Who's that Pokemon character?

I'm going through posting pics up for Cybertron's Most Wanted, but need you guys' help to identify some of these guys! This is the first character I can't identify. (He is listed as the question mark in the number 7 slot of the featured characters section.) He's not Starscream (TransTech) as I initially thought. Starscream appears later in the issue, and is definitely visually distinct. This is the second character I can't identify. (The green one, not Windblade, listed as the question mark at #23 in the featured characters section). Although there is a slight possibility that he's supposed to be a generic, I highly doubt it since every single other character on the page is a specific guy or gal. Ascendron (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

Maybe the first guy is just Starscream misdrawn? This post and picture from the Rook blog indicates so. [1] S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

Ah, well, if that post says so. That's also a much nicer version of the image I just uploaded... Ascendron (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

By the way, what about that dog-looking thing on the streets on page 1? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

That's just a turbofox, I believe. Not an actual "character" per se. Ascendron (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

Actually, Jesse's said on the Allspark that it's meant to be the wolf Mini-Con from Classics. Escargon (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

Shows what I know. Ascendron (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

Here's another guy I can't identify. He's mostly obscured by text boxes, which makes it even harder. However, he's in the same panel as the other unidentified green guy, as well as the two Windblades. He may or may not be a double to the other green offworlder, considering who else is in the panel. In any case, we're looking at the back of an orange head, big green shoulder kibble, with some yellow details on the arm from the looks of it. Ascendron (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

Here's another bunch. I Think the red guy's Ironhide? But the vents on the side of his head are throwing me off. The two bug guys at the bottom, I have no idea. Ascendron (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2015 (EDT)

And another. I'm assuming some of these guys are homages to non-Transformers franchises. Ascendron (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2015 (EDT)

Hmm. The guy on the bottom left of the one with Hellbat looks like a Kamen Rider that Matt drew in Spotlight: Trailcutter. Escargon (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2015 (EDT)

Oh, yeah! The colour scheme between this one and "V3" are pretty different though. Is it patterned after another character of that franchise? That way I can give it a "nickname".Ascendron (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2015 (EDT)

Don't know much about it, sadly. Escargon (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2015 (EDT)

That "unknown inmate" is totally based on Kamen Rider Amazon. -Ookalf (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2015 (EDT)

AllSpark Almanac

So I noticed File:Unknownrobocritter-AAII.jpg/this guy in the second AllSpark Almanac. I was not gonna bother with it, but then decided of anyone might recognize it as an actual character, and not just some generic critter. Mainly because, this is the AllSpark Almanac, and it has homages and Easter Eggs out the wazoo. If no one can think of anything though, I'll just assume it's a generic that's not noteworthy. --Ascendron (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Catillia, according to Forster's deviantart. Also a snake on that page is named something like 1412 or something like that. Escargon (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Thanks, I looked it up, and he says he "stuck in" his real life snake (named 1812). I don't particularly feel that's worth including. If anyone feels otherwise, I can be persuaded to upload the picture and make the page, however. --Ascendron (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Apocrypha and Vector Prime

There have been a few parallel discussions about apocryphal works. Alignment, Doomsday Redux!, Bumblebee at Tyger Pax. User Grum went ahead and removed the Apocrypha template from Bumblebee at Tyger Pax, prompting a short discussion. I put forth the question on Doomsday Redux!, and by extension on the other unreleased Energon comics that scripts are available for, and got little response. Alignment had quite a robust debate when the AllSpark Almanac came out, but not much since then. All three have been declared to have happened by Vector Prime, and in their primary universes as opposed to in some splinter timeline. Is there value to keeping the Apocrypha template, versus just having a note detailing the unusual circumstance of the publication? It seems like something that should get a greater discussion than it's getting. --Giggidy (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

They're. Still. Fucking. Apocrypha. --M Sipher (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Since Doomsday Redux was approved by Hasbro and declared to be canon even though it was unreleased, I think that one maybe merits a little more discussion. The others, not so much; even if they're canon from an in-universe perspective, they still aren't Hasbro-approved. --Riptide (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

