 02:25, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Personally, I think Jackpot (I think it was Jackpot, anyway) sandboxed up the best solution I've seen: make a Goldbug (G1) page, with the Marvel and Sunbow sections consisting entirely of "See Bumblebee (G1)" (and maybe a sentence or two on how he became Goldbug). There's no back and forth from Bumblebee to Goldbug for the continuities where they're one and the same, it eliminates the potential mess that would appear if another G1 continuity decided to make a Goldbug that's not Bumblebee, and it pretty neatly resolves the debate over how the intro paragraph should be written. I'm also going to take this opportunity to point out that the intro paragraph for Scorponok says something to the effect of, "this guy is totally different in every continuity." -- Dark T Zeratul 04:40, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Wait for the smoke to clear. We'll decide to do that anyway. The non-Bumblebee Goldbug clearly has his own independent existence, just like Hapless trooper does, and (IDW) is a terrible diambig.

Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to be a crotchety old man and point out that I think people need to chill. IDW introduced a bizarre retcon involving Bumblebee the same month they announced a Bumblebee series. Until I'm given reason to think differently, I have to believe who thing is too retarded not to be related. -Derik 04:59, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

So, why is (IDW) a terrible disambig, Derik? Because some other publisher may use a non-Bumblebee Goldbug later? How is that particularly different from a character from one franchise later turning up in another? - SanityOrMadness 16:48, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Because in this case it's not a character from another franchise. It would be another version of the same character from the same franchise with the same uncommon interpretation. -- Dark T Zeratul 18:11, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

New Featured Characters Template

OK, what's with the new featured characters template? ---Blackout- 05:38, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Changes were proposed over at Template_talk:Featuredcharacters#Makeover, sandboxed, revised, various users participated etc. It's been going on for a few days. A 'mature' version of the template evolved, and we announced it would go live; giving users 36 hours to object if theyw anted to. No one did.

(This is typical. Most of the time only a very tiny audience participates in talk about template revisions until they're rolled out and catch the rest of the users off-guard.)

It was expected there would be more commentary after it happened. What do you think of the revision? -Derik 06:27, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

It's not really that different, but I think I preferred the other one. ---Blackout- 06:59, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

That's my initial reaction too. But I'm not sure if that's just because I was used to the old one, or if it's actually better somehow, so I'm giving myself a few days to grow on me before I cast judgement.

(IIRC this originally started because the old one needed to be re-coded due to some IE problem... which snowballed into a full-on redesign. So even if we reverted things template would still need changes.) -Derik 07:48, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

I mostly like it much better, however...

The dotted border needs to be a normal border, IMHO.

The default "Human" and "Others" sections are now the wrong colors, and I don't think we really want to have to manually swap the code on every single instance of the Template. Example... you can see how the "Others" has the nice fleshie color, while the "Humans" are the deeper color that doesn't match as nicely visually. Unless you can figure out how to swap the display without having to swap all the code, I think it needs to go back, unfortunately for your alternating. --Jeysie 08:04, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Is this like Crayola defining a peach crayon as "flesh" tone? -Derik 11:52, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

*snerk* OK, I deserved that. But more like, when I look at the light beige I think "human" and when I look at the orangey-yellow I think "human suffering from jaundice". --Jeysie 12:03, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Hmm... the reason the 3rd and 4th column's colors were swapped was for their density (grayscale) values so that the template would be more readable the low-color-depth e-readers (there are already ~ a million unit out there, and the category is expanding rapidly.) But the loose subject-color correlation we've got going on is useful. I'll take a poke at the template tonight and see if I can't tweak the hues without affecting the density; best of both worlds. -Derik 14:17, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

While you're at it, see if you can figure out how to fix the fact that the top and bottom borders of the two outside columns are thicker than the same borders of any columns between them.--Apcog 16:58, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Which browser are you using? I only have Firefox 3.5, IE 8, and Chrome 3.0 handy at the moment, but it looks fine in all of those. --abates 18:24, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Firefox 3.5.2 on a Mac, FWIW. You can see the problem on this screen shot here. Even allowing for JPG artifacting, the thinner lines at the top and bottom of the Decepticons column should be apparent in the full-res view.--Apcog 21:12, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Can you check this page and see if the borders are correct? I suspect it's some sort of border-collapse bug. --abates 22:23, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

I thought we just sprayed for those things.... Anyway, the test page looks fine, all borders equal.--Apcog 17:50, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

"Murder" Category

What is that all about, why is it stuck in flux like "Things that doesn't exist", and why has it magically returned back to its former state after I pressed the "Save page" button? ---Blackout- 13:48, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, I'm not a scientist, but I suspect it's related to the fact that both pages in the category promise to murder you if you don't understand a key concept described therein.

I have no idea where your edits went; but they're not listed in history. Maybe it was just a server hiccup? -Derik 14:03, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

That's obviously policy related. --abates 18:29, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

How can you view that category's history if it doesn't exist? ---Blackout- 02:50, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

How can you view something that doesn't exist?

We used to have a policy page specifically forbidding murder as a form of resolving debates. It got deleted.

People are a lot more civil now. -Derik 18:34, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

I think we might need that page back.

I admit that I may have at one point threatened anyone who dared to say that Alpha Trion was one of the 13 without any plausible evidence to back them up with murder using SG Alpha Trion's sword. ---Blackout- 14:23, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Login Timeouts

I've noticed recently that I keep getting logged out constantly... did we tweak something lately? (I think I had to log back in a good five times while working on Jackpot's article yesterday...) --Jeysie 11:50, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

The system seems fine to me, I haven't got problem like this. --TX55^TALK 20:52, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

No problems here. Have you tried deleting your site cookies? That was happening to me on another site (a forum) and the problem went away after I deleted the cookies and logged back in. --abates 21:09, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

Software upgrade (and known issues)

Now that the traffic from ROTF has died down some, is it time we looked at updating the MediaWiki software we're running? The latest version out is 1.51. --abates 17:00, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

Interwiki linking

I was trying to link to this ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln%27s_Second_Inaugural_Address ) article today... and I realized I couldn't do it.

I can interwiki link to WikiSource... but not to en.wikisource.org. [[wikipedia:Articlename]] links properly direct to en.wikipedia.com; since we are an english wiki, it assumes we want to link to the English wikipedia... but no such assumption is made for WikiSource (because you could reasonably be assumed to be linking to a non-English source, once supposes.)

