MediaWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive37

[[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive37|0|-0}}|«]]	Community Portal / Archive37   e	[[{{#sub:MediaWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive37|0|-0}}|»]]
from~? to~? notes:

Anonymous users

Right, the movie goes wide-release in the UK on Friday (I think there may be some previews on Thursday). Thinking about the chaos that may result [and noting that Memory Alpha - much to Wikia's displeasure - disabled ALL editing between the first opening of Star Trek and its' wide release in the US.]... I think we should give serious consideration to disabling anonymous editing from at least the 18th to the 26th of June.

Thoughts? Objections? Flames? - SanityOrMadness 22:26, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

I've been advocating that for over a month. It's the same thing we did with Animated: material is blocked for anons until it comes out in America. --Thylacine 2000 22:51, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

I wasn't talking about blocking specific pages, though (in the way a load of Animated pages were semi-protected) - just a blanket ban on anonymous editing until at least the 26th (and I would prefer a week or two beyond that). - SanityOrMadness 22:57, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

I'd much prefer if it wasn't a total block. Block anons on all the movie char character articles, etc. -Derik 23:02, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Block until a week after the movie's released in the States, namely the chara articles and the film page itself (who knows what poor soul will "unknowingly" put in spoilerific in the synopsis/trivia/notes/what-have-you). It's already difficult enough with the adaptation... --Lonegamer78 23:06, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm not just worried about spoilers, but about the casual vandalism associated with a sudden & short-lived spike in visitor numbers, which probably wouldn't be limited to the movie pages. - SanityOrMadness 23:10, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

If we do so, should we have a site-wide message like Memory Alpha? --FFN 02:08, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

At least I know we can use MediaWiki:Sitenotice, I'm not sure whether there is any other similar message. --TX55^TALK 07:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Wow, some serious US-centric bias being spouted. If you don't want spoiled, then don't visit. It's now well established internet etiquette to avoid forums about a week before a film's release. Same should apply here. Or..... wait til the DVD is released before unlocking movie edits, just in case you're stuck in Outer Mongolia at the time of the cinema release. Anonymous editing should be blocked, if only to stop the inevitable trolling and vandalism. 82.7.126.27 14:07, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Er, no. For one, the 24th is the world premiere, meaning the vast majority of countries are getting it on that date, not just the US.

For two, we need to be able to monitor all edits made to ROTF articles to make sure they're accurate and factual, and we can't do that if most of the wiki's regular editors haven't even seen the movie.

So this has less to do with spoilers, and more with the entirely practical aim of being able to keep tabs on all ROTF edits effectively. --Jeysie 14:19, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Gosh, thanks, I'll take your advice under consideration.... wait, no, I really won't. If you have a problem with "U.S.-centric bias," you are in the wrong place: this is openly stated as a U.S.-centric wiki. We blocked anonymous edits to the new Animated episodes that for some damnfool reason were aired first in Dubai, until they were uploaded online for everyone to see. Our U.S.-based editors shouldn't have to stop working on a website that, to a large extent, they created, just out of fear that some collection of I.P. numbers will thoughtlessly spoil the movie for them. Better to just anon-protect all the movie-related pages until after all the major markets have had their premieres. --Thylacine 2000 15:12, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

My vote is for blocking all anons from the movie-related pages for at least one week after the world premier, maybe two. I would not be opposed to a site-wide block, however. I really have no interest in cleaning up after a flood of one-timers and trolls and crap. -- Repowers 15:23, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Hey, I'm all for the lockage. But to stop the wave of trolls that will come. Not because Americans seem to think they have the <insert deity>-given right to subjugate the free speech of others who have the rare opportuity to experience something before the Americans do. That hardly ever happens. America gets everything first; cars, movies, fat, gadgets, first dibs on invasion etc. Thankfully they don't get irony first.82.7.126.27 15:38, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Did you even read the post where I pointed out the vast majority of TF fans, both US and non-US, won't be seeing the movie before the 24th, because the vast majority of countries in general aren't getting it until the 24th?

