Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive50

Didn't we have a Transformers Appearances/References in Other Media page?

I could have sworn we did, mentioning stuff like Family guy etc. If we don't have such a page, would it be allowed to be created? Drmick 11:53, 18 December 2010 (EST)

Unless it's officially sanctioned by Hasbro, no, we do not mention Transformer appearances in other media. --NCZ 11:54, 18 December 2010 (EST)

If it ever existed, it would have been destroyed with fire in about 30 seconds. --ItsWalky 12:46, 18 December 2010 (EST)

Of course, if we did have such a page, we could use it as a lighting rod, keep anons from adding something to Soundwave's page every time Seth Green says the word "transformers." -- Semysane 16:28, 18 December 2010 (EST)

Of course, NO. Discussion over. --M Sipher 16:45, 18 December 2010 (EST)

Discussion not quite over. If the unofficial nature of the topic is the reason why it is not allowed, then there are several articles that already exist that are pushing boundaries on the wiki. I would have thought that the biggest problem would be it's size.Drmick 09:26, 20 December 2010 (EST)

Yeah, that'd be the other big reason. There's so many such references it would be impossible to keep track of them all. It would also involve making sure what's added there is actually a TF reference. And given all the Toms, Dicks and Harrys that'll come out of the woodwork to add such stuff, that's going to be more trouble than not having a page. Best not to get a larger headache for the sake of reducing a smaller one. --Tigerpaw28 12:44, 20 December 2010 (EST)

"Knockoff warning" for toy sections?

Just something that occurred to me... as I skimmed this page http://www.highendtfs.com/?q=node/17 and looked at alllllll the "could be mistaken for real and paid stupid money for" knockoffs... is there any objection to some form of link to this in the relevant toy sections? Sadly, the page lacks a "jump to" feature of any kind, but alerting people to the potential danger of dropping several hundred on what they think is a genuine Defensor box set... --M Sipher 02:50, 19 December 2010 (EST)

I think it skirts the line with our "we don't really discuss knockoffs" policy, but on the other hand, yeah, it's a useful bit of information, almost to the point where we could stand to have a special page about these specific knockoffs. I am not opposed to adding a link to that site, no, as long as it's got a massive and specific caveat attached to it (maybe even with a special template box thing ("A Prime Problem"-themed perhaps?)). Hell, maybe the highendtfs people would be willing to throw up navigation in exchange for the inevitable deluge of hits - anyone got contact info for the owner? -hx 09:11, 19 December 2010 (EST)

It's worth noting that there are some very well-done Henkei seekers knockoffs now, too. The really expensive ones even, like Thundercracker. Their sections could use warnings as well. -- Semysane 17:56, 19 December 2010 (EST)

Are they in knockoff PACKAGING that is meant to look like the real thing? That's the really tricky part. G1 MIB shit is much, much more expensive. --M Sipher 20:27, 19 December 2010 (EST)

Yes, they are: http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/buyer-beware-update-on-ko-henkei-seekers/20380/ -- Semysane 23:03, 19 December 2010 (EST)

I am not sure I want to attach more template boxes to pages as is. Especially over something like knockoffs. —Interrobang 20:55, 19 December 2010 (EST)

I'd thought about a template, but... ehn. I think a simple link under the TFU.info (or whatever), perhaps with a bolded "Knockoff alert" text. Like...

• Knockoff alert: More information on packaged imitations of this toy at HighendTFs.com

Thoughts? This would ONLY cover stuff that is in packaging meant to deceive you by looking as real as they can get it. --M Sipher 21:05, 19 December 2010 (EST)

I could agree with that. This is a step beyond your standard knock off crap, some notice might be appropriate.--Khajidha 21:44, 19 December 2010 (EST)

I think it is a good idea to have it, since it is useful. This is different from putting info of some KO or unlicensed products on the page. --TX55^TALK 21:49, 19 December 2010 (EST)

Extension:Oversight

Quite a few times I've seen admins delete and undelete pages to clean out bad revisions. Why they do this I have no idea, since we have the Oversight extension installed.