In fact I can't link to the spanish-language version of the Tacitus article either; [[Wikipedia:es:Tácito]] takes me to a non-existant article named Tácito on the english Wikipedia.

It's not a big deal... the need to link to non-english articles is so rare that we can just substitute an external link. but it does means that we can't link properly to Wikisource at all because their articles require the language code to be set.... and we simply can't do that. (We should check back on this problem and see if it fixes itself with the software upgrade.) -Derik 05:04, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

That es:Tácito link does, in fact, take me to "http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tácito"! Once I hit en.wikipedia.org, I get redirected to the Spanish version. --abates 05:28, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

I think that's being handled server-side by Wikipedia's server though. "No article by this name, what could they be searching for? There's a spanish one..." The point is that link format should take you to the correct sever without the server itself acting as a catchment for sloppy linking. (And Wikisource doesn't do that, which brings us back full circle.) -Derik 05:35, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

Sure, ideally, but from looking at the MediaWiki source, it looks like that's how they intend interwiki links to the Spanish version of Wikipedia to be done. There's nothing stopping us from adding in our own Interwiki prefixes of course! So even if the update doesn't fix the problem, someone with database access can tweak the Interwiki table. I have noted down to suggest this extension, when we get around to installing extensions. --abates 06:20, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

Macron issue

I've only tested the SQL statement I came up with to fix the macron issue on version 1.12, so ideally that should be done before we upgrade the software. I sent it to McFly a while back, but haven't heard anything more. --abates 22:30, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

SearchSuggest

The SearchSuggest extension which we're using will be obsolete once we upgrade (it's been replaced by native functionality as of version 1.13 of MediaWiki). I suspect that it'll probably need to be removed. --abates 21:32, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Article "suites"

We've got a couple articles that're broken up into chunks because of length. (Mostly toy-sections.) I worry that the broken off bits become "less" somehow.

Enter Template:Suite which I've roleld out on the Optimus Prime (G1) article. It throws a quicknav up in the empty space to the right of the continuity note, and snugs it up against the disambig (if present.) The template has an "easy mode" and a "hard mode," but neither mode is particularly hard. Anyway... I thought this seemed useful. (Besides, Wikia has a proper nav for this sort of thing, and it irked me that we didn't. Theirs, however, occupies the spot where our "Factions" icons go, so...)

Thoughts? -Derik 23:08, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

I like it. - Jackpot 01:44, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

I like the idea! ;-D

By the way, since we now have Template:Suite, do we still need ==Toys== or ==Merchandise== section (which contains nothing) in those page with template:suite? (But section such as "Marvel Comics continuity" should be kept because there are summary in the section.)--TX55^TALK02:46, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

I think... yes? If only because people are so used to seeing them... they're level-2 headers. I don't think it's wise to depend on people noticing the suite thing at the top of the article.

And anyway, we still have a section for Prime in the Marvel comics, neh? -Derik 03:22, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree. If people miss the suite box and go to to the bottom of the article, looking for Opty's toys, they'll be confused when they don't find the forwarding link. Definitely keep the toy sections. --abates 03:43, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

Like the faction symbols, I view this as a more of an enhancement of the existing layout than a replacement. (Which is why I was so pleased to be able to sneak it into the 'empty space' to the right of the continuity note... no additional disruption to the layout.)

I wonder if this (or a version of it) might proove useful for sub-franchise pages; e.g. Linking the Marvel Comics series page to the Marvel Comcis timeline page. Replace the game navigation we use. (It never quite sat right with me, switching to a different franchise navigation just for the games.)

This isn't... there yet, but it's a step in the right direction I think. Just like creating the Franchise Navigation at all was a big step in the right direction in 2007, I think this (or a solution we evolve once this is in practice and we've got a clearer idea of what we need) could be a step toward that next-level-down interlinking that we're missing.

And frankly, Wikia had it and we didn't... and that's shameful. This wasn't even on my radar (at least in this specific application) until I noticed Wikia had it. (I happen to like their highly-visible solution better but; 1) We have faction icons in that space. 2) I think that solution breaks down when you have more than 1 sub-page... and we already have 3.)

Unrelated to all that... the sub-pages are a bit bland to cross-navigate to. Is there any reason not to put pictures at the top of them? (I'm gonna throw one at the top of the Marvel Comics section as an example.)

Even more meta... how do people feel about an Optimus Prime (G1)/weapons page? A sort of clearinghouse article to link provide top-level links to Roller, the Combat Deck, his Powermaster partners, our article on the Energon axe and his gun? (Note: I don't think we have an article on his gun... but we ought.) As well any anything else that's "form specific" (and thus really doesn't belong in the suite itself) but still prominent enough to have gotten its own article that's really "about" one aspect of Optimus Prime. ('Weapons' feels better than 'Equipment' for some reason... I don't know.) I'm just throwing the idea out there. -Derik 04:18, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

If that counts, we do have Optimus Prime's gun. --TX55^TALK 08:22, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

Oh yeah, in fact TX55 set up the Wikia solution (it's identical code to the link on Christmas to the gallery). Personally I actually find it less visible than the suite block, partly because of the big three-line sitewide message they have which pushes the page title down. I completely missed the link to the archives on their Community Portal page, so at first glance it appeared as though someone had deleted all the portal chatter from before this April.

Also, I agree completely about putting pictures at the top of the sub-pages. :) --abates 04:58, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

If you were logged in the ad-spam wouldn't be there and it'd display properly in the H1. (The reason we don't do the factions this same way is because a sufficiently long page title is expected to wrap politely around the icons... and using CSS positioning would actually cause them to just smash on top of one another. It's not a big deal, but our solution is preferable; iPhones might have zooming full-screens, but the expanding e-reader market can be expected to mangle pages.) -Derik 05:16, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

Definitely like it. And yeah, we should try to have a main pic for sub-pages. (For Prime's cartoon page, I propose his robot mode at the start of that one transformation sequence that got used in like half the episodes.) -- Repowers 09:41, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

When I took a look at this last night, I liked the idea but wasn't overly keen on the plainer look. What Derik has up there now however, that's ridiculously full of win. I approve.