Basically, all TF fans not in the UK and Japan aren't going to be getting to see the movie before the 24th. It's not as if we're making editing wait because everyone else is getting the movie early and the US is the only country that isn't.

All of our Canadian, Australian, non-UK European, non-Japan Asian, etc. editors are likely equally glad we're waiting. Maybe you should stop and actually think before you go off spouting jerkass strawman accusations. --Jeysie 15:46, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Are you intentionally aiming for self-parody, or did you actually seriously just try to frame your potentially being locked out of our privately-run, privately-financed web site about giant alien space robots for a few days as a freedom of speech issue? 'Cause that right there is some serious comedy gold, sir. -- Repowers 15:54, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm afraid there are no Internet Oscars for maudlin self-victimization, otherwise you'd be a shoo-in. Here we only talk about Transformers. You are free to start doing that any old time. --Thylacine 2000 15:55, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Hahaha, did he just equate being able to post to a wiki about cartoon robots for a few days... to the right to free speech? Man, and I thought education was bad over HERE! --ItsWalky 21:03, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

One derailment later...

So, then, back on the subject... I still think we should do it. Mr Anon isn't making me think less of it as an idea. And yes, a MediaWiki:Sitenotice would be essential. - SanityOrMadness 21:33, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

So, we're all for blocking anons for a week after the 24th? --Lonegamer78 00:31, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

They're gonna get pissy, but sounds good to me. But what about the editors who can't log in, is that still a problem?--AWT88 09:52, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Most likely. --FFN 12:48, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Which editors who can't log in? The problem with IE users not being able to log in was fixed when McFly fixed all the other problems on the site. I haven't heard of any reports of anyone else having the problem... --abates 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

It's not a case of being technically unable to log in. Its a case of NOT DESIRING to log in because people are at work or at school or where there are shared computers. When I was at school, I certainly didn't want to log in, and a few other people felt the same way. --FFN 04:09, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Ah! Of course. --abates 04:46, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

"Transformers Comic"

Okay, I've got three issues at present with the titling treatment of the Titan Movie comics:

1. Ambiguity - if you look at, say, Transformers Comic issue 9, there's at least three Transformers #9s with no subtitle - Marvel G1 US #9, Marvel G1 UK #9, and Titan Movie #9; and currently the only one at "Transformers Comic issue 9" is the Titan Movie issue
2. DO we go by issue, or by story? - We're all over the shop on this:
   • The Marvel US issues are all at the story titles, but these pages incorporate any "Transformers Universe" bio material
   • The Marvel UK issues almost all have multiple stories or parts of stories, and I think there may even be some issues with multiple UK-originated/non-reprint stories, and each story is at its' own page, which incorporates multiple issues (e.g., Time Wars), leaving aside editorial and other non-story material.
   • The Marvel G2 issues almost all have backups, sometimes nominal, sometimes not, and they're all at the title of the lead/non-"Tales of Earth" story (e.g. New Dawn).
   • The first Panini Armada issue is at the story title (First Encounter!), while the rest are at "Panini Armada issue X" (e.g., Panini Armada issue 2).
   • The IDW issues are at the issue title even where the issue is split into multiple, titled. stories (e.g. The Arrival issue 4)
3. The actual title of the Titan Movie issues - Titan Movie v1 #22-25 are actually titled Transformers: Universe #22-25 (mostly in reflection of it absorbing the cancelled Animated comic), but are still at "Transformers Comic issue XX"; while v2, titled Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen #XX, is at the truly bizarre "Transformers Comic 2.XX". Really, just because the letters page said 2.x once, rather than "Revenge of the Fallen (Titan) issue X", which is what's on the cover?

What are we doing with this? - SanityOrMadness 21:17, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

As I've said before, I do NOT favor consistency here. A one-size-fits-all approach will inevitably fail to encompass the widely variable situations with various comic series.

