Aha, looking for DaBull123 is probably why it gave me so much trouble. Thank you.
Justice dealt.
Justice dealt.
Errors on the wiki ???
![[Image: hazelsignature2.jpg]](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/OrochiStorm/hazelsignature2.jpg)
Also, BeybladeFTW has gone through and changed a lot of part names to Hasbro part names. I'm a bit tired to go through and change it all back, though. I will undo his edits on the parts list, but yeah.
He also added this article: http://wiki.worldbeyblade.org/index.php/Burn_Phoenix
Oh, also, can you go delete the voltaic ape page? Someone wrote something there and deleted the text, but not the page itself.
He also added this article: http://wiki.worldbeyblade.org/index.php/Burn_Phoenix
Oh, also, can you go delete the voltaic ape page? Someone wrote something there and deleted the text, but not the page itself.
![[Image: UwZsp7A.png]](https://i.imgur.com/UwZsp7A.png)
Both pages have been deleted.
You're a legend, the voltaic ape thing had been annoying me for a while now. Fixed the parts list edits, and a couple of other erroneous edits and other errors.
I'll go through and fix his other edits, methinks.
Edit: Done fixin'.
I'll go through and fix his other edits, methinks.
Edit: Done fixin'.
Thank god, the Voltiac Ape thing has bothered me for ages!
Where do we stand on what I posted earlier in the page? Also, I notice Dranzer S is missing the whole "Different Versions" Sub-heading. I noticed when I put up Evolution's clear Dranzer S and checked Beywiki after receiving my clear blue one. The problem being I don't know official names and I don't know how many there are! I'd appreciate it if a collector would try and give me a list (preferably with accurate release names etc)
Where do we stand on what I posted earlier in the page? Also, I notice Dranzer S is missing the whole "Different Versions" Sub-heading. I noticed when I put up Evolution's clear Dranzer S and checked Beywiki after receiving my clear blue one. The problem being I don't know official names and I don't know how many there are! I'd appreciate it if a collector would try and give me a list (preferably with accurate release names etc)
![[Image: uKF94LK.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/uKF94LK.gif)
Afraid renames and recolours aren't my thing, Danny boy, so I will leave that for someone else (Ultrablader might be able to help a little?)
And of course, I'm fully behind your proposal to update those articles with MFB information.
Though, many of them are unfinished even for plastic parts (I'm aiming to work on that in the coming weeks). I am not looking forward to updating the Smash attack article though, the article only scratches the surface, and I do feel a little uneasy changing anything originally written by Brad, even if I have good grounds to do so (Eight Spiker's attack range is actually slightly smaller than every other top-tier smash AR, including G Upper (Dragoon GT), its main competition for the title of best left-spin smash AR. This can easily be seen by lining them up.)
Plus, even if I update them for plastics, someone else needs to do the same for HMS. That said, there's no problem with going ahead and adding an MFB section to the articles, ahah, I'm just rambling.
And of course, I'm fully behind your proposal to update those articles with MFB information.
Though, many of them are unfinished even for plastic parts (I'm aiming to work on that in the coming weeks). I am not looking forward to updating the Smash attack article though, the article only scratches the surface, and I do feel a little uneasy changing anything originally written by Brad, even if I have good grounds to do so (Eight Spiker's attack range is actually slightly smaller than every other top-tier smash AR, including G Upper (Dragoon GT), its main competition for the title of best left-spin smash AR. This can easily be seen by lining them up.)
Plus, even if I update them for plastics, someone else needs to do the same for HMS. That said, there's no problem with going ahead and adding an MFB section to the articles, ahah, I'm just rambling.
(Jan. 10, 2012 1:39 AM)th!nk Wrote: At some point in the near future, I will try to go through plastic articles and update them, correct any errors, and complete those that aren't fully finished, though in doing this, I will probably need to speak to someone on the committee who has a good understanding of plastics (*cough*Kei*cough*), to clarify some rules, and just to run things by before I change them. Obviously, I'll only edit things about beys that I have and have used, but that encompasses most plastics anyway. I'll obviously also be going through archives of older forums and the like to check things where possible. Hope that's okay. I know the focus is on MFB but 1) lots of people can write MFB drafts and lots of them can do it better than me. 2) As smug as it sounds, I do know a lot about plastics, and think that I can really improve the wiki, and 3) Plastics are becoming semi-popular again, so I think it's about time to fix things up, as the way drafts were done back then left the opportunity for errors and slip-ups to occur.
