So in ASM's Q&A response, Hasbro pretty much officially says to consider Galvatron a separate character from Megatron for all practical purposes. How do we tackle this? -hx 06:56, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
I interpret it as saying that in inducting Megatron, Galvatron is not being inducted by connection, since not all Megatrons have become Galvatrons, and some interpretations of Galvatron (like IDW) are separate from Megatron. --NCZ 07:00, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
Yeah, I don't think this really changes anything about the way we've already got Galvy covered. - Chris McFeely 07:14, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
Excessive Trivia Sections
Ok, a few days ago I attempted to clean up some trivia sections. I realize in hindsight I was tired and being a wanker and was removing valuable information, and I apologize for that. However, I think some of our trivia could definitely stand to be integrated into the articles themselves, especially notes like "This character's Universe toy was..." or "in the Energon comic, so-and so was completely different". I would like to integrate these but I was hoping to get an opinion on this, since I went about it wrong once already. Thoughts? -- Rideonshootingstarxx 12:44, 22 September 2010 (EDT)
Agreed. The Notes sections (shouldn't be Trivia anymore) are for information that doesn't fit elsewhere. If there is a logical place to put it, move the information there. --Khajidha 12:58, 22 September 2010 (EDT)
Editing Drift's related materials
Actually, this would cover whatever anyone of us have a large dislike of, but yeah. This is a wiki, where we're supposed to be informative and be able to present the info in a fun way. I'm not entirely sure of how objective we can be (humor aside), but the whole kerfluffle on Drift's mini and cameos showing in his mini is making me worried on the attitudes of certain editors that could easily descend into a editing/name-calling/accusation war. --Lonegamer78 21:39, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
My position is the Wiki doesn't have to be objective, so long as it isn't unreasonable. There are plenty of flaws in Drift and Shane McCarthy's work to poke fun of -- there's no reason to create ones that aren't true.
I was re-reading Drift #1 and happened to notice he DID suffer damage from those laser blasts while fleeing. I remembered that note on the Wiki joking that he was "laser-proof", so I removed it. I also posted on the Talk page explaining why. Detour restored the Note several times anyway, even though it was false as written. He eventually tried to re-write it, adding something about Deadlock surviving blasts that blew off Jetstorm's head earlier. Nowhere in the comic did Jetstorm's head get blown off. Drench's did, notCarnivac's did, but Jetstorm was fine. It just shows that Detour doesn't care about being accurate so long as he's not giving an inch on anything Anti-McCarthy on the Wiki.
So really -- can't we be better than that? --Xaaron 22:05, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
Well, I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but I really think Detour shouldn't be allowed to edit anything connected to McCarthy. And I'm pretty much branded an irrational anti-McCarthy troll on the IDW boards, so I think this is saying something. I'm first in line to complain when he deserves it, this sort of stuff is just petty and weakens the valid criticism by association. - Cattleprod 22:25, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
So because I mixed up Drench and Jetstorm's name, I'm now "making stuff up"? Now who's being irrational? --Detour 00:39, 24 September 2010 (EDT)
Please try to be accurate when editing articles. Item42 02:57, 24 September 2010 (EDT)
Yeah, I don't think you really comprehend this discussion and the situation leading up to it, Item42. —Interrobang 04:17, 24 September 2010 (EDT)
Um, people generally hate Drift, this wiki's editors want to have reliable articles, and Detour got stuff mixed up, which people blame on his anti-Drift-ism. Item42 05:53, 24 September 2010 (EDT)
External Links
Similar to the whole business of changing all the "Trivia" sections into "Notes" sections, this is just a heads up for anyone who wants to chip in for a mundane task: if you ever see a link to TFU.info (or a similar toy site) in the External Links section of a character's page, relocating it to that character's Toys section would be super-awesome. (And if the External Links section subsequently becomes empty, get rid of it.) I wouldn't really describe this as a task with much urgency behind it, but it will make characters' pages look consistent, and consistency looks nice. It's really a minor edit that's easy and quick to do, and I'd appreciate some help in this fiasco. An example of how this is supposed to look like can be found at Optimus Primal's toy section. So keep an eye out while you're bored and clicking that "Random Page" button. :) --Ascendron 12:37, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
I've been trying to do these whenever I come across one. --Khajidha 12:44, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
On a similar note, but requiring slightly more effort, if anyone would like to start adding patents from my sandbox to the appropriate toy sections that would also be appreciated. --Khajidha 10:33, 1 December 2010 (EST)
Except for very toy-dense pages, I kind of like them on the bottom, in a standard location, with other external links, where I can just hit the "page down" key to find them. TFU has a "variations" section with all the character's toys you would ever hope to look for. But whatever. - Starfield 12:39, 1 December 2010 (EST)
Who hosts your wiki now
Wikia is making more unpopular changes, [1] with a new skin which is even more unpopulat.
In this angry discussion, your site was mentioned as one site which said "f--- you wikia" and left, which I respect so much, and would like to emulate.
I am wondering who is hosting your wikia, and how much does it cost per year? If you could do it again, how would you do it differently? Who could I maybe ask these questions too?
Thank you. Adamtheclown 17:12, 28 September 2010 (EDT)
We're hosted on Slicehost. What you go for hostingwise will really depend on how popular your site is though. --abates 19:25, 28 September 2010 (EDT)
McAfee SiteAdvisor review rating this site incorrectly
As a countermeasure to viruses on the net, I have a special version of McAfee that has this widget-type thing that gives me ratings on the security of certain websites. I have noticed that this website was recently given a big, fat red "X" rating, showing that this website contains malware and other things, all because of one single rating that the reviewer said he did not like this website. He did not say this was a malware site, but the system apparently decided to take one person's personal opinion and rate this site as a horrible website so every time I go in, I get this asininely huge message saying "MCAFEE HAS TESTED THIS SITE AND FOUND IT TO BE BLAH BLAH BLAH".
