You are comparing the belief that the current system is OK to the belief that the world is flat, and you are telling me that I lack the common sense to realise that your view is the best ...
Errors on the wiki ???
My entire argument is "Use Common Sense instead of a restrictive ruleset."
![[Image: UwZsp7A.png]](https://i.imgur.com/UwZsp7A.png)
The best and most useful sense is not the "common" sense though : for everything, you always need to see all the possible perspectives and consider them.
You're using a different definition of common sense to me. I'm not saying "majority view". I'm saying "look at the intent, look for things that are logical." Sure, it's not as specific as "same cw = alternate version", but I'm not after a specific rule here, I'm after examining things more deeply rather than reverting to a previous judgement, especially when that previous judgement simply doesn't make sense other than in a circular argument.
Basically, I'm saying "use the best and most useful sense"
Anyway, in response to the rest of your previous post or two:
I was comparing it to a case where the "understanding" to a point was incorrect, and the understanding had to change to adapt. Though, in this case, the point where anyone said Dark Wolf DF145FS and Rock Wolf H145S alternate versions of each other should have been that point, rather than the point where a HWS rendition of a beyblade is called an alternate version of a beyblade that is descended from (rather than a rendition of) the beyblade it was based on.
Yeah, there are difficulties, is Vulcan Horogium BD145RS an alternate version of Vulcan Horuseus 145D or Basalt Horogium 145WD, or is it it's own beyblade? Is Cyber Pegasus 100HF an alternate version of Cyber Aquario, Storm Pegasus 105RF, Stardust Pegasus 100RF, Pegasis 105F, or Cyber Pegasus 105F, or is it its own beyblade?
It's a much more complex issue than anything as basic as "same cw=same beyblade" can encompass. It has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. This takes time, but our target here, last I checked, was accuracy, and I'm pretty sure that Inferno Sagittario 145S is intended to be a HWS Reincarnation of Sagittario 145S, not an alternate version of Flame Sagittario C145S.
Basically, I'm saying "use the best and most useful sense"
Anyway, in response to the rest of your previous post or two:
I was comparing it to a case where the "understanding" to a point was incorrect, and the understanding had to change to adapt. Though, in this case, the point where anyone said Dark Wolf DF145FS and Rock Wolf H145S alternate versions of each other should have been that point, rather than the point where a HWS rendition of a beyblade is called an alternate version of a beyblade that is descended from (rather than a rendition of) the beyblade it was based on.
Yeah, there are difficulties, is Vulcan Horogium BD145RS an alternate version of Vulcan Horuseus 145D or Basalt Horogium 145WD, or is it it's own beyblade? Is Cyber Pegasus 100HF an alternate version of Cyber Aquario, Storm Pegasus 105RF, Stardust Pegasus 100RF, Pegasis 105F, or Cyber Pegasus 105F, or is it its own beyblade?
It's a much more complex issue than anything as basic as "same cw=same beyblade" can encompass. It has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. This takes time, but our target here, last I checked, was accuracy, and I'm pretty sure that Inferno Sagittario 145S is intended to be a HWS Reincarnation of Sagittario 145S, not an alternate version of Flame Sagittario C145S.
Considering many of the Legends wheels dont have enough info for thier own articles, and they arent "other versions" of really any bey, why not just make a Legends bey article with a description of each metal wheel. I mean, Sagitario 145S and its Legend counterpart are NOT the same, neither is Flame Sagitario and Inferno Sagitario. Inferno is its own part, so it deserves to be written about. Writing it off as another version of an existing bey is pointless, but so is making an article for just a single part. So why not just make a Legends 2heels page?
LeonTempestXIII, there are indeed drafts for the Legend Beyblades, and I believe that Counter Leone and another Legend Beyblade already had articles published.
@LT13: Because that's the same as saying Apollon and Appolon G are two entirely different beyblades with no shared basis?
Yes, we should have an overall legend series article, but that doesn't mitigate the fact that they are based on their Metal System counterparts.