The Marvel US book are under the story titles because, for all intents and purposes, the story and the issue are one and the same. Likewise for most of Dreamwave's G1 run. Sure, we could move 'em all to "The Transformers issue 2 (Marvel US)", but what do we gain? How is this any better than "Power Play!"? What is the benefit? Mere consistency is insufficient reason.

This is much, much less true with the UK comic, where stories were broken into two and even three parts, and multiple stories shared page space in the same issue. Now, I've heard rumblings to the effect that each UK issue should have its own page, and there's merit to that, insofar as each issue's contents are a mixed bag - minicomics, letters pages, and pieces and parts of various stories. It might make sense to have a page for each issue, basically a list of its contents, with See main article links to the entire story -- so, say, UK #88, #89, #90, or whatever, all link to a single page for "Target: 2006".

With G2, it absolutely makes complete sense to combine the two stories. The "backup" strips are such in name only; they are absolutely integral to the main strip, and neither can be read without the other. Separating "Tales of Earth" bits into their own pages is only going to confuse things and make them less informative. Furthermore, the main strip clearly is the MAIN strip. It makes sense to cover the whole story under that strip's title. Our current system for G2 acknowledges this, while still distinguishing between the contents of each section. The alternative is to move each page to "Generation 2 issue 2" or whatever... and I don't see what we gain by doing this.

The Titan comics should be moved to whatever the cover and indicia call them. If they're just Transformers or something equally generic, well, that's what parenthetical disambigs are for. Likewise for the ROTF reboot. A simple (Titan) should cover the bases well enough, yes?

A recent trend has been issues with 2 discreet stories, such as the Animated books you mention. I've long been in favor of having a single page for the issue for such books, with See main article links to the individual stories within them - so "Animated: The Arrival issue 2" would be a list of stuff, with two prominent links within to pages about the two stories it contains. Still, I can understand if people see that as unnecessarily messy -- so long as they can agree that, since the stories are pretty much co-equal, it would make no sense at all to give one or the other naming precedence.

So, that's my take. Case-by-case basis FTW, baby. -- Repowers 21:43, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Also, to address item #1 specifically... if we do stick with "Transformers" as the title, there should be a disambig note for Transformers at the top. Unless "Comic" is in the title, it shouldn't be in there. I'm thinking the article names should be "Transformers issue 1 (Titan)", etc., with the parenthetical at the end of the page title, rather than the middle.

These books generally have stories from different continuities, don't they? That's a point in favor of separating the story content out from the containing issue. -- Repowers 11:19, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Personally I've been using "Comic issue" because that's what the pages were before I started adding to the wikli, and "issue 2." stuck with the former way of numbering things (and was easier to type...). If naming them after the title (so from #22 it's Transformers Universe or Transformers ROTF etc) would make more sense, I'd be happy to go with that.

As for whether or not to have specific issue or story pages, I'd say if we're going to have individual pages for each issue of IDW and Dreamwave miniseries (not to mention multi-parters in the cartoons), it wouldn't make sense not to for Titan. There's already a precedent that if we do this for post-Marvel comics. -- Charles RB 20:25, 19 June 2009 (GMT)

Non-movie (Movie) characters vs. movie (ROTF) characters with the same name

Anyone else think we should, at the very least, have {{disambig2}}s on pages like Jetfire (Movie) and Mudflap (Movie) to the ROTF characters of the same name? Yes, I realise users could go via the disambig page, but I see it as making things simpler & easier for newbies, and in that scenario one click is always better than two. - SanityOrMadness 22:20, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

I think I'd cautiously support adding a {{disambig2}} for characters of the same name within the same continuity if there seems like a good chance for confusion. I'd oppose imposing it as an across-the-board standard though. (You're nto suggesting that though.) -Derik 22:23, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

I oppose it on the principle that multiple disambig templates on a page is ugly. —Interrobang 22:47, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Ugly, and you can get to where you need to go through the disambig. --ItsWalky 22:48, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Here's the thing though - is it intiutive for a complete newbie, who came in via ROTF, to see "Optimus Prime (Movie)", "Bumblebee (Movie)" and "Megatron (Movie)" and not immediately conclude that the Jetfire article will be at "Jetfire (Movie)", rather than some incredibly obscure card-puzzle that even we don't have a final picture for?

