Robot Wars Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 3

People
Its great that we have such a wide variety of articles being created, but I would really like some back-breaking work into creating/expanding the following articles;


 * Craig Charles
 * Philippa Forrester
 * Julia Reed
 * Jayne Middlemiss
 * Jonathan Pearce
 * Judges
 * Noel Sharkey
 * Mat Irvine
 * and the others.

Especially Johnathon, Craig, Phillipa and Noel, who have been around for so long. We canot call ourselves a Robot Wars encyclopedia without these articles.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  09:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Jeremy Clarkson's article also needs to be expanded to include more about his time on the show. I may start a few of them myself, but not straightaway. Also, I noticed you spelled a few of the names wrong, so I corrected them for you. Christophee (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Should the articles be called Professor Noel Sharkey, etc.? Or just Noel Sharkey?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd leave it as Noel Sharkey, like his Wikipedia article. Christophee (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I made articles on Jonathan, Philippa, and Noel Sharkey. I originally titled it Prof. Noel Sharkey, but moved it to the Noel Sharkey link here. I wonder if you could delete the Prof. Noel Sharkey page, I don't think I can. I'm working on Craig but it may take a while... Thetubberlad 21:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What about Derek Foxwell too? I won't be able to make it, but I believe he should have an article.  Helloher    (talk)  20:29, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but he'd be hard to get info on.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  13:00, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

New idea
Ok, I've had this idea mulling in my mind for a while. Now that our wiki is vastly expanding, the current setup of Robot Articles is not working for us.


 * The categorisation is wrong - we have Arnold A. Terminegger under Walkerbots, we have Pussycat under Series 2 seeds, but the biggest problem in my opinion was keeping Mace and Gemini together, because in my opinion, Mace is the far better robot, and is undershadowed by having to share an article.
 * The articles are too long - just look at 259 or All Torque
 * Salek's new results table does not fit alongside the robot template, so the already long articles will be doubled in length once we add them. I've been deliberately avoiding this problem. It works for Roadblock, as Beast of Bodmin's Robot History is long enough to fill the space beside the robot template and avoid a large, unnecessary gap, but I shudder to think of 259's article with the table added.

So, whilst on holidays, I developed an idea. I propose that most articles with two robots be split. For example, Robot the Bruce, Chaos and Chaos 2 would be split; 259, Vector of Armageddon, Corporal Punishment and Wowot would be split; All Torque would be split. However, some, like the Plunderbirds, the Firestorms, the Bulldog Breeds and the Aggrobots would be kept together (but Groundhog would be removed from Firestorm). This would allow the following benefits.


 * Correct categorisation
 * Condensed articles
 * Increased number of articles
 * An increase in the Notables table, with the addition of robots like 3 Stegs to Heaven, Chaos, The Mule, Killerhurtz, Shadow of Napalm, Anarchy, Oblivion and The Big Cheese.
 * A more accurate Finalists template, with Big Brother, Robot the Bruce, Recyclopse, Steg 2, Bodyhammer, Beast of Bodmin and Thing 2 in their correct places on the template, plus the additions of others like Spawn of Scutter, Scutter's Revenge and.
 * More badges up for grabs.

However


 * The seperation of articles will require a re-look into who counts as a mere sequal and who counts as a new robot. For example, the new setup, in my opinion, will make Mega Hurts LT, Corkscrew Two, Thermador and Tetanus Booster merge with their current articles, like we recently did to Robochicken Evo and Spirit of Scorpion.
 * We would also need to create articles such as Twister (UK) and Twister (Dutch), or Prometheus (UK) and Prometheus (USA)

Also

As a result of this, we will need a homepage. Another benefit of this is, due to the new articles for other weight categories, we can have an article like this.


 * Team Cold Fusion - information
 * Pussycat (link to)
 * Bodyhammer (link to)
 * Katnip - information
 * Kitty - information

or a simpler one


 * Team Ivanhoe
 * Splinter (link to)
 * Ivanhoe (link to)

and a mix of all.