Perhaps we should look into granting some people "oversighter" access? ---Blackout- 05:09, 25 December 2010 (EST)

I've just noticed that deleting and then restoring pages in the manner mentioned above has the side effect of resetting a page's page views stats, so that's another point in favour of the Oversight extension. --abates 18:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Wikipedia, revisited

[1]

Just in case anyone's interested. --84.193.193.10 10:54, 5 January 2011 (EST) (-Blackout-, can't be bothered to log back in)

NEWSFLASH: Nobody cares. --M Sipher 16:21, 5 January 2011 (EST)

Captcha to prevent spambots?

Is there any way we could implement captcha to account creation to prevent the spambot problem we're having now? I've seen other wikis use that measure. Maybe also disable new page creation by anons? —Interrobang 12:56, 6 January 2011 (EST)

We already have CAPTCHA implemented on the account creation service. --84.193.193.10 13:09, 6 January 2011 (EST) (-Blackout-, can't be bothered to log in)

Never mind, then! —Interrobang 13:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)

Real world events by day Category

These of course comprise every date of the year. However, I notice recently people have been adding fictional events to these dates. That basically invalidates the Category, since it's no longer comprised of only real-world events. The fictional events should be moved out into another section, or the category name should be changed to "Events by day". Thoughts? --MistaTee 22:01, 9 January 2011 (EST)

I agree with changing to "Events by day". I would also support having separate fictional and real world sections on the pages. --Khajidha 22:38, 9 January 2011 (EST)

Project Wonderful ads

Um, guys, I found there Non-official products in the ads of CapturedPrey. I know the small ads are showing up randomly (and may not be controllable since we can't regulate them), but I think it is still need to be reported here. --TX55^TALK 01:04, 16 January 2011 (EST)

I don't mind them in the non-permanent ads. TFSource used them all the time in their ads before we made them permanent sponsors. It was only when we made them a permanent sponsor did we ask to make them free of third-party product. --ItsWalky 01:57, 16 January 2011 (EST)

Games fiction

Okay, now that Ascendron has flooded the character pages with stubs for 30 years worth of crappy Transformers games, can we reconsider how the Games sections are treated? I really don't think in-universe fiction descriptions are the way to handle it. War for Cybertron may've had a plot, but the majority of TF games are more in the vein of "hit things until they stop coming". A fiction section makes even less sense for games where the character selection is variable. "Hardhead may (or may not) have been present at this battle. Or this one. Or this..." Ditto for generic drone soldiers. Isn't there a way to address the games without trying to craft a sensical fiction for them? --Xaaron 08:46, 25 January 2011 (EST)

I agree. The games should appear as merchandise on all relevant characters pages, but there is no need for a fiction write up for most games on those same pages. A generic write up on the game page should suffice. Something like "An Autobot warrior participated in a battle...", with a character box listing all potential "Autobot warriors" (aka playable characters). --Khajidha 09:21, 25 January 2011 (EST)

Moving games to merchandise sounds awful. It would result in amazing amounts of lost information. I have no idea what doing that would solve. --ItsWalky 09:44, 25 January 2011 (EST)

I think it depends on the game - for example in the ROTF console game, while you CAN play as multiple characters, the game provides a suggested one for you. IMO, that's who "actually" did the stuff depicted in the game (and the opposing side's campaign generally suggests it as well). When you can just pick from a half-dozen dudes and it doesn't matter, then maybe a brief summary of the game's plot and a note. "Jerkwagon was one of many Autobots involved in blah blah plot synopsis bluh. NOTE: Such-and-such game allowed players to choose multiple protagonists, including Jerkwagon." -hx 13:19, 25 January 2011 (EST)

I agree that Games should be their own section -- there's certainly enough of them, and they should be treated differently than keychains and what-not. But I think an out-of-universe description of the games would be better in most cases. Instead of having to write vague text like "As Ultra Magnus searched for the truth behind Optimus Prime's death, he battled Trypticon in a game of death and suffering.", which is about all the plot I could wrangle out of Convoy no Nazo and tells you virtually nothing, we could write something more informative, like "Trypticon is the boss of Stage 10.", and describe what actually happens in the game instead of trying to make it sound like believable fiction. --Xaaron 11:29, 25 January 2011 (EST)

