Well, it's clear that Takara-Tomy is following no clear pattern in terms of which Tracks and Bottoms go with which Wheels. I think we may have to explore the possibility of making different articles for each part.

I always thought it would be the best bet to just make an article for the starter and one of the sections could show what parts it the blade comes with in boosters and random boosters. For a review of those parts you can just have them linked to what starter they are released with.

I never liked how on the wiki when you click beyblades the MFB come up Leone145D
Just Leone would look so much nicer. People will see that its 145D when they read the article.

---

You know im spending money because spending time is hopeless.
And know i pop bottles cause i bottle my emotions.
At least i put it all in the open

I never liked how on the wiki when you click beyblades the MFB come up Leone145D
Just Leone would look so much nicer. People will see that its 145D when they read the article.

In a sense, that is the name of the beyblade. 'Leone' is only what the Face and the Wheel are called. Leone can be any beyblade as long as you have those two elements.

I would think this is the new way of naming beyblades, so we have to deal with it.


On the topic of article formatting, isn't Aries the only blade that causes trouble because it comes with 125D ? The Starters for Pegasis, Bull, Leone, Sagittario and Wolf as well as Libra S125MS/DF125BS all have their own parts.

Perhaps other beyblades from sets will also have no new Tracks and Bottoms, but this is different. There will always be starters and boosters, and I hope TAKARA-TOMY has more parts to show us.

I have always been under the impression that the Starter version of each Beyblade was it's "main" parts (ex. Pegasis105F).

As for Aries, I think we can just put the description for 125 and D in its article, or link to the Bull125SF and Leone145D articles.

---

I can see the current Tracks being used again and again. I don't think these were one-time deals; Takara has reused a lot of parts before (especially generic ones like the Semi-Flat Bases).

Why not just make one Article for Tracks, one article for Bottoms, and just list the Tracks (or Bottoms) on one article? I could see getting potentially messy, but it seems like a waste of an article for one Track that has a paragraph-long description.

---

Bringing this back since we know the direction Takara-Tomy is going in now (constant re-hashes) and because Virgo is now up.

A few formatting notes and questions:
- Took out the Track measurements used in the Pegasis, Leone, Saggitario, and Bull articles (which still need to be updated). So instead of "Track: 145 (14.5mm)", just put "Track: 145". Putting the "14.5mm" isn't necessary.

- Took out part measurements themselves (tip width, actual height of Tracks, etc); that information isn't vital. Although, I am considering including Wheel diameter measurements still, what do you guys think?

- Because Beyblade customs are written in one line in MFB, the "Use in _______ Customization" obviously had to be changed. An example of how to format these sections in MFB can be seen in the Virgo article: "If you don't have access to D or SD, BS can be used to some degree of effectiveness in Stamina customs such as Virgo DF145BS". I tried bolding "Virgo DF145BS", but I wasn't a fan of how it looked in relation to the rest of the article. I think italicizing is good enough to make the suggestion stand out.

- Now ... The "Other Versions" section. This was a big topic of discussion before, both in this thread and others. I've decided to simply state the other versions, and where they come from, just like in our plastics and HMS articles. Example: "Virgo 100B - Random Booster Vol.2 Legend Pisces (Blue)" or "Pegasis 145D - Booster (Black)". With this, I decided to not link to the article where a part originally came from (ex. linking 145D to the Leone article would not be done) because it would become extremely convoluted. If I was linking to articles in the "Other Versions" section, there would be two links in the "Virgo 100B" text; which really should not be done. It was suggested that we simply write a line such as "This version of Virgo includes 100 and B. Please see the _______ article for information on 100, and the ______ article for information on B". Do you guys think it is necessary to link to the parts? I don't mind, but it may clutter up the article a bit with something that may not be totally necessary; it would just be convenient for users to be able to jump straight to the article pertaining to a certain part without having to search. Also, it is clear that TT has no intentions of releasing Starter and Booster versions of the same Beyblade any longer (like they did with Pegasis, for example); just RB variations, and thus, there is no need to create a "Booster" section for each Beyblade.

