Write a new Transformers Wikipedia entry.
Mathew
an entry for him on the Wikipedia.
I just thought it would be fun to call on all those who read this group
and the Wikipedia to write an entry for one new obscure Transformers
character today. It doesn't need to be a big entry, mine is brief, but
I think it describes Evac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evac
What character will you write this week on Wikipedia?
Mathew
Denyer
has a spell-checker.
Just a friendly suggestion. :)
D.
Mathew
Mathew
G.B. Blackrock
the generic Wikipedia. Surely this is something more appropriate for a
Transformers-specific Wiki....
G.B. Blackrock
GRAMMER checker, too.
My entry SHOULD have read:
Is it *really* appropriate to list obscure Transformers characters in
the generic Wikipedia? Surely this is something more appropriate for a
Transformers-specific Wiki....
Note the ?, correcting my mistake of using a period at the end of a
question (a common mistake of mine....).
G.B. Blackrock
I'll stop now. :)
Steve-o Stonebraker
I concur. I think only very prominant characters/names should get
individual entries on Wikipedia.
--Steve-o
--
Steve Stonebraker (sst...@gmail.com) Physicist and All-Around Geek
www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~sstoneb/ AIM: srstoneb Y!IM: sstoneb
Mathew
Steve-o Stonebraker wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2006 14:34:55 -0800, G.B. Blackrock wrote:
> > Is it *really* appropriate to list obscure Transformers characters in
> > the generic Wikipedia. Surely this is something more appropriate for a
> > Transformers-specific Wiki....
>
> I concur. I think only very prominant characters/names should get
> individual entries on Wikipedia.
I don't think so, there is no limit on how obscure or popular something
is to be on the Wikipedia. If people want to see it, it will be there
to be seen. It's just fun, and I wanted to see what other people could
come up with.
Mathew
Aaron F. Bourque
Yeah, bnut like Blackrock said, it's a *generic* Wiki. Specific
obscurities should go oon a specific wiki.
Which isn't really a bad idea: there's a Star Wars Wiki, a Webcomics
Wiki, an Epic Legend of the Heirarchs Wiki . . . why isn't there a
Transformers Wiki?
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
Phillip Thorne
>I don't think so, there is no limit on how obscure or popular something
>is to be on the Wikipedia.
Actually, there is. Wikipedia has several content-selection policies
-- enacted to keep the physics kooks from promoting their pet
theories, while being fair about it -- that discourage entries of
interest only to diehard fans.
I encountered these policies because the "Botcon" entry has been
suggested for, and is under discussion for, deletion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botcon
The correct thing to do, AIUI, is to create a third-party site that
explains the obscure topic in detail, and then refer to it in the
article's "External Links" section.
/- Phillip Thorne ----------- The Non-Sequitur Express --------------------\
| org underbase ta thorne www.underbase.org It's the boundary |
| net comcast ta pethorne site, newsletter, blog conditions that |
\------------------------------------------------------- get you ----------/
Denyer
large, popular with search engines.) As far as I'm concerned, anyone's
welcome to copy stuff I've written, provided it's not passed off as
theirs and they don't edit stuff but leave my name attached. However, I
can't really see why Wikipedia would want information about Titan trade
paperbacks and similar that include a fair measure of personal opinion
(even if only in what aspects I choose to discuss.)
Most of the interest of Transformers to me is the discussion and
presentation of opinions and ideas, rather than dry facts.
Plus, there are some fairly harsh deletion policies in place at
Wikipedia -- many webcomic entries have been axed, for example, leading
to the creation of Comixpedia -- which would discourage me from setting
out to write and layout entries in its format.
If I'm reading something I'll correct any inaccuracies I spot, or chip
in details I find relevant (such as the extent and type of regex
support in text editors I've tried, information about which is thin on
the ground elsewhere) -- but spend time originating content that has
more than a passing chance of being removed by someone who may not even
know the subject? Nah, I'll pass.
D.
Denyer
useful historical content elsewhere...
There really were a glut of exclusives in 2005, weren't there?