My personal view on the matter is, from a character's page, I should be able to find EVERY place that character has appeared. And when we do list guys having an appearance when they're most likely an animation error in the far-background of an episode, I don't think there's any excuse to NOT list an appearance of a character wherever he might appear, including board and video games. Is that a lot of work? Yeah. But beneath all the jokes that make this place so great, this is still an encyclopedia, and purposely leaving out information out of an encyclopedia is wrong. Though I think Hooper X has the right idea... I doesn't have to be the most super-extensive write up. Heck, I was even going to suggest just having a link saying "See Return of Convoy article" or something like that. Also: I apologize if I had started getting very sloppy last night, but looking back, it was like 5 in the morning by the time I finished up. Yikes. --Ascendron 14:10, 25 January 2011 (EST)

I totally agree that the games should be dealt with on the character pages. I'm just looking for an option other than a completely in-fiction description. --Xaaron 15:14, 25 January 2011 (EST)

The first idea that comes to mind is having a subsection called "Gameplay" or something like that for each game write-up, something that would be similar to a note? Though really, my main solution for stuff like that has been, up to this point, to just stick a couple of notes in the game write-up, like on Cheetor's page. I'll keep on trying to think up other solutions though... --Ascendron 15:26, 25 January 2011 (EST)

Storylinks already serve as that, so what's the point of another link? —Interrobang 15:47, 25 January 2011 (EST)

Fiction order guide?

I've been over the Style guides a few times trying to find if a page like this already exists, but it doesn't look like it. I'll be the first to admit that when adding in new fiction/game subsections to a character's article, I sometimes confuse and probably put them out of order. So I've been wondering if a page that lists every fictional work and game in the proper order of each other would be a good idea? On one hand, it seems like an ABSURD amount of work for a style guide, one that would have to be CONSTANTLY updated as new things come out. On the other hand, it would be very handy to have a list to reference for character pages. Especially because it can get VERY frustrating trying to hunt down which book/cartoon/whatever came first in the same year. For those who don't understand what I'm talking about, here's an example I quickly put together, using the Cheetor (BW) and Optimus Prime (G1) pages as reference.

When listing a character's media appearances, use this sorting order:

• Fiction
  • Generation 1 Marvel Comics continuity
  • Generation 1 S.T.A.R.S. pack-in flyers
  • Generation 1 cartoon continuity
  • Generation 1 Kid Stuff Talking Story Books
  • Generation 1 Big Looker Story Books
  • Generation 1 Ladybird Books continuity
  • Transformers in 3-D
  • Transformers PD Type comic
  • Comic Bom Bom G-2 comic
  • Beast Wars First wave toy bios
  • Beast Wars Cartoon continuity
    • Dawn of Future's Past
    • Beast Wars cartoon
    • Fast Action Battlers toyline
    • 3H Tales from the Beast Wars comics
    • IDW Beast Wars comics
    • Transformers Legends anthology
    • Beast Machines cartoon
    • Beast Machines toy bio
    • Universe comic
    • Beast Wars Metals comic
    • Beast Wars Henkei! Henkei! pack-in comic
  • Generation 1 Dreamwave comics continuity
  • G.I. Joe vs. the Transformers
  • Transformers/G.I. Joe
  • Generation 1 IDW comics continuity
  • Hearts of Steel
  • Music Label
  • Henkei! Henkei! (pack-in comic)
  • Henkei! Henkei! Bun Bun manga
  • Alternity
  • Robot Heroes comic
  • Universe cartoon
  • Wings of Honor

Is this a good idea? Would anyone actually like to see this kind of thing, or would I just be putting a whole bunch of work into something we don't need? --Ascendron 16:28, 25 January 2011 (EST)

We do need standardization of section names. The section order, however, depends on order in which the character appeared in those continuities in the real world. Then the subsections are ordered by the fictional chronology. —Interrobang 16:35, 25 January 2011 (EST)

No wonder I get confused by this fiction order thing. @_@ I guess I might just be one of those people that will never get the hang of some of these things. And yeah, the section names was definitely something else I wanted to tackle, since I've seen at times no less than four different ways to refer to a certain media. I sometimes have to check the storylinks at the end to be sure it's all part of the same story! --Ascendron 16:45, 25 January 2011 (EST)