- I have also made the decision that every MFB article will pertain to the original version it was released as (they are referred to as such on the Beyblade Parts List: "Note: All parts listed in this section and their respective articles refer to their STARTER versions (ex. Pegasis 105F or Bull125S), or the original versions they were released as (ex. Aries 125D from RBV1 or Quetzalcoatl from the Arcade Machine)"). Even if this means copy+pasting part information (ex. The original releases of Libra and Virgo both included DF145 and BS). I think this will be more convenient for users. Rather than forcing them to go to three articles for information on parts, they only need to go to one! And, in "Other Versions" sections where parts may end up being linked to, if something like DF145 was being linked to, it would direct the user to the Libra article because it was released before Virgo.

I believe I covered everything. If anybody has suggestions for changes, please post!

---

I don't really think any measurements are vital. It will mean nothing to most members anyway (me).

Italizing seems good enough for customizations as well.

As for linking parts, you shouldn't. Listing the other versions and where they are found is enough. Especially since you know all the parts in the beyblade anyway, from it's name. Linking isn't really necessary.

---

Thanks, Kai-V, for my banner

This should be stickied.

---

Thanks to Ellz for my Face :)

Kei,

• I believe part measurements may be included for comparison issues; much like the diameter of Circle Upper compared to Samurai Upper.
  
• I like the italics to denote a customisation; could links possibly be created in the actual custom to point to the respective parts? This may or may not be viable.
  
• I definitely agree with this: "... it would just be convenient for users to be able to jump straight to the article pertaining to a certain part without having to search."
  
• With regards to this: "[clicking DF145] ... it would direct the user to the Libra article because it was released before Virgo."
  Could a special article dedicated to each part, or even each height be considered? Much like the WDs of the Plastic Generation, whereby 6, 8 and 10 sizes were covered in their own seperate article.
  

I noticed you wrote that two links should not really be done; I don't really understand what you mean. Do you mean two links alongside each other, which would lead to confusion as to whether the link was one whole link, or two seperate ones? Your point may cover my suggestions above, I apologise.

Took out the Track measurements used in the Pegasis, Leone, Saggitario, and Bull articles (which still need to be updated). So instead of "Track: 145 (14.5mm)", just put "Track: 145". Putting the "14.5mm" isn't necessary.

If it had not been written in the Metal Fight Beyblade article, I would have probably disagreed.

Took out part measurements themselves (tip width, actual height of Tracks, etc); that information isn't vital. Although, I am considering including Wheel diameter measurements still, what do you guys think?

Perhaps only if they are 'impressing' compared to others ?

Now ... The "Other Versions" section. This was a big topic of discussion before, both in this thread and others. I've decided to simply state the other versions, and where they come from, just like in our plastics and HMS articles. Example: "Virgo 100B - Random Booster Vol.2 Legend Pisces (Blue)" or "Pegasis 145D - Booster (Black)". With this, I decided to not link to the article where a part originally came from (ex. linking 145D to the Leone article would not be done) because it would become extremely convoluted. If I was linking to articles in the "Other Versions" section, there would be two links in the "Virgo 100B" text; which really should not be done. It was suggested that we simply write a line such as "This version of Virgo includes 100 and B. Please see the _______ article for information on 100, and the ______ article for information on B". Do you guys think it is necessary to link to the parts? I don't mind, but it may clutter up the article a bit with something that may not be totally necessary; it would just be convenient for users to be able to jump straight to the article pertaining to a certain part without having to search. Also, it is clear that TT has no intentions of releasing Starter and Booster versions of the same Beyblade any longer (like they did with Pegasis, for example); just RB variations, and thus, there is no need to create a "Booster" section for each Beyblade.

And this will be done for beyblades who have slightly too many versions, like Pegasis ?