A story that was officially commissioned and scheduled, then yanked because of licensee bankruptcy, should be listed as no different than a canceled toy. An explanatory note afterwards can be enough. But something that was never licensed cannot be licensed after-the-fact just through assertions and "oh, come on!"-ism. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

I tend to agree. I'd suggest that Vector Prime's statements be added to the notes section, and perhaps the stories be slotted into the appropriate position in the navigation track. --Giggidy (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Galvatron II style linking

So I've noticed that there's been some disagreements on how to organize articles such as, say, Spychanger Prime or Balancing Act Prime. Perhaps we could implant a Galvatron II style system; link both in the main article, along with a suite. Also it could be used for the Thirteen and their Uniend selves, for the time being, I suppose. Escargon (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2015 (EDT)

What if we did something like this for Screech since he is 1 version of G1 Skids? Or Razorclaw since he's 1 version of Tigerhawk? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2015 (EDT)

Quite honestly, I don't think I would have a problem with that. Escargon (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (EDT)

Seems promising. Maybe sandbox one? --Giggidy (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2015 (EDT)

Unfortunately, I couldn't make a sandbox to save a life. Escargon (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2015 (EDT)

There are a couple of other characters that might also benefit from this - BW Megatron and Noble, Overlord and Gigatron maybe... I think it's probably worth looking into. --Emvee (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2015 (EDT)

I've added a suite to the (hopefully non-controversial) example of Silverbolt and Jetstorm. What do we think? Does it work? --Emvee (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

I like it. It's simple and elegant. --Giggidy (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

I find it pointless and cluttering. We don't slap "Galvatron" into Megatron's suite, despite better character continuity than Silverbolt and Jetstorm. Saix (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Oh yeah, I forgot that time Galvatron got turned back into Megatron at the end of the series --Emvee (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2015 (EST)

I guess you did? Saix (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2015 (EST)

Granted, but you're both stretching the definition of series and opening up a bit of a can of worms regarding where we draw the line at different "versions" of the same "character" anyway. G1 Galvatron and Megatron were treated separately mainly because the sheer volume of material for both meant it made sense for us to do it that way but all the times G1 Bumblebee became Goldbug (and sometimes went back again) are all covered on one page, as are UT Cyclonus/Snow Cat, Tidal Wave/Mirage, G1 Overlord/Gigatron, Hot Rod/Rodimus Prime and all the UT Megatrons and Galvatrons. Yet BW/BM Waspinator/Thrust, Rhinox/Tankor, Silverbolt/Jetstorm and Megatron/Noble are separate pages. That's a whole other debate and I don't particularly want to dredge up any of those cases as they've all been done to death a million times before (except for maybe Overlord/Gigatron, I feel there's a clear split that could be made there and linked this way) but I do think this as a good way of dealing with what we do have. It doesn't take up a lot of room and it would only apply to a handful of cases at best anyway. --Emvee (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2015 (EST)

In the case of the Vehicon generals, that's because they're different characters that happen to use the same sparks as pre-established characters. The others are functionally "same guy, but with a new name". I thought that was clear. (Megatron as Noble is detailed on his page, so I dunno why you brought him up.) Saix (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2015 (EST)

Looks fine and dandy to me. --Charles RB (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2015 (GMT)

Notes and images

I seem to remember that there was some clever way of adding notes so that they don't break onto a new line when up against a left-aligned image, but for the life of me I can't find it by searching. Can anyone hit me up with the codez? --Emvee (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2015 (EDT)

Timelines fiction release order links

I have noticed that where it is so, a Timelines story's primary previous or next story arrow points to the BotCon comic if it has the closest release date. However, the primary previous and next story arrows on BotCon comics' pages always point to other BotCon comics because they actually have a "Volume" order to go with. It seems inappropriate to me a story point to another which is not also linked to it. So what do we do, for instance, with "Burning Bridges", the first non-Facebook Timelines story to come out after BotCon 2015's "Cybertron's Most Wanted" and "The Return of Blurr"? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

I think the idea of putting all of the disparate Timlines stories in chronological order for the template is stupid. What exactly is gained there? Saix (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