I don't think that just one siteadvisor reviewer (myself) can turn around that rating. Sure, a website can be full of people with questionable morals and values, but that has no reflection on the security of the website. Can I have a little help here?
Questionable "morals and values"? Item42 09:27, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
I feel like I know that guy from somewhere. ---Blackout- 09:40, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Gotta be mignash. Also, how could it be a bad shopping experience, we don't SELL anything. --Khajidha 09:42, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
No, mignash doesn't spell that well. ---Blackout- 09:43, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
People usually say "bad shopping experience" in place of "bad experience" because there is a bulleted selector so you don't have a lot of choices. What I don't like is having this website have a false security rating, I don't really care about that negative reviewer with the social rating. It's a security database, not how good or bad something is socially. Maybe the person was Trolly McTrollerson and since he was b& he just wanted to troll even more? --LokitheGrammarNazi 09:45, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Meh. Considering David Willis's reputation as a "fandom boogeyman", stunts like this hardly surprise me. There's a lot of petty fans who apparently categorically refuse to edit this wiki out of hatred for Willis (which apparently also stops them from editing at Wikia as well, go figure...) and who basically go "Yeah? I know Transformers! I'm going to make my own Transformers wiki! With blackjack! And hookers! In fact, forget the wiki!". So, yeah. Hardly surprising. I've dropped off a review myself, but it still doesn't appear to be enough to raise the rating... --Detour 10:11, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
If Walky wants to dispute it, he can use support@siteadvisor.com to see if that'll fix the rating. Really, that negative "shopping experience review" is ridiculous. --Lonegamer78 16:15, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Sorry I can't help much, all I can add to this discussion is that the negative review is likely from a British TF fan, due to his use of the word "cleverer" which I can count the number of times I've heard it from a non Brit on one hand. -- Semysane 17:21, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
WAIT! I stand corrected. In one of his other reviews he uses Shaw Secure, and Shaw is a Canadian ISP. That's what I get for trying to analyze someone's vocabulary, I guess. -- Semysane 17:23, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Hmm, the wording's very similar to the Google Sidewiki comment we got dated the same day as this. I suspect it's the same dude. --abates 17:39, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
I ****LOVE**** how Walky disputed this "The site is indeed full of assholes, but it's malware free." That's us all right! Apparently that was enough to tip us into a green/safe review. --Khajidha 10:28, 30 September 2010 (EDT)
Fan-configurations of toys
(From here, I'm not sure who "User:Divebomb" is though)
Should we have an article on how people would have made-up modes of their toys just because the toys can be configured that way (such as that "combination" of Classics Jetfire and Optimus Prime)? Or maybe just mention that stuff in an article somewhere (like Toy)?
I'm not suggesting we mention that on individual character pages, cos that will just spiral out of control.
I find it odd that we don't have a fan-mode article here. It seems like it would be a valid topic, and a few famous/infamous examples should be mentioned on that page. I agree that we don't need to mention them on individual pages. --Khajidha 09:37, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
FYI, User:Divebomb would happen to be me. (Don't tell the Wikipedia guys that though.) ---Blackout- 09:40, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Once you admitted to something on a publically viewable webpage, there's really no stopping the info from getting out. You didn't have to admit who it was specifically. But, I guess if you're gonna be good over there, you might be allowed to stay. Doesn't Wikipedia have something for reformed vandals? Item42 09:53, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
You're assuming they're even gonna notice. ---Blackout- 10:34, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
I like being honest. If anybody asks, I can tell them who "Divebomb" is, since I never agreed to keep it secret. Don't tempt me. Also, we (both of us) should get back on topic. Item42 10:52, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
I think it is certainly a good idea to make a page such as that! I happen to be very interested in this kind of thing because I, too used to dick around with my toys and I want a wiki article on it; I don't want to search around on geoshitties-type websites for such things. --LokitheGrammarNazi 10:55, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
It would have to be kept brief, with just a few well-known examples, or we'd have people forever adding the fan mode they thought up five minutes ago to turn classics Bumblebee into a turtle with the head of a walrus. --abates 15:55, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
The toilet mode for Shortround and his redecos should definitely be listed. The Classics Optimus Prime and Jetfire combination is another probably notable one. Mention should be made that the design of many movie toys allows multiple configurations.Oh, and the "gerwalk" mode for G1 Jetfire. Beyond that, I'm not sure. --Khajidha 16:10, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Don't forget that not all modes are Fan Created. The Jetfire gerwalk mode, for example, is displayed in his instructions, sort of making it official. I remember quite a few instruction booklets showing alternate modes Riddlerj 16:17, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Guess I should have left that one out, I put it in as an afterthought. --Khajidha 16:21, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Not going into specifics, but the multiple modes created from RID Megatron and how some of the fandom kept looking for additional modes. --Bluestreak7 10:16, 30 September 2010 (EDT)
The only really notable example I can think of (one that I copied myself a couple of times) was the faux Overkill you could make out of a BM Mirage and Scavenger...hang on, lemme see if I can find a link...aha http://www.ggaub.com/tf/toys/bm_overkill.html is well documented and would go very nicely under "External links" if such a page existed --Emvee 14:31, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
I think an Alternate Configuration page with a section about fan-made alternate configurations would be a good idea. If I recall correctly, Beast Wars Rampage also had an alternate configuration for his robot mode. (Essentially, it was just another way to put his crab claws). Between him, the characters already mentionned here, I'd say that's enough already to warrant a page. And I'm sure there's others that haven't been mentionned yet too. --Ascendron 15:01, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