Note that, within a continuity, flashbacks and time travel can mean that experiential fictional chronology for one character requires a different order of headings than for another. JW 20:16, 25 January 2011 (EST)

In regards to standardization, I have an idea. What if we create a list of headers (kept on this page perhaps) used on Optimus Prime (G1)'s page (probably has the greatest number of different headers), use that as our initial standards list, then update it as we find other headers or decide to change the existing standards? Once we think we've covered the majority of possibilities, we could move it to a help page and make it official policy. --Tigerpaw28 17:49, 6 February 2011 (EST)

I put together a sandbox along these lines a couple of years ago. It hasn't been updated in quite a while, and I'm not sure it was ever actually complete, and it was the subject of a bit of debate... but there it is, for what it's worth. (Also, I support standardization of headers, but I've run into some opposition over the nitty-gritty before, so best of luck.) - Jackpot 06:11, 8 February 2011 (EST)

Foreign name reorganization

Is there any chance we could consider moving the foreign names somewhere else in the article other than at the top? We've already established a new standard for episodes, but characters could stand to have their names moved to their own dedicated section, likely under "Notes". There, we could add things like kana and Cyrillic forms of names not different from the English version. Opinions? —Interrobang 15:56, 4 February 2011 (EST)

I'm in favor of it. --Khajidha 16:33, 4 February 2011 (EST)

All things considered, since this is (mostly) an english-centric wiki when it comes to stuff, the foreign names do come off as being interesting trivia more than anything else. I'm in favour of this too. --Ascendron 16:37, 4 February 2011 (EST)

I'm fine with where they are now, personally. --Detour 16:39, 4 February 2011 (EST)

I can see the logic in them being moved down to notes. You've got an in-universe profile, then a bunch of out-of-universe names, then the in-universe fiction section. The only argument I have against it is that I'm used to seeing the foreign names at the top. --abates 17:05, 4 February 2011 (EST)

If it can be moved downward (to the first entry of the notes section or a new section after the notes section) instead of being on the top, MOVE it. Originally, I'm fine withe where they are — but that would be a character with fewer foreign names. --TX55^TALK 19:55, 4 February 2011 (EST)

Any further opinions on this? —Interrobang 00:36, 21 February 2011 (EST)

What about cases where some of the extra names at the top are English, e.g. Omni Productions names, or preliminary or nicknames? Would they remain at the top or become notes too? --abates 01:29, 21 February 2011 (EST)

The Malay dub still technically counts as foreign in my mind. Nicknames should be integrated in the introduction (or notes section), and preliminary names should have been in notes in the first place, since they aren't the characters' "real names" in any sense. Further elaboration of the preliminary names better suits the notes section, anyway. —Interrobang 01:43, 21 February 2011 (EST)

Japanese names are often for a character in a slightly different continuity. Like "Fire Convoy" is a Car Robots character and "Optimus Prime" is an RID character, but they share the same page. Or "Flame Convoy" is a Galaxy Force character but "Scourge" is a Cybertron character. In that case they should have the Japanese name up top. The names that are just different language versions of the English character can go on bottom. - Starfield 13:18, 23 February 2011 (EST)

... no. Cybertron and Galaxy Force are NOT different stories (Takara officially put GF back in the same timeline as the prior two series), and the RID/CR split is a unique case. In neither case should the names go up top. --M Sipher 13:44, 23 February 2011 (EST)

They are slightly different continuities. Galaxy Force doesn't have the Omega Frequency for example. And the Grand Black Hole is different. And the Japanese Generation 1 cartoon continuity is different. Broadcast never became Twincast in English. I think Japanese names are a special case and deserve to be on top since Japanese toyline & fiction continuity is always slightly separate. But I can hit the "end" key on the keyboard easy enough. - Starfield 16:56, 23 February 2011 (EST)

Every single foreign language version of something is technically a slightly different continuity, strictly due to the nature of translation. This is not a arena in which Galaxy Force is unique. --ItsWalky 17:01, 23 February 2011 (EST)