It was probably workable at some point, but it's long since lost any functionality, I think. We keep winding up with stories that have like three or four "previous" or "next" links. - Chris McFeely (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Right. It's excess that only exists to do stuff like link "Collections" to "Head Games" because... why? How does that really help readers? It really should just be limited to the specific media (script readings, etc.) and continuity (Wings Universe, etc.), not a grab-bag of random stories that just happen to be under the Timelines banner. Saix (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Would anyone object if I went and removed all previous and next release order story links, leaving in only previous and next continuity story links? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2015 (EDT)

Harmonic resonance

So throughout Ask Vector Prime, the theme of "trans-dimensional harmonic resonance"/"quantum harmonic resonance" has come up as an in-universe explanation for most commonly used characters (i.e. the franchise tropes of Optimus Prime, Megatron, Grimlock, etc.), design re-use across continuity families (i.e. pre-Transformer toys which got recycled as Transformers toys), mistaken use of story elements which seemingly don't belong (i.e. Armada Beast Wars in "Fire in the Dark"), other things (i.e. RiD Unicron as a seemingly mundane Transformer who (not) coincidentally became a universe-destroying planet), etc. Do we want to make a page(s) about this and how should we handle it? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2015 (EDT)

Same way anything else is handled? Create an article and document the things VP said about it? --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (EDT)

Online Transformers Games help request

So, I've recently been frustrated with the fact that many online games have been taken down, making it really hard to create articles for them. I've been doing well creating articles for them up to now, either finding copies of the games on other websites or cobbling together articles by watching play-throughs on Youtube. However, I've hit upon my first real snag with "Transformers Prime: Beast Hunters Game." I can't find any footage of it whatsoever anywhere, and the game doesn't seem to load on the Hasbro or Hub website. I never played the game, so I can't create anything from memory either. Anyone has anything to help me out with this? --Ascendron (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2015 (EDT)

GoBots 2015

Discussion moved to Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/GoBots#GoBots_2015

Repurposing vs Multi-family toys

Over on the discussion about Clampdown, M Sipher raised an excellent point about how silly it is to not have the Clampdown Kreon on the Clampdown Robots in Disguise page. This dovetailed nicely with my own musings on the subject. Right now, technically, the way the wiki is organized if we wanted to have that toy on two pages we'd have to arbitrarily declare one Clampdown to be a repurposing of the other, which I find to be ridiculous. I had a discussion on one of the talk pages about removing the repurposing label from toys that were simply imported from one continuity family to another, only to be shot down.

As a compromise position, I've worked up a related idea: "multi-family toys". That is to say, a toy that seems to exist more-or-less unchanged across multiple families. This seems like a distinct idea from a straight-up repurpose. To me, at least, there seems to be a fundamental difference from someone like Armada Dirge, which is a brand-new character based on a toy with a different name and bio, to someone like IDW's Lockdown. Furthermore, Ask Vector Prime has formalized the idea that Hasbro's been running with, namely that a character can comfortably exist across multiple continuity families and that this is no big deal.

This is my go at introducing the idea: User:Giggidy/Sandbox/Multi-Family Toys. Any feedback would be appreciated. --Giggidy (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

I agree with Kre-O but ROTF Lockdown figure didn't meant to be G1 Lockdown when it was produced. He meant to be Movie version of Lockdown. so G1 version is indeed a repurpose.--Primestar3 (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

I like the idea of separating the concept of "Foo was repurposed as Foo" from that of "Foo was repurposed as Bar". I still think it would be better to have the Kre-O and various Iocus-cluster toys on their own pages while leaving only a heading and a link out from the pages of characters they are visually based upon.--Khajidha (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about Kre-O. I'm solidly on-board with the way the merchandise is currently handled and disagree with making Iocus-cluster pages for all the merch. I can see how it's an intellectually coherent position to want to do so... but I don't like it. If we do decide to keep merchandise on its own page as its own character as well as on the local pages, then I'd consider it a Multi-Family Toy. --Giggidy (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

