User talk:FFN
You don't need to put underscores in links. The format is just [[something (whatever)|something]], not [[something_(whatever)|something]]. --Monzo 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright thanks, though I might forget and put them anyway, occasionally. --FFN 17:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Miranda II
And there I thought someone would complain about bashing, or something. :) - Chris McFeely 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure Energon is fair game. You know, like NAMbLA. --ItsWalky 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, when you ruin a perfectly good, interesting character by resurrecting him as a gorilla-like dump truck who serves only as slapstick comic relief (and not even good comic relief), you deserve everything you get, stupid Takara Marketing and WE'VE! *shakes fist of fanboy fury* --FFN 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Man. Demolishor's article needs, like, made not crap. - Chris McFeely 20:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to do so. I get too fanboyish for this wiki whenever I write about stuff I like (like Armada Starscream). --FFN 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Man. Demolishor's article needs, like, made not crap. - Chris McFeely 20:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, when you ruin a perfectly good, interesting character by resurrecting him as a gorilla-like dump truck who serves only as slapstick comic relief (and not even good comic relief), you deserve everything you get, stupid Takara Marketing and WE'VE! *shakes fist of fanboy fury* --FFN 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Formatting
It's not all that messy-looking if the main image juts into fiction section some of the time. I find it's a case-by-case scenario. Miranda II looked fine with the jut, but not so much to make it worth editing it back the other way. It's not a hard and fast rule, is what I guess I'm saying. --ItsWalky 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is by having the main picture jut into the main text body, you have the text bunched up to one side, and it pushes the edit link into the middle of the screen. Frankly that looks chaotic.
- Not really. Not on that article, no. It just looked like text wrapped around an image. To me, it looked much cleaner the other way. See how subjective this is? --ItsWalky 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- The way I see it, we should use it when the article has relatively few sub-sections (which leads to a smaller Contents menu), or when the main picture is relatively long (like a profile picture of a character). Or when using it doesn't create a huge gap between the introductory text/main pic, the contents menu and the main body of text in the article. --FFN 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can't you just... make the image smaller if this is such a problem? I find blank white space to be incredibly hideous, moreso than a misplaced edit link. Interrobang 17:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Depends on the picture itself. Some images deserve to be big, because they look great or because the focus would be hard to see. Misplaced links and pics into text reminds me of late 90s fanpages. --FFN 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can't you just... make the image smaller if this is such a problem? I find blank white space to be incredibly hideous, moreso than a misplaced edit link. Interrobang 17:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
All those toypics you've uploaded
Toypics don't get a hastak tag unless they are offical images (say stock photos). Photos of objects (except scans or photos containing only printed material) are copyright of whoever took the picture. Hasbro holds just as much right to the copyright for a unoffical toypic as say, Sony owns the rights for a picture of my computer. --FortMax 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