 * Adam Clark (I don't know about a name for his team, since it was only one man most of the time)
 * 259 (link to)
 * Middleweight 259 - information
 * Vector of Armageddon (link to)
 * Corporal Punishment (link to)
 * Wowot (link to)

This means we no longer have to worry about all our problems. We would probably need to create a place to discuss names for Teams, as well as who stays and who splits. Does anyone have anything to say on the matter, or any questions on things I may have left out?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  23:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you remember way back when you first joined the wiki, this issue was brought up and I wanted all robots to have separate articles, even if they were from the same team, but I was outnumbered so I agreed to do it the way it is now. So as you'd expect, I am fully on board with this idea. It might be a bit tricky to decide which robots split and which don't, but it will make the articles a lot better. Christophee (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd back this too. I did think it odd when I've been looking around that Mace & Gemini shared an article, etc... - Salak Talk 01:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, I'll create a forum for discussion about merging or splitting sometime later - right now I'm wiped.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Robot History
I think we should split the extreme robot history into two. It would make it so much easier if the robot histories were in chronological order, and not one big mess; robots like Firestorm and Razer and Behemoth, who appeared a lot in both extremes would have a huge mess. Does anyone agree?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  11:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really mind much either way, but if you think it would be better that way then I'm happy to go along with it. Christophee (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will need help, but yes I think we should change it. I'm mostly sick of CBFan throwing a tantrum when we fill in an Extreme 1 history without doing the second one.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  00:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I AM still here, you know. CBFan 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, well its true.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Honours
I'm getting two new ideas. One I'm going to do regardless, but the second one we need to discuss.


 * The first is to create a new box for non-official honours such as those on the pages of Firestorm, Chaos 2, Gravity, Cassius and Wheely Big Cheese. I'll also add honours such as placings in The Combat Robot Hall of Fame.


 * The second idea is that we put seeds as a similar system to honours. The succession box would work for this. Here are a few examples.

Razer

Firestorm

Mini Morg

Spawn Again

Does this work for anyone? I think it is a good idea, but others would argue that it would clutter the article.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  10:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it's unnecesary and fills up the articles with content that doesn't really add a great deal. The first one is a good idea though. Christophee (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I still like it, but I'll leave it to the community. I did make an attempt at the box for the first idea called Template:Honours last night, but failed in putting the fine touches on it. Can someone please help me fix it?  Toon Ganondorf     (t    c)  00:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Failed to qualify
For cases that we know, under Series Record, should we put Failed to qualify instead of Did not enter? Only for cases we are 100% sure on?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  12:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a good idea. Christophee (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Video Games
Do you think we should make an article for each of the Robot Wars video games? And acknowledge in a specific Robots article that it appeared in these games? --Zutroy1 (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are already articles, but they are in serious need of development. CBFan 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure only one of the games has an article at the moment. Maybe we could have categories for robots that have appeared in each game. Christophee (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. I can start on that, if you want. I'll do Arenas of Destruction, perhaps, or Metal Mayhem (I think its called) as I have those two.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  23:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Robot Wars Wiki Feedback
During my scrounge for information, I have received several commendments. Laurie Calvert stated

"a great Wiki entry. Thanks. You've done us proud!"

- Laurie Calvert

and

"Well, what I read about PulverizeR (which is mine) is very good stuff! If you have any questions, please ask! Keep up the good work!"

- Mischa De Graaf, captain of PulverizeR

Just thought I'd give it to you users out there as motivation.

Also, I have just received an email from Kim Davis!!!!!!!!  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  09:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, you really have done a great job getting in contact with all these roboteers. I'm really happy that they like the wiki. I never really imagined when I started it that it would progress this much in such a small space of time. Speaking of which, the wiki's 18 month anniversary is coming up on August 18th and I wonder whether there is anything we could do to mark the occasion... Christophee (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with an aniversary idea, but I can't think of anything.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  07:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try my best to think of something in the next two days. If I can't think of anything I suppose I could just send out a message thanking everyone for their contributions so far. Christophee (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can clearly tell, I wasn't able to think of anything in time for the 18th, but I really think we should make an effort to do something for the two year anniversary when it comes around. No need to think about that now though. Christophee (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I did.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  11:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Results & Honours tables
Does anybody think it would a good idea to add a section to the top of both of these that specifies the version of the show, like "UK Series" or "Dutch Series" instead of using sub-headings? I think it would look neater on the articles. Christophee (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It would require just another addition, like Template:Results_Top. I wish Salek would come back, we could really use his help.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  07:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I could have a go at doing it myself if nobody has any objections. Christophee (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created the templates and added them to PulverizeR. Please tell me what you think and whether they need any improvements. Christophee (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