Multiversal singularities

Now that AVP on Facebook has publicly acknowledged the splintering of singularities (albeit via a now semi-unaware TransTech Vector Prime), should we merge all the Thirteen's mainstream multiverse and Aligned pages together? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Having waited to see how it all shook out, yes, I still stand by the original suggestion I made a couple of months ago, which is to merge the individual incarnations of the Thirteen's pages into singular ones (except for Alpha Trion and Aligned Optimus Prime), treating them more as concepts that will probably require "conceptual history" sections. - Chris McFeely (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2015 (EST)

What about the SG versions of Unicron and Primus? We typically give new pages to SG versions of characters, as per countless previous discussions on separating out the SG versions of other characters from their positive polarity counterparts. Except, since it's Primus and Unicron we're talking about here, them being them and their SG versions being SG versions of them makes this a little fuzzy. --Sabrblade (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2015 (EST)

I completely disagree with Chris's proposal and would rather treat them like every other character, but my opinion doesn't mean much, so. Saix (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2015 (EST)

I'm kind of torn on this. On one hand, splitting by continuity family will lead to pointless micro-articles like "Vector Prime (TransTech)", and don't even know how one would begin to deal with Fun Pub Nexus Prime. On the other, Aligned Megatronus really has very little to do with Dreamwave Fallen and ROTF Fallen and having them all on one page would seem antithetical to the goal of accessibility. Jalaguy (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2015 (EST)

I, too, am torn. I like keeping the Aligned stuff separate. Maybe just go case-by-case? Like, the Movie Fallen could probably be split from the Dreamwave guy, but I'm not sure Vector Prime (TransTech) is a thing that needs to exist. Do any other members of the Thirteen have a substantial amount of fiction to them?--Giggidy (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Maybe use suites? And like, point out that they were all at one point considered to be incarnations of The Same Dude. I wouldn't be opposed to merging most of the Aligned Thirteen, though. --Riptide (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Using suites does sound like a good idea, particularly for the SG versions of Primus and Unicron. It keeps them together with the main versions allowing them to be separated onto their own pages. I like it. --Sabrblade (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Me too. Seems like a good compromise for the cases where we do decide to split. I still think we should avoid articles that are too short. --Giggidy (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Also if we utilize a suite, then we can keep main version(s) of guys like Primus or Unicron at their own namespace. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Suite's suit. We should do that. --Charles RB (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2015 (EST)

Summary of the multiversal singularities:

• Unicron (G1, UT, Movie, Animated, Aligned, Kre-O, SG) — I think UT, Aligned, and SG can support their own pages; the others are minor versions based on G1.
• Primus (G1, UT, SG, Movie, GoBots, Aligned) — Only UT and SG really stand out.
• Prima (G1, Movie, Aligned)
• Vector Prime (UT, Movie, TransTech, Aligned)
• Alpha Trion (G1, RID, UT, SG, Animated, Movie, Aligned, Kre-O)
• Solus Prime (Aligned, G1)
• Alchemist Prime (Aligned, G1)
• Nexus Prime (G1?, Aligned)
• Onyx Prime (Aligned, G1)
• Amalgamous Prime (Aligned, G1 [sorta])
• Liege Maximo (G1, TransTech, Aligned)
• Megatronus/The Fallen (G1, Movie, Aligned) — Movie could really, really stand to be split out.
• Optimus Prime (lol) — lol

My feelings if we're going the "we don't want small pages" route. Saix (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2015 (EST)

You know, another thought just crossed my mind. Why didn't we think of using a suite for the many versions of Sideways too, instead of turning his disambig page into his main page? --Sabrblade (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Because then we'd have to put the explanation of his whole deal on all the pages. I think that putting a suite on his pages isn't a bad idea, but I do like the set-up we have now. --Riptide (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2015 (EST)

Agree on splitting out Movie from the rest of the Fallen's page; SG and Aligned Unicron's are different enough, and with enough fiction in the latter's case, to get a-splitting. --Charles RB (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2015 (EST)

Movie Fallen should definitely split.--Primestar3 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2015 (EST)