Look, Flash Sagittario is not Flame Sagittario's 4D counterpart. Flame Sagittario is not Sagittario 145S's MFB Counterpart, but Inferno Sagittario IS Inferno Sagittario's MFB Counterpart: That's why it was given the same track and tip and a wheel designed to be a direct copy of Metal System Sagittario but with a Clear Wheel. It's the adaption, not the evolution. It's Flame Sagittario's Uncle, not it's brother.
Yes, we should have an overall legend series article, but that doesn't mitigate the fact that they are based on their Metal System counterparts.
Look, Flash Sagittario is not Flame Sagittario's 4D counterpart. Flame Sagittario is not Sagittario 145S's MFB Counterpart, but Inferno Sagittario IS Inferno Sagittario's MFB Counterpart: That's why it was given the same track and tip and a wheel designed to be a direct copy of Metal System Sagittario but with a Clear Wheel. It's the adaption, not the evolution. It's Flame Sagittario's Uncle, not it's brother.
This is just my opinion, but it doesnt matter if Inferno looks like its Metal System counterpart, or if its initial release included a Sagitario wheel. It is its own part, and has little to do with the metal system other than being based off a design. Performance is different, and the application is different. How can a 5 layer bey be a variation of a 4 layer bey? Articles are usualy based on wheel, or clear wheel or metal wheel. Sagitario and Inferno are technicaly different
To bring more of a comprimise into this, in addition to an "Other Versions" section, why dont we implement a "Related Beys" section?
To bring more of a comprimise into this, in addition to an "Other Versions" section, why dont we implement a "Related Beys" section?
(Apr. 19, 2012 7:40 PM)LeonTempestXIII Wrote: This is just my opinion, but it doesnt matter if Inferno looks like its Metal System counterpart, or if its initial release included a Sagitario wheel. It is its own part, and has little to do with the metal system other than being based off a design. Performance is different, and the application is different. How can a 5 layer bey be a variation of a 4 layer bey? Articles are usualy based on wheel, or clear wheel or metal wheel. Sagitario and Inferno are technicaly different
To bring more of a comprimise into this, in addition to an "Other Versions" section, why dont we implement a "Related Beys" section?
Bolded: Everything Relevant
Also, we're not talking about inferno as a separate part here, we're talking about whole beyblades. I'm not calling Counter Escolpio Whateveritwas an Alternate Version of Metal System Leone, not Cyber Aquario 105RF an alternate version of Metal System Pegasis.
I'm saying the whole beyblades, released with the equivalent CW's of the Metal System Wheels, Metal Wheels Designed to be almost identical to those CW's Metal System counterparts, AND identical tracks and tips to the metal system counterparts of their Clear Wheels, which were released by hasbro as "Legend _____", as a replacement for the Un-Hasbro-Released Metal System Beyblades, are alternate versions of those metal system beyblades they are based on, which, given what I've just said, should hopefully be apparent.
You can't use any single part to determine what is an alternate version of what, you have to approach things on a case-by-case basis, or at least a category/era by category/era basis. Otherwise, you're going to end up trying to force a large square peg into a small round hole.
If you introduce a related beyblades section, how do you define it? Because all beyblades (until zero G, of course) have the same facebolt, many share the same MW, CW, Track, or Tip, and so on.
I am talking about it seperatly to prove my point, but I was thinking overall about the legend beys as a whole.
For the record, you had no reason to bold part of my post and call the rest irrelevant. Whether you ment it or not, it was percieved as a bit rude. I personaly dont really care, but just in general. We all have to try and understand others opinions to move towards comprimise, especialy if you want a change to be made
For the record, you had no reason to bold part of my post and call the rest irrelevant. Whether you ment it or not, it was percieved as a bit rude. I personaly dont really care, but just in general. We all have to try and understand others opinions to move towards comprimise, especialy if you want a change to be made
You dismissed the entire basis of my argument, basically, by dismissing the thing I have made clear to be what I consider the most important point.