I also agree both with main pics on the subpages and the weapon/equipment sub-page for Prime. Perhaps the main pic for the weapon/equipment page could be a screen capture of Prime pointing his gun at the "camera"? --Tigerpaw28 13:25, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

nofollow for dead links

I've noticed that some of our external links are to sites that are defunct. I can understand why we'd want to keep the link on, say Transform Your Way, but we'll get dinged in our Search Engine rankings for each dead link. Is there any way we can get the rel="nofollow" tag in there for defunct links?--Jimsorenson 04:15, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

As far as I'm aware, rel="nofollow" is already enabled on all external links as a matter of course. It's enabled on the link on that page, for instance, if you look in the HTML source.

Generally it's the opposite that we have to deal with... disabling the nofollow on links we want to send Google juice to. There was talk of that for TFU.info, the Universe profiles, and a few other sites, but I don't know if it ever got implemented. --Jeysie 08:48, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Ah, good to know. --Jimsorenson 11:15, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

It hasn't been implemented - it needs someone with server access to edit the configuration file. --abates 19:48, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Scout's taken a whack at it, but the software is Mysteriously Not Cooperating. (I suspect that like similar issues it's just going to wait until we upgrade and see if that fixes it.) -Derik 19:53, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Ah, that explains a lot! (I had similar fun trying to set up PHPBBS a while back) --abates 23:57, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Water gun article

Is there an article about the squirting guns of transformer toys? there is an article about a water gun used by Ironhide, but it has nothing to do with the gimick of a transformer squirting water. Should we make an article like the rest of the gimmicks?--Sunjumper 14:32, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Yes. How about "water weapon"? - Starfield 14:48, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

To make it more easy to look for, could we call it water-gun? or water gun(toy)?I'm not going to start untill i'm sure what to call it.--Sunjumper 15:05, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

In the toy bios it is called a variety of things: aquapower, water power, water weapon... what about following the lead of sparking gimmick and call it "water gimmick" or "water-squirting gimmick". - Starfield 15:14, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

I'll do my best to make a good article, be gentle on me, i've only made an article once before.--Sunjumper 15:18, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Wiki Acting Weird

Ok, what's up? I've just had an edit conflict with myself. ---Blackout- 12:28, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

Googlejuice - Bad News Everyone

Current Google: TFWiki third for transformers wiki, behind two Wikia results

New Google (a.k.a., "Caffeine"): TFWiki fifth, behind two Wikia results and two Wikipedia results.

So. - SanityOrMadness 18:38, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

Hmm, for me, we've been in "fifth" on google.com since soon after ROTF came out. I assumed it was just cause a bunch of bloggers had been linking to the Wikipedia article (and Google regards "wiki" as a synonym for "Wikipedia") in which case as the posts they made with the links in moved off their front pages, Wikipedia would move down again. --abates 20:11, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

The sandbox link you gave there is showing us third, San.--Rosicrucian^Talk 20:41, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

The sandbox link doesn't actually work for me now, for some reason. And, re: Abates... now I look, google.com does show as fifth, while google.co.uk shows as third. I didn't realise that .com and .co.uk showed different results for a worldwide search... - SanityOrMadness 16:19, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

They use a bunch of different databases which all seem to be updated at different rates. I see the one the sandbox version is using has an updated version of our Dirk Manus article (which annoyingly seems to have dropped out of the database google.com is using). --abates 19:09, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Content-wise, there's not a lot we can do. We were down a lot during the period when the Great Unwashed were blogging about Transformers and didn't know to link to the good wiki.

SEO is server-side, and no one's seen Scout in weeks. (I'd recommend we pursue the "canonical URL" thing, which search engines are supposed to like.) I'd be happy to take a whack at it... but I don't have FTP access. :p -Derik 21:20, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

Note: canonical url's have been added to MediaWiki 1.15, the most recent version released in June. -Derik 21:33, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

Another good reason to upgrade! --abates 22:17, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

No, another good reason to perform a full database backup.

Once that is done and copies saved in at least 3 different locations... then we can attempt an upgrade. -Derik 01:37, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

One hopes after the previous incident that that would be taken as read! I'd reiterate my previous query regarding regular backups, but... --abates 02:07, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Backups are fine, I'm running a test restore to an alternate machine to confirm that the beloved database is okay. If we're going to run an update, I recommend we bring the wiki back to read-only prior to a nightly backup, do a test restore, make sure said test restore is functional, and then (and only then!) attempt the upgrade on the live server. That would probably take a few hours, and you're working around our job schedules, which makes it a little hard to find us. I'd probably drop the macron fix in at that point as well. --McFly 11:15, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Confirmed. I just restored yesterday's backup to an alternate machine, and the whole thing came up with a working DB, just as we'd like. Huzzah! --McFly 12:19, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Just as a thought... we've now (I think) cleaned out the Wikia spam from all the active pages, but obviously the page histories are all still crammed with it. When the upgrade comes, could the filter that was originally ran to clean all that out be run again? - SanityOrMadness 16:38, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

The filter we originally ran was on the database dump before it was restored, whereas doing an upgrade would be on the live database, so the same technique wouldn't work. I don't know that there'd be much of a benefit to go about working out a way to scrub the spam from the histories — people don't look at them that often and the search engines don't index them.

Also: awesome news on the backups, McFly! --abates 17:03, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

On upgrading...

Just checking - whenever we upgrade, the relevant version of MediaWiki allows you to move images in the same way as pages, ja?

I ask because I made a list of all the Marvel UK cover uploads earlier today (NB: #168 and #170 don't appear to have been uploaded in any form, and quite a few others are GIFs, blurry or tiny) for future reference, and there really is no consistently-applied naming schema. (Some don't even mention the issue number in their names. They should all be at "Image:MarvelUK-XXX.jpg", which is the most common and consistent with the "Image:MarvelUS-XX.jpg" format for the Marvel US series.) - SanityOrMadness 17:13, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Yes, newer versions let you move images. That's one piece of functionality I'll be glad to have! --abates 17:29, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Also, judging by Wikia, images are in a File: namespace instead of the Image: namespace. Hmm. (Incidentally, if you're in need of a laugh, go to the old wikia and click on "Recent blog posts" in the sidebar. Wow.) --abates 17:49, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

So Someone at IDW Reads the Wiki it Seems...