D.
iron...@earthlink.net
Detective Fork - Silverware Noir (webcomic)
http://www.detectivefork.com
Starshadow
news:slrndui9en....@fox.mps.ohio-state.edu...
> On 7 Feb 2006 14:34:55 -0800, G.B. Blackrock wrote:
> > Is it *really* appropriate to list obscure Transformers characters in
> > the generic Wikipedia. Surely this is something more appropriate for a
> > Transformers-specific Wiki....
>
> I concur. I think only very prominant characters/names should get
> individual entries on Wikipedia.
> --Steve-o
IS there a Transformers-specific Wiki? If not, I'm surprised there isn't. I
know it's readily possible because my boyfriend is in the process of
creating one for his new webcomic.... was there one at some time, and it got
axed for some reason? I just have a hard time believing that no one has
gotten around to it yet, especially with Wiki's current popularity.
*****Starshadow*****
Denyer
literally dozens of good sites already out there, and at least one good
search engine to find them...
With the average maturity level, there'd also be conflict over
plagiarism (cutting and pasting from existing sites) and more simple
things, such as literacy and fact-checking.
D.
Mathew
write. I'm sorry everyone here is so down-in-the-dumps about it.
I just like that I can see a typo and actually FIX it.
I wrote pages for Evac, Tankor and made seperate pages for the other
Megatrons after the first. It was fun. Some guys have been deleting
stuff from pages I wrote or added too, but oh well... it's fun.
Mathew
Denyer
> stuff from pages I wrote or added to
This is another fairly big issue people have with Wikipedia.
I've just been and scrawled in some basic information about IDW and
what they're doing, though, as the Transformers Universes entry only
seems to go up to Dreamwave.
D.
Mathew
Triplechangers, Transmetals, etc.
Mathew
Kil - Michael McCarthy
news:1139503431....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I just added some "Categories" for Transformers - Pretenders,
> Triplechangers, Transmetals, etc.
Why?
Just so you know, they'll almost certainly be deleted.
-Kil
-----
Michael "Kil" McCarthy
http://kil-michaelmcc.livejournal.com
http://hometown.aol.com/michaelmcc79
Aphel Aura
Kil - Michael McCarthy wrote:
> "Mathew" <mathew...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1139503431....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >I just added some "Categories" for Transformers - Pretenders,
> > Triplechangers, Transmetals, etc.
>
> Why?
>
> Just so you know, they'll almost certainly be deleted.
Matthew: No doubt this is fun for you, and I applaud your efforts, just
don't get overzealous about this... remember what domain you're working
with here.
Mathew
Mathew
G.B. Blackrock
some of us, Wikipedia is (at least an attempt at) a serious effort to
put together an online resource tool. Too many people just adding
"fun" entries waters down the serious purpose of the encyclopedia.
I'd recommend reading this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_wikipedia_is_not
Note: Nothing you're suggesting is explicitly against the rules, so far
as I can tell. But it seems to me that some of it may not be
appropriate. This is a matter open to debate, and I'm not presuming to
have the final word on the matter.
My two cents,
G.B. Blackrock
Denyer
I don't think it's going to work particularly well with TFs. There are
too many ways of structuring the information (date, series, medium,
company, fiction timeline) for a consensus approach to work unless
someone takes the reins.
OT: When did Google add "rate this post" type kibble to its Usenet
archives?
D.
Starshadow
news:1139393454.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I can understand this and I agree. I'm just surprised nobody has tried
anyway. In THEORY, a centralized repository of all things TF would be very
nice, not to mention convenient. However, like a lot of things in life, this
only seems to work in the imagination.
Sometimes I really wish the TF fandom would learn to cooperate a little
more.....think of the things we could accomplish together. But I guess
that's like wishing for World Peace.......:-/
*****Starshadow*****
Mathew
Wikipedia is. Thanks for your input, and I encourage you to write
entries in it if the urge hits you.
Mathew
Josh 'Ramen' Miller
> "Denyer" wrote in message
> news:1139393454.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > I think most people just don't see the point, what with there being
> > literally dozens of good sites already out there, and at least one good
> > search engine to find them...
> >
> > With the average maturity level, there'd also be conflict over
> > plagiarism (cutting and pasting from existing sites) and more simple
> > things, such as literacy and fact-checking.