For "official" alternate configurations, Tigerhawk's semi-abandoned tank mode might also qualify, as well as the Special Teams leaders' launcher modes (though only alternate outside Japan, I suppose). There must be a bunch more. Universe Galvatron's "walker" mode? --Emvee 16:48, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
I think we should specify that an alternate configuration is NOT a separate mode. I mean, we already have separate pages for battle modes and stuff. And alternate configuration should be basically "This is still this character's X mode, but you can choose to put this part this way or that way." --Ascendron 00:27, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
Galvy's walker mode is TECHNICALLY official. ---Blackout- 01:54, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
A bit of an edit war or something here. Spin-Out and Detour changed the caption to a Shortpacked reference, changingthe caption to a picture I uploaded. Isn't that wrong or somesuch? Item42 11:54, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
I guess if other people dislike a joke, then it's okay to change the caption, I think. A while ago, Eire changed a caption I added on Slag's page, but I didn't mind because the new one was funnier. If you take offense, however, that's something that needs to be discussed.--NCZ 11:58, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Thing is, their edits put in an external link, that explains the joke. If you look further up this page there's (currently) a section with me getting told by Chris McFeely and Interrobang that doing so would be a badthing. If I have to stop doing that, then so should they. Plus, changing a caption like that is discouraged by policy. Item42 12:02, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Oh lordy McLordlord. Okay, first of all. "Who the hell do you think I am?" was Kamina's catchphrase and that's why Konishi gets it. "WTHDYTIA" is merely a small portion of the larger "What are you, dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think I am? I'm the goddamn Batman!", and generally the first part to be left out when it's misquoted because it's so forgettable there compared to what comes before and after it. It's really a poor-ass choice of words for Miller's caption any way you look at it. Second of all, the Shortpacked link does not, as you put it, "explain the joke". The joke doesn't need explaining if you know ANYTHING about Miller, that's why it turned meme mere moments after Willis put it up. It's there because that's where the joke originated, and the comic's funny. Just because there's a link in a caption doesn't mean it's a deliberate attempt at explaining a joke. Look around and you'll see plenty of other captions with such links within them. --Detour 12:17, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Second of all, the Shortpacked link does not, as you put it, "explain the joke". The joke doesn't need explaining if you know ANYTHING about Miller, What kind of logic is that? "The link doesn't explain the joke, provided you already understand the joke!" Anyway, while I am personally probably more in favor of linked-text jokes then some seem to be lately, I think they should only be done when the links are inter-wiki. Also, if Item42 put the image up, I say let him keep his own damn caption. --KilMichaelMcC 12:38, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Eh, I guess if it's Uploader's Choice... I finally managed to be provided with a much cooler image of Miller that's in tune with other real-life people's photos (such as Maurice LaMarche and Ernie Hudson), going with an unlikely role of theirs. --Detour 12:53, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Ahem,
I know both lines pretty well.
Just because people do that a lot,doesn't mean it should be done (for example, the caption page has a list of jokes this community is sick of. An example outside this wiki would be main namespace-conversation on TV Tropes)
I thought the captions are supposed to be a bonus for people who upload stuff?
It would be much better if this wiki's pages policy give more comprehensive/complete advice.
Did... did Detour just upload a different picture of Frank Miller just so he could get to "win" and make up it's caption? Seriously? Wow. --KilMichaelMcC 12:54, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
He did both and it's fuckin' hilarious. Much better than anything that was there before! --LokitheGrammarNazi 12:55, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
I don't even disagree that it's a better picture for us to use, it's just to up and do that right in the middle of this discussion is, well... kind of a dick move, really. --KilMichaelMcC 12:58, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Not exactly. I'd been asking around for a still of Frank the chemist for a while now. The previous caption just gave my acquaintances the extra motivation to it for me. --Detour 13:00, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Why the fuck are we having a discussion on this.
I don't have a problem with somebody changing the caption if they uploaded a new picture. Unless... a few hundred pictures are uploaded over old ones just because somebody wanted to change the caption. Item42 04:14, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
I would like to point out that half of the discussions on this page in the last six weeks have been started by Item42. Can you dial back the need to have elaborate explanations for reverts of your edits, please? —Interrobang 17:32, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
To prevent edit warring? I don't see why this shouldn't be discussed. (Though I might point Item to our Allspark thread for other discussions.) --NCZ 17:36, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
I suppose I should also ask why we're having an edit war over a caption. Guys. Guys.—Interrobang 17:41, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
Also, why isn't this being discussed on Talk:Frank Miller? The Community Portal is for sitewide stuff. --abates 05:28, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
Sorry that I overreacted. found the Allspark thread, I think. There should be a link to that somewhere on the help pages or something. Item42 11:37, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
Skin
What the hell happened to the skin? ---Blackout- 10:41, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
No, seriously, what happened? ---Blackout- 06:48, 2 October 2010 (EDT)
I don't see anything wrong with it. Is something not working? --abates 07:33, 2 October 2010 (EDT)
Well, the Monacobook colours seem to have randomly changed. ---Blackout- 07:59, 2 October 2010 (EDT)
Must be a problem on your end, because I use MonacoBook and nothing seems different to me. --Khajidha 08:01, 2 October 2010 (EDT)
I even tried clearing my cache, and it all loaded up fine. You could try doing the same and seeing if it fixes the problem. If not, post a screen shot and maybe someone will recognise the problem. --abates 18:08, 2 October 2010 (EDT)
Cache clearing didn't work.
