MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive22

[[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive22|0|-0}}|«]]	Community Portal / Archive22   e	[[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive22|0|-0}}|»]]
from~? to~? notes:

Login Problems

For some reason, recently whenever I try logging in using Opera 9.51, I get the following error: "Login error: You have not specified a valid user name." Yet I have no problems whatsoever logging in using Firefox. I know it's not Opera, because I haven't had any problems logging in before now using the same browser and version. Anyone have any idea what might have happened? Jeysie 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncertain. For what it's worth, I'm accessing the wiki on Firefox, and it's recently started logging me out after a few hours, both at home and online, even though I've specifically told it to remember me when I log in, which usually keeps me logged in for days unless I log out manually.--Apcog 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having the exact same trouble. -- Repowers 17:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer: Logging me out after a few hours despite checking "Remember my login on this computer". Opera: Same, plus the "Login error: You have not specified a valid user name." error message as stated above (and yet, I am shown as being logged in regardless). Worse, I can't edit articles in Opera anymore - anytime I hit "Show preview" or "Save page", I get redirected to an empty editing screen instead.--Nevermore 18:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto here with the Firefox issue. —Interrobang 18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And ditto here as well (FF) --MistaTee 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd almost forgotten... before I became completely unable to log in using Opera, I also had the same "blank editing screen" problem as Nevermore. Hrm, maybe Wikia's messing around under the hood somewhere? Jeysie 18:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikia? Make global changes to the code without checking them in "lesser used" browsers that then break the site? That wouldn't happen! You're making this up! -Derik 19:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

On the login problem, we think this is cleared. Please delete your cookies and clear you cache and log back in. Then please let me know if you still have login problems after that.On the editing issue, this is being worked on now - obviously it's high priority. Please let me know if this is seen on any other browsers... so far it seems to be Opera only.Sorry for the problems everyone, we'll keep an eye on this page for more reports. -- sannse<staff /> (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No go... I cleared my cookies and deleted my cache and I still can't log in with Opera. Jeysie 20:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I still have the problem with the FireFox 2. --TX55^TALK 22:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

An update on this. It seems it's not actually a login problem as such. The problem is in caching... you are logged in, but your browser won't recognise it. I'll let you know more when I hear it -- sannse<staff /> (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 3, two separate computers, each with recently purged cookies and cache. Does not seem to remember my login longer than a single session.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Two separate computers in two separate locations, each using a different browser, and it's the same goddamn problem in both. --M Sipher 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I call Shenanigans on Sannse's claim of it being a browser issue. I have not changed my browser settings in over a month. Clearly, the source of the problem is with something that has been changed. I'm wondering if Wikia realized they needed a way to get more logged out views. And I have proof that it is a site problem. The first cookie listed for transformers.wikia.com is named "__utmb". The cookie was created this morning (aug 15) around 9:00 AM. The cookie expiration time is August 15, 3:00:04 PM. That is a site problem, as the website dictates when cookies expire. --FortMax 19:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This sounds like Wikia's way of getting more page views from logged-out users (and thus ad views/revenue) from people who would otherwise not be seeing any ads. Who wants to take bets on when this whole 'logged in, no ads' thing will end? --FFN 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, is there, perhaps, a mroe pubic forum on which we might call shenanigans on this -Derik 20:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A dozen people all of a sudden experiences the same issues in at least three different browser types on multiple computers, all of them at the same time, no-one has expierenced the problem before, but sure it's a browser problem? Who the fuck do you think will buy into this shit?--Nevermore 20:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting can of worms I opened. I think you folks might be jumping the gun a little... I read this as a clarification of what the problem was in terms of what effect some recent code changes had (namely, it's not a login problem as we thought, it's a caching problem), not as a "we didn't do anything on our end, it's all you". Either way, though, whatever Wikia did, looks like it done mucked things up good. Jeysie 21:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