Oh, hey, the wiki's back up for me. Er. I guess I'll double-post this for the folks who don't read the Allspark, then:

Someone on the IDW forums pointed this out, and I realized they're right: At the back of All Hail Megatron #14, on the page advertising All Hail Megatron 15, the blue text behind the drawing of Perceptor is taken verbatim from our G1 Perceptor entry. All of it, seriously (I did manage to check before the wiki went poof...) I actually have no idea what to think of that. --Jeysie 18:41, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Is that in-line with the CC-BY-SA licence (or, I suppose, the GDFL depending on when they locked for print), especially the "Attribution" part of that? [I don't have the issue, since I've never bothered with AHM, so I can't check that for what was said/used] - SanityOrMadness 19:52, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

It means that All Hail Megatron #14 is now Creative Commons, and anyone can make a copy of it or remix it without fear of legal repressions. -Derik 19:58, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Edit: Oh, it was an ad for the next issue. Just the ad is creative commons then, no biggie. We'll see if anything make it into the issue itself.

Seriously, this is exactly why I was suggesting we adopt a separate license with terms for comercial productions that already have the TF license from Hasbro/Takara, to prevent exactly that sort of legal ambiguity. -Derik 19:58, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree we should have a license that better reflects our legal rights and not-rights... it's just the question of how to legally switch to it without the impossible task of getting permission from every wiki contributor that's the problem. --Jeysie 22:55, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

I talked about this (how to rollout a second Hasbro-friendly license) a little... somewhere in that long-winded thing I wrote.

I've been poking at it for a couple hours... and I think that we'd be best off invoking the principle of a "customary freehold", an unwritten legal arrangement that's seldom seen anymore (because since the 19th century all contracts have been written down) but which is still recognized to be valid.

That would cast us as (try to keep a straight face) untaxed tenant farmers on Hasbro's land. We keep the result of our labor, but our work also benefits Hasbro in that it cultivates their land (promotes their brand.) No contracts were signed, but our mucking about on/with Hasbro's property does not make us outlaws... but some mixture of neighbor, a guest and serf. We incur obligation to our host, and Hasbro incurs obligation to its fans... both of which can be said to be "paid down" by characterizing the kind of fractional diffusion/transmission of intellectual property that takes place between both parties is a 'gift.' (This is distinct from turning a blind eye and pretending it does not exist, because it means that Hasbro actually has a right to use a small non-specified portion of our labors... we gifted it to them!)

Put more simply, it makes fans pilot fish existing in a mutually beneficial symbiosis with a larger corporate entity.

The reason I favor this solution is because

• That's not a license. It's an underlying legal principle that was always in effect. (In other words, it applies to all past edits.)
• I think this actually reflects what fans believe they are doing then they contribute to the wiki, as well as our general belief that we've incurred some (though not overwhelming) moral obligation to protect our "Landlord"'s interests.
• The actual second license itself would grant limited usage rights in a more explicit manner for all edits made past 11-01-2009 (or whatever), then fall back on customary freehold rights for the remainder... and only when that is exhausted does Fair use come into play. In short- "we give them explicit permission to use this portion, they had implicit permission to use a portion of the remainder, and they have a legal right to use another portion of that remainder afterward without our permission." 3 levels of diminishing legal protection that act as "catchment" for Hasbro's use of our content. They would have to heroically abuse our content-- wholesale reprinting-- to bust all 3.

That's pretty much the best of all possible worlds... in that it actually has some retroactive application to old content, because rather than releasing the content under this principle it recognizes that this principle had always existed, just like Fair Use always exists. -Derik 00:08, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

I voted for that. At least I voted as close to that as possible without knowing a whole lot about the ins-and-outs of licenses and such. - Starfield 00:46, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

It doesn't work that way... those come INTO the cover. They only get infected if they go OUT of it again. -Derik 02:16, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

(Edit break)

Actually, this makes me happy. You know why? Two reasons:

1. The text is very definitely from our version of the article, not Wikia's. There are passages in that promo that we wrote after the split with Wikia.
2. The text includes one of our nutball captions: "Like every other tough-guy group walk in the movies..."

This tickles me pink, really.--Rosicrucian^Talk 22:09, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

That's awesome, especially the (no doubt unintentional) use of the caption. --abates 22:50, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

True, I am glad to know that the IDW folks don't look at Wikia... Does this merit a mention on the issue's page itself, with a link to the current Percy revision? (And maybe a nice, clear scan of the advertisement?) --Jeysie 22:53, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

I think it only means the colorist of the graphic reads our Wiki. I believe it's one of the covers of AHM #15, not merely an ad. --ItsWalky 22:59, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Yep. It's going to be Cover A.--Rosicrucian^Talk 23:10, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Ah! In that case, I think Joana Lafuente is the colorist, if I'm remembering my IDW forum posts correctly. --Jeysie 23:18, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Not surprising she'd throw a little love our way, considering. Personally, that's all I take this as.--Rosicrucian^Talk 23:19, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

If Hasbro contacts us RE: that cover, can we offer to settle a nickel? --FortMax 23:13, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

No actually, under CC-BY-SA3, no one person or body has the ability to act as legal proxy for all contribuitors. IDW would need to contact every single person who's ever edited the Perceptor article and get them all to sign off on it. (I'm not kidding, that's actually what the code mandates.) If they fail to do this, the result automatically becomes CC-BY-SA3.

...or we could do this. (I've been researching you see.) -Derik 20:56, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Wait, if AHM14 came out on August the 19th, surely they went to print before we switched licences? Marvel print in North America, and they still go to print 19 or 20 days before an issue comes out. IDW print further afield (in South Korea, wasn't it?), and even AHM15 may well have gone to print before Aug 1. - SanityOrMadness 19:57, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

[Oh, and while you're saying the "infection" is small, and limited to the ad/cover... the "infected" cover would/will include the Transformers and IDW logos...] - SanityOrMadness 20:00, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

A new argument

Okay, this is a little specious, but I'm going to throw this out and see what others think...

• Preview art is often pending approval, (particularly covers) and may receive changes prior to the actual hard-copy publication.
• It would be most accurate to say that the work is first licensed (or at least re-licensed) at the time of hard-copy publication.
• The AHM#15 ad then, would be a work unto itself... complete with ad dress.
• The AHM #15 cover, which will remove this ad dress (and possibly re-crop or re-present the base illustration) before adding cover dress is a new work... not derived from the AHM#15 ad. (the ad dress was not an earlier state from which the actual cover derived-- both the ad and the cover are branches of a dress-less illustration.)
• As such, at the time of AHM#15's publication, that cover will be licensed under whatever terms we have available... and not as a derivation of the AHM#15 ad.