That is what Monacobook now looks like. ---Blackout- 11:42, 3 October 2010 (EDT)
I just noticed emopanda's been suspended by its webhost. You've still got the code for Derik's tools in your personal css file, and the fact that emopanda's now giving you an html file instead of css is probably confusing your browser. --abates 15:48, 3 October 2010 (EDT)
I removed the offending code, and BAM! the skin is back to normal. Thanks. ---Blackout- 02:00, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Talk:/Talk: pages
Is there some way to prevent all the spammers from creating these pages? There doesn't seem to be ANY legitimate use for such a page, can't it be forbidden or limited to admins or something? --Khajidha 11:40, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
Not without installing some sort of blacklist extension. --abates 17:57, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
Artist Go Box
(Sorry if this isn't the place to do this. First time posting on the Community Portal)
ahem* I noted that the Go boxes for Dan Reed and Andy Wildman both show Megatron. I don't know if that's intentional, but maybe we should follow that pattern for all the other artists? A close-up shot of Megatron's face, preferably one that capture their style as much as possible in the way that Reed's image is of a demonic, melty looking Megs, and Wildman's shows a mouth-agog spitting Megs. We could use the Senior Megatron drawing that was used in the Marvel box for the middle run of the UK comic. LiamK 20:32, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
I like this idea. It wouldn't work for Pat Lee, but I wouldn't mind having it as a trend for artists when they're added. --Tigerpaw28 15:41, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
Potentially dodgy advertising
Since I'm not in North America or the EU, the current winning bid on Project Wonderful I can see is something about "Prettiest Teen Girls", which I think is a porn site or is at least unsavoury. Click the world thumbnail under the flags. Hopefully somebody with a less dodgy business out bids them soon. --FFN 05:15, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
Luckily it seems to have been out-bid already. -- Semysane 05:34, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
Ideal Struture of Toy/Merchandise Description
Has there been discussion on what constitutes an ideal description for a toy or piece of merchandise? I recently added an admittedly hefty amount of text for Leader-class Movie Starscream, and noted on his Toy Page that various users have trimmed it down so it's "not as review-like". I'm not complaining, but I am curious if the community ever discussed how much info is too much, or if it should be a bit of common sense that I might have missed out on; I'd love to pare it down myself, and perhaps take a crack at some other descriptions that might be too long or "review-like".
Any chance we could have somebody delete User:Jolt Volt? It's got a bunch of links nobody can edit to fix because the page is protected and there's no real point to keeping it around, anyway. —Interrobang 06:06, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
No one objected, so I've deleted the page. --abates 19:53, 10 November 2010 (EST)
Prime vs. WFC
Are these the same franchise or 2 franchises in the same continuity family? If they are the same, shouldn't they have the same nav-box? I've brought this up before on the relevant pages and gotten no response, so I'm reposting it here. --Khajidha 11:10, 23 October 2010 (EDT)
They are supposedly in the same continuity, not just the same continuity family. The wiki treats them as the same franchise as far as disambiguations go. WFC-original characters are given the "(Prime)" as their franchise of origin. I'm not completely convinced it should be that way. There doesn't seem to be much tying WFC and Prime together as a franchise. - Starfield 12:18, 23 October 2010 (EDT)
What ties the G1 comic and cartoon together? These don't really seem any more different than those. --Khajidha 12:33, 23 October 2010 (EDT)
Hasbro are clearly making up these franchise continuities as they go along. Between Prime, WFC, Generations, PCC, Transformers 2010/2011 and their sublines (Movie vs non-Movie) the whole brand right now is a complete and utter travesty of a mess. The rebel in me says that we as fans should dictate how these sub-brands should be divided up. A bit like with what we have already done with the Unicron Trilogy, and the extended G1 mythos. Prime is obviously independent in it's own right. WFC doesn't fit into anything easily. Drmick 12:41, 23 October 2010 (EDT)
Holy grails
Anyone for adding the Hot Rod Go-Kart to the "grail" list? Because seriously. Photos or SOME kind of info about that thing would be beyond awesome. (And, statistically, the kid who won almost HAS to be online now, you know?) -hx 11:42, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
Universe 2003 vs Universe 2008 disambiguations
I moved Backstop (Universe) to Backstop (Universe 2003) because Backstop (Cybertron) has a Universe 2008 toy. To my mind, that means that Backstop (Universe 2008) exists and means that there cannot be a simple Backstop (Universe). Interrobang seems to disagree. Opening it up for discussion. --Khajidha 11:30, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
Once again for the hundredth time, disambiguations are not here to convey information. They are here to separate character articles. "(Universe)" performs that function perfectly fine and old characters appearing in other franchises do not affect disambiguation. Note how Megatron (BW) and Silverbolt (BW) remain where they are, despite the presence of older characters with the same name in the same franchise. And the numerous G2 dudes with same name as G1 dudes. —Interrobang 11:39, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
Guess it's a function of my more toy centric thinking. I have to think hard to remember which toy represents which character, but which line they were released in is second nature to me. Which also makes me disagree with the use of an unmodified "Universe" tag in the first place. --Khajidha 11:51, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
Okay? Precedent (even if we only consider toys) and the rule of KISS we apply to disambiguations isn't agreeing with you. The fact that Hasbro rebranded and sold some toys to crap stores doesn't change that. —Interrobang 12:05, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
Okay, I'll try to not make the same mistake again. --Khajidha 12:09, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
Does this actually belong on this page? Seems to me like it should be at the Community Portal instead. ---Blackout- 12:22, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
Sorry, got distracted. Put it on wrong page by accident. --Khajidha 12:24, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
Difficulty level?
Should we have an article on the "transformation difficulty levels" the toys bear on their packaging, and whatever relationship they might have to reality? JW 08:05, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
I keep getting logged out
For some reason, I keep getting logged out at random intervals, even if I select "Remember Me" at the login screen. ---Blackout- 10:47, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
How often? Logging in sets up some cookies which are set to eventually expire. They last a month or two at least though. --abates 17:05, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
I specifically said "random intervals". Also, the problem doesn't seem to be on the wiki's side, because it's happening at all wikis I regularly visit. (Specifically, this wiki, a Wikia one I run and am hoping to move, and multiple Wikipedias.) ---Blackout- 05:47, 30 October 2010 (EDT)
The default expiry for cookies in MediaWiki is 30 days, so that's probably what you're experiencing. --abates 22:44, 3 November 2010 (EDT)
The problem is it's happening much more often that 30 days.
Also, FYI, the problem is now only happening at this wiki. ---Blackout- 04:12, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Hmm, I don't know then - I can only suggest checking the expiry on the cookies in your browser and see when they're set to expire. --abates 04:51, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Ted Nolan interview?