looking into it further, the cookie expires exactly 30 minutes after the last click on the wiki. --FortMax 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So one has to remain active on the wiki at least once per half hour to remain logged in? That's a nice little requirement that nobody ever announced. I'm sure someone can come up with a security reason to justify the idea, but really.--Apcog 21:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So yeah. Fort, you're on the SW wiki, yes? Care to bring this up there? And some of the "main" wikia problem report places? --M Sipher 21:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)I've found that, when I enter the Wiki at first, I'm logged out, but when I try to make an edit (like now), I'm automatically logged in for some reason. When try I edit in logged-out mode, it gives me the "loss of session data" page, and that's when I become logged in. —Interrobang 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• scratches head* You mean- Wikia knows who you are, and they're storing your username/password/whatever so that they CAN log you in again-- which they do when you try to edit... but UNTIL then, you get to see the ads instead?

Well, I'm sure it's an innocent mistake. -Derik 23:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an isolated case, at least. —Interrobang 23:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Now 'ahm' jus' a simple digital sharecropper, don' know much 'bout these-he'ya "Kookies" or "Ja-Vah" scripts, but it strikes me that if var _utimeout = "1800"; in allinone_loggedin.js, if that "1800" refers to seconds (which it a'pears to be, on account it's multiplied by 1000 later on,) then that there'd be the "30 minute timeout" what seems t' line up with a good many 'o the problems us TT1 users 'ave been reportin, wouldn't it?

if(_utimeout && _utimeout != "") {
 x = new Date(_udt.getTime() + (_utimeout * 1000));
 x = " expires=" + x.toGMTString() + ";"
}

I mean- that there's the URCHIN timeout- why would allinone_loggedin.js ever be referring to the google analytics cookie for a timestamp?

I'm not a complicated man, given over t' excessive book learning, but it almost looks like y'all've replicated the code from a' standard urchin.js file within y'all's allinone script! Which might, i grant you, make a bit'o sense... 'cept that y'all're still loading urchin.js! Is there some witchcraft by which the two urchinTracker() functions don't conflict with one another?

P'haps we should take a simpler, broader look a'the bproblems y'all be havin. Why, right now, Firebug tells me that allinone_loggedin.js is throwin 4 errors! That's 4 more than it usually does! (The fifth error on the page is our code. It refers to an ID that only exists under monobook, and fails gracefully. Not the source of the problem here- I just got one of our admins to blank it to confirm this.) Ya'lls seem to be failing less gracefully.

The rub he'ya is that allinone_non_loggedin.js ain't throwin those errors! And why- the version of allinone_loggedin.js y'all were running some two weeks back- it wasn't either! ...an the version of allinone_loggedin.js running on some other wikias. (Which is odd since it's the same file...)

...y'all runnin a special version of the software, 'jus for us? (We blanked our common.js, so it can't be anything we do...) Or is it just for our server, whatever that be? It strikes me that it'd be mighty useful, f'r the purposes of comparison, to know what other wikia are running the same versions of y'all's scripts that we are.

Sannse, c'n you tell us that? It'd be right nice to know!

Oh, and I'm not entirely sure, what with y'all's spagetti code? But I think the code that is causing all of us problems is trying to do something with y'all's ad-spaces.

The heck of it? (And this makes me laugh...) y'alls script only throws those errors under monaco. When I switch back to monobook- why- I get no errors 'tall! Can some of our users who're running monobook chime in? Are you having problems staying logged in? -Derik 00:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the cookies are just as short-lived under Monobook as under Monaco.--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I use Monobook, and have been having trouble staying logged in. THe only time I use Monaco is when I log back in after the cookie expires. Also, did you know some of the ads have a habit of covering Monaco's log in window? --FortMax 01:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll also grant that it's perhaps a moot point, as when one is not logged in it is by default a Monaco interface that is granting any cookies, allowing you to login, etc. Because, y'know, everything under the sun now defaults to Monaco until your login.--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but th' javascript errors (and one supposes, by definition, the login problems) aren't happening when you're logged out. That's what so puzzles me. ( perhaps when they altered their code so logged in users wouldn't see ads they neglected to adjust their javascript that expected the relevant ID's to be there? )

...are we actually saying that since the August 2nd update, Wikia has been throwing javascript errors, logging people out, and not functioning for Opera... and these 3 problems might be unrelated?

