Talk:Main Page

Can you help by making Amestris seem as real and simple to explain without the extras until later.

I need your knowledge as well. The knowledge of others and promotions help too.

Title
The title of the series is Fullmetal Alchemist, not Full Metal Alchemist. The name "Fullmetal" is one word, not two. (If you don't believe me, see the official site, the Wikipedia article, the Adult Swim website, etc.) Every time the show is mentioned on this wiki, the title is typed incorrectly. This should be corrected by anyone who is able to edit the main page. I'm planning on fixing it everywhere else. --Michaelbillings 19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FMA RULES!!!!
FMA is the best anime I have ever seen! Inuyasha is ok, but FMA is WAY better! More interesting things happening and an easier story-line to follow. When it comes to FMA, I have seen every episode but the last one. I havent seen it yet, so no one ruin it for me ok?

HotaruxLeon

Logo
I was thinking...we should find or make a logo for the wiki. it really looks boring, and even if it's the anime logo, anything would be better than the Wikia logo we have now. Perhaps a vote, people can enter pictures and vote on them? just an idea...

Alkelmyst 02:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Banner
Anyone like the banner that I placed on the main Page?

Poll
Can someone put Wrath in the poll please?

--Vitormatias 09:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article
Can someone change the featured article on the main page? It gets boring after seeing the previous ones (which are all Edward Elric). Waterdrop95 17:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I think after Edward being article of the month four times in a row, I think someone or something else should be put on. I'd change it myself, but I cant. Is it possible or does an admin have to do it? The stooge 01:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)The Stooge

Update
I have been to several wikia sites such as Bleach and Naruto and they are updated every week, I come to this site a couple of times and notice it needs to be updated alot. Here is a suggestion, could the characters that appear in both the 2003 anime and the 2009 anime have seperate articles with biographys from the storylines? Also, I notice that Edward has been the article of the month for the longest time now, we should pick a new character each month for a new article.

Gunsolkyle 11:29, 18 July 2009 {UTC}

Agreed, but now Lan Fan (AKA, the article of 3 months+ holder) is the problem, not to mention there are characters that appear in the anime that still have manga pictures, one is Alchemist doctor. --| WhiteArmor | (Talk) |-- 21:16, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

I tried to get a nice image of the doctor but there are only shots of him with his head down and a close-up of his face which is quite scary. I try to replace images as much as I can (I only have a few selected episodes downloaded), but for him we'll have to wait until his next appearance (and it's quite soon). Kiadony 05:13, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well I understand what you're saying, I was convinced that not much work got done here, Narutopedia still uses a manga picture for the Valley of Clouds and Lightning, even though it's out in the anime, because it's a better shot. Though something should still be done about the slowness of the Article of the Month selection. - WhiteArmor - (Talk) - 18:26, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

The sight has come a long way since I first requested this to be updated and it's actually pretty good, but one thing I thought of was, if there were two articles of each characters. For Example, Edward Elric (2003), Edward Elric (2009). That way both articles could have a full bio and pics from each series. 6:21. May 10, 2010.

No, such a thing would create far too much confusion and redundancy, since (especially in Edward's case) characters like that are very much the same in either series. If you feel like each page doesn't contain enough information about the 2003 series, feel free to add more; the profile sections are already written to be neutral to the divergence between the two anime series and focus mostly on what was the same between both, but the story sections only lack information from the 2003 anime because I don't remember very much about it. For those sections, the most I'll probably be able to do is proofread for grammar, spelling and syntax. Once the 2003 anime sections of each page start filling out, there will surely be enough room for images from the earlier series. CorbeauKarasu 01:34, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

FMA Continuity
Hi I would like to ask if which among the ff. is set in the manga universe and which ones are set in the anime universe:

-light novels

-movies

-OVA's

-video games

-trading card games

-drama CD's

-art and guidebooks

Also, is the first anime series set in the same universe as the "Brotherhood" series?

Chapter vs. Episode
In articles, which should we use, the chapter number or episode number? --DARK 05:34, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I think Chapter numbers are better, since the episodes are based off of them and the split between anime series might cause confusion. But that's not to say that using episode numbers is "wrong" per se. CorbeauKarasu 05:47, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

This should be obvious. List BOTH of them. More information is always accepted and less information is never helpful 132.177.53.226 08:38, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Specified Chapter Information
Regarding points in the story as well as ALL OF THE TRIVIA, I feel it would be highly helpful to include citation data like the actual wikipedia does. Often I come to fan-wikis and find curious information with absolutely no mention of which episode or chapter the information was cited from; something that fustrates me because I would like to revisit the chapter in which said information was dispersed.

For example on Edward Elric's personal data page, one the first points of trivia data mentions that Edward writes his alchemic notes in the form of travelogue, and that's it. No mentioning if that was from an omake or within a chapter of the story. As of today there are EXACTLY ONE HUNDRED AND SEVEN chapters out, both in Japan and scanlated in the U.S.A. To find that exact piece of information on my own with not even a hint of where it came from, would take hours of personal effort, something I do not desire to take just to find a single tidbit of information.