As for linking to parts, the only thing is that while Capricorne 100HF was released first, I believe more people will know and remember Lightning L Drago 100HF. However, I suppose it is indeed fair to link only to Capricorne.

pegasus only has 5 versions doesn't it? I'll list the ones i know:

BB-01 starter pegasus 105F
BB-05 booster pegasus 145D black
BB-09 pegasus deluxe set pegasus
BB-20 bey battle try set pegasus 105F green
BB-21 attack and balance reshuffle pegasus 100HF black

How many are there in the first 2 random boosters?

Also I always find it interesting when reading an article on the beywiki to see what different versions of a blade there are.

---

pegasus only has 5 versions doesn't it? I'll list the ones i know:

BB-01 starter pegasus 105F
BB-05 booster pegasus 145D black
BB-09 pegasus deluxe set pegasus
BB-20 bey battle try set pegasus 105F green
BB-21 attack and balance reshuffle pegasus 100HF black

How many are there in the first 2 random boosters?

Also I always find it interesting when reading an article on the beywiki to see what different versions of a blade there are.

http://www.hdimage.org/images/geigczrz0c...byp511.jpg
I think five is already too much.

And what would we do for the Hybrid Wheel beyblades : list all the Wind Wheel instances, or the Aquario, even though it has little to do in battle ...

Kei,

• I believe part measurements may be included for comparison issues; much like the diameter of Circle Upper compared to Samurai Upper.
  
• I definitely agree with this: "... it would just be convenient for users to be able to jump straight to the article pertaining to a certain part without having to search."
  
• With regards to this: "[clicking DF145] ... it would direct the user to the Libra article because it was released before Virgo."
  Could a special article dedicated to each part, or even each height be considered? Much like the WDs of the Plastic Generation, whereby 6, 8 and 10 sizes were covered in their own seperate article.
  

I noticed you wrote that two links should not really be done; I don't really understand what you mean. Do you mean two links alongside each other, which would lead to confusion as to whether the link was one whole link, or two seperate ones? Your point may cover my suggestions above, I apologise.

I think measurements would only be really useful for Wheels, but even then, I'm not sure it is worth including.

Even though we had separate articles for the WD's of the plastic generation, I've chosen not to do the same thing for MFB because the amount of articles would become ridiculous, especially with the advent of the HWS where Wheels are being rehashed over and over again alongside Tracks and Bottoms. If we did this, having a Storm Pegasis 105RF article would be pointless because it would just say "See the Storm article for more information", "See the 105 article for more information", "See the RF article for more information" ... Not very user friendly.

Yes, it would be convenient, and that is why I would put "This version of Virgo includes 100 and B. Please see the _______ article for information on 100, and the ______ article for information on B" after listing the Virgo 100B version of Virgo, for example. I suppose I will start doing that, then?

This is what I meant when I stated that "two links shouldn't be done": Do you mean two links alongside each other, which would lead to confusion as to whether the link was one whole link, or two seperate ones?". Sorry for any confusion.

If it had not been written in the Metal Fight Beyblade article, I would have probably disagreed.

And this will be done for beyblades who have slightly too many versions, like Pegasis ?

As for linking to parts, the only thing is that while Capricorne 100HF was released first, I believe more people will know and remember Lightning L Drago 100HF. However, I suppose it is indeed fair to link only to Capricorne.

Hah, yes. I figured it was safe to assume that if one was reading an article about a specific MFB, they had already studied the general Metal Fight Beyblade article.

It will be done for every Beyblade with alternate versions.

Mhmm, I agree. But like you said, Capricorne was released first.

pegasus only has 5 versions doesn't it?

I remember Kai-V saying that there was nine versions released.

EDIT: For HWS Beyblades, you would just link to the Clear Wheel in the same sentence that you link to the other parts.

---

I remember Kai-V saying that there was nine versions released.

They almost all have 105F though, just different colours.