A few places on this wiki mention Ted Nolan, who--as far as anyone can tell--made the first ever Internet post about Transformers. Well, looking at his address his gave in that post, he apparently still lives there, and this is very close to my residence, within easy driving distance. Would anyone be interested in seeing if I could set up an interview to see what he thinks after 25+ years? Thanos6 19:51, 3 November 2010 (EDT)
I imagine it might be of interest to some fans, but unless he's ended up working on the show or something, probably beyond the remit of this wiki. --abates 04:53, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Uh... maybe you should shoot him an email first? -hx 06:22, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Immediately show up on his doorstep without warning and ask him if Rumble is red or blue. --ItsWalky 08:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
I might be crazy, but I'm not stupid. Of course I would send him an e-mail or a letter or something first (though the image of pounding on the door and shouting "Ted Nolan! Your sins from the past have caught up with you at last, the Spawn Of Unicron are here to take you to The Pit!" IS amusing). Thanos6 17:11, 4 November 2010 (EDT)
Universe '08 Minicons + 'Energon fizzy jellies'
Browsing in The Entertainer I found 5 packets with the '08 universe logo on the top but lacking any Hasbro logo whatsoever. They instead sport the tag 'Boystoys' which is apparently a UK confection company. Inside comes a little packet of 'Energon fizzy jellies' and most surprisingly one of the 12 minicons previously released as a giftset in walmart I think. They were blind packed so I got Suppressor, Skyhammer, Knock Down and 2 Cloudrakers. I've never seen these before and neither had the cashier but they don't look like knock offs. Anybody with more wiki experience know where these should be filed, if at all?
Those sound like knockoffs to me. --NCZ 15:58, 5 November 2010 (EDT)
Well what's the quality of the paintjobs and the plastic on the Minicons like? --Detour 15:59, 5 November 2010 (EDT)
Thats them Detour- quality feels like the expected level of a genuine product. I've handled some of the KO G1 gestalts and these are nothing like those
Looks pretty official. Guess I a) need to read more carefully, and b) stop being so paranoid. --NCZ 16:10, 5 November 2010 (EDT)
Gobots on the wiki... again
I only just noticed that the Allspark Almanac II retcons the GoBots as being their universe's version of Transformers, and retcons Gobotron into a form of Primus. So, now that they're officially Transformers, Primus officially exists in their universe, AND they even have their own universal stream indicator (Gargent), should we include GoBots on the wiki as their own continuity family? There was some talk about this on the GoBots talk page back in August, but it never went anywhere. -- Semysane 16:32, 7 November 2010 (EST)
I second this, for the reasons Semysane enumerated so well. --Khajidha 16:46, 7 November 2010 (EST)
I'm for both GoBots and Robotix getting articles. —Interrobang 17:04, 7 November 2010 (EST)
Oh yeah, add my vote to Robotix, too. --Khajidha 17:07, 7 November 2010 (EST)
I don't know if I really want to have the "Allspark Almanac retconned something" argument again.--RosicrucianTalk 17:11, 7 November 2010 (EST)
I'm extremely uneasy with this. --M Sipher 17:27, 7 November 2010 (EST)
I strongly vote "no" on this. You want AN article, structured like we have with, say, Visionaries? Okay, fine. But all 100+ characters and as many hours of fiction? No. The Almanac's 25-years-after-the-fact out-of-universe retcons notwithstanding, GoBots and Robotix have nothing to do with Transformers. Jeeper Creeper never appeared in any Transformers fiction, never interacted with any Transformers characters, is completely unrelated to any and all Transformers concepts, and does not belong on a Transformers wiki. I think it speaks volumes that like 11 months after people voted "oh yeah, we'll start a GB wiki too" actually nothing has been done. There's very little knowledge, interest, or drive behind the topic. And there are probably five or six orders of magnitude less knowledge, interest, or drive behind Robotix. Including them would demean and dilute everything we've put together here and the interests that led us to try to put it together in the first place. So, again, I vote no. --Thylacine 2000 21:42, 7 November 2010 (EST)
Complete agreement. You want to chronicle everything GoBots that wasn't in TFs, then put forth the effort to make a separate GoBots wiki. I'll certainly help take pictures for it. But til then... --M Sipher 23:08, 7 November 2010 (EST)
Yes. Exactly. Make Robotix & Gobots overview pages, but not entries for every character or event. -hx 07:13, 8 November 2010 (EST)
Thylacine, the fact that nothing has been done with the GoBots wiki is not OUR fault, we've been trying to get it started, but haven't heard anything from the powers that be yet. You've participated in that discussion, so don't act like this is news to you. -- Semysane 18:56, 8 November 2010 (EST)
"The powers that be" do not have a global monopoly on the ability to set up a wiki. It's been a year. But regardless, the point remains that a systematic name-by-name treatment of GoBots / Robotix doesn't belong here. --Thylacine 2000 22:12, 8 November 2010 (EST)
And why not, exactly? They are officially Transformers now. -- Semysane 23:42, 8 November 2010 (EST)
No they aren't. There's something called "GoBots" and something called "Robotix" that represent real TF continuities, deserving a brief writeup (at most). Almost none of the characters and events from GoBots, and none whatsoever from Robotix, have ever appeared under the Hasbro label and thus are not official TF product, and will never be appropriate for inclusion here under these conditions. The ones that have actually existed within TF qualifying conditions--about 8 GoBots from about 3 stories plus some background easter eggs--are already here. Adding in every other GoBot because "they're a team" would be no less absurd than adding in every single Marvel superhero that never appeared in Transformers, just to match up with the small handful of Marvel superheroes who did appear in Transformers and are already here. Where are our articles about Daredevil and Phoenix and Baron Zemo? You can't just namedrop a universe and then expect all its uncounted thousands of inhabitants, locations, and historical events to be pertinent. --Thylacine 2000 23:55, 8 November 2010 (EST)
Try actually READING what I'm saying instead of responding to what you WISH I was saying. They didn't just namedrop the universe, it was said specifically that the GoBots are their universe's version of Transformers and specifically that Gobotron is a form of Primus. That is not just namedropping the universe. -- Semysane 00:14, 9 November 2010 (EST)
Which doesn't change that >99% of the GoBots stuff did not ever appear in any Transformers-branded fiction or toyline, and therefore has no place on this wiki. --M Sipher 00:51, 9 November 2010 (EST)