I have a "good understanding", but my Plastics knowledge is not quite as expansive as other veterans (like Cye Kinomiya or G). But nevertheless, I will do my best to help you clarify certain things when you come across different issues (and yes I did see your PM).
I've admittedly been putting Plastics on the back-burner for a while now because the vast majority of our userbase is more interested in MFB content, but I do realize that this is not only the "MFB wiki" and that Plastics have experienced a "resurrection" of sorts since this past summer. So, I'll soon be starting to going over the numerous Plastics drafts strewn throughout the Beywiki Project forum.
It's good that you've become so passionate about Plastics, as I clearly don't have the time (or the same amount of interest) to work on those articles while we still have MFB stuff to write. Feel free to look through the wiki for mistakes and things that could perhaps be elaborated on like you're suggesting, but be sure to post about it here in the Beywiki Project forum first so we can verify it's accuracy with everyone.
![[Image: beybase-signature-is-beyblade-a-sport-Article.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/VLksgt2k/beybase-signature-is-beyblade-a-sport-Article.jpg)
Possibly not a error but I didn't know where else to put this. After reading the Super deck set page I have to say that I don't find it accurate for where the metagame is currently. Pegasis, Burn and Libra are all outclassed. It also doesn't mention anything about how good Libra is even though it does for Pegasis and Burn. It says solid base for starting competitively but if you got those and used them in a tourney you'd get owned tbh (at least in the UK where everyone is quite up to date). If it means starting point then fine but that needs to be expanded on. Also there are loads of blank/useless pages which should be deleted.
That is actually the problem with having an extensively opinionated wiki in a constantly changing environment. There will be a constant need for updating for articles, and as time passes, more and more will be in need of updates, else, they will be deemed incorrect information.
It's great having it done this way, but on the other hand, sometimes I feel it's probably better to just state the facts and leave opinions out. Things will get done much faster, since essentially they will be just stub-based articles, in order to avoid potential bottle-necks in the future.
It's great having it done this way, but on the other hand, sometimes I feel it's probably better to just state the facts and leave opinions out. Things will get done much faster, since essentially they will be just stub-based articles, in order to avoid potential bottle-necks in the future.
It's a fact though that all the Metal Wheels in BB-96 are outclassed. There are other sets which provide a more solid base for competition(the set with Blitz is way better than this. Also it's not exactly like the info has changed much over time. The article was written in december and those parts have been outclassed for months so it's not really like opinion comes into whether the set is good or not because it's not as good as the way it is described in the article.
No. A fact is not based on better or worse. A fact is more like dimensions, colors, aesthetic observations, history of, other versions etc.
In the same sense, I could say it's a fact that BB-96 was the best set to buy during its time.
Edit: let's say few months from now, a better set is released, then your argument for Blitz's set being the best will no longer be a fact.
The fact that there is a need for a single update, justifies the existence of opinions. Actual facts do not change over time.
Edit 2: it's fine with inserting opinions for Plastics / HMS with outclassed parts or tier combos and such, since they are no longer developed. Most of them have been explored thoroughly at one point in time anyway. Undoubtedly the opinions will not change over time. But as for MFBs, since it's still in production, it just seems like a lot of work to go through the articles and change them every time something's released, a new recolor, a new discovery in performance etc.
In the same sense, I could say it's a fact that BB-96 was the best set to buy during its time.
Edit: let's say few months from now, a better set is released, then your argument for Blitz's set being the best will no longer be a fact.
The fact that there is a need for a single update, justifies the existence of opinions. Actual facts do not change over time.
Edit 2: it's fine with inserting opinions for Plastics / HMS with outclassed parts or tier combos and such, since they are no longer developed. Most of them have been explored thoroughly at one point in time anyway. Undoubtedly the opinions will not change over time. But as for MFBs, since it's still in production, it just seems like a lot of work to go through the articles and change them every time something's released, a new recolor, a new discovery in performance etc.
Fine how good things are change over time but the super deck set isn't good now so there's no chance that will change in the future.
It was just my view on it anyway. But yeah, just write the proposed 'fixed' sentence here before updating the wiki.
(Jan. 11, 2012 6:25 PM)Ultrablader Wrote: Possibly not a error but I didn't know where else to put this. After reading the Super deck set page I have to say that I don't find it accurate for where the metagame is currently. Pegasis, Burn and Libra are all outclassed. It also doesn't mention anything about how good Libra is even though it does for Pegasis and Burn. It says solid base for starting competitively but if you got those and used them in a tourney you'd get owned tbh (at least in the UK where everyone is quite up to date). If it means starting point then fine but that needs to be expanded on. Also there are loads of blank/useless pages which should be deleted.