I personally don't see anything wrong with having like twenty different versions listed, as long as they're all neat and ordered, it's all good with me. But I wouldn't have a whole "This version of Virgo includes 100 and B. Please see the _______ article for information on 100, and the ______ article for information on B" kinda thing for each version, that'd be way too much, write "Virgo [[???|100]][[???|B]] - Random Booster Vol.2 Legend Pisces (Blue)" and link from there, I don't think it's exactly hard to work it out. We have similar linking structures in other plastic and HMS articles anyways. :\

??? are obviously placeholders, I'd put whatever bey first brought us said part.

I think it's totally unneccessary tbh

^ If I think about it's not completely necessary, just really like the other versions section, probably something to do with everything coming in different colours and looking pretty. Extra information can't hurt right? ^^;

no, it can't, but it's also incredibly tedious to keep updated

granted, it seems easier than it will be with plastic gen, so go for it if you want to

Well, Kei gets final say, but I'd be happy to keep it updated if it's not a problem. :X

I personally don't see anything wrong with having like twenty different versions listed, as long as they're all neat and ordered, it's all good with me. But I wouldn't have a whole "This version of Virgo includes 100 and B. Please see the _______ article for information on 100, and the ______ article for information on B" kinda thing for each version, that'd be way too much, write "Virgo [[???|100]][[???|B]] - Random Booster Vol.2 Legend Pisces (Blue)" and link from there, I don't think it's exactly hard to work it out. We have similar linking structures in other plastic and HMS articles anyways. :\

??? are obviously placeholders, I'd put whatever bey first brought us said part.

This is the idea I was opposed to. The two links in "100B" are not distinguished by themselves because there is no spaces between them (even if there was, it would still not be good enough). Having that sentence makes the links, and why they are being linked to more clear. Clarity takes precedence over condensation.

I think it's totally unneccessary tbh

As tedious as it may become, I think the "Other Versions" sections are important. It is convenient to have those links in the "Other Versions" sections because it would immediately remove any amount of thinking, or even confusion on the part of the user because they would know exactly how to get information on a part that was mentioned.

---

I've updated the "Other Versions" section of the Virgo article. That is how it should be formatted.

And, for anybody who does not know how I linked to the "Track: 125" section of the Bull article, do this:

[[Bull 125SF#Track: 125 | Bull 125SF]]

First half is the name of the article, and section you wish to link to (separated by the # sign), other half is the name that will be displayed on the article itself.

---

This is the idea I was opposed to. The two links in "100B" are not distinguished by themselves because there is no spaces between them (even if there was, it would still not be good enough). Having that sentence makes the links, and why they are being linked to more clear. Clarity takes precedence over condensation.

Well we already have a few links like that I think........[[Takara]][[Metal Driger]] comes to mind. And then, I never really found such links too hard to follow though I can appreciate how some might and it's good practice to keep things as clear as possible anyways.....perhaps an explantion can be given for the first 'other version' on each page and then the following ones can just link in the 'unclear' way.

I'm not too fussed how you do it really, but since it was brought up, thought I'd give my two cents.

Well we already have a few links like that I think........[[Takara]][[Metal Driger]] comes to mind. And then, I never really found such links too hard to follow though I can appreciate how some might and it's good practice to keep things as clear as possible anyways.....perhaps an explantion can be given for the first 'other version' on each page and then the following ones can just link in the 'unclear' way.

I'm not too fussed how you do it really, but since it was brought up, thought I'd give my two cents.

True ... But in this context, I don't think it would be the right thing to do. We did do the two links beside each other thing in the original MFB articles, as I am sure you've noticed, but it just does not work well imo. Especially having only one or two letters as a link for the Bottoms.

---

In case people did not read the other thread, I will re-iterate here:

The "This version of _________ contains ..." sentences in the Other Versions sections of MFB articles will no longer be required. It is becoming way too convoluted to manage, and just does not look good.

To alleviate the problem of these parts not being linked to any longer, "Metal Fight Beyblade", "HMS", and "Plastic" categories are being created to separate the three generations. The current "Beyblade" category is becoming a little crowded.

---