New articles
Should we have an article for German Series Competitors and Dutch Series Competitors? Similar to the UK Series Competitor page we have?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  11:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The German one will be a bit small but I'm all for creating these pages, and one for the US series too. Christophee (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Size is no matter. Great. I'll start the German one soon. Should we include all German robots, or just German Series Competitors?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  22:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just stick to German Series competitors. Christophee (talk) 00:05, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

After Robot Wars
I'm thinking we should include an After Robot Wars section on some of our more prominent articles, such as Iron Awe, who has gone on to be the 2008 Heavyweight Champion, or Behemoth, Kronic and Chompalot, who have all risen to some pedigree in robot combat outside of the wars. We could also include notes on robots who have been retired, such as Axe Awe, Lightning, Chaos 2 and The Steel Avenger, and those who were merely disassembled, such as Limpet. I am thinking of including it before the Robot History, because there is still a gap between most results tables and article info, and anything to close this gap slightly would be good.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  22:20, September 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggested this a while back so I definitely support the idea. Logically, I think it should go after the robot history, but I'm happy for it to go before the results tables in order to remove the gaps. Christophee (talk) 00:05, September 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Isnt that the same thing? I believe you mean the Series Record.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  11:09, September 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * What? I'm saying I think it should go between the Robot History and the Results, which is not the same as what you said. Christophee (talk) 21:38, September 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * You said it should go after the robot history, but are happy to go before the results table. That's the same place. Regardless, it should go just after the robot summary, because it is already there for several robots like Cassius, Chaos 2, The Steel Avenger and Limpet.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  00:23, September 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean now. You said it should go before the Robot History, but I was saying it should go afterwards, but specifying that I was happy for it to go between the Robot History and Results, because I thought just saying "after" the Robot History could have meant anywhere after it, not necessarily directly after it. Sorry about the confusion.


 * Anyway, back to the subject. I think having a paragraph after the introduction is fine for most robots, but some could probably do with bigger sections as they've achieved a lot since Robot Wars finished, like Iron Awe or Ripper for example. Christophee (talk) 14:19, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

Categories
I'm also thinking of creating some obscure, yet useful categories.


 * Robots with more wins than losses
 * Robots with more losses than wins
 * One-time competitors - I'm not sure if the Series 7 robots should count.
 * One-time competitors that lost in the first round - Does not include Topbot or I Bot One Beta, who are World Championship competitors.