I'm a bit wary of this... because it seems to claim that the online previews of the cover with no dress does not count as a licensed work. Yet such previews often are listed as 'subject to change' and thus are demonstrably not a final product. (In the case of Marvel titles, they can have cover elements completely altered when they realize their penciler traced copyrighted images.) Finally, and perhaps most lamely... the text on the preview isn't legible.

(Uh... FWIW the ad itself appears to be a slight crop-down, and perhaps had its colors re-graded compared to the original preview.) Basically this hinges on the online preview not having licensed the content from us... defining it as 'an internal work-document' whose use of our content was not yet licensed under CC-BY-SA... the licensing to take place after final approvals at the time of hardcopy publication.

(This isn't entirely crazy, fair use allows you to make a cull copy of a movie for your personal use, but you'd have to clear the rights to use more than snippets for a comercial product. Graphic designers routinely do mockups of layouts without clearing the fonts or stock photography used... only doing so after the final version is approoved. Who are we to say at what point in the process the licensing occoured? We know only that it must have happened before the end.)

Thoughts? And does anyone know the actual publication date of AHM #15? -Derik 10:15, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Nothing more specific than "September" for the moment. With any luck IDW's newsletter will come out tomorrow so my placeholder can finally get properly sorted. (It used to be that Tipton would have an up-to-date schedule on his blog sidebar, but he seems to have stopped regularly updating it.) --Jeysie 20:02, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Looks like it's coming out on the 16th. --Jeysie 18:23, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

What a lovely due-date we have! -Derik 18:30, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Preview's out

Preview, cover text intact: http://www.bzzurkk.com/2009/09/transformers-all-hail-megatron-15-preview/ - SanityOrMadness 17:06, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Lovely. I have drafted some notes on a possible license. Please feel free to review and respond.

If no fundamental problems arise, I will probably beat my head against a wall tomorrow to flatten this into an actual $%^&* license text (with a forward-compatibility clause in case we discover a problem later) and propose it to the wiki for formal consideration.

Whether or not anybody but me thinks it's a good idea... remains to be seen. - Derik 16:45, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Blinking redirects gone from Show Preview?

Was wondering where the triple-underlines and yellow blinking went whenever I hit "Show Preview". I might've missed the memo regarding that. --Lonegamer78 13:19, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

You're right, it's not working for me either. I want that back, it was incredibly useful! :( --Jeysie 17:56, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Looks like Derik made a typo when commenting out a bit of code in the stylesheet - there's a stray s after the comment. --abates 18:27, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Oops. I shall fix. -Derik 20:51, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Shouldn't stuff like that be in MediaWiki:Common.css anyway? Once it's tested and working, etc. --abates 22:36, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

In theory, but some people hate the blinking so I've held its status as "in development" until people either get used to it or a superior solution emerges. For example, Rosicrucian specifically asked me how to override the blinking a few weeks ago, so I think he's either messing about with different effects or at least intends to do so. Given that he's done a good chunk of our designwork (I do a lot of the template stuff, but he developed monacobook) there's a reasonable chance he's could come back with a solution everyone likes better, so holding the code as 'in development' for awhile longer is merely prudent.

(If I had admin access I might feel different, but I don't, so going back to try to tweak code once it's in Common.css because you later realize it needs changing is a major hassle. So I try not to migrate these styles until they seem final and there's nothing on the horizon that seems likely to change 'em.) -Derik 23:00, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Ah. Maybe just yellow highlight and triple-underline them without the blinking? --Lonegamer78 23:41, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

I kinda like the animation as it catches the eye, though Firefox seems to have problems figuring out when you click on a blinking link. I'm thinking maybe if the text stays put and instead it has an animated background, which could be a small animated gif that pulses or something. --abates 23:54, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Oh, so THAT'S what that was. I was getting incredibly annoyed by that. ---Blackout- 03:39, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

It's supposed to be annoying, so you'll be motivated to change the redirect to the proper link to make it go away. (I tried telling that to Rosicrucian when he complained about the blinking, but I don't think I explained it very well...) --Jeysie 19:31, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

Oh, why do they have to be back?! ---Blackout- 09:25, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Maybe because they're incredibly useful? -Mazenoise 09:29, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Where did I put the code I gave Rosicrucian... ah, here it is. If you truly hate the blinking, add the following to your style page:

#wikiPreview a.mw-redirect{
	text-decoration: underline; 
}

That will turn blink off. -Derik 14:00, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

DERIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIK!!!!!

That doesn't work. ---Blackout- 15:21, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

Does so. Shift-refresh to clear your cache. -Derik 17:11, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

I did that, and it still doesn't work. ---Blackout- 01:40, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Curious. You don't happen to be using Monobook as your defauly style instead of Monacobook, do you... ? -Derik 03:57, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Nope. ---Blackout- 07:49, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

GoBox Problem

Is there something wrong with the GoBoxes? Whenever I go to Talk:Bulkhead syndrome, I get a GoBox that leads to this page. ---Blackout- 09:20, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Go-boxes for a given page will sometimes cache for short periods of time.--Rosicrucian^Talk 11:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Can the nav-template images be variables?

For example: The Henkei! Henkei! nav-template uses the logo from the toy packaging, since that applies to the majority of the pages the template is on. However, the Comic Bun Bun Henkei! material uses a completely different logo design, and it would be nice to be able to substitute it for just that page. This is one of several times I've wanted to be able to do that, and maybe there's a simple way to designate the image as a replaceable variable, but my markup-fu is weak. Any help is appreciated. - Jackpot 20:35, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

The answer seems to be "no"... for some reason, even with a default set in the parameter, the imagemap code refuses to parse the parameter's info.