What I am suggesting is that EVERY MEMBER OF THIS WIKI take a personal initiative to cite key information whenever they can; something that will make this wiki stand far beyond the others. I mean some fan-wikis don't even bother to state the first appearance of a character! As for me I will act upon my advice and do my best to cite information, BUT ONLY IF you(the main staff) approve of my request and idea. Thank you for taking your time to read this

[[Special:Contributions/132.177.53.226|132.177.53.226 06:30, May 12, 2010 (UTC)]]

New poll
Who wrote this? Can someone change "Winery" to "Winry"?Tommy-Vercetti 20:56, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca on main page
There's a quote at the very beginning of it "Second...

And I don't see the point. It doesn't lead to anything, nor does it end. Can someone remove it? Tommy-Vercetti 23:46, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

New Format
What exactly is going to change when wikia brings in the new changes? I just saw the video and the skin appears to be changing (and I think you can turn it off), but I don't know about anything else. If it does something stupid like making us use Rich Text, I swear I will lose it.--Full Metal Fan 20:51, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, all that changed was the skin, but you can go into your profile and change it. The new format is HIDEOUS.--Full Metal Fan 13:56, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

--Fullmetal Fan 18:03, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Skin
I am working on fixing the skin. It will take a lot of time so bear with me. KingLinkTiger 20:36, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

While not as good as the the old skin, this new colour scheme is a lot better than the white one. One problem I see is that the red links make every link look like it's broken. Just something to consider.--Fullmetal Fan 01:19, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

What about the infoboxes? I mean, why are the empty lines showing when they shouldn't? Or am I the only one seeing it? Kiadony 11:28, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

I still see the plain old monobook one. Red and white.--Tommy-Vercetti 16:18, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you did with the new wikia look... but I just cannot use that.

Its layout is BEYOND awful. Is it possible to also fix up monobook as well?--Tommy-Vercetti 17:26, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

I'll change the color of the links. Is there anything else. They changed the entire way of changing the theme so I can't change as much as before. I don't even know hot to change the gray/blue background. KingLinkTiger 18:00, November 6, 2010 (UTC) P.S. I reverted the link color back to blue for now.

But Monobook is still the same. Don't tell me it's impossible to change it.

Great, ugly color scheme, or a good color scheme with godawful layouts. It's lose/lose.--Tommy-Vercetti 18:52, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

I know the gang at Naruto.wikia.com have managed to put a custom background in place of the blue-gray background we have on the new wiki style. I feel like I've seen a modification of the Monobook option, but I can't remember where atm. I guess New Wiki is the default style for visitors and new people coming in, though.CorbeauKarasu 19:12, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

There has to be a default way to making monobook default. I go to so many wikis that have that default for visitors.--Tommy-Vercetti 21:05, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Can everyone see how the blue-grey background is black now, or is that just me? CorbeauKarasu 15:15, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

And now, how about the return to KingLingTiger's kickass background scheme? If it's visible, then I've figured out how the New Wiki lets admins alter the site's layout. Monobook is still a mystery to me, though. I almost want to say I'm torn, because, while plain black made the New Wikia layout look more spacious, having the red flamel tile back feels like home. ^^ If my edits are, in fact, visible, I'm wondering about the link colors. I liked the red links, since they went with the theme of the series (black and red being two of the principle colors) but, then, blue is pretty good, too, since it was what we had before. In addition, with the red flamels back, red links might be unecessary and gaudy-looking, plus Tommy's assertion that they make every link look broken. Maybe I should just drop it, but what are everyone's thoughts on gold links? Or is blue perfectly fine? CorbeauKarasu 15:48, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yay! It looks great. Butbutbut what about infoboxes? Kiadony 16:05, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I have no idea. At first I thought you meant the coloring of the boxes, which made all normal text inside the boxes illegible, but I fixed that. But I realize now that you mean the empty boxes that keep showing up. The current code keeps them invisible in Monobook, which worries me because it means that the same code works differently depending on which system is being used to view the site. I was only able to change the theme because of the "Tools" box placed in the bottom right corner of admin pages, but the infoboxes, I assume, will require a greater understanding of code, for which I think I'd have to defer to KingLinkTiger. The episode and chapter infoboxes manage to keep empty categories hidden even in new wiki, but i'm not sure what the difference between them is. I'll see if I can tinker with it, but KLT would probably have better luck in that department. CorbeauKarasu 16:12, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I fixed it. The empty categories shouldn't show now and they should function exactly like chapter infoboxes while looking like character infoboxes, meaning essentially that the background should match the site background instead of being silver. Though, I had forgotten how much I dislike seeing red and yellow together, so I may change the links back to blue CorbeauKarasu 16:53, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see, nice! By the way, is it possible to use different shades of red for normal links and redlinks? Because I, too, thought that red links looked nicer. Or would it be still too confusing? Kiadony 17:07, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

It s possible, since the button changer lets you input hexidecimal codes and there are several shades of hexidecimal red, but they're all pretty close to one another, as you'd imagine, so I think confusion would be an issue. CorbeauKarasu 17:56, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Nice job with the skin! It sure is nice to have Flamel's Crest back. I agree that the red links look better, but that also creates the broken link problem. Is there a way to change broken links to white or grey? That would stand out on the black background.--Fullmetal Fan 18:03, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

If it's possible to change the new layout, can we please bring back the recent activity box, and can we maximize this horrible squashing?