It could be modified slightly, I agree. A sentence mentioning that Libra is now completely outclassed should be added. Technically, there are more parts in that set that are usable than there are parts that are useless (Pegasis, Burn, Libra vs. MF2, 85, 90, 100, RF, WD, D), so saying it's a "solid base" is not entirely false.
However, perhaps it should be added that it is more worthwhile to purchase something like the Strongest Blader Set now (although I would argue that the Track/Bottoms that come with the Super Deck set are more useful overall than those in the Strongest Blader Set; I could even contend that the amount of "useful" parts is equal or close to the amount found in the Ultimate DX Set).
And yeah Uwik, it definitely was the best set available at the time. However, it didn't last for long because the Maximum Series started just over a month later.
http://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-Beyblade...#pid880068 Given this post and the other posts regarding CH120 here, I'd like to review the "lol hasbro ch120 blows" section of the Dark Cancer CH120whatever article, and wipe that garbage off of it, unless someone with a genuine case for it testifies.
I think we can all agree that stopping such misconceptions is something we should strive for, most especially on something that should be completely neutral, like a wiki.
I think we can all agree that stopping such misconceptions is something we should strive for, most especially on something that should be completely neutral, like a wiki.
Obviously, I agree completely, and in a post in that same conversion, I also raised some questions about the wiki's inclusion of Hasbro dark having mediocre defensive potential, vs TT dark having none. Given they are physically identical and the idea, as I recall, seemed more based on the erroneous weight of Dark from Aikemi than proper comparative testing. It is hardly something I'd consider certain enough to be on the wiki...
I've actually tried to see if there was a difference. There wasn't for me at least.
Feel free to go ahead and update the article to reflect those things, guys.
I removed the CH120 Hasbro thing completely, and edited all of the Dark sections on Beywiki to match the one from Dark Wolf, which reads "Additionally, its weight is distributed over too large a surface area. There is thus no reason to use Dark in any competitive situation whatsoever. "
(Jan. 11, 2012 10:10 PM)Kei Wrote:I think for libra it should Say that it can be used in stamina/defense but there are much better options. As it really isn't completely outclassed yet.(Jan. 11, 2012 6:25 PM)Ultrablader Wrote: Possibly not a error but I didn't know where else to put this. After reading the Super deck set page I have to say that I don't find it accurate for where the metagame is currently. Pegasis, Burn and Libra are all outclassed. It also doesn't mention anything about how good Libra is even though it does for Pegasis and Burn. It says solid base for starting competitively but if you got those and used them in a tourney you'd get owned tbh (at least in the UK where everyone is quite up to date). If it means starting point then fine but that needs to be expanded on. Also there are loads of blank/useless pages which should be deleted.
It could be modified slightly, I agree. A sentence mentioning that Libra is now completely outclassed should be added. Technically, there are more parts in that set that are usable than there are parts that are useless (Pegasis, Burn, Libra vs. MF2, 85, 90, 100, RF, WD, D), so saying it's a "solid base" is not entirely false.
However, perhaps it should be added that it is more worthwhile to purchase something like the Strongest Blader Set now (although I would argue that the Track/Bottoms that come with the Super Deck set are more useful overall than those in the Strongest Blader Set; I could even contend that the amount of "useful" parts is equal or close to the amount found in the Ultimate DX Set).
And yeah Uwik, it definitely was the best set available at the time. However, it didn't last for long because the Maximum Series started just over a month later.
![[Image: wolborgsig.png]](https://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l635/Gil_Lemar/wolborgsig.png)
(Jan. 12, 2012 6:53 PM)Fury Wrote: As it really isn't completely outclassed yet.
Wing(apparently...), Duo, Scythe, Phantom, Death, Basalt, Bakushin(debatable), Diablo...
Libra is hideously outclassed.
Libra does absolutely nothing better than wheels with much wider availability. Buying Libra, instead of any of the wheels(except perhaps Bakushin) above would be absolutely foolish.
Another error I found(again maybe not an error in the traditional sense) is that the Wyvern DJ article does not say that Takara only released the black version in A-130 - The Twin Battle Double Shooter Set. As well as that it was released by Hasbro as a starter though. This should be noted since if anyone leaves it people won't remember and it's good to note discrepencies between the way Hasbro and Takara release(d) things. I'll alter it soon if nobody else does.
Mention it in the "recolours" section, just keep it encyclopedic.
Posted my "rewrite" of the Dragoon GT article in the relevant thread, along with a lot of ranting about the current article :3
Will copy down a few articles and drafts before I go on holiday and rewrite them, too, and maybe write a few of my own, if I get time.