I don't really think that UT Primus is that different from G1 Primus, or at least from the G1 Primuses of fiction that was contemporary of the time (Dreamwave, late 3H, early Fun Pub, etc.). Granted, back then was when the singularity concept was in full swing so UT Primus was viewed as the same dude as G1 Primus anyway, but I don't see anything in particular that would distinct UT Primus from 2002-2006 G1 Primus that much to separate him out. After all, the heavily Marvel G1-influenced Primus/Unicron/Thirteen backstory of that era of was attributed to both the G1 and UT versions of Primus via things like 2004's The Ultimate Book (G1 Primus), the Armada Fleer trading cards (UT Primus), and even Takara's "World of the Transformers" website that told the backstory with imagery of Armada Unicron, Cybertron Primus, and Cybertron Vector Prime (and War Within's G1 The Fallen) among the Thirteen. --Sabrblade (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2015 (EST)

Formatting of Year pages

So I noticed the pages for 2007 and 2012 are formatted VERY differently from any other Years' pages, being built out of subpages. As a result, the parent page ends up taking on any categories its subpages are tagged with even if they're not really applicable to the larger page (Toys, Media, Games, etc.), plus it creates an inconsistency with the rest of the Year articles. (Plus I'm not so sure this subdivision really makes the editing or upkeep process any easier). Should we move all the information to a single page like the other Year articles, or perhaps change the rest to match these two? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2015 (EST)

At one point we had all the year pages with separate subpages at one point, and then they got merged and then some of the pages got separated again. I'm not sure that there's any benefit to having subpages for each section. It just means the smaller pages come up pointlessly when you do a search or sometimes when you hit the random page link. --abates (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2015 (EST)

Understood. I've gone in and moved all the 2007 and 2012 content (and 2006, which I guess I missed the first time) back to their main pages, and tagged the subpages with speedy deletion. If someone could take care of those, it'd be much appreciated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2015 (EST)

Why is Glyph not credited in the Character Roster list for the G1 episode 'Five Faces of Darkness part 4'?

She is an official retcon, no different than a bunch of other Botcon retcon characters (eg. Ion Storm), or 'Acid Storm' who was retconned by another official means.

Was her exclusion from the Character Roster done on purpose, or simply forgotten and needs updating?

Update: I've made a change to include Glyph on the 'Five Faces of Darkness part 4' Character Roster...but I do not have the information as to when she appeared, in relation to all the other characters. All the characters have a number beside them to indicate the numerical order they appeared in. So, does anyone know Glyph's number? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zackmak (talk • contribs).

1) Please sign your posts.

2) Please don't make edits to fiction you have not personally watched or read, because of the very problems you suffered above. --Xaaron (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2015 (EST)

Still getting used to how this works. My apologies for the newbie mistakes. Wondering though why even one of the many TFwiki administrators don't make the change? It seems like a no-brainer...but that's why I asked the initial question - to find out why she was left out of the 'Character Roster'--Zackmak (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Because editing the wiki is not an automatic thing. Saix (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Page names for planets

Some planets in Transformers with numbers in their names are variably parsed with the number in regular Hindu-Arabic numerals, Roman numerals, or in words. (i.e. Hydrus Four) When I search on the wiki, I generally think of Roman numerals by default, especially since Transformers is science fiction. Does anyone else think that we should put planets' pages in Roman numerals as long as such parsing is not overshadowed by different parsing? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2015 (EST)

So, if I am reading your proposal correctly, you suggest that if there are two canonical parsing of the name of a planet, and one uses Roman numerals, that one should have primacy? --Giggidy (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2015 (EST)

Correct. That is, as long as a different parsing is not more prominent. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2015 (EST)

I guess I don't see what that gets us. Mind you, I don't see any harm either, I'm just not sold. What are we doing now? Most prominent? First official text parsing? --Giggidy (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2015 (EST)

I thought it would help navigability. Not sure what we're doing now, but I think it's first official text parsing. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2015 (EST)

I guess you can put me down as a tentative yes. --Giggidy (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2015 (EST)