Junkions
I want to tackle the Junkion character articles one of these days, but after attempting to write the first two, I figure I need some advice on how to deal with the loose definition of a Junkion character. Most Junkion models represent multiple characters that are discernable either only because they stand next to each other in one shot/panel or because they have different colors, and then one still wouldn't know which color represents the "character" as named in TCA (don't have the book, but I doubt it contained colored versions of the Junkion models). Then there's models that were used for non-Junkions, most of which are pretty clearly not the same character, but some, like hood Transformer and pole vault Transformer, are ambiguous. So, what'd like help on is an idea how to write character articles on characters that are not defined as characters. Geewunling 05:00, 8 November 2010 (EST)
Keep me in the loop on this. I think I'd be the logical person to curate this material, and I'm always up for giving to a good cause. --Jimsorenson 16:32, 9 November 2010 (EST)
Okay, so Monzo has registered an account and is bidding on the first draft of TFTM. Are there any other ones we think warrant significant time/financial investment, or should we just hope for the best? -hx 10:54, 10 November 2010 (EST)
1) Please don't tell me that both Monzo and Jim are bidding on the same thing. 2) The Wiki has a cash surplus at the moment. I'm in favor of donating it to the cause, but I want to get some yeas first, since it's not technically my money to spend. --ItsWalky 21:38, 11 November 2010 (EST)
Don't worry, Monzo and I (and a few other serious bidders) are coordinating our efforts to try to maximize the benefit to the fandom and minimize our own financial outlay.--Jimsorenson 22:20, 11 November 2010 (EST)
You have my vote to use the money, as this is to acquire unique research material pertinent to our subject. --Khajidha 07:04, 12 November 2010 (EST)
You have mine too. ---Blackout- 07:08, 12 November 2010 (EST)
I wouldn't have posted it here if I wasn't in support of the wiki getting involved. -hx 09:27, 12 November 2010 (EST)
Aaaaaand Jim has some money. --ItsWalky 10:13, 12 November 2010 (EST)
Interview for Examiner journalist about Wikia history
I am a "citizen journalist" writing for Examiner.com about issues related to bad management practices and content concerns at wikis on the Internet. I am working on a new piece that will focus on the current defection trend from Wikia to new wiki sites, based on dissatisfaction over the Oasis skin and how it's been handled by Jimbo, Gil, and company. If there is a senior "bureaucrat" or owner/stakeholder here who would be willing to talk on the record about how this wiki split from Wikia, I would appreciate setting up a time we could talk for an interview. My e-mail is ResearchBiz (at) gmail.com. I am not at all likely to check back here, so please correspond by e-mail. Thank you! -- Thekohser 09:58, 11 November 2010 (EST) (Gregory Kohs)
I sent him a link to [2]. --ItsWalky 10:59, 11 November 2010 (EST)
Redirects with parentheses
An issue came up on the Talk:Dead End (Prime) page that should be discussed more widely. The modern continuity Dead End is actually spelled "Deadend". There is a Movie character who was called "Deadend" in a novel, but his actual page is at "Jolt (Movie)". Should the modern continuity Deadend be at "Deadend" or should it be at "Deadend (Prime)" since there is another character named "Deadend"?
I think "Deadend" may be a bad example since it may be considered just a mistake in the novel and end up an exception to the rule. But what about as a general policy? The question boils down to if there should be alternate name redirects with disambiguation parentheses. Examples: "Rodimus Prime (G1)" => "Hot Rod (G1)" , "Orion Pax (G1) => "Optimus Prime (G1)" , "Tankor (G1) => "Octane" , "Axalon (Animated)" => "Alpha Supreme".
The arguments against using redirects with parentheses are that users will never use them and that they clutter up the search drop down box, potentially dropping off entries with actual pages.
The arguments for using redirects with parentheses are that they appear in the search drop down box and the user could go directly to the article they want. Also, if there are missing entries in the drop down box, that seems like missing information. Example, typing in "Axalon" drops down the terms "Axalon" "Axalon (Armada)" "Axalon (BW)" and "Axalon (disambiguation)" but no "Axalon (Animated)". It could escape the user's notice that there is even is an Axalon in Animated. If it was there, the user might be like, "Oh, cool, there was an Axalon in Animated." <click>
My opinion is that the potential for dropping off actual pages from the search box is a good argument. But I really like the alternate names to show up. Could the search box be made bigger? - Starfield 12:10, 18 November 2010 (EST)
Hm, I just posted over at Tornado (Marvel) about this kind of thing, then saw this. I think it has to be looked at on a case-by-base basis, but for some reason all the Skyscorchers have redirects from their European names (even though we don't do this for Japanese names, do we?) leaving a whole bunch of flashing links across the wiki. Surely we could cut that out? --Emvee 13:58, 18 November 2010 (EST) [edit] Just had the Skyschorchers' situation explained to me over at Tornado's page...that's probably a separate issue of its own. --Emvee 14:08, 18 November 2010 (EST)
While I can see both sides, I'm not sure the purpose of the search box is to alert people to things they didn't know about. Its purpose is to help people find what they're specifically looking for. Leave the "informative" functionality to the disambig page. JW 15:36, 18 November 2010 (EST)
But what if I'm specifically looking for the Animated Axalon? Without the redirect, I type "Axalon" and it's not in the list that drops down. Maybe I hit enter and go to the disambig page and see it there, or maybe I assume the page for it doesn't exist yet. --abates 16:51, 18 November 2010 (EST)
Is it technically impossible to have redirects be shoved to the bottom of the search box list, thus not "cluttering it up", but still having them appear? Mammalian Verisimilitude 19:22, 18 November 2010 (EST)
I simply think that every valid name for a character should have a redirect to the appropriate article because that article should be in that location as well. I'm not sure why the various Animated Supremes had their starship name redirects deleted, or why there is no redirect from "Rodimus (G1)". As abates said not having at least a redirect from Axalon (Animated) could lead to the impression of a lack of data, having the redirect shows that the data exists and where to find it.--Khajidha 08:33, 19 November 2010 (EST)
I agree with abates, at least some redirects with parentheses are needed, such as Axalon (Animated). --TX55TALK 09:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
Hey guys!