You could always just post the entire code of the navigation template manually on that one page with the logo code swapped... --Jeysie 21:22, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

NM, I figured it out. You should be able to do this now:

{{nav-henkei|logo=(filename)|size=(number)(unit)}}

It's set up so that if the parameters aren't given, it'll just display the default, so you don't need to change the pages that do use the typical logo. --Jeysie 21:36, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Awesooooooooome, thank you. - Jackpot 22:32, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

No problem. :) Let me know if you need any of the other navs altered, although you should be able to just copy and paste the code and change the defaults... (actually, with my idea for a code revamp, I wonder if it might be possible to just have one nav template with all variables...) --Jeysie 23:22, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Hmm, I didn't know you were playing around with franchise-nav revisions. I actually have a grand proposal cooking up in my head for a full breadcrumb-trail nav revamp that would be applicable to basically any non-character/item/place article. The idea being that if you're at, say, an article about a comic issue, there would be a nav in the corner with links to the series, franchise, and continuity family going up in a column. And if you're at a series-article, you would be one step up in that chain, and the nav would have links to all the other series in that franchise (presented in the current style), as well as the vertically-arranged "title" links to the franchise and continuity family. Then if you're at a franchise, you get links to the other franchises in that continuity family, plus the continuity family itself. And, finally, the continuity-family articles themselves would have a nav with links to the other families. It would be a change in functionality to the effect that the cluster of little links would always be lateral, and digging down into more specific topics would require links within the articles themselves. Currently that's the case with most articles, the exception being franchises. But I think it would be incredibly awesome to have that kind of breadcrumb-trail so a reader always knows where he or she is in the multiverse at large. Plus it would help clarify how the hierarchy of families and franchises and series and so on actually works in specific cases, since that's often been a source of confusion and argument.

But I figure I should cobble together a working sample of some sort before I formally present the idea, and I think I might need some more markup-fu before that's even possible. Or I could make a facsimile in Flash or something... Anyway, at the very least, I think having the ability to swap out the logo image is actually a step towards making this idea happen. So thanks again!

- Jackpot 00:27, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Well, my current idea was mainly just trying to simplify the existing coding a little, as well as adding some prev/next links to the continuity family section. I think the big problem with breadcrumb links is that people would have to put them in by hand, which would make filling in comic stories even more work than it already is. The "continuity family" section of the comicnav template already tends to be pretty inconsistent sometimes depending on how the person creating the page chooses to link it. (In other words, it's a nice idea, but it'd be too contingent on people filling it in correctly.) --Jeysie 00:41, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

The episode nav template uses standard strings to identify continuities (like "g1toon") and then uses look-up tables to find the proper series page link for this, the proper "human-readable" for that link and even look up how many episodes there are in the series, and create automatic prev/next links as long as you give it an episode number.

The reason we use strings instead of pagenames is 1) they're shorter, simpler, cleaner, more standardized... 2) it means that if the page moves (or we change our mind on the naming convention) we only have to change it in one place in the lookup tables, and the link changes on hundreds of pages.

What I'm saying is... you DON'T need to force users to fill in series/franchise/family. ...just fill in the SERIES. Let the template fill in the rest! (And let you manually override the lookup if you explicitly provide variables, for maximum flexability.)

But that's not a system you can throw together by trial and error; it needs proper architecture planning or it'll be a godawful mess.

I guess what I'm saying is... if we really want to rationalize and standardize the major templates on the wiki... we need a serious meta-talk about what that means, in the broadest possible scope. -Derik 01:01, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Well, the problem is... I agree it'd be pretty easy to auto-breadcrumb the TV series. But when you start getting into things like the comics and text stories, you start running into many different miniseries and individual issues, all of which fit into different continuities. I think the continuity family is already enough info for those, provided we make sure they all point to the right ones. --Jeysie 01:48, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

That's not exactly a 'problem' as it's conventionally thought of. You could set up auto-fill-ins for the 6 most commons comics-- which would cover 70-80% of everything, but let manual values be set for the rest (or not set) to the level of detail you desire. No solution has to be 100% you know. -Derik 03:05, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

No, but for stuff like the Marvel Comics it would take just as long to copy and paste in manual info as it would to paste in the new code, after all. So it's the new pages where people would have one more thing to add in that you'd really need to worry about, if it's part of that other 20%. Whereas I agree that new TV series episodes would get to have the benefit of auto-ness.

I guess it just seems like a lot of work for little benefit, seeing as how the continuity part of the nav pretty much covers all the context necessary. Not that I don't think it's possible the ep/comicnav could use some overhaul (though what exactly I don't know; they both seem pretty complete to me), just that I don't think breadcrumbs would be an effective expenditure of time. --Jeysie 03:43, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm pretty much in agreement with that last sentiment, which is one of the reasons why I'm not technically proposing my idea yet. It needs a more concrete starting point (like a mock-up design) from which all the discussion and probably argument can branch. I have my own notions about how it could be set up in a way that wouldn't involve as much work or personal discretion as Jeysie suggests, but... well, now's not the time. Maybe later. - Jackpot 01:12, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

So what needs revision? The episode templates-- fine. And the comic issues. And the franchise navigation. And a standard breadcrumbing system... but what else? -Derik 01:17, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

I've noticed on the Marvel wiki that the "writer"/"artist" text in their issue infoboxes links to Category: Writers. I'd liek us ot consider adding this. (Also, there's something about the size or spacing of their infoboxes I just like... I think we might want to take a look at 'em when we get around to recoding.)

Derik points out that in such a scenario, the breakcrumb need not be built into (for example) the episode infobox template. The more elegant solutions is something like:

 {{episode
  |breadcrumb= {{breadcrumb
                |continuity_family=[[Unicron Trilogy]]
                |franchise=[[Armada (franchise)|]]
                |series=[[Armada (cartoon)|cartoon]]
               }}
 }}

...where you'd be pass the whole breadcrumb template as a parameter to another template. That way if the breadcrumb also has to show up in other templates... there's a standard code, standard styling, etc. Cleaner simpler code, easier to maintain, more universal, easier to work with, less percussive maintenence, etc.

That's not a solution to everything though, because we've got two prev/next/series navs for comics, and some of the Marvel issues could use four or more. Stacking 4 of those things is retarded, and pointless. We need a more rational means of addressing republished stuff. I went to look up when a certain Marvel UK issue was published the other day and we didn't have the information. ...because it was published in the US first, and our template only has one "pub date" field. -Derik 00:52, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Sankyuu! Henkei needs a bit more love. :D --Lonegamer78 22:59, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

CSS rationalization

While discussing rewriting our HTML... we should also probably discuss CSS rationalization.

Right now our code has absolutely no regard for what the page looks like printed. (Those messageboxes at the top of pages probably don't need to be there when printed.) Do we want our links to have addresses when printed? For example, I believe CSS could make this link print like this link ("Optimue Prime (G1)") or like this link ( http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Optimus_Prime_(G1) ) or like this link ( tfwiki.net/wiki/Optimus_Prime_(G1) ), any of which would be 'friendlier' for printed-out versions.