I think that seems unnecessary so long as there's a redirect in place, which there should be if the planet has been named with Roman numerals in fiction. --abates (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2015 (EST)

Italics in headers for toy sections

I've noticed that most pages' toy sections don't italicize the toyline section name, but some do. Examples: in my memory, Optimus Prime (G1)/toys and Optimus Prime (WFC)/toys have never italicized their toyline name headers but the Brawn (G1) page currently does. Do we have a rule on this? If we do I haven't been able to find it. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2015 (EST)

Proposal: Temporary Moratorium on AVP

After GoBots, after Ulchtar, I think we have decidedly reached a point where the act of editing the wiki according to the latest "official" information is getting in the way of wiki informativeness and quality standards. To be frank, the privilege of creating canonical material has been perverted for the sole purpose of changing this website. I propose a two-week cessation on adding any material to this site that appears on AVP or any of its upcoming iterations. I would like to see what discussions we have here, and how the pages are modified, when we're not lurching to the organ grinder's tune.

If people think this suggestion is totally out of line, by all means say so. If they agree, please say so as well. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2015 (EST)

That's actually exactly what I was considering suggesting. This is all getting a little silly; I'd be more than happy with that, as it'd curb "to-the-wiki"-ism while not banning AVP content entirely for no real defensible reason. --Riptide (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2015 (EST)

YES! So much yes! (with the sole exception being the archiving of AVP-and-its-ilk Facebook posts onto their respective archive pages). --Sabrblade (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2015 (EST)

I'm not really sure what this is supposed to accomplish. I've never had a hard time ignoring the parts of something that annoy me or that I have no interest in. If a robust discussion on a minor character like Ulchtar bugs you so much, maybe you should take a two-week moratorium from editing the wiki. I vote no. Fine. --Giggidy (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2015 (EST)

Are you familiar with the expression "the straw that broke the camel's back"? Ulchtar isn't The Thing, but The Latest Thing In A Long Line Of Things. I say yes. --Andrusi (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2015 (EST)

Yes. --ItsWalky (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2015 (EST)

I'm down, and let me add this to it: going forward we put stuff from AVP and its mutations on the same waiting period as all the other FP stuff we've had basically forever. No, it's not part of the "paid content" blardeeblar. But maybe it'll help stem the blatant wiki-gaming going on, and also cut back on the amount of corrective/speculative editing, especially when they have to apologize/retcon/whatever something posted two days prior. Maybe trim it to two weeks rather than one month, but still. The immediate TO THE WIKI! needs to fucking stop. --M Sipher (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2015 (EST)

Since Escargon brought this to my attention, I'm going to break my usual policy about commenting on my own work and vote yes. It won't kill anyone to wait a couple of weeks to edit this stuff, and may in fact improve the caliber of the questions we're getting. --Jimsorenson (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2015 (EST)

Yes. In addition to the reasons mentioned, this should stop the back-and-forth occasionally seen of
1) AVP posts something.
2) Someone rushes to add it to the Wiki
3) Someone else disagrees with the interpretation of AVP
4) First someone goes back to AVP and asks for further clarification on the first post
5) AVP responds
6) Second someone is too busy arguing on the Wiki to check for updates
7) First someone does victory lap because official source confirmed their idea
8) Third someone stops by to say this is why they hate AVP.
We are all children of the internet. We like winning arguments. But being able to ask official sources in real time to contribute to internet arguments tends to escalate the arguments and the tensions underlying the arguments. New information comes in? Fine -- let's let it breathe for a while before deciding what to do with it. --Xaaron (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2015 (EST)

Regarding what I said above about updates made to the Facebook post archives being the sole exception to this, it has been suggested that those should have at least a one-day wait after each post is made on Facebook, which sounds reasonable. --Sabrblade (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2015 (EST)

I can get behind this. I've drawn attention to this resurgent "OMG TO THE WIKI" attitude while commenting on this problem before and putting a cap on it sounds good. - Chris McFeely (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2015 (EST)