>
> I can understand this and I agree. I'm just surprised nobody has tried
> anyway. In THEORY, a centralized repository of all things TF would be very
> nice, not to mention convenient. However, like a lot of things in life, this
> only seems to work in the imagination.
http://www.tfu.info ?
--
Ramen Junkie
G.B. Blackrock
choose to exercise restraint....
Denyer
(so the entries have a consistent layout and filing system, etc.)
D.
G.B. Blackrock
Do you mean to suggest that, not only is detailed minutia of TF-lore
inappropriate for Wikipedia, but even a TF-focused Wiki would be a bad
idea? If so, I would repectfully disagree. I think I TF-focused Wiki
would be a great idea (how does one go about creating such, anyway?).
I just think that Wikipedia is intended for more generic purposes, and
putting in lots of entries that don't matter to the vast majority of
people is not appropriate to Wikipedia's intentions.
If Wikipedia is not intended to be this way, then why should there be
more specific Wikis at all?
G.B. Blackrock
Aphel Aura
G.B. Blackrock wrote:
> Do you mean to suggest that, not only is detailed minutia of TF-lore
> inappropriate for Wikipedia, but even a TF-focused Wiki would be a bad
> idea? If so, I would repectfully disagree. I think I TF-focused Wiki
> would be a great idea (how does one go about creating such, anyway?).
> I just think that Wikipedia is intended for more generic purposes, and
> putting in lots of entries that don't matter to the vast majority of
> people is not appropriate to Wikipedia's intentions.
>
> If Wikipedia is not intended to be this way, then why should there be
> more specific Wikis at all?
Well put, my friend.. my thoughts exactly, although I didn't have time
to elaborate in my previous post.
We are, after all, a pretty specific fandom/sub-culture. Now, imagine
if every fandom and subculture out there decided to clog up Wikipedia
with their universe of knowledge, instead of giving just a general
overview and pointing to various resources that exist outside of
Wikipedia. We end up with an intolerable, indecipherable mass of crap
that doesn't matter to the general public. Not only that, but we will
also risk unncessarily unleashing all the negative shit within the
fandoms (the flames, the trolls, the petty arguments, etc) into the
really public spaces. I for one would rather leave that shit alone.
Denyer
> inappropriate for Wikipedia, but even a TF-focused Wiki would be a bad
> idea? If so, I would repectfully disagree.
When structuring that quantity of data it requires a lot of people to
either conform to a mutually-agreed format, or at the very least not
diverge into another broadly different format. It's a bit like six
people scribbling on the same piece of paper simultaneously. They may
all be well-acquainted with a common subject matter, but it doesn't
matter diddly-squat if two of them are busily applying liquid paper to
what the other four are doing so that they can order it by year rather
than series. Or if one of the four is just wandering around with a pair
of scissors.
Wikipedia -- the principle that anyone can edit -- is an ideal rather
than a practise. Many of its political or religious articles frequently
have to be withdrawn from general editing, for the simple reason people
disagree.
The alternative of getting server space and getting together a
subsection of a community in a circle of trust (which is either in
agreement as to classification or prepared to work with the elected
method) still isn't perfect, but tends to produce much more usable
results.
TFU, for example, has grown into a usable resource because it's a
personal investment and because arbitrary individuals can't remove,
re-order and duplicate stuff.
The biggest failing with Wikipedia articles on Transformers, in my
opinion, is that they tend not to give much indication where
information is *absent*. Rather than having methodically created stubs,
there simply aren't references, or there's a passing comment in a
separate article somewhere. It's particularly the case where a series
is ongoing.
D.
Aphel Aura
> TFU, for example, has grown into a usable resource because it's a
> personal investment and because arbitrary individuals can't remove,
> re-order and duplicate stuff.
But it is also because TFU.info serves as a primarily visual reference,
and doesn't offer extensive biographies, backgrounds, or any write-ups
within the context of any particular series or the TF universe in
general. People with all types of opinions and beliefs can go there
and retrieve the exact same information. As they say, less is
more.......