Hell, even take it a step up from "complete newbie" to someone who sat through Beast Wars/Machines or Armada/Energon/Cybertron, where characters changed bodies between series so that they had very little resemblance to their prior selves (in the UT's case, without any explanation). Those guys might assume that "Mudflap (Movie)" *is* Skids' twin even if he bears no resemblance to him. And it was a guy making that exact mistake and getting reverted by you last night that caused me to post this.

I really think a BIG, prominent link DIRECTLY from the obscure (Movie) character to the prominent (ROTF) character is required. - SanityOrMadness 20:26, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

As long as there's a link to the same-universe namesake in the intro, I see no need for an additional disambig template. - Jackpot 01:21, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

And on that note, I added just such a line for Mudflap (Movie). It seemed especially appropriate for him, since he's an Autobot wannabe who precedes an actual Autobot of the same name. That having been said, though, I don't dislike the {{disambigrotf}} template you cooked up, Sanity. It's a little unwieldy, but it's probably as succinct as such a thing could ever be. - Jackpot 00:46, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I did the same for Jolt, who had the wal-mart version for the first movie and it was deleted... I was told "that's what disambig is for." Cliffjumper prime 01:12, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, I'm generally in favor of intro-links because they allow for a bit more elaboration. If it's just a disambig, then we're presenting the characters as though they are definitively separate individuals with no connection to each other, even though in most cases there's just too little evidence to say one way or t'other. The absence of information is, itself, noteworthy. - Jackpot 02:57, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I favour user-friendliness over concerns about how ugly or pretty it makes things look. I think those of you arguing about how ugly it makes things look and disambig3 doing the job are working under the assumption readers are fairly knowledgeable about how this wiki operates. I find that attitude to be rather unhelpful and presumptive. --FFN 04:13, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Indeed. I still have a problem with not redirecting "Optimus Prime (Energon)"->Optimus Prime (Armada), "Optimus Primal (BW)"->Optimus Primal, "Optimus Prime (ROTF)"->Optimus Prime (Movie), etc. It seems almost wilfully inconsistent to not have an equivalent parenthetical available for every character in a series to aid in newbies' browsing & editing. - SanityOrMadness 09:01, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I don't like the expanded ROTF disambig box. I like how Charles RB did it on the Sideswipe (Movie) page. A little tack-on to the continuity note. Although in Sideswipe's case I think the pages could actually be merged. - Starfield 10:11, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

As opposed to assuming that every reader is retarded and can't figure out Jetfire (Movie) is not the same character as Jetfire (ROTF)? —Interrobang 13:43, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Go look at pictures of the UT Hot Shots and get back to us (NB: First example which leapt to mind, but by no means the only one).

It's not as if there isn't precedent for stuff without any real resemblance to each other to be randomly declared the "same character" in Transformers. Especially since "Jetfire (Movie)" is no character at all - SanityOrMadness 14:32, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Why on god's green earth would someone look at a page called "Jetfire (Movie)" and assume that they have NOT found Jetfire from the live-action movie series? Why would the expected, logical, inevitable response be, hey, there must be another guy by the exact same name in the movie series! ? That's like, the exact opposite of retarded. It's unretarded. It's logical. The truth of the matter, that there's two guys in the same continuity with the exact same name, doesn't make a damn lick of sense.