Of course, if this was applied to excessively PotHole'd articles, the text it might become almost unreadable. Perhaps smaller or faded text would make tooting my own horn User:Derik less obtrusive when printed. Regardless what's decided for article text, I strongly believe that storylinks should have the disambig visible when printing. King of the Hill (Armada episode)

Printing, I grant you, is a fairly minor concern. But what about syndication? A few people are beginning to dynamically syndicate our content. Botch went to some trouble to remove our messageboxes and various other elements-- he just wanted the guts of the article. If we'd attached standard classes to templates (ones that have no CSS associated with them as far as TFWiki is concerned) he could have just syndicated the page as-is and hidden those elements with a few lines of CSS! (If nothing else, the storylinks need a class marking them... that seems like something that many would like to hide.)

Live page syndication is clumsy. (And I need to yell at Botch, because IIRC he's doing his in a terrible way, from our server's perspective.) But if we encourage it, it's another tool in our promotional quiver! (There was a PHP script I was working on the other month that actually has some fairly good TFWiki-specific syndication. If that was polished and made easy to use, it could have some legs.)

Soto-voice snark aside-- we really need classed like .noPrint and .printOnly. And when we redo our episode/issue infoboxes... the tables should be tested to they print nicely, and we should publish the CSS people can use to turn various 'bits off. (Or a 'general guide to site CSS', if only for our OWN use.)

How about this...? We've been moving a LOT of our code out of HTML and into CSS. One of the effects of this is that simply syndicating the "rendered" page... a lot of the HTML layouts are gobbeltygook. Should we have a consideration for syndicators who don't include our CSS file? Maybe templates we know are unlikely to be wanted can be flagged with a .noSyndicate class, making it easy to hide them? Or we should have a Syndicate.css file that includes the bare-minimum CSS code for templates to lay out right? Should some templates ({{quote}}, for instance) be rewritten so that they will render in a readable (if not ideal) fashion even if no css is included? Is there a "scale" these questions all fall on... a sort of "how important is this element to the content of the page?" spectum, where at the low end we don't care and tell people to hide it, at the middle we provide identifying tags so they can be hidden, or a truncated CSS file so they render nice, and at the high end we write the HTML so the element will always be readable even without CSS to make it pretty? (That last one means code that's less contextual. Where do our priorities lie?)

These are philosophical issues. None are especially high priority, but the "cost" of addressing them is relatively tiny, so if we're doing some thorough redesigning... it'd be a good idea.

Some elements we have (like main pages) sometimes get quite "big" (laid out in a fashion that accepts a minimum of 500+ pixels wide.) Is it worth adding a .bigElement class or a .mobile class so that those elements can have code written in a mobile device CSS file that reduces their size? Is this even a concern for new mobile devices, which scale easily? How to Kindles handle them? Do e-readers support javascript? What about tablets and wireless internet devices?

More and more, content on the internet is going to be viewed by something other than what we normally think of as a "web browser," and because web-developers spend all their time in web browsers they often neglect these outlets. We do not have to bend over backward to accommodate these technologies... if problems do arise, they will probably be the 90/10 sort; 90% of the solution/benefit can be accomplished with just 10% of the effort.
Example: When a certain news site rolled out their home page redesign several years ago, it mis-rendered on some versions of Safari-- pushing the story content below the left navigation bar. In short... the page appeared blank. This problem remained unfixed for almost a year-- it was caused by the nav rendering just one pixel too wide, pushing a floated layout down. This remained unfixed for almost a year. I'm sure that this bug only affected maybe 1% of site visitors. But after a year of blank pages... that 1% also probably stopped visiting. 1% over the course of a year is a lot of lost pageviews, it's like having your site be down for 3 days.

Anyway... that's my rant. There's no solutions there... just ideas/concerns/meta.

If other people are interested in discussing this sort of thing... may I suggest we create a dumping ground at Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Quantum Cycle Upgrade where we can gather thoughts/issues about long-term infrastructure upgrades? -Derik 20:35, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Picking up on just one thing for now:

Those messageboxes at the top of pages probably don't need to be there when printed

Thing about that is that they DO contain information you might want when printed that isn't contained elsewhere on a page (the writer of a story, for instance).

I could certainly see a certain degree of stripping down the messageboxen for printing as a good idea (take a look at http://tfwiki.net/w2/index.php?title=End_of_the_Road!_(US)&printable=yes - it's not even just the {{comicstory}} [which has become a bad name for that template as its' uses have multiplied...] box - the {{featuredcharacters}} box further down could do with being stripped for print. And I'm not sure the {{disambig2}} needs to be visible at all.), but I'm not sure about hiding them by default. - SanityOrMadness 22:15, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

I agree about stripping those kinds of things down... but when I said "messageboxes" I meant things like "picsneeded"; those have an enormous footprint, and they print. Their entire purpose is to alert editors of page deficiencies.... but people reading print-outs aren't editing those the pages, it's pointless. -Derik 22:32, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Ah. I wasn't thinking of those, just {{comicstory}} and {{episode}}. Yeah, removing {{picsneeded}} and its ilk would make sense. - SanityOrMadness 10:20, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

"(Marvel Comics)" or "(Marvel comic)"

• The Transformers (Marvel comic) (Jackpot moved it in June on the basis of "Consistency with how we treat other parenthetical comic-company names, such as "(Dreamwave comic)" instead of "(Dreamwave Productions)")
• Generation 2 (Marvel Comics) (Interrobang just got the (Marvel comic) redirect deleted on one of his rampages)
• Transformers Universe (Marvel comic) (appears to have always been here)
• Transformers: The Movie (Marvel Comics)

Would it be too much to suggest that we pick one and stick with it? - SanityOrMadness 08:43, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh, not to mention Marvel UK's Collected Comics (Marvel), nor the characters Decepticon medic (Marvel Comics) and Jose (Marvel Comics). - SanityOrMadness 08:54, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