Denyer
> and retrieve the exact same information.
So, you're suggesting people don't filter the official bios or imagery
in general through a personal bias? I see what you're saying, but a
gallery by TFKenkon (even if just of one figure, rather than
comparative pics) will be regarded differently to a realistically lit
shot plus tech spec info.
In this case the comparison was simply to note structure -- each entry
offers a clear shot of X, Y, Z plus accessories, other uses of a mould
and trademark, etc. Most entries on Wikipedia, on the other hand,
select information largely on the basis of interest to the author.
Without some form of standardised format -- or disparate standards
being employed alongside each other -- Wikipedia is less usable for
some things.
D.
G.B. Blackrock
people aren't uniformly good about enforcing them. This is why some
people are seeing their posts deleted (NOT because someone arbitrarily
hates what they've done).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
My two cents, (I really do need to be more consistent about using this
tag line. I used to all the time....)
G.B. Blackrock
Denyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout
Although even that doesn't particularly help, as the questions are ones
of what to include in main articles, what to include in appended
articles, and how to accurately assign content that people tend to
disagree about.
For example, from what I can tell, TFU generally dates figures by year
of American release, rather than when a mould was actually released
(Europe got a lot of figures later reissued in G2 towards the end of
the original toyline's main phase. Complicating that is the fact that
some were released as entirely different characters, some weren't, and
some just switched names.)
In the same way, Transformers series and trademarks are ongoing from
the date of introduction. 'The Transformers' runs from 1984-present,
Beast Wars from 1996-present, etc. The fandom tends to invent
neologisms to deal with this (G1 itself being a retcon, Neo-G1 being
the current dead horse undergoing heavy flogging, a term which will
only become more vague as we move into the second publisher of modern
comics, get more new characters added by Takara and a probable classics
homage line before the movie.)
D.
Aphel Aura
Denyer wrote:
> > People with all types of opinions and beliefs can go there
> > and retrieve the exact same information.
>
> So, you're suggesting people don't filter the official bios or imagery
> in general through a personal bias? I see what you're saying, but a
> gallery by TFKenkon (even if just of one figure, rather than
> comparative pics) will be regarded differently to a realistically lit
> shot plus tech spec info.
I know, but that's just a matter of aesthetic taste. What I'm saying
is that there is still no disputing, whether you went to TFKenkon or
TFU, about their presentation of things like whether Alt/BT Ravage is a
Corvette, or if Meister is white. But I suspect you already knew what
I meant, you just went one step beyond where I wanted to go. =)
In any case, your point regarding standardization is well taken.
G.B. Blackrock
Denyer wrote:
> This one's more what I'm thinking of:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout
Fair enough. Although you clearly see what I was trying to say.
> Although even that doesn't particularly help, as the questions are ones
> of what to include in main articles, what to include in appended
> articles, and how to accurately assign content that people tend to
> disagree about.
Also fair, and as I already suggested, the style that *does* exist
isn't consistently enforced.
> For example, from what I can tell, TFU generally dates figures by year
> of American release, rather than when a mould was actually released
> (Europe got a lot of figures later reissued in G2 towards the end of
> the original toyline's main phase. Complicating that is the fact that
> some were released as entirely different characters, some weren't, and
> some just switched names.)
While all this is true, I find the comparison to TFU to be a bit of an
"apple and oranges" situation. I feel that a better comparison to
Wikipedia would be to Stanley Lui's old TF Encyclopedia (does this
still exist somewhere?). This encyclopedia was more "standardized,"
although it did encourage people to send in submissions to the site
owner. (I did an article for Lord Zarak back in the day...)
Denyer
> "apple and oranges" situation.
It's a similar instance insofar as there's a lot of data to categorise,
and decisions have to be made -- either by an individual, a small
closed group, or by anyone who happens along. The encyclopedia is
another good example; a means of categorisation has been decided and
fixed (alphabetically by nouns and occasionally other types of word)
and content is then slotted into that.