We seem to be nearing 12,000 pages. ---Blackout- 02:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)
Keep a sharp watch to verify which one is the milestone article, and I'll be happy to make up the icon and slap it on.--RosicrucianTalk 02:50, 22 November 2010 (EST)
"Generation 1 Autobots", etc. categories
I know we talked about this when the nationality thing went down, but is there any support or opposition to the idea of things like "Generation 1 humans" to help divide up the gigantic franchise character categories? —Interrobang 18:06, 21 November 2010 (EST)
I definitely support this idea to split the categories by categorizing characters by franchise and faction/race so things could be more sorted.. (I've used it for recent franchises in the wikia.) --TX55TALK 20:20, 21 November 2010 (EST)
We are so fucking NOT putting up categories by "race". --M Sipher 21:26, 21 November 2010 (EST)
I'm pretty sure he meant Transformer and human categories, dude. —Interrobang 21:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)
Yes, I only refer to Transformers (Autobots/Decepticons) and humans. I forgot there are other race. (oops) Thanks for explaining for me. :D --TX55TALK 04:26, 22 November 2010 (EST)
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that at this point. I think this is mainly about creating subcategories to break some of the ginormous categories down to more manageable size. For example, Category: Humans would have subcategories like Category: Generation 1 humans and Category: Unicron Trilogy humans. I would support that. --Khajidha 21:33, 21 November 2010 (EST)
Does anybody else care one way or the other? —Interrobang 15:14, 24 November 2010 (EST)
It would be a heck of a lot easier to find specific dudes, I'd love categories based on franchises. Antimatter 15:20, 24 November 2010 (EST)
It all sounds reasonable to me. --abates 16:08, 24 November 2010 (EST)
Categories based on franchises definitely sounds good. --TX55TALK 20:07, 24 November 2010 (EST)
Figures prone to breakage that aren't GPS could do with their own page (like the GPS list)
Seeing as my comment concerning PCC double clutch was removed yesterday I'd like to propose the creation of a list of figures that are known for being fragile and breakage as a result of poor construction and NOT GPS. Double clutch's ball joints for example or animated arcee's thumbs. Wouldn't be a definitive list by any means but more of a reference list for collectors whose figure just broke becuase of a common design flaw rather than the handling of the figure. Would be a useful reference list is all im saying.
I can see the merit, but it seems quite subjective...and ultimately every toy is prone to breakage. I could point to a load of my G1s that have "battle damage", and who's to say the movie toys of today won't be similarly beaten up in 25-odd years' time? --Emvee 17:57, 25 November 2010 (EST)
Comics Featured Characters
Would anyone mind if I excised the "Regular" and "Guest" subheadings in the Humans column? It screws up the numbering and it's not even consistent - Walter Barnett (for one) jumps from one heading to the other as the comic goes on. I'd go ahead and do it, but I thought I'd throw it out there in case anyone has any particular affection for them. --Emvee 15:24, 6 December 2010 (EST)
Please do. —Interrobang 17:07, 6 December 2010 (EST)
I didn't actually notice till just now, but Reachout is apparently the 12,000th article. Too bad he has nothing to his name whatsoever, but, uh, cheers. —Interrobang 20:36, 9 December 2010 (EST)
Or is it Airlift? The count shows 12,024 articles, and Reachout is only the 24th newest. Shouldn't the 25th newest actually be the 12,000th? --Bluestreak7 15:20, 10 December 2010 (EST)
Bluestreak's reasoning seems sound. Who was supposed to make up the milestone marker? --Khajidha 15:30, 10 December 2010 (EST)
Reachout was the second article on the list when we were at 12,001. The new article list isn't always accurate. --abates 15:58, 10 December 2010 (EST)
I'll buy that. I'm seeing Reachout as 26th newest currently. --Tigerpaw28 23:10, 10 December 2010 (EST)
Doctor Who connection?
Between the Octuses of various continuities who have been confirmed, either by authorial intent and/or the Almanac, combined with the pure and unquestionable fact that the same, individual Death's Head who interacted with the TFs in Marvel UK is the same that met the Doctor, can we note in this wiki that the Whoniverse(s) have a tangental connection to the TF multiverse and in doing so may well create one of, if not the largest fictional universes in existence? I am VERY excited about this. Solaris Prime 02:34, 12 December 2010 (EST)
I think we already note that the Whoniverse has a tangential connection to the tF multiverse - after all, the Doctor does have a page here, as do the Daleks. If it's massive fictional universes based on tangential connections you're after, you might be interested to know that Doctor Who forms part of the ever-expanding Westphallverse, see links below
I don't know if they count animated shows, but given the number of crossovers between all the various Sunbow cartoons it's totally possible that there's a link between at least one of them and one of the 280 shows in the Westphallverse, meaning that GI Joe, Inhumanoids, Transformers, Jem and the Holograms etc. would all share a universe with the Doctor. This universe also contains Red Dwarf, Buffy, Firefly, all the Star Treks, Lost and the X-Files. The only downside is that universe only exists in a 12 year-old boy's head. Multiverses are tricky things. --Emvee 05:31, 12 December 2010 (EST)
Hm, now I read it again, they don't count cartoons because it would make the universe insanely huge. --Emvee 05:50, 12 December 2010 (EST)
The point of Mr. P got some loopholes, but I admit I can't figure out how to retort him so far. (Because I'm barely familiar with any copyright statement of a Wikipedia-based system such as cc-by-2.0 or others.) Yes, apparently a person doesn't own anything which is not created by him/herself, but I don't think it is a good reason to take any screencap or scanned image without any recognition, since it is processed by another person. --TX55TALK 12:05, 15 December 2010 (EST)
Well just tell him it's not even a question of copyrights, but rather of Teletraan-1 wanting to have different content from TFWiki. Hence, no identical images. --Detour 12:11, 15 December 2010 (EST)
Right. It's not copyright, it's courtesy.--63.203.180.99 12:57, 15 December 2010 (EST)
I am laughing so hard at the assertion that our wiki is "so much fluff," when OUR wiki is just THEIR wiki but with twice the information! --ItsWalky 13:42, 15 December 2010 (EST)
Wow. That guy has got to take a reality check. (I took the liberty of posting that back there too.) --84.193.193.10 13:47, 15 December 2010 (EST) (-Blackout-, can't be bothered to log in)
While making fun of Wikia diehards is fun and warranted, I think posting why he needed a reality check instead of just laughter would have been more, well, useful. --ItsWalky 14:43, 15 December 2010 (EST)
I think the dude over there is trolling. --abates 18:09, 15 December 2010 (EST)
Thanks guys for giving advices and replying while I was away. Yes, it is "courtesy", the word I want to use. How come I forgot the word nor mentioning to keep the diversity between the two sites. Haha --TX55TALK 21:27, 15 December 2010 (EST)
Guess somebody want to keep the funny stay — by saying hahahaha(ridiculous plus hilarious) stuff. --TX55TALK 21:56, 15 December 2010 (EST)
Didn't we have a Transformers Appearances/References in Other Media page?