EDIT: Rewrites underway. Draciel F's article is massively flawed btw, but my rewrite is nearly complete. Most of my rewrites etc should be up next monday, once I get the last parts I need :3
Also, made a couple of clarifications in the Dragoon V2 Article. Minor things, made it clear that the OHKO combo uses an HMC, as it wasn't listed, and listed an example SP that outclasses reverse attack (fin tectors). Fixed the wording a little too, I'd do more but I think Dan was planning to do some work on it anyway (particularly about the bases uncustomised attack use), so I will leave that for him. Can't hog all the rewrites now, can I?
EDIT: Got Dan working on it, the combos listed in the current article are either non-functional, barely function, or silly. :\
Also, just a general criticism, a lot of plastics articles make it sound like a Sliding Shoot is extremely difficult, and mention that grip base, for example, is hard to use without one.
Sliding shots are easier with plastic launchers so I mean, I don't know what that's all about but yeah, I will probably look at changing that eventually (just to something saying "a sliding shoot must always be used" or whatever), to make it sound less like a Waterfall-Tier God-launch or something involving bit beasts and more like part of the standard skill set that every blader should have.
Oh, one more thing: I'm working on an article that should be a complete guide for the compatibility of bases, sg's, shafts, tips and casings, including notes on scraping etc. Will end up incorporating the "adding a different SG" part of the Dragoon V2 article into that, so all those links can be changed to link to that article, if it gets approved.
The only relevant parts I'm missing (once my last order arrives) are Gigars EG (if the shaft is even removable legally); SG Bolt Baze (Blizzard Orthrus), which I just need someone to check whether normal (non-neo) SG's fit, and Dranzer F's SG.
Basically, there are a lot of errors on the wiki concerning what casings and shafts fit in what bases etc (especially for Burning Kerberous, Customise Bearing Base is a much better choice with Driger F's shaft than Customise Grip Base, which has huge scraping issues, but for some reason the wiki is all "no only double bearing core casings fit"). So when I post the article I'll also try to include a list of other articles that need to be changed. Meh.
Posted my "rewrite" of the Dragoon GT article in the relevant thread, along with a lot of ranting about the current article :3
Will copy down a few articles and drafts before I go on holiday and rewrite them, too, and maybe write a few of my own, if I get time.
EDIT: Rewrites underway. Draciel F's article is massively flawed btw, but my rewrite is nearly complete. Most of my rewrites etc should be up next monday, once I get the last parts I need :3
Also, made a couple of clarifications in the Dragoon V2 Article. Minor things, made it clear that the OHKO combo uses an HMC, as it wasn't listed, and listed an example SP that outclasses reverse attack (fin tectors). Fixed the wording a little too, I'd do more but I think Dan was planning to do some work on it anyway (particularly about the bases uncustomised attack use), so I will leave that for him. Can't hog all the rewrites now, can I?
EDIT: Got Dan working on it, the combos listed in the current article are either non-functional, barely function, or silly. :\
Also, just a general criticism, a lot of plastics articles make it sound like a Sliding Shoot is extremely difficult, and mention that grip base, for example, is hard to use without one.
Sliding shots are easier with plastic launchers so I mean, I don't know what that's all about but yeah, I will probably look at changing that eventually (just to something saying "a sliding shoot must always be used" or whatever), to make it sound less like a Waterfall-Tier God-launch or something involving bit beasts and more like part of the standard skill set that every blader should have.
Oh, one more thing: I'm working on an article that should be a complete guide for the compatibility of bases, sg's, shafts, tips and casings, including notes on scraping etc. Will end up incorporating the "adding a different SG" part of the Dragoon V2 article into that, so all those links can be changed to link to that article, if it gets approved.
The only relevant parts I'm missing (once my last order arrives) are Gigars EG (if the shaft is even removable legally); SG Bolt Baze (Blizzard Orthrus), which I just need someone to check whether normal (non-neo) SG's fit, and Dranzer F's SG.
Basically, there are a lot of errors on the wiki concerning what casings and shafts fit in what bases etc (especially for Burning Kerberous, Customise Bearing Base is a much better choice with Driger F's shaft than Customise Grip Base, which has huge scraping issues, but for some reason the wiki is all "no only double bearing core casings fit"). So when I post the article I'll also try to include a list of other articles that need to be changed. Meh.
I have a rewrite done for it already, but I fixed an error in the Driger V2 article because it was pretty major.