The problem with Wikipedia is the haphazard sectioning and
division/duplication of content on and over pages. If you're reading
the toys page at the moment, for instance, series after RID don't get a
subsection because no-one's written that content or linked other pages
that might be relevant after the RID section; they're just mentioned
briefly elsewhere. People don't tend to link other relevant pages, I
think, mostly because they don't know what else has been written or
whether what they link is going to be there for long.
You can stick a character or series name into a search box provided you
know roughly what you're looking for, or you can navigate via entries
in the global Transformers category, or you can assemble your own
chronologies from the data there. As a readable encyclopedia with
natural breaks to point to relevant content or main articles, though,
it could all do with someone coming up with one or more frameworks on
paper and then applying them to what content is there at present --
then more content being added into that. Hoping that the organisation
will evolve in the process of editing is perhaps a bit optimistic for
the quantity of data.
D.
G.B. Blackrock
problems you cite with Wikipedia are legitimate ones, and these would
indeed remain problems with a TF-based Wiki. But at the end of the
day, I still think it would be a good resource to have. I do wish
people wouldn't add so much TF-specific minutia to the generic
Wikipedia. But the very fact that there *is* so much information, just
within the TF mythos, to assimiliate speaks to the need to have a full
encyclopedic resource available. A TF Wiki would by no means replace
such resources as www.tfu.info, or Stanley Lui's TF Encyclopedia (if
indeed it's still out there). But the fact that it could be maintained
and updated by the public, while meaning all the problems you've
already cited, also means that it is not likely to become stagnant
after the main administrator has moved on to other things in his/her
life (a fact of life that has happened to me, myself, over several web
ventures through the past decade or so). This has already happened to
several TF resources that have been valuable over the years: the TF
Tech Spec Archive, for example. When the Hartmans closed it down,
TFW2005 picked up all the G1 Tech Specs, but no one has yet put up a
resource that has all the Tech Specs from the other aspects of TF
history, to the best of my ability to locate such.
I'd love to find out how a TF Wiki might be put together.
Denyer
> several TF resources that have been valuable over the years
A fan-run wiki would suffer from much the same problem of an owner
deciding they don't want to run the server any longer. Inserting into
an existing project such as Wikipedia has merit as far as longevity
goes, but is subject to the whims of current deletion policy.
Very sound point about content being far less likely to grow stagnant.
Personally if I were running such a project I'd aim for a few more
checks and balances than Wikipedia offers: require some kind of token
authorisation (even if only an introduction in a forum) before accounts
had the ability to edit and reserve the ability to 'kick' malicious or
incompetent users so that they caused a minimum of disturbance. In that
way, extremely little input would be required by an administrator, but
some guidance could be offered (and things be discussed via a more
traditional forum rather than via page edits.)
> I'd love to find out how a TF Wiki might be put together.
Grab yourself a server (paid, as you won't get decent PHP/MySQL support
on free webspace, and you'll probably want the ability to easily make
backups) and install MediaWiki, I'd presume. Pick a decent host,
because if the project becomes popular the server will get thoroughly
hammered.
> When the Hartmans closed it down, TFW2005 picked
> up all the G1 Tech Specs, but no one has yet put up a
> resource that has all the Tech Specs from the other
> aspects of TF history
Hmm. I've got an old offline copy that I rather stupidly only labelled
'2002', but chances are reasonable it has BW and BM complete in there
(I don't actually know, having followed neither toyline.) If they
aren't available elsewhere, do you think it'd be worthwhile me slinging
them up on TFArchive? Or are scans basically redundant with the
profiles being available as text elsewhere?
> Stanley Lui's TF Encyclopedia (if indeed it's still out there)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/6563/
> I think, ultimately, we must agree to disagree.
Indeed. Cheers for the interesting conversation, though. :)
D.
G.B. Blackrock
Denyer wrote:
> > I'd love to find out how a TF Wiki might be put together.
>
> Grab yourself a server (paid, as you won't get decent PHP/MySQL support
> on free webspace, and you'll probably want the ability to easily make
> backups) and install MediaWiki, I'd presume. Pick a decent host,
> because if the project becomes popular the server will get thoroughly
> hammered.
Thanks! Not something I'm able to do, but I appreicate knowing about
the software.