Assumption of prior knowledge is a rampant problem in this fandom. Around here we're supposed to be smarter than that, though! We should be able to step back from our microscopic inspection of things and say, "Hey, this whole deal really is retarded. Let's clarify it." Thus I am heavily in favor of liberal disambiguation. Not only does it make things clearer for the reader, it also increases the chances of the reader working their way into the obscure backwaters of the site -- which is what we want, is it not? If it makes the page look "ugly", well, that's OUR problem, isn't it? Why should the reader experience suffer because of a shortcoming on our end? Maybe we need to expand our diambiguation template options, instead of rejecting the notion on aesthetic grounds. -- Repowers 16:14, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I'd agree with not keeping this in the disambig. Though I see pages that had it outside the disambig section have been edited, so I presume it's now the policy to keep the information there? -- Charles RB 00:56, 20 June 2009 (GMT)

Well said. I agree without reservation.

And on that note, I'd not only like to see more liberal redirecting (really, if "Optimus Prime" appears in Energon there is no way on Xal's green Earth there shouldn't be a valid "Optimus Prime (Energon)" page, even if it's just a redirect), but ALSO a general desnarking of mainpics (not captions, the actual pictures themselves) - stuff like the "self portrait" on Grimlock (G1) or the Cyber-Slammers pic on Brawl (Movie) (why... I mean WHY?!) only - and I quote from {{desnark}} - "interfer[es] with the delivery of information on th[e] page." Have the pics on the page, sure, but NOT as a mainpic. - SanityOrMadness 17:49, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

That Cyber-Slammers pic will be removed over my fucking dead body. --ItsWalky 17:57, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Why?

No, really, why? The jokiness is stated, in an official policy, as being all right as long as it doesn't replace something more useful. The whole point of a main pic is that it's the ur-version of a character, the single most representative version. If you need a pic of the character to show off how it would look in most people's minds, it would be a strong candidate if not a shoe-in.

Other than you, WHO THE HELL WOULD THINK OF THE CYBER-SLAMMER FIRST?! - SanityOrMadness 18:22, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I don't see why the Cyber-Slammer image is anti-information. It's a perfectly good image of Brawl/Devastator! Just not one that you particularly like. And it's not just me. It's not like I put the image there! The only people I've ever seen speak out against the image are you and random anons. So there. --ItsWalky 19:24, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

The only problem I see with spare diambigs like "Optimus Prime (Energon)" is that if you're typing in "Optimus Pr" into the Search box, a list of "Optimus Pr*" pages is gonna come up. It's already a long list, limited by our software to 8 results. With the extra disambigs, potentially useful results might scroll off the list entirely.

As for the images... eh. We're not *that* rampant with the jokey images. More importantly, you can scroll down Grimlock's page and quickly see lots of pictures of him across various media. The main pic isn't significantly inhibiting the flow of information, IMO. For Brawl... we *could* use a few more full-body shots of him near the top of the page, last time I checked at least. -- 99.151.96.72 18:11, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Redirects are automatically flagged in several ways by the software - is there really no way to either exclude them from the search suggestions, or (preferably) just throw them to the bottom of the pile?

Yes, but every time I've suggested doing just that instead of the zealous (overzealous, IMO) purging of redirects, someone comes up with like 3 examples where "we really want this redirect to show up." And those 3 examples somehow outweigh the 3000 links you don't want in the search suggestion box. -Derik 20:26, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

And no, we're not "that rampant" - all the more reason that we shouldn't be doing it at all. Like I say, the whole point of a main pic is to show the single most identifable version of the character in one shot. The two examples I mentioned (I'm sure I could find more, but those are the two which stick in my head) are completely the opposite - a kid's-scrawl "self-portrait" from an obscure 5-page B&W Marvel UK backup, and a version of a character that barely resembles the movie/fiction model. - SanityOrMadness 18:22, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

WHERE WILL SOMEONE FIND A PICTURE OF GRIMLOCK IF NOT AT THE TOP OF THE TFWIKI ARTICLE?! -LV 20:09, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I withdraw my "ugly" comment now that we have the disambiguations melded into a single table. I just didn't want a tower of them. I see no reason for not doing it this way we're doing it now. --ItsWalky 16:29, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

"Wanted Pages" clean-up

The Wanted Pages list is cluttered with links to pages that... aren't wanted at all. There's a big chunk of that list that are actually just links from discussions, along the lines of: "I don't know if this is the right name for this page. How about we name it 'Alternate name 1' or 'Alternate name 2'?". There are also quite a few links that come from userpages, that do nothing but clutter up the list; "My favourite tv shows beside transformers are 'Beavis and Butthead' and 'Batman'."