Furthermore, by talking about it separately to prove your point, you are making your point unrelated - we are discussing beyblades as a whole and the need to view that is a large part of my point. You're arguing something that I don't necessarily agree/disagree with, because it is not something relevant to the discussion we're having. Changing evidence to prove a point is not "proving a point" - it's "falsifying stuff to sound right".
Don't move towards compromise - move towards actually being right because that's the actual aim of this kind of project. Whether "right" is a compromise between the various points or not, compromise shouldn't be the ultimate aim, finding the what is correct should be, no matter how harsh or one-sided that might seem, I don't necessarily claim that my argument is the correct one, but we do have to understand that one of the arguments may be completely correct, so compromise may be incorrect.
Furthermore, by talking about it separately to prove your point, you are making your point unrelated - we are discussing beyblades as a whole and the need to view that is a large part of my point. You're arguing something that I don't necessarily agree/disagree with, because it is not something relevant to the discussion we're having. Changing evidence to prove a point is not "proving a point" - it's "falsifying stuff to sound right".
Don't move towards compromise - move towards actually being right because that's the actual aim of this kind of project. Whether "right" is a compromise between the various points or not, compromise shouldn't be the ultimate aim, finding the what is correct should be, no matter how harsh or one-sided that might seem, I don't necessarily claim that my argument is the correct one, but we do have to understand that one of the arguments may be completely correct, so compromise may be incorrect.
Related Beys would cosnsit of, (for HWS) articles for beys with some of the same parts, beys in the same series (like LDrago), and in this case, the Legend beys with their Metal System counterparts
What you think is right is not what another may believe is right. Your opinion is not always the 100% right thing to do. That goes for everyone here, myself included
I didnt diminish anything at all...
What you think is right is not what another may believe is right. Your opinion is not always the 100% right thing to do. That goes for everyone here, myself included
I didnt diminish anything at all...
I don't disagree with that, though it would become an extremely long section, and, for example, would you call Storm Pegasis, and, say, a Hasbro release that uses the Pegasus 2 CW on a beyblade otherwise entirely different from Storm and Galaxy Pegasis "related". It depends where you draw the "related" line. The issue is prioritising certain parts over others - for some series/periods, different parts are more important, usually the MW (Series 2 onwards, basically) or the CW (early MFB where MW's were being recycled heavily).
In the end, that would not solve this problem. It's not a bad suggestion at all, it's just not really relevant to this discussion - this discussion must be resolved for that system or the current one to "work" anyway.
As for the second part of my post, I've edited my previous post to explain that anyway, and you should probably keep in mind that I'm not the kind of idiot who implies "truth" and "my opinion" are always the same thing.
By dismissing the "same basis" from your assessment of whether two beyblades are alternate versions, given my argument is "basis is the entire reason these two are alternate versions", you are completely dismissing my argument.
Overall, I'm sorry, yes, your point is valid and the "related beys" section is something worth considering at a later point, but it's not related to what we're actually discussing and I am concerned that it is distracting people from the main point, something I think should be resolved while discussion is still active rather than being left to rot. Perhaps I have been a little harsh because of that, but the point remains - you don't seem to understand what we're actually discussing, and are discussing something largely different.
Of course I believe Legend Series beyblades deserve an article, I think I actually had to argue that once in the past in another thread or something, but that's not related to whether Inferno Sag is called an alternate version of Metal System Sagittario or Flame Sagittario, other than saying "it's neither", which is a possibility, but one I still think is incorrect.
In the end, that would not solve this problem. It's not a bad suggestion at all, it's just not really relevant to this discussion - this discussion must be resolved for that system or the current one to "work" anyway.
As for the second part of my post, I've edited my previous post to explain that anyway, and you should probably keep in mind that I'm not the kind of idiot who implies "truth" and "my opinion" are always the same thing.
By dismissing the "same basis" from your assessment of whether two beyblades are alternate versions, given my argument is "basis is the entire reason these two are alternate versions", you are completely dismissing my argument.