Since the idea of immediate-term write-ups is apparently problematic to a large number of editors, is there any reason to limit the 2 week cooling off period to just the FP material? Given concerns about spoilers and similar (if less heated) arguments about interpertation of ongoing IDW offerings, perhaps a 2-week wait should just be the standard wiki policy for all fiction. --Giggidy (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2015 (EST)

You KNOW all "immediate-term write-ups" is not the issue at play. Don't even. --M Sipher (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2015 (EST)

I actually don't. You and Chris both talk about "TO THE WIKI" as if it's a well understood problem without explaining why. Chris, meanwhile, posts detailed summaries of the comics before American comic shops even open. Aside from some people not liking Ask Vector Prime, I honestly don't understand the difference. It offends my sense of order, but I will admit that's probably more my problem than yours. --Giggidy (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2015 (EST)

The difference is that comics- and the information they reveal- are set in stone; people can't just obsessively demand answers from James Roberts/John Barber/Mairghread Scott about background trivia just for the sake of changing the wiki. Grum (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2015 (EST)

I guess I see. Maybe. Maybe not. Looking at the Ulchtar thing, which apparently was very annoying for people, there was a question asked on the 18th of November. Then an answer on the 28th of November. There were a few follow-up questions but none of them got an answer. The answer was never edited. Then there was three days of debate about what the implications of the answer meant. I don't see how, if we had the debate from December 13-15 it would have been appreciably different, or less annoying. But then, I didn't find the debate annoying in the first place, so again, this could point to my inability to understand such things. --Giggidy (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2015 (EST)

This is a recurring, AVP-specific problem that doesn't affect other prominent fiction. The Carcer thing was an isolated incident. - Chris McFeely (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2015 (EST)

ThisIsWhyWeCantHaveNiceThings.jpg --DrSpengler (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2015 (EST)

So, like, are we starting this today or what? I will of course respect the consensus and wait till the 14th if we are, but Cy-Kill just had a new adventure if we're still debating. --Giggidy (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2015 (EST)

I'm going to assume that, yes, this is starting today, and that current content will be added no sooner than two weeks hence, December 14. --Giggidy (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2015 (EST)

Mystery Science Theater 3000

Does anyone object to me making a page for Mystery Science Theater 3000 now, rather than waiting the 2 weeks? I only ask because the latest AVP plugs the MST3K kickstarter campaign, which is over in 4 days. Given the time-sensitive nature, it seemed an exception might be warranted. --Giggidy (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Results

"I would like to see what discussions we have here, and how the pages are modified, when we're not lurching to the organ grinder's tune."

It looks like the discussions we have when not lurching to the tune is... more of the same. --Giggidy (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2015 (EST)

There are 63 new "official facts" about Grand Galvatron hitting the wiki every single day, most of them by wiki editors feeding them through a revolving door Facebook page in order to validate their own ideas? I must've missed it. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2015 (EST)

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were complaining about an argument about Ulchtar, one which Grand Galvatron has already exceeded in length. One that started when someone saw some half-translated info and immediately declared TO THE WIKI. --Giggidy (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2015 (EST)

Notes and whitespace issue

A while back I put up some notes in several characters' pages, in order to include a link to the The Transformers: The Movie's adaptations within those pages' fiction sections. Unfortunately, it didn't work out quite as well as I wanted. Unlike the Live-action film series, where a similar note would always come up at the end of a section's write-up, the note came right in the middle of the section for many Generation 1 characters. On top of that, because of how some images were included in the section write-ups, several characters got large amounts of white-space in their section write-ups to accommodate the note.

At the time, I had heard that there was a piece of code that could fix the white-space issue, but I've been looking for a while and found nothing. (The closest I got to any sort of result with was: <div class="floatright">Text on the right</div> but that didn't solve much either.)

I'd still very much like to keep the links to the movie adaptations on those characters' pages, as those are still pieces of fiction wherein those characters appeared. But at this point, I've given up on finding a solution that will make the note look like less of a mess. And I will admit that the amount of white-space the note sometimes generates is rather unseemly. I figured a note pointing out that characters appeared in an adaptation of the G1 cartoon movie could be put at the bottom of the article, in the "Notes" section.