Commercial Appearances section

Alright, so I plan later on to start going through characters' pages and add in a "Commercial Appearances" section where it applies (sorry, I can't this weekend... homework to do!). Several characters already have this section and a lot of these commercials have nice short animations or other interesting characterizations and tidbits that I think they bear to be included in the characters' pages. Although, much like the Games sections, I'll only be able to marginally help by adding in the section itself to let people know that there's work to be done on a character's page... MY computer is so incredibly shitty that I can't even play videos off youtube. D:

But anyways, the reason I'm bringing this up here is because before I get started, I'd like to discuss what kind of format we want for this section, so it can be done right the first time around. Obviously, where it applies, stuff like indicating who the voice actor for the character makes sense, but should the write-up be in-universe or not? Since commercials fluctuate between using a short animation telling a mini-story and just being a straight-up commercial saying "buy this toy!" should a combination of both in-universe and out-of-universe description be used? And should we count the parts where the kids brandish their action figures and talk for the character as dialog spoken by the character? That's all the questions on the subject I can really think of for now... --Ascendron 15:12, 6 February 2011 (EST)

I would write up the animation segments in-universe so long as they're unique to the commercial (i.e. not just recycled footage from one of the cartoons). Anything else that's notable enough could qualify for an out of universe note. But I wouldn't bother with recycled animation or the kids talking for the figures. That doesn't qualify as fiction to me.

In regards to your inability to view the commercials, would it help if you could download them in some fashion and then watch them offline? Maybe burn the videos to a DVD disc? --Tigerpaw28 17:43, 6 February 2011 (EST)

Yeah, any clips taken from pre-existing mediums would be redundant from those scenes being already covered in other sections on that character's page. Personally though, I'm still on the fence about the kids talking for the figures... I find it comparable to botcon script readings in a way... People just talking out loud for a character without any accompanying animation... I'm prone to be swayed either way. As for me viewing the commercials themselves, my spring break is a week from now. I might have access to a better computer then, but otherwise I'll just be putting in information already available on the wiki to the appropriate pages throughout the week, I guess. --Ascendron 17:53, 6 February 2011 (EST)

How to resolve monster debates?

User:-Blackout-'s recent meltdown over being prevented from editing Goldbug (IDW) has made me think again about how policy/content discussions tend to go on this wiki. It's a big part of why I haven't been around since last summer: I found myself perpetuating these miles-long debates that few cared to read, everyone was irritated by, and most importantly were impossible to resolve.

That Goldbug article is a sterling example. Right now, people are talking about it as if the giant debate had resolved in favor of the current setup, so changing the article at this point is taboo because it "was dealt with already." But that's not how it went at all. Blackout's dickishly unilateral edit-war was definitely the Wrong Way to reopen this, but it's also wrong to pretend that we had achieved consensus or closure on the issue.

At the end of the debate, I had restated the case for my "Goldbug (G1)" sandbox, which is definitely different from the current setup, and 6 other people declared support for it while 2 objected at length. But the objectors were also against the current setup: Jeysie wanted the toy gone, and Derik wanted... something inscrutable and Deriky. Combining those numbers with the premature vote that had been taken earlier (and adjusting for the voters who changed their minds by the end), I count:

Sandbox: 8
Sandbox with modifications: 3
Current page: 7
Current page without the toy: 2

That's not consensus. That's deadlock. In fact, there were fewer votes to keep the page as-is than there were to change it in some fashion. The current setup didn't win out in terms of votes, logic, precedent, or any other measure: It won out because it was what happened to be there when the debate died of exhaustion.

So we're stuck with an awkward page that most people want to be different, encased in concrete forevermore. I don't see any way out of this situation, and I've watched the same principle play out with other debates too many times. At the very least, I wonder if it would be helpful to have a Template:Deadlock that we could slap on inconclusive debates (with a picture of Deadlock, natch) so people know the true state of things.

Taking that idea further, maybe it could come with a period of enforced moratorium – say, two weeks – followed by a revote and/or a formalized "final statements" opportunity? The most extreme option I can think of is to create a "council of elders" that has the community-bestowed power to resolve intractable debates and declare relevant policy principles. Basically, a Supreme Court. I do worry that creating an authoritative heirarchy might produce even more problems, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

Thoughts? Other ideas?