I hate how it just sits in the center of the screen, squeezing everything to the point of absurdity.

It was like this before

l PAGE l

Now it's like this

---lpagel---

Crammed between a bunch of useless crap. The controls on this layout is what kills it. Truly. I think they designed this just to be their own wiki jerk off (notice how the biggest links don't take you anywhere on the CURRENT wiki, but rather to every other one). It's such a garbage design.

Please though, can ANYONE tell me WHERE you can view the history of the pages? I've looked everywhere and I can't find squat. I always used the history of the pages; if this new design can't even give me that much (some advanced design, huh?) then I'm switching back to Monobook.

Tommy-Vercetti 18:48, November 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you go to the top where it has the "Edited x hours ago by y" and hover over it with your mouse cursor, it will give you a list of recent edits, then just click on "View full history" and it will bring you to the history page. It's really stupid that they got rid of all the easy links up at the top.--Fullmetal Fan 20:36, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

I know, now you have to scan all over everywhere to even find any buttons.

I could live with this if it weren't so compressed in the middle. It's like, what were they thinking? It would be nice to have the option, since it completely ruins all our articles. Tommy-Vercetti 20:50, November 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, how about the logo? I mean, in the upper left, where it just says 'Fullmetal Alchenist' now. I believe a logo could be placed there, any chance? --Kiadony 10:13, November 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's possible to put a logo in. In fact, there's even a specific option for doing so. But the specifications for the old logo are no longer compatible. I think it has to be something like 250 by 65 pixels. I tried just altering the old logo's size, but after that, the file just looks completely awful. I'v learned to deal with code and stuff, but making images is something I can't do. If someone else could fabricate a copy of the old logo using the new specs or maybe make a new logo, we could put it up. CorbeauKarasu 12:57, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Editing doesn't even work
Someone else test this out for me.

Remember how you used to be able to pick sections to edit or you could just edit the entire page. Well, call me crazy but I thought the big red button with "edit" would mean edit the whole page. Everytime I click it, I get a blank screen where nothing loads.

So, does that mean this design makes it impossible to even edit the entire page? I cannot get it to work. And on pages where that's the only option (Your profile for example), nothing happens.

Great, nothing better than a wikipedia design where you CAN'T EVEN EDIT. What were they thinking? Try it for yourselves, it does not work.Tommy-Vercetti 22:59, November 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just go to preferences and disable the RTE (editing tab). It will work. --Kiadony 07:05, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

On another note, you guys should check this out
This is another wikipedia I browse through, and I noticed this:

http://gta.wikia.com/Oasis

Read this. I would also totally be in favor of doing this. Tommy-Vercetti 23:07, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Lots of former Wikia wikis did that, and if we can get something like we had before and all our edits carried over, I wouldn't see anything wrong with moving.--Fullmetal Fan 00:07, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'd stick with what we have now, or rather, after we finish working on it. I've already get used to everything here, now I actually find it convenient. --Kiadony 10:11, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it's SOOO convenient not even being able to edit full pages or your own user profiles. [/sarcasm]

Yes, it's SOOO convenient having all our articles squashed together to the point that makes them practically unreadable.

See where I'm going here?

I truly hope we can just shift everything away and use our own skin. I hate having this kind of crap thrust upon.Tommy-Vercetti 14:14, November 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I checked out some other wikis that switched over, and they're actually not that great. I changed my mind, I'm fine with staying here.--Fullmetal Fan 14:55, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Can you guys even edit full pages or your profiles on that new wiki style?

Everytime I try, I get taken to a black page that just never loads. It can't even edit; it ruins it.

You can't edit correctly, you can't see the articles, hell, the pictures don't even load. Wow, some great feature, huh? Upgrade? More like severe downgrade. Yes, let's stay on a glitchy site that can't even do its purpose anymore. Perfect sense, huh? I am not going to just sit by and let these retards push a design onto everyone that majority seems to hate. That's not me.--Tommy-Vercetti 15:28, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm done here
Monobook is basically the only version that even WORKS, even though it looks terrible. I hate wikia now, nor do I even want to be attached with a site that won't even leave and just lets them get away with it.

This site is done anyway, more or less, and I've just lost any interest I had in continuing to even check up on this place because of such horrible layouts and controls.

This was pretty much the ONLY wikipedia I was on that I even made regular contributions to. --Tommy-Vercetti 20:42, November 8, 2010 (UTC)