The last discussion kind of stalled on the question of whether or not to have "Comics"/"comic" at all. Technically speaking, "(Marvel)" does the job. Before, I was favoring "(Marvel comic)", but I think now I'm leaning towards just "(Marvel)" because seriously, parentheticals should be as short as possible. - Jackpot 09:24, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Marvel Productions - SanityOrMadness 10:27, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Considering that Marvel Productions was apparently a child company of Marvel Comics, I don't see that as a problem. --Jeysie 19:19, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Marvel Productions (now defunct) relates to the cartoon. Marvel Comics (obviously) relates to the comics. - SanityOrMadness 10:25, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Considering that any Marvel Comics-specific concept or character is either going to have the Comicnav template or some form of "Marvel Comics continuity" on the page... I still don't see a problem. Anything that comes from the cartoon is going to be just (G1) or say "cartoon continuity" since Sunbow is always the main company known for cartoon stuff. --Jeysie 17:09, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

"Rampages"? Really, now. —Interrobang 20:08, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

I hereby dub thee a "Deckchair Rampage"! Hurrah, we now hast a term by which to call it! -Derik 22:43, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Talk page "dead link" removal

Can I ask what is behind the mass removal of "dead links" on talk pages? Does having "dead links" on talk pages mess something up? I'm just curious. - Starfield 16:15, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Well, for one thing, dead links that are not meant to link pages do somewhat pollute the "Wanted pages" index. --Ascendron 16:45, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh. I'm surprised talk page links show up on "wanted pages." - Starfield 16:58, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Images for deletion

Interrobang has marked a pile of unused images for deletion. Some of them, I suspect, are unused because of the Bookworm crash, like the pictures of Lipoles. I've made a start on some of them, but if anyone wants to pitch in and fix up some of the images we should keep, be my guest! --abates 07:59, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

True, part of them are, um, "victims"(sort of) of the Bookworm crash, such as Image:Convoy BT.jpg and several others. I think those pictures should be hold and got checked/salvage for a while before being deleted. I've check the Category:To be deleted, but I can only recognize a few. People can check their watch list or Category:To be deleted to help ID those pictures they(users) know where they(pictures) belong to. --TX55^TALK 08:26, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

I've noticed that several of them aren't "unused" per se--they're not used as images anywhere, but they're still wikilinked to. For example, Image:Fat guard.JPG says "There are no pages that link to this file", but if you check "What links here", you'll see that Capture the Cube does in fact link to it. So before anyone deletes any images, I suggest checking if anything is wikilinking to them first. --Apoc 08:42, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I noticed a while back that the section under the image that lists pages which link to it only includes pages where the image is actually embedded. Plus some images are used in the site skin or CSS files, like the logos Derik set up to appear after links to certain sites. --abates 18:30, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Are we intending to resurrect the community-nav template? The images used on it were among those tagged for deletion... --abates 21:11, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

I'll take that as a no. And down to 150 pictures now. Again, if anyone wants to take a look through Category:To be deleted in case anything they recognise where the images are supposed to go, please do! --abates 08:16, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Wikicode problems

I've noticed that a "=" (equals sign) in a URL linked as a source in a quote tag results in the entire source section not being displayed in the article. Example:

I told them that I would literally commit suicide if they made an action figure of me. I will kill myself.

I fiddled around with the URL and nailed the source of the problem down to the "=". Is this problem common knowledge?--Nevermore 09:15, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Been toying around my userpage.

Check it out:

{{factions|former|decepticon}}

"former" (or whatever you write) is shown.

{{factions|=former|decepticon}}

"=" renders the text invisible.

seems like "=" affects templates.

hah. funny. -- Silvery 10:55, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

EDIT: I'm so dumb... "=" is one of parameters used in templates. [1] -- Silvery 11:03, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Is there any way to solve that problem? "=" appears in quite a few URLs.--Nevermore 11:26, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

As Silver surmised, it's down to the equals being a template parameter.

Your options are:

1. Escape the "=" as &#61; - Entertainment News International
2. Feed it through a URL shortener like TinyURL or bit.ly - Entertainment News International

i.e.:

I told them that I would literally commit suicide if they made an action figure of me. I will kill myself.Megan Fox, Entertainment News International.

- SanityOrMadness 11:36, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Just add a "2=" to the code: {{quote|Blahblah|2=Megan Fox, [http://enewsi.com/news.php?itemid=13816 Entertainment News International].}}

BlahblahMegan Fox, Entertainment News International.

—Interrobang 14:37, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

"Murder" Category II

For some reason, it automatically deletes itself when I try to create it.

Weird. ---Blackout- 09:43, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

I'm pretty shore it's not supposed to be created, just like the things that don't exist category. Dead Metal 06:38, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

The Things that don't exist doesn't automatically delete itself. ---Blackout- 07:19, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

I know but those two categories are not to be created it's part of the joke. Dead Metal 14:29, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Sourcing statements

I've recently dealt with a bunch of articles where statements were either entirely unsourced, or just broadly attributed to a source without more specific details (such as, just naming a magazine without stating the volume, issue number, date, page number etc., or not linking the online article/interview). I've spent quite some time tracking down the sources and then fixed the statements to better reflect what is actually said in those sources. Basically, someone read a magazine interview and then added some trivia bits from memory, that kind of thing.

Should we have a more rigid mandate that statements should credit sources? I'm not talking Wikipedia-esque anal-retentive "author name, title of article, date of publication, date of accessing" details and sources for general knowledge stuff such as "Devastator has a Supreme Class toy in the ROTF toyline". But anything that is definitely based on a single source should better be followed by a footnote. Especially since a lot of these unsourced statements eventually turn out to be urban myths.

Should we make this a mandate, and if yes, how should we enforce it?--Nevermore 14:25, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

It already is a mandate, technically speaking. --Jeysie 14:34, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

That's more of a style guide rather than an actual rule, though. My thought is something similar to what (at least the German version of) Wikipedia does: When you click "submit", you're shown a warning that asks you to make sure you have sourced your statements. It's not too obtrusive (clicking "submit" a second time will submit your text anyway), but it does drive home the point.--Nevermore 15:19, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Our style guides are rules, pretty much. And that one at least is definitely a specific policy. If we had to mandate every single rule we had before every edit, the Submit screen would have a sea of text. The best we can do is try to encourage newbies to actually read our Help and Policy pages. --Jeysie 15:26, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

This Day in Transformers History

We should try to turn the This Day in Transformers History into an exportable module, like our Go-Boxes. It'll help our SEO by encouraging links back to us as well as give us another source of dynmaically-generated deep links. We have content for all 366 days, we should exploit it. --63.203.180.99 15:45, 16 September 2009 (EDT)