Overall, I'm sorry, yes, your point is valid and the "related beys" section is something worth considering at a later point, but it's not related to what we're actually discussing and I am concerned that it is distracting people from the main point, something I think should be resolved while discussion is still active rather than being left to rot. Perhaps I have been a little harsh because of that, but the point remains - you don't seem to understand what we're actually discussing, and are discussing something largely different.
Of course I believe Legend Series beyblades deserve an article, I think I actually had to argue that once in the past in another thread or something, but that's not related to whether Inferno Sag is called an alternate version of Metal System Sagittario or Flame Sagittario, other than saying "it's neither", which is a possibility, but one I still think is incorrect.
Related would only consist of articles we have, not for random part variants. Storm Pegasus is related to Galaxy Pegasis for example. The other versions section is generaly based off of Clear Wheels, and lists part and color variations of that CW. Galaxy Pegasus would not be in Storm Pegasus's other versions, but Rock Pegasus would (assuming it was Pegasus I) Other wikis have a system for related articles in place, that link to other articles on that wiki.
This section would not list what would be in something like a random booster. To give one last example, the Ldrago 105F article would link to Lightning, Meteo, Destroy, and Gaurdian L drago, and each of those pages would link to the others as well. Earth Eagle could link to Earth Virgo, and vic versa (obscure example here, but more general)
You are right in saying that this is not entirly relevant to the discussion at hand, so when this resolves, I will rejoin the discussion again later
This section would not list what would be in something like a random booster. To give one last example, the Ldrago 105F article would link to Lightning, Meteo, Destroy, and Gaurdian L drago, and each of those pages would link to the others as well. Earth Eagle could link to Earth Virgo, and vic versa (obscure example here, but more general)
You are right in saying that this is not entirly relevant to the discussion at hand, so when this resolves, I will rejoin the discussion again later
The thing is we're discussing the other version section right now, not your proposed "related" section (though i actually like it and think should just replace the whole other version section anyway as it makes a lot more sense than a list of "stuff with the same least important part")
And just to go with your other versions description, something I came up with while reading it:
Why clear wheel? Is Horogium really the defining feature of Basalt Horogium, the beyblade everyone just calls "Basalt" or "Twisted", with the 50-odd gram wheel that wreaked havoc on the metagame and finally displaced Libra as heaviest wheel? There are beyblades generally referred to by their clear wheel as well, of course. But then, what the public calls something only indicates what they see, not what is intended by the manufacturer, which is IMO the most important thing. Perhaps you can see why I think it's too complex to be described by such an inflexible rule?
The whole thing is very arbitrary, however, I would also point out that you would include Inferno Sagittario as a 'related' beyblade to sagittario's as a whole, but you wouldn't include things that just shared a clear wheel or whatever - so where do you see the relation? (I'd really like an answer to this in case my assumption is incorrect).
Also, if we say that the CW is the most important because it defines the "character" of the beyblade - that means it serves the same point as a bit-beast in plastics. If so, Death Driger and Hasbro's Jumping Base both share the death driger bit sticker (while beywiki shows an image with driger s's bitchip, it comes with Death Driger, not only do I have one, but it can be seen in basically every other image of it.)
And just to go with your other versions description, something I came up with while reading it:
Why clear wheel? Is Horogium really the defining feature of Basalt Horogium, the beyblade everyone just calls "Basalt" or "Twisted", with the 50-odd gram wheel that wreaked havoc on the metagame and finally displaced Libra as heaviest wheel? There are beyblades generally referred to by their clear wheel as well, of course. But then, what the public calls something only indicates what they see, not what is intended by the manufacturer, which is IMO the most important thing. Perhaps you can see why I think it's too complex to be described by such an inflexible rule?
The whole thing is very arbitrary, however, I would also point out that you would include Inferno Sagittario as a 'related' beyblade to sagittario's as a whole, but you wouldn't include things that just shared a clear wheel or whatever - so where do you see the relation? (I'd really like an answer to this in case my assumption is incorrect).