Well that's... that's just... "shameful" I think 'b the word for it. -Derik 01:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good: I'm still logged in both in Opera and IE after having last been on the Wiki last night. So it seems like the "timeout cookie" has been fixed. Bad: I still can't post anything in Opera, instead I still get redirected to that annoying blank editing screen. And for the record, I've upgraded from Opera 9.01 to Opera 9.51 the other night, so it's not like this is a problem specific to a particular version of Opera.--Nevermore 11:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Opera problems

The login problems have been solved, for IE as well as under Opera... But I still can't post anything with Opera. And I've already upgraded to the newest version. I get redirected to a blank editing creen every time I hit "save page" or "show preview".--Nevermore 11:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is Wikia doing that could interfere with such a basic function as posting a form? Are they proctoring it with Javascrtipt or something? -Derik 18:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nevamore. Sorry for the continuing problems. We have just changed the way we deal with caching on the wiki, which has helped a lot in most situations, but is affecting Opera badly. We are working on this and hope to have it resolved soon. -- sannse<staff /> (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

wikia seems to have screwed up redirects

Guess what? Redirects now redirect the url to the location of the page you get redirected to. This means no handy "(Redirected from x)" message at the top of the page. This also means you have to type in the url of the redirect page to undo a redirect. --FortMax 02:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Example? -Derik 02:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Orion Pax --FortMax 02:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, they are still there-- they've just been transformed into Javascript pop-ups. Why? ...I shudder to think. (No I mean really, why?) -Derik 02:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked why this change was made on the Monaco forum. We'll see what they say.Have they fixed the Opera problems yet? -Derik 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a no... I still can't even log in with Opera, let alone see if the editing problem still exists. Jeysie 17:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• shakes head in disgust* -Derik 08:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hey, wow... I speaketh, and I'm able to log in with Opera today. The editing problem still exists, though, so I only feel partly like a spoke-too-soon idiot. Jeysie 15:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

We are currently trying out an extension that fixes the problem of the URL showing as the redirected page rather than the target page. It seems to be working well on the wikis it's been tried on, but isn't ready for general release yet. Not least because, as you saw, the redirect text doesn't show on Monobook. It's been turned back off now, so all should be back as it was. -- sannse<staff /> (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer posting problems

Last night IE kept eating up my edits. All I got was a "page cannot be displayed" error page. Are you trying to keep people from posting altogether now?--Nevermore 14:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikia was having server issues yesterday. --FortMax 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the Monobook skin no longer seems to work under Internet Explorer. Fun. On the other hand, I seem to be able to post again under Opera at least when I use the Monaco skin.--Nevermore 11:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I was still having problems even though I was using Monaco myself, but it does indeed seem to be working today. Finally, I can edit with Opera instead of FF again! Jeysie 13:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Section naming conventions

I see MistaTee asked for more information about an idea I had for encouraging better naming conventions used for headers... like 3 weeks ago, but I just noticed it so...There's this... thing under CSS 2.1. It allows you to apply styles, (and even add some content) based on some really specific conditions, such as the names of headers Basically my proposal is that if you get a header 'right,' an icon appears next the header. Like- "Marvel UK [icon]." (The icon in this case might be something denoting a comic book. In another instance a TV... or something.)The idea is to encourage editors to get titles 'right' by training them to kook for the icon that's an indicator that "Yay, you've lived up to our best practices in naming conventions!" The icons themselves could be useful for scanning long fiction sections. "Okay, here's the cartoon stuff I wanted." But if they're not there... it doesn't negatively impact usability in any way. People with older browsers wouldn't see them- but they'd still reap the ephemeral benefits of their existence in that they would encourage a greater overall consistency in section naming conventions.This is a test file where I was messing with the idea. Just paste the following text into your monaco or monobook file.