- Jackpot 18:20, 9 February 2011 (EST)

This whole argument goes to the heart of what we mean when we say two characters are "the same". The Bumblebee toy was produced and fiction was made to promote that toy, thus all of those fictions (which differ from each other) are about "the same" character. The Goldbug toy was produced with a tech spec that stated that it was "the same" character as Bumblebee. Fiction was produced to promote that toy, thus all those varying depictions of Goldbug are "the same" character as Bumblebee. The same argument applies to the differing backstories of Optimus Prime; Orion Pax and Optronix are "the same" character because they both are earlier forms of the character that was used to promote the sale of the Optimus Prime toy. The problem comes in with later stories that are not produced to promote those original toys. How do we decide what is the same? When is a character "the same character under different circumstances/in a different universe" and when is it simply an homage character? I really can't see how others see the IDW Goldbug as "the same" character as the original toy and not (as I see him) as a simple homage character. Under their viewpoint the toy belongs, under mine it doesn't. --Khajidha 10:15, 10 February 2011 (EST)

I NOMINATE MYSELF AS FINAL ARBITER AND SUPREME OVERLORD. all decisions will be made based on what amuses me the most. (seriously, we probably ought to have some kind of "no consensus" tag for articles like that.) -hx 12:58, 10 February 2011 (EST)

Mmm...probably best not to restart the Goldbug debate itself here, Khajidha -- that would quickly distract from what Jackpot's actually asking here, which is how debates should be resolved in general.

Some of the basic rules we already follow should remain. No "edit-warring"...leave it up to the Talk Pages to hash out the problem. I don't think a mere two weeks is enough to give people time to change their minds, though, especially in this crowd. One thing I notice is that despite dozens of regular contributors and hundreds overall, most Talk Page or Community Portal votes I've seen have less than 20 votes at the end. Many of these debates fly right under the radar. I'm relatively active here, but the Goldbug (IDW) chaos completely passed me by.

What about, when a Talk Page debate has clearly reached an impasse between obstinant strong-willed parties, a Vote is taken on the Main Page? Some sort of easy-to-see box temporarily added to the Main Page, "above the fold" so that its visible to all visitors when they enter? It would be more noticeable than if the vote is hidden away on a single Talk Page people may or may not see. Something like "A Deadlock has arisen! Choose from the following choices: Should Goldbug (IDW) have the G1 toy on his page? Yes or No? (See the Goldbug (IDW) Talk Page for the full debate.)"

I realize many debates won't be as simple as Yes or No, but if the debating parties agree in advance how to phrase the Voting Box, it could be a useful tool. --Xaaron 13:07, 10 February 2011 (EST)

Yeah, wasn't really trying to restart that debate. Was bringing up questions about general character debates, as they seem to occur quite often. But other debates also bog down, so I recognize that my questions don't apply to those debates.--Khajidha 13:35, 10 February 2011 (EST)

I like the idea of keeping a debate in the regulars' faces until a decision has been reached by enough people (at least 20? 25?). Many debates I keep away from because I think they'll disappear anyway and my vote doesn't really matter and I also can't deal all that well with the aggressive nature of most debates, making it actively a lose-only situation if I'd enter. I'm not sure if others feel that way, but I imagine this would be a boost for all to participate. Geewunling 13:23, 10 February 2011 (EST)

I absolutely disagree with the premise that people who don't care enough to read the argument should have it shoved in their face until they vote. AT MOST, we should mention it somewhere prominent, like the community portal. --Jimsorenson 18:53, 10 February 2011 (EST)

I agree that essentially putting a ballot on the front page is asking for trouble. You might get the dozens of votes you're looking for, but they'll all be uninformed gut reactions. One of the reasons these debates happen is that issues can be much more complicated and subtle than they seem at first glance. Plus one would hope that the reasoning behind the winning option would help develop our policies, but if the decisions are made by the majority of an explicitly uninformed mob, it's hard to glean any substantial precedent out of that.

But I think an approach like that could be combined with my "final statements" suggestion. Thinking out loud here: After a cooling-off period has been declared and a set amount of time has passed, anyone who wants to present a case can write up a defense of his or her preferred option. Those are all submitted to a neutral volunteer, who then posts them simultaneously on the relevant Talk page, and those become the voting choices. No replies are allowed, only votes. We put a notice up at least on the Community Portal, possibly on the Main Page, for another set time period, then close voting and go with the majority.