Also, if we say that the CW is the most important because it defines the "character" of the beyblade - that means it serves the same point as a bit-beast in plastics. If so, Death Driger and Hasbro's Jumping Base both share the death driger bit sticker (while beywiki shows an image with driger s's bitchip, it comes with Death Driger, not only do I have one, but it can be seen in basically every other image of it.)
I think the reasoning behind CW as alternate versions are because back then when there were much less releases, people refer HWS by using their CW. "Hey did you get the new Libra?" is actually meant for Flame Libra, etc. The trend caught on since many were wondering how many different 'Libras' are there. There are Flame Libra, Storm Libra etc. As time progresses, and MWs come into play, things do get a bit confusing for the alternate versions.
Just to be clear, Legend Series beys are Hasbro's regular HWS beys, inspired by the Metal System. They are NOT Versions of the Metal System beys. In this sense, they should be listed as alternates like Kai-V suggested.
Anyway, I'm trying to understand your request better here. So, you're proposing that ONLY beys that share the exact same parts (just recolors) are the ones that should be listed as alternates? That would be ideal. Yes.
That would mean, going through all the current articles, and edit them out. And add the ones that are edited out into the Beyblades List, and create articles for each one.
That seems to be a lot of work for a simple concept. Granted, it's probably the best way, but is it worth all the trouble? Most of these new articles will be redundant, since almost all of the parts have been discussed one way or another.
(Apr. 19, 2012 2:47 PM)tamer th!nk Wrote: Then I would have to argue that the sense being employed isn't sense, as ignoring the facts of the situation - that Legend Series Beyblades are the Hasbro Versions of Metal System beys, to follow our own arbitrary rules about Same CW's=Versions of the same bey, is completely non-sensical: We're ignoring cold, hard fact for our own interpretations.
Just to be clear, Legend Series beys are Hasbro's regular HWS beys, inspired by the Metal System. They are NOT Versions of the Metal System beys. In this sense, they should be listed as alternates like Kai-V suggested.
Anyway, I'm trying to understand your request better here. So, you're proposing that ONLY beys that share the exact same parts (just recolors) are the ones that should be listed as alternates? That would be ideal. Yes.
That would mean, going through all the current articles, and edit them out. And add the ones that are edited out into the Beyblades List, and create articles for each one.
That seems to be a lot of work for a simple concept. Granted, it's probably the best way, but is it worth all the trouble? Most of these new articles will be redundant, since almost all of the parts have been discussed one way or another.
One tiny thing I said, triggered a huge discussion. .__.
Also, if Rock Leone has 'Counter Leone' Wii Version in the 'Other Versions', isn't the only reason that it's in there is because it shares the same CW ..?
And, if that's so, why isn't Cyber Pegasis NDS?Versionin the Storm Pegasis article ...
Also, if Rock Leone has 'Counter Leone' Wii Version in the 'Other Versions', isn't the only reason that it's in there is because it shares the same CW ..?
And, if that's so, why isn't Cyber Pegasis NDS?Versionin the Storm Pegasis article ...
A simple overlook perhaps. Yes it should be listed as well.
(Apr. 20, 2012 7:18 AM)Uwik Wrote: I think the reasoning behind CW as alternate versions are because back then when there were much less releases, people refer HWS by using their CW. "Hey did you get the new Libra?" is actually meant for Flame Libra, etc. The trend caught on since many were wondering how many different 'Libras' are there. There are Flame Libra, Storm Libra etc. As time progresses, and MWs come into play, things do get a bit confusing for the alternate versions.
(Apr. 19, 2012 2:47 PM)tamer th!nk Wrote: Then I would have to argue that the sense being employed isn't sense, as ignoring the facts of the situation - that Legend Series Beyblades are the Hasbro Versions of Metal System beys, to follow our own arbitrary rules about Same CW's=Versions of the same bey, is completely non-sensical: We're ignoring cold, hard fact for our own interpretations.