@import "http://www.emopanda.com/tmp/monaco-testbed2.css";

Uh, this is a test file so I've got other stuff going on too. Ignore that. As you can see, instead of icons after the header I've got text-bits before them. It's atest file.But just for example, the (TV) flag is currently visible by any header ending in "cartoon," "cartoon continuity," "Cartoon continuity, "animated series," or "anime." All 5 are used, frequently, with no real 'leader' more common than the others. Comics are worse.This example uses end-matching because I wasn't interested in creating a list to match every cartoon series, let alone comic. But this system could be used to match full titles. So "Armada cartoon" would get the little (TV) icon after it, but "Armada anime" or "Armada animated series," or "Armada cartoon continuity" would not.I feel like this would be a good approach to take because it's subtle, and unlike other initiatives it doesn't require a massive updating spree- I think that as you were editing articles it'd just become the natural thing to do to get the names 'right,' and as awareness of a clear standard emerges (instead of the many, many different markups we use now,) I think people would get used to seeing the section headers formatted that way and would use that formatting without any outside encouragement.It degrades well, it doesn't place an unfair burden on editors, and even if we adopt this standard... there's really nothing stopping you from using a non-standard section name if that's what the bill calls for. Nothing breaks, the article isn't suddenly less usable... it's just a very gentle push towards conformity that (I think) would be pretty darn effective over time. -Derik 10:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

These sort of changes should really be announced more prominently. I noticed some of our contributors have been changing the section headings lately without explaining themselves. I didn't know what was going on so I changed things back, only for somebody to tell me that's not very useful. What's not very useful? --FFN 11:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the sections your referring to so I can't say. I do know we decided that the preferred section name for an animated series was "[series name] cartoon," about a year ago- but many other markups are still in use, and I don't know of any other naming standards we've adopted.

If the above proposal was adopted by the wiki, I assume we'd have a Help article detailing the correct naming standard in addition to the visual cues.

It's weird- for the longest time no one read or cared about the help or orientation articles, (since we were evolving the standards as we went, everyone knew them because they'd been there for their development) but I've begin to notice that as the wiki picks up new users... they actually read these things (incomplete patchwork though they be) and seem to demonstrate some awareness of what policies we have laid out vs. which ones we have not. (I suppose this is why a proper help/intro document is on Steve-o's wishlist for the move to the new server.) -Derik 12:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely like the idea of a little icon that appears for key terms like "cartoon" and "comic." ("Animated" should be right out, though, on account of the series by that name). In terms of the here-and-now, I support making that happen.

Ultimately, I also support the idea of a standardized "We call this series THIS and that series THAT" nomenclature, but there's been some debate over how to approach that. As far as I can tell, there are two sides so far: The formalist side (mine) that prefers detailed headers with universal application (such as "DW Generation 1 comics," which accurately describes a continuity and can function as-is in any article), versus the side that favors looser titles which depend on the continuity-note at the top of the page for context (such as "DW comic continuity," which lacks specific meaning on its own and can only be used in articles where the character stays in one continuity-family). The latter approach seems more prevalent, in some part due to its main proponent in the debate above going on a header-changing spree. There was no consensus before he did that, so if we want to establish a different standard for reals, I'm all for it. I'd like to redirect people's attention to my own experiment in section-naming and organization. For the record, I think the continuity-note as it stands is much too low in the visual hierarchy to serve the purpose of providing information that the headers (which are visually dominant) rely upon. If, in our redesign, we end up making the continuity-family of an article a core visual element, I think that would change the equation. But until then, I say the headers should be able to stand entirely on their own.