I assume G got it confused with Driger V when he changed the SG to S-MG core, as Driger V2 comes with a metal weight core, at least in the takara releases, going from the two I have and the parts list on beywiki.
An odd oversight, but based on the overwhelming evidence I went ahead and changed it already. Hope you don't mind :3
There are a few other errors, such as the mold differences being brand based (takara released reinforced versions as well as the original version), and some other things, those are fixed in my rewrite though :3
I fixed the name of the SG in the AR combo in the rewritten Dragoon GT article (so glad to see that up by the way).
Also, changed Gaia Dragoon's SG on the Parts list to Right SG (G Ball), which is what it came with.
I also reverted and fixed a few edits, that were either incorrect or poorly worded. Fixed: Bump King's base and type, the wording of the mention of D: D in Dranzer F's article, fixed some incorrect alterations and poor wording in the Phantom Force article, reverted the addition of "stronger plastics" to the metal masters article as there has never been any mention of it (phantom force have stronger plastic, but yeah).
I should probably check here in future but for the most part it was just reverting alterations that had been made without checking or fixing wording etc.
There are some errors with the Dranzer S Article, its shaft is compatible with loads of SG's, the casings deserve a pretty lengthy section as they are pretty handy, being the best casings for Driger F's shaft and Wolborg 2's shaft for attack combos. Also the combo in the base section should be in attack mode. The AR is also a second-tier left spin smash AR with minor breakage issues (though it breaks more in right spin). Haven't changed anything yet seeing as either Dan or myself will rewrite it soon enough.
EDIT: When I have time, I will try to go through beywiki articles and add the random booster recolours (from here: http://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-Random-B...tents-List). Turned out I have a random booster 6 galeon, not a BBA Balancer, hah.
I assume G got it confused with Driger V when he changed the SG to S-MG core, as Driger V2 comes with a metal weight core, at least in the takara releases, going from the two I have and the parts list on beywiki.
An odd oversight, but based on the overwhelming evidence I went ahead and changed it already. Hope you don't mind :3
There are a few other errors, such as the mold differences being brand based (takara released reinforced versions as well as the original version), and some other things, those are fixed in my rewrite though :3
I fixed the name of the SG in the AR combo in the rewritten Dragoon GT article (so glad to see that up by the way).
Also, changed Gaia Dragoon's SG on the Parts list to Right SG (G Ball), which is what it came with.
I also reverted and fixed a few edits, that were either incorrect or poorly worded. Fixed: Bump King's base and type, the wording of the mention of D: D in Dranzer F's article, fixed some incorrect alterations and poor wording in the Phantom Force article, reverted the addition of "stronger plastics" to the metal masters article as there has never been any mention of it (phantom force have stronger plastic, but yeah).
I should probably check here in future but for the most part it was just reverting alterations that had been made without checking or fixing wording etc.
There are some errors with the Dranzer S Article, its shaft is compatible with loads of SG's, the casings deserve a pretty lengthy section as they are pretty handy, being the best casings for Driger F's shaft and Wolborg 2's shaft for attack combos. Also the combo in the base section should be in attack mode. The AR is also a second-tier left spin smash AR with minor breakage issues (though it breaks more in right spin). Haven't changed anything yet seeing as either Dan or myself will rewrite it soon enough.
EDIT: When I have time, I will try to go through beywiki articles and add the random booster recolours (from here: http://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-Random-B...tents-List). Turned out I have a random booster 6 galeon, not a BBA Balancer, hah.
I fixed a few things on the product list with hasbro renames and such, separating things like [[Voltaic Ape / Vortex Ape]] into [[Voltaic Ape]] / [[Voltaic Ape|Vortex Ape]], and removed the " / Dark Gargoyle" and " / Rapid Eagle" from their respective beys, as there were no such beyblades. Hasbro released Dark Effigy G and Rapid SteveEagle G, both of which only shared an AR with their Takara Counterparts, and Takara released Death Gargoyle and Killer Eagle.
Also a suggestion: We should have redirect pages for the hasbro renames (Bearing Stinger, Grip Attacker, Vortex Ape and Strata Dragoon V (And G, IIRC)). Will probably post this in make your suggestions with a couple of other things when I write it all out.
Oh, and with either the parts list or products list, I think it would be useful if we included the "Type" each beyblade is, too.
Also a suggestion: We should have redirect pages for the hasbro renames (Bearing Stinger, Grip Attacker, Vortex Ape and Strata Dragoon V (And G, IIRC)). Will probably post this in make your suggestions with a couple of other things when I write it all out.
Oh, and with either the parts list or products list, I think it would be useful if we included the "Type" each beyblade is, too.