Either that, or I could double up links within the cartoon section like this: The Transformers: The Movie Transformers: The Animated Movie Transformers the Movie. I'm also open to any other suggestions. Either way, I wanted other people to weigh in and give their opinions before I started any kind of wide-spread editing. --Ascendron (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2015 (EST)

I think the extra storylinks look lot better than a note. It's what we already do for flashbacks. Saix (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Multiple storylinks make me think that there is something more to be written up, rather than them being multiple versions of the same events. Putting a note at the end of the page seems to divorce the adaptations from the source material. My personal preference is for the note templates, regardless of the whitespace issue. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2015 (EST)

I'm not convinced that multiple story links or notes are needed at all, at least on a character page. If there are multiple tellings of the same event, probably a character only needs the primary one. Then, anyone who clicks off to the primary story can see a note that there are other adaptations. I'm not sure it adds anything to Bumblebee, for instance, to know that yes, he did this in the Transformers movie but also in a novel and a comic and a story book. --Giggidy (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2015 (EST)

I'd rather keep some indication of which adaptation which character shows up in on their own pages, considering it is inconsistent from character to character how many adaptations they show up in. Some characters show up in all of them, some show up in only some of them, and others show up in none of the adaptations. --Ascendron (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2015 (EST)

I guess I just don't see what the value is of that. Especially because the adaptation itself will have the character roster. Mind you, I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or the other. --Giggidy (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Proposal: A "Former multiversal singularities" category

As probably know, a recent story has split up multiversal singularities into separate characters, or something like that. Because of this, the "multiversal singularities" category has been dissolved, and is no longer linked to on character pages. But why? The idea of multiversal singularities shaped several years of Transformers fiction. My proposal: a "Formal Multiversal singularities" category, so that we can acknowledge the characters who were once multiversal singularities while not inadvertantly implying that they still are multiversal singularities. Thoughts? -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (EST)

Isn't that, like, only the Thirteen, Primus, and Unicron? Saix (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2015 (EST)

Yeah. So it'd be an easy thing to do. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2015 (EST)

Or we just re-instate "Multiversal Singularities" as a category because categories have NEVER been predicated on current status. BW Blackarachnia doesn't lose her "Predacon" category because she ultimately ended up a Decepticon after being a Maximal for a while. --M Sipher (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2015 (EST)

Did we ever have that category? I mean, we should, but yeah, we wouldn't have removed if we had for exactly the reason Sipher states. - Chris McFeely (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2015 (EST)

I checked a few relevant articles at random. Went back to last version before this October. Couldn't find that category in their category lists. --Khajidha (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2015 (EST)

I was probably mistaken. I probably just happened to notice Unicron/Primus/one of the Thirteen didn't have a multiversal singularity category on their page, and assumed that it was deleted because of the because of the retcon. My bad. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2015 (EST)

Vandalism

Um, yeah. So one of the pages on the Wanted pages list is...Spiral Vagina. That means that someone tried linking to a page called Spiral Vagina at some point. I'm not really sure how to handle that or who to let know about it, so I'm just posting it here. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Genital System. I'm very sorry. Incidentally, if you wanted to find what pages link to that, you could have used this page: http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Spiral_Vagina --Riptide (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Oh. Thank you. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2015 (EST)

"Kiss Players! No, It's Really Not Vandalism, This Actually Happened." --Xaaron (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2015 (EST)

The entire page should just be this discussion. Chip (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2015 (EST)

I seriously want to make that page, but something so epically horrible might need s comitte just to handle the comedy potential. Lush City (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2015 (EST)

We're all sick of arguing about GoBots

Discussion moved to Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/GoBots#We.27re_all_sick_of_arguing_about_GoBots

User:TAZ

Someone should probably ban User:TAZ. For whatever reason, he seems to really hate File:DonMurphy.jpg, and has gone out of his way to either blank the page or removes links to it. (I waited about half an hour before posting this in case he was hoping to get a kick out of someone mentioning him.) -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2016 (EST)

Done! Jalaguy (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2016 (EST)

Thank you. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2016 (EST)