How does that sound? Like I said, thinking out loud, so suggestions are more than welcome.

- Jackpot 19:18, 10 February 2011 (EST)

Sounds pretty good to me. --Khajidha 10:19, 11 February 2011 (EST)

How featured articles are chosen

On a side note, would a box like that also be useful to start a voting system for featured pages? Because I'm fine with Drift and Wreck-Gar and all others before, but I am absolutely clueless as to who chose them to become featured for what reasons. I'd like to see a better system for that. Geewunling 13:23, 10 February 2011 (EST)

If there was a recently-completed article that's of respectable length, I choose it. The pool for featured articles is pretty damn small. Not many articles are finished, and the ones that are finished have usually already been Featured Articles already. Finished articles don't happen very frequently, so sometimes we find one that's close to completion near the end of a month and then push to finish it before the month is over. Sometimes we think a subject or a character is timely (like around BotCon, or before an episode or movie premiere) and push for that. If you want a heads up, Chris McFeely's Matrix of Leadership article is so totally March's. (I think Chris has the record for number of articles he's completed which have become featured.) --ItsWalky 13:31, 10 February 2011 (EST)

Long story short, if you want an article to be featured, finish it. That means photos for every toy and known merchandise, and storylinks (with summaries) to every piece of fiction they've appeared in. Behind the scenes information helps. The longer and more involved the article, the more appealing it is. Meaning, finishing an article for a Mini-Con who showed up in the background somewhere, or finishing an article for someone who doesn't have any illutrated appearances... these are probably not going to be featured. But people like Perceptor (G1) or Side Burn (RID) or High Wire (Armada) have enough about them to say to make an interesting featured article. --ItsWalky 13:36, 10 February 2011 (EST)

"Long story short," my ass. --ItsWalky 13:37, 10 February 2011 (EST)

Have we done any episodes as Featured yet? I know the over-arching "_target 2006" article was chosen once. You'd think we could get, say Code of Hero up to that standard pretty quickly. -hx 07:42, 11 February 2011 (EST)

I really think we need to get BotCon up to that standard. We're pretty close! --M Sipher 15:22, 11 February 2011 (EST)

B.O.T. is a Featured article about an episode. Excise 00:00, 16 February 2011 (EST)

Letterers

On images of comic pages, do we credit the letterers by placing the image in an "Image by Letterer Name" category? We've got a few contradictory examples around. JW 15:32, 12 February 2011 (EST)

Okay, three options: For images currently in categories like "Images by Mike Scott" (where Mike Scott is a letterer), we can:

1. Create the category and treat letterers just like artists, inkers, and colorists.
2. Instead place them in a "Images lettered by Mike Scott" category.
3. Remove the category, and not attempt to categorize images by letterer.

I'm probably going to go with option 3 barring dissent. JW 17:25, 16 February 2011 (EST)

I added galleries to a few of the pages for letterers (eg Bill Oakley, Peri Godbold) on the basis that lettering can make or break a comic. As well as adding the text, the letterer has to pick where the balloons will go and place, them, so they do have a large degree of control over how the comic turns out. That said, I don't know that we need to categorise images by letterer. The original intention was not to, but it looks like we ended up doing it anyway, and at least one template is set up to put images into category by letterer. --abates 18:44, 16 February 2011 (EST)

I'd vote for option 3 as well.--MistaTee 22:02, 16 February 2011 (EST)

I'm leaning towards option 3 myself. My reasoning is that even though letterers can have a large effect on a comic, I don't see too many people wanting to find every image lettered by a given letterer. The galleries, on the other hand, are useful for demonstrating the quality of an individual's work. So those should be used. While the obsessive in me thinks we should categorize images by every applicable characteristic, it's not realistic. I don't think it benefits us enough to go through all that work for categories that only a few people might find useful. --Tigerpaw28 01:09, 17 February 2011 (EST)

'Kay, I'm going to go with option 3. This may involve editing a template or two. JW 10:35, 17 February 2011 (EST)