All these unnecessary links make the Wanted Pages hard to navigate through at times... Creating pages that appear on that list is the main way I contribute to this wiki, but it's getting harder to do so when half the links I find there aren't necessary. However, it felt quite rude to just go into someone's userpage and edit what they had written about themselves, or change other people's words in a discussion. Would it be ok to actually go through these pages and tweak them a bit? Like just killing the links themselves? Or for something along the lines of the user's page, just changing the links to an outside site, such as Wikipedia?

Additionally, it'd be nice to encourage people not to create random links like this all the time... I'm sure if you put quotation marks around your suggested link name, people will understand thats a link you're suggesting, you don't actually have to create a link that goes nowhere. Any opinions? --Ascendron 14:50, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Bluestreak7's been doing this sort of thing already, so I don't see why it'd be a big deal.

If you're worried about userpages, and you see the person's still an active editor after checking their contributions, you can always just leave them a quickie note about the matter on their talk page. (If the person hasn't edited in a long time, I'd say just go for the change yourself.)

Plus, there's no particular reason why you'd need to actually change a person's words: you can either just remove the link, or create a piped link to the correct link, whichever is more appropriate.

Also useful would be going through and fixing any links that are spelling errors or alternate ways of linking to an already existing page or already "wanted" page. I try to do that myself from time to time, but they're not always easy to catch, especially if they're for people/things I'm not familiar with. --Jeysie 15:22, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Heh, I had no idea that my pet project had got any notice. One thing I have noticed is there is a good percentage of "wanted pages" that come from talk pages. Many times when editors are figuring out how to name the particular page they actually wiki-link to multiple choices. It would be nice just to put them in quotes or such. I think we'll all understand what it means when discussing possible titles. I'm hesitant in modifying these talk pages until we come up with some sort of standard. However, I'm not hesitant in removing dead links from user pages. Many users are now unregistered since the bookworm crash. All those are fair game in my opinion to remove any links. In the past few weeks we've gone from more at least 4866 to less than 4500. That's a good start. --Bluestreak7 22:32, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Doctor Braxis/Doctor B

Withered Hope has a redlink for the Go-Bots Dr. Braxis character, but apparently he is only identified in the actual story as "Dr. B." Two questions:

1) If I start the article, should it be as "Doctor Braxis" (what we know is his real name, and what the redlink already points to) or "Doctor B" (which, technically, is all he's called in TF fiction)? (such as Nick Fury vs. 'Nicholas')

2) How much non-TF info on the doc would be appropriate to include in said article? Especially as there's no GoBots wiki as there is for, say, Marvel, Star Wars, or Godzilla that I could provide an external link for...

I know that when it comes to crossover stuff, most every Wiki has their own policy on handling it, so I just wanted to check. Thanks in advance! Thanos6 04:54, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

I'd create it at "Doctor B". Then give the "Fiction" section that explains his role in Withered Hope. Then a "Trivia" or "Real world' or some such section that explains "This guy is Doctor Braxis, he was a bad guy from Go-Bots." I'd say err on the side of too much info and then we can edit it down. Hooper_X 09:09, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

OK, here's the first version of the article. Doctor B. Thoughts? Thanos6 05:55, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

I've done a bit of formatting. I have to wonder if we shouldn't just be treating the GoBots show as another branch of TF fiction. Hasbro owns the whole lot now, don't they? --abates 06:19, 9 July 2009 (EDT)