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

I like Jackpot's naming conventions, but whatever we decide on, let's be consistent going forth! Also, once we decide, it should go right into the style guide. --MistaTee 03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jackpot's conventions, and that's what I've been changing the section headers to in the articles I edit. Nobody seemed to notice or care until yesterday. —Interrobang 03:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, a reason just occurred to me why not to use icons for the words "cartoon" and "comic" and so forth: Some continuities transcend one medium. The BW portion of Timelines, for instance, goes from comics to prose to even an animated short. The G1 cartoon continuity, which can't really be labeled without the word "cartoon," includes some comics and manga. For some reason, I'm a lot more okay with saying "cartoon continuity" and hoping it's understood that it's not limited to cartoons than I am with actually putting a little TV icon there. I think it's because the wording is unavoidable, whereas an icon is us going out of our way to say, "THIS IS ABOUT CARTOONS!" I would suggest some other graphical treatment to signify "correct," like a color change or a box appearing behind it or something. Or, if we go with the more prescriptive approach of "correct is only a specific combination of words, like 'Generation 1 cartoon continuity'," then we can have ALL of the icons relevant to that continuity pop up. That would actually provide BETTER information because it would immediately clarify that the word "cartoon" (or "comic" or whatever) in the title doesn't mean the story is confined to that medium. - Jackpot 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Jackpot. The original discussion on Ricochet's page ended with FFN saying he agreed with you only if you would go back and make the countless changes yourself. You responded by complaining it wasn't consistent anyways. I took that as a challenge, and basically went back through every G1 character page to MAKE them consistent with a "well-defined pattern" as you put it. And hey, if the wiki decides we should go with a different set of naming conventions, I volunteer here and now to go back and undo all the modifications I did. But, at least now it IS consistent with itself for the most part.

Anyway, I'm against overdescriptive headers, especially the "Generation 1" titles that have been discussed. I think they're repetitive, ugly, and unnecessary. Just look at the Jetfire (G1) page before I changed it on July 25th. "Jetfire (G1) is an Autobot in the Generation 1 series. He appeared in the Generation 1 Cartoon continuity, subheading Generation 1 cartoon". I know you don't think it's "prominent" enough, but I don't see why we even have a label at the top saying "this character is in the Generation 1 continuity" if we're going to go through and repeat it again and again and AGAIN with every single header.

Here's a different sort of example from recent edits. In Marvel Comics, there's G1 and G2 comics. G1 also spun of the UK future timelines. Now someone like Hot Rod, who appeared in the G1, G2, and UK future stories, would need all the above headings. Roadbuster, however, never appeared in Generation 2. So while his Headings and Subheadings might technically be "Marvel Comics continuity -> Generation 1 -> UK future timelines", I took out the middle "Generation 1" subheading, because there's no reason to distinguish between G1 and G2 stories when the character doesn't even HAVE both. It's the same thing within a heading as between them. There's no need to write out "Dreamwave / IDW Generation 1 comics" unless you actually have to distinguish the G1 comics from Evolutions or Armada or whatever.

I know you think "Dreamwave comics continuity" is gramatically incorrect or something, Jackpot, so what about using the company icons as a convention throughout the articles: instead of "*BLANK* comics continuity", we could have the Marvel logo or the IDW lightbulb heading each section. --Xaaron 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, I disagree. What you call "overdescriptive", I call "exact"; I prefer to spell out just what the sections entail. Either way, can you please at least stay the fuck away from the "X continuity" format unless it's to link two sections? The "continuity" in "Dreamwave comics continuity" is unnecessary, and I'm amused that you don't seem to think that it's "overdescriptive". Ditto for stuff like "American Rebirth episodes". —Interrobang 07:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the "continuity" is really necessary, but when I first started "consistent-izing" headers, I think Walky changed a few of my "Dreamwave Comics" headers back into "Dreamwave comics continuity" headers when I tried to remove the word. I've written that part off as "not worth the argument".

And granted on the Hardhead stuff, at least -- I kinda got into a groove with the undo button. But the criss-crossing of the G1 cartoon stories really creates some confusion. For instance, on Ratbat you returned the Madman story to before the main text for the cartoon, because that's when it happened chronologically, but there's still Scramble City in the "Japanese" section which should -- chronologically -- be placed INSIDE the main cartoon text. Ditto for any Fight!! Super-Robot... Manga stories from other pages. This situation requires either more headers (season by season header breakdowns so that in-between stuff can be slipped in?) or less (one big block of "Cartoon Continuity" with Marvel US/UK style italicizing to distinguish?), but I'm not sure which. The current Ratbat page, at least, doesn't flow at all.