> > When the Hartmans closed it down, TFW2005 picked
> > up all the G1 Tech Specs, but no one has yet put up a
> > resource that has all the Tech Specs from the other
> > aspects of TF history
>
> Hmm. I've got an old offline copy that I rather stupidly only labelled
> '2002', but chances are reasonable it has BW and BM complete in there
> (I don't actually know, having followed neither toyline.) If they
> aren't available elsewhere, do you think it'd be worthwhile me slinging
> them up on TFArchive? Or are scans basically redundant with the
> profiles being available as text elsewhere?
Not redundant to folks like me who occasionally create fan-specs
(although I haven't done one in months) and want to mimic the original
format as much as possible.
> > Stanley Lui's TF Encyclopedia (if indeed it's still out there)
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/6563/
Thanks! Incidentally, do you know how long since it's been updated?
The past couple of times I've been there (the last time prior to today
being several months back, and I know it was true then) the "last
updated" time seems to indicate pretty much the same time as I've
visited (with revisions made for differing time zones), rather than a
true "last time updated."
> > I think, ultimately, we must agree to disagree.
>
> Indeed. Cheers for the interesting conversation, though. :)
>
> D.
Likewise!
gem...@tpg.com.au
>> While all this is true, I find the comparison to TFU to be a bit of an
>> "apple and oranges" situation.
>
>It's a similar instance insofar as there's a lot of data to categorise,
>and decisions have to be made -- either by an individual, a small
>closed group, or by anyone who happens along.
Which is why the reference material for such a large mythos is best served
by a series of smaller sites, each concentrating on one or two aspects,
and cross-linked to and by a series of index sites (of which Wikipedia may
be one).
This also allows extremely narrow-yet-deep resources to develop, such as
shrines to a particular character or mold which contain almost everything
anyone could ever want to know about that tiny part of the larger picture.
About the only reason to link this information to Wikipedia at all is that
Wikipedia is a global wide-yet-shallow resource for almost everything, and
linking our own fandom sites from there means that we get more drive-by
traffic, as it were. We can also use it as a kind of shield, putting basic
info up there so we're not inundated by a thousand people asking "Who's
Optimus Prime then?"
-SteveD
Denyer
The "last updated" bit is based on a document.lastModified Javascript.
It may have once given accurate results when Geocities used a different
method for inserting ads into pages, but no longer. So, judging by the
entry below and mention of Optimal Optimus, I'd guess 1998:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/6563/meg-bw.html#cartoonUS
Time's really flown. I remember browsing this stuff back in college. :)
D.
Denyer
>there so we're not inundated by a thousand people asking "Who's
>Optimus Prime then?"
Which will probably become highly relevant in 2007... it could become a
further iteration of the Endless September for this fandom...
>Which is why the reference material for such a large mythos is best
>served by a series of smaller sites, each concentrating on one or
>two aspects, and cross-linked to and by a series of index sites
>(of which Wikipedia may be one).
>This also allows extremely narrow-yet-deep resources to develop
Mmm, I'm inclined to agree -- I tend to view Google as the index in
question, although after a while people get a sense for which sites
crop up most consistently in the "yes, this answers my question" subset
of results and bookmark them, refer people to them if they ask, etc.
D.
G.B. Blackrock
that there IS a TF wiki out there. It doesn't have too much yet. I
just finished writing up information on the first 5 Marvel comics for
the site. But this would be a better place for most of the
information.
Also, in regard to the "rules" of the generic Wikipedia, it should be
noted that it is not appropriate to put one's own art or "fan" tech
specs on that site. Wikipedia is a place for verifiable data (whatever
you think about the appropriateness of TF minutia on that site), not
fan works.
The TF wiki can be found at
http://transformers.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page
David Willis
"G.B. Blackrock" <nicodem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141497431.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, I found that this morning too. I've since put up pages for
Robot-Master, Hot Shot, and Unicron. In that order.
Unicron's a toughie. He has 30 zillion different conflicting stories and
origins, but he's canonically all the same guy, and all of his appearances
across the different continuities apparently happen in a sequential order.
Which is a concept I love, but it's not so easy to reconcile
detail-for-detail.
--David
www.shortpacked.com