I could have sworn we did, mentioning stuff like Family guy etc. If we don't have such a page, would it be allowed to be created? Drmick 11:53, 18 December 2010 (EST)
Unless it's officially sanctioned by Hasbro, no, we do not mention Transformer appearances in other media. --NCZ 11:54, 18 December 2010 (EST)
If it ever existed, it would have been destroyed with fire in about 30 seconds. --ItsWalky 12:46, 18 December 2010 (EST)
Of course, if we did have such a page, we could use it as a lighting rod, keep anons from adding something to Soundwave's page every time Seth Green says the word "transformers." -- Semysane 16:28, 18 December 2010 (EST)
Of course, NO. Discussion over. --M Sipher 16:45, 18 December 2010 (EST)
Discussion not quite over. If the unofficial nature of the topic is the reason why it is not allowed, then there are several articles that already exist that are pushing boundaries on the wiki. I would have thought that the biggest problem would be it's size.Drmick 09:26, 20 December 2010 (EST)
Yeah, that'd be the other big reason. There's so many such references it would be impossible to keep track of them all. It would also involve making sure what's added there is actually a TF reference. And given all the Toms, Dicks and Harrys that'll come out of the woodwork to add such stuff, that's going to be more trouble than not having a page. Best not to get a larger headache for the sake of reducing a smaller one. --Tigerpaw28 12:44, 20 December 2010 (EST)
"Knockoff warning" for toy sections?
Just something that occurred to me... as I skimmed this page http://www.highendtfs.com/?q=node/17 and looked at alllllll the "could be mistaken for real and paid stupid money for" knockoffs... is there any objection to some form of link to this in the relevant toy sections? Sadly, the page lacks a "jump to" feature of any kind, but alerting people to the potential danger of dropping several hundred on what they think is a genuine Defensor box set... --M Sipher 02:50, 19 December 2010 (EST)
I think it skirts the line with our "we don't really discuss knockoffs" policy, but on the other hand, yeah, it's a useful bit of information, almost to the point where we could stand to have a special page about these specific knockoffs. I am not opposed to adding a link to that site, no, as long as it's got a massive and specific caveat attached to it (maybe even with a special template box thing ("A Prime Problem"-themed perhaps?)). Hell, maybe the highendtfs people would be willing to throw up navigation in exchange for the inevitable deluge of hits - anyone got contact info for the owner? -hx 09:11, 19 December 2010 (EST)
It's worth noting that there are some very well-done Henkei seekers knockoffs now, too. The really expensive ones even, like Thundercracker. Their sections could use warnings as well. -- Semysane 17:56, 19 December 2010 (EST)
Are they in knockoff PACKAGING that is meant to look like the real thing? That's the really tricky part. G1 MIB shit is much, much more expensive. --M Sipher 20:27, 19 December 2010 (EST)
I am not sure I want to attach more template boxes to pages as is. Especially over something like knockoffs. —Interrobang 20:55, 19 December 2010 (EST)
I'd thought about a template, but... ehn. I think a simple link under the TFU.info (or whatever), perhaps with a bolded "Knockoff alert" text. Like...
Thoughts? This would ONLY cover stuff that is in packaging meant to deceive you by looking as real as they can get it. --M Sipher 21:05, 19 December 2010 (EST)
I could agree with that. This is a step beyond your standard knock off crap, some notice might be appropriate.--Khajidha 21:44, 19 December 2010 (EST)
I think it is a good idea to have it, since it is useful. This is different from putting info of some KO or unlicensed products on the page. --TX55TALK 21:49, 19 December 2010 (EST)
Extension:Oversight
Quite a few times I've seen admins delete and undelete pages to clean out bad revisions. Why they do this I have no idea, since we have the Oversight extension installed.
Perhaps we should look into granting some people "oversighter" access? ---Blackout- 05:09, 25 December 2010 (EST)
Just in case anyone's interested. --84.193.193.10 10:54, 5 January 2011 (EST) (-Blackout-, can't be bothered to log back in)
NEWSFLASH: Nobody cares. --M Sipher 16:21, 5 January 2011 (EST)
Captcha to prevent spambots?
Is there any way we could implement captcha to account creation to prevent the spambot problem we're having now? I've seen other wikis use that measure. Maybe also disable new page creation by anons? —Interrobang 12:56, 6 January 2011 (EST)
We already have CAPTCHA implemented on the account creation service. --84.193.193.10 13:09, 6 January 2011 (EST) (-Blackout-, can't be bothered to log in)