But really, the whole point of subheadings is that you don't have to BE so exact. By design, subheadings assume you read the heading above it in order to have the proper context. After all, under the heading of Toys, we have subheadings like Generation 1, Classics, and Titanium Series...not Generation 1 toys, Classics toys, Titanium series toys. For that matter, a truly "exact" set of headings would be "Hot Rod toys", and the subheadings "Hot Rod Generation 1 toys, Hot Rod Classics toys, and Hot Rod Titanium Series toys". Please tell me you can see how more exact is not better in that case. Well, just as we don't write "Hot Rod Fiction, Hot Rod Toys and Hot Rod Trivia" because the heading at the topic already tells you it's Hot Rod's page, why do we need to write "Generation 1" everywhere when it (usually) says at the top that the character exists in the Generation 1 continuity family? Again, the cartoon headings, granted...there may not BE a better label for the original series than "Generation 1 cartoon". But otherwise...?--Xaaron 08:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

On Ratbat, I forgot all about Scramble City. One thing we could do is include a note saying that it took place before the Movie. Alternately, we can up "Japanese continuity" before "Generation 1 cartoon", because the guideline seems to be whether takes place first chronologically goes first, but then we'd have to note that The Headmaters takes place after Generation 1. Either way seems sensible if we're going to keep the "Japanese continuity" header. As things go, it's less a nightmare than Megatron (BW), where I had to put notes everywhere. Have I mentioned how much I hate Beast Wars spinoffs?

On section headings, well, we're at an impasse, until somebody else comes in an supports a side. Don't worry, I'll resist the temptation to mess with the headings till we can get a better consensus. (At least we agree that "continuity" isn't really necessary.) —Interrobang 19:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In my ideal sectioning schema, I only spell out "Generation 1" in the first header that uses the term. After that, I abbreviate it "G1". Is this a compromise that everyone could live with? - Jackpot 17:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It isn't the length of the heading that bothers me, it's the repeating of "Generation 1", "G1", or "That early stuff" at all. --Xaaron 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we really are, as Interrobang says, at an impasse. Your company-logo idea doesn't address my concern for specificity, and my abbreviating idea doesn't satisfy your desire for absolute minimum wordage. Unless somebody comes up with a new idea that we all somehow agree upon, I guess the only way to decide is through sheer weight of support in the community. - Jackpot 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with the "G1", but something seems wrong with having "G1 comic continuity" and only having Marvel and classics under it. Dreamwave and IDW are definitely G1 comics also. A better name perhaps is need? Maybe "Original G1 comic continuity"? --MistaTee 20:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Something feels wrong about calling it "Original," but I can't put my finger on what. Maybe "G1 comics (1984)", like how we distinguish the two Universe franchises? - Jackpot 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought "Marvel (Generation 1) comics continuity" worked just fine, even if Classics wasn't published by Marvel. —Interrobang 20:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting Classics under a header that says "Marvel" has always bugged me, but I do think that allowances for that sort of thing have to be made if there is no alternative. Do you think that the alternatives MistaTee and I have come up with so far wouldn't work? - Jackpot 20:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Original" bugs me for some reason, too. "(1984)" and that sort of thing, I think, doesn't make it quickly apparent what continuity it is to the reader. But if you feel strongly about it, go ahead. —Interrobang 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I have the same concern about "(1984)", and I want to see how other people react to it. Thank you for the explanation. - Jackpot 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither "Original" nor "1984" makes sense to me. Classics takes place in the continuity established by Marvel Comics. It shouldn't matter that Classics itself is not published by Marvel Comics. It's the Marvel TF Universe: I don't see how the actual publisher of some supplemental stories is relevant. Removing "Marvel Comics" from the heading makes it even less clear what's going on, especially for newer people who started with Dreamwave or IDW comics and don't know that "Original" means "Marvel." On the flipside, I don't think anyone is ever going to be confused by the current set-up. No one is going to say, "Waitaminute -- Classics wan't published by Marvel Comics, so this can't be in the same continuity, can it?" --Xaaron 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo Xaaron's sentiment here. "Marvel Comics" works just fine. - Chris McFeely 21:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)