There are more, but they are the ones I have thought of. Does anyone agree to help me spread these out?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  22:20, September 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * You can create them if you like, but I doubt I'll get round to helping you roll them out across the wiki. Maybe somebody else will though. Christophee (talk) 00:05, September 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, neither will I, I just wanted to see whether it was a good idea for the future.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  00:19, September 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * I might be able to do them. For the final one, is it one time competitors only?  Helloher    (talk)  16:12, September 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually wish you'd waited. Robots like Armour Geddon should be in a subcategory for the last category. I'll try and fix it soon. Hold up though, try to do jobs on the Job List instead of jumping at fresh ideas.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  23:24, September 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh okay then.  Helloher    (talk)  18:17, September 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we go any further into the one time losers category? I mean for each series.  Helloher    (talk)  16:18, September 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Maybe sometime in the future.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  00:25, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Kittyclaws???
Does anyone know anything about a competitor robot called Kittyclaws? There's someone on Youtube who's telling me they're convinced it exists, but I haven't been able to find any robot with such name. '''R A 2 ; [http://www.youtube.com/user/ResettisReplicas aka Resetti's Replicas. ] ( My Talk )''' 17:33, September 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * when was it supposed to have fought?  Helloher    (talk)  15:19, September 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * He doesn't know. R A 2 ; aka Resetti's Replicas. ( My Talk ) 17:48, September 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * Then he's a fan-fiction writer.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  21:11, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Weapons
Should we do pages on weapons archtypes with lists of robots with them, notable uses, strengths and weaknesses?  Helloher    (talk)  13:42, September 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone?  Helloher    (talk)  18:08, September 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * No-one at all?  Helloher    (talk)  11:46, September 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that may be a good idea. It would be good to differentiate between flywheel and spinning disc, flipper and flipping arm, etc. Then we could categorise and make a list of robots with those weapons, plus advantages of each weapon. Leave it for now. I want the last few New Blood robots done.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  11:59, September 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean make the articles, like I did for Niterider?  Helloher    (talk)  12:19, September 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  21:42, September 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * I am fine doing those. I had another idea about the weapons. We could put in a table like for results. Here are two examples:


 * }

 Helloher    (talk)  15:35, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * }


 * There we are. I've finished the new blood competitors.  Helloher    (talk)  17:48, September 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * That could work, yes. Nice work. Not sure yet. If you'd hold off and let me mull over it, we can consider it for later. Deal?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  23:43, September 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Deal.  Helloher    (talk)  05:03, September 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Any thoughts yet?  Helloher    (talk)  19:42, October 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * To me, it seems unnecessary to put it in a template table. Perhaps we could make a section or a wikitable instead? I would like more content to fill the gaps, not create bigger ones.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  21:05, October 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, how about this:

 Helloher    (talk)  21:12, October 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's better. Do it on Panic Attack's page, but leave it so we can see how it looks and decide further.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  23:48, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Series chronology
I was thinking it might be good to have a link near the top-right of articles for individual series, which links you to the previous and next series of the show. There are many examples of this on Wikipedia and we could either create a new template or incorporate it into the Series template. If you don't know what I mean, take a look at the "Chronology" section at the bottom of the infobox on this page:. What do you guys think? Christophee (talk) 15:48, October 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * I like this.  Helloher    (talk)  17:23, October 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * So do I, someone can go ahead and do it if they want.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  11:37, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, but do you think it should be a separate template which goes below the infobox or should it be incorporated into the infobox itself? Christophee (talk) 22:16, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Wins by ___
Further to Llamaman's Wins/Losses section, I'd like to make something that says how many opponents a robot defeate by a judges decision or via knockout. Further, Knockout can be broken into several sections; pitting, OotA, immobilising an opponent, opponent breaking down, opponent disqualified or opponent taken by House Robots. Example below, but I'm not sure on the layout yet, its just a prototype. I put them in brackets for convinence, but it wouldnt happen in the article.

Roadblock's Wins/Losses

 * Wins by Knockout: 10
 * Via immobilisation of opponent: 4 (Killertron, Recyclopse, Robot the Bruce, King Buxton)
 * Via pit: 2 (Killerhurtz, Killertron)
 * Via House Robots: 1 (Nemesis)
 * Via Opponent Breakdown: 3 (TRACIE, Cunning Plan, Onslaught)
 * Wins by Judges Decision: 1 (Bodyhammer)


 * Losses by Knockout: 1
 * Losses via immobilisation: 1 (Cassius)
 * Loses by Judges Decision: 0

Note that I called it Opponents defeated rather than battles won, because it allows for battles with more than one robot. Perhaps we should re-consider the Wins/Losses to this instead; victories rather than battles won - it would allow Hydra to be recognised in its defeat of Kat 3 instead of Iron Awe getting the credit.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  11:37, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I like it. One question though, I saw you put the robots names in bracets. Would we keep the names or did you just put them there to show us how your idea worked?  Helloher    (talk)  12:01, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, it was just for this instance.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  20:01, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah.  Helloher    (talk)  20:11, October 18, 2009 (UTC)