Just to be clear, Legend Series beys are Hasbro's regular HWS beys, inspired by the Metal System. They are NOT Versions of the Metal System beys. In this sense, they should be listed as alternates like Kai-V suggested.
Anyway, I'm trying to understand your request better here. So, you're proposing that ONLY beys that share the exact same parts (just recolors) are the ones that should be listed as alternates? That would be ideal. Yes.
That would mean, going through all the current articles, and edit them out. And add the ones that are edited out into the Beyblades List, and create articles for each one.
That seems to be a lot of work for a simple concept. Granted, it's probably the best way, but is it worth all the trouble? Most of these new articles will be redundant, since almost all of the parts have been discussed one way or another.
What? Why would you have to go through all that? Couldn't you just edit the other versions section for each of the articles it applies to? Also I think what he's saying makes sense and should be done since really what we've got at the moment makes no real sense.
If we do not mention those "current Other Versions" in the Beyblade with the same Clear Wheel's article, then we still need to mention them somewhere on Beywiki anyway. That is what Uwik meant, because if we have to mention them, and that they are essentially their own existence, we would need to list them on the Beyblade Parts List, and then make an article for them.
Well I think we should create a new section in articles called Related beyblade because for MFB for things like the legend series and random booster beys. I really don't see why we'd need to bother to do that. Also for most it's just random boosters and we have articles for all of those so there's no point.(MFB ones I mean)
Related Beyblades, based on all your arguing, would therefore include everything that has the same Metal Wheel, everything that has the same Clear Wheel, everything that has the same Track, everything that has the same Bottom ?
Also, I think we forgot one part : although it is completely useless, the Face matching with the Clear Wheel is probably a huge part of the reason why we are with what we have currently, hah.
Also, I think we forgot one part : although it is completely useless, the Face matching with the Clear Wheel is probably a huge part of the reason why we are with what we have currently, hah.
No the only thing that would make sense is if it has the same CW or MW(only for metal system)
(Apr. 20, 2012 3:19 PM)Kai-V Wrote: Related Beyblades, based on all your arguing, would therefore include everything that has the same Metal Wheel, everything that has the same Clear Wheel, everything that has the same Track, everything that has the same Bottom ?
Also, I think we forgot one part : although it is completely useless, the Face matching with the Clear Wheel is probably a huge part of the reason why we are with what we have currently, hah.
If we compulsorily have to list it on the BeyWiki, I believe we have a Clear Wheel/Metal Wheel list (or we don't)? I believe we have one, as we have a Performance Tip and Track List....
So, as we list all the beys a certain Bottom/Track is obtainable through, we may easily do the same thing for CWs and MWs?
![[Image: janstarblastsignature.jpg]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-imUVk9PErhw/Tb5jNvGKumI/AAAAAAAAAFw/8iSsYhW7vEw/janstarblastsignature.jpg)
@th!nk: What we define as an "other version" is a bey that shares a CW (mfb only), and is a color and part variation of a mass released beyblade. (ex Storm Pegasus and Rock Pegasus). In Plastics and HMS, this is much easier, as almost all beys are given an assigned name
What I would define as a "Related Bey" would be beys with similar motifs, names, and parts. However, these are not random variants, as you assumed correctly. Only beys that have articles would be included in these sections; no links to anything but. Now what distinguishes a mass release from a part/color variant is the same process we use to make articles; Which release were the part(s) seen 1st?
Let me know of this answers you question th!nk. if not I will do a better job explaining to what you are specificly asking.
What I would define as a "Related Bey" would be beys with similar motifs, names, and parts. However, these are not random variants, as you assumed correctly. Only beys that have articles would be included in these sections; no links to anything but. Now what distinguishes a mass release from a part/color variant is the same process we use to make articles; Which release were the part(s) seen 1st?
Let me know of this answers you question th!nk. if not I will do a better job explaining to what you are specificly asking.