http://www.beywiki.com/index.php/Bull_125SF
http://www.beywiki.com/index.php/Sagittario_145S
http://www.beywiki.com/index.php/Leone_145D
http://www.beywiki.com/index.php/Pegasis_105F

Work in progress, clearly. There is not much content right now, but I figured a lot of you would appreciate seeing the pictures ASAP.

Just one quick question, does anyone know what the "D" in "Leone145D" stands for? I can't seem to recall.

---

although the tip for leon doesnt spin freely it closely resembles the tip of WBMS

Just one quick question, does anyone know what the "D" in "Leone145D" stands for? I can't seem to recall.

Maybe the D stands for Defense?

---

It's good that these have been started. I look forward to reading the finished articles

---

~Senshi Katana~

戦士カタナ

D from most accounts has stood for defense.

Kei:
http://forums.beywiki.com/thread-1589.html

Are we still following this format? If so, shouldn't the article just be Pegasis?

---

D from most accounts has stood for defense.

Kei:
http://forums.beywiki.com/thread-1589.html

Are we still following this format? If so, shouldn't the article just be Pegasis?

Hmm, I didn't think anything had been decided yet so I just put an "Other Versions" section. If I just put a link to the other article (which I forgot to do, I will now), then you can get the information on it. For example, for Pegasis 145D I would just put a link in the "145D" text and it would link to the Leone article.

Is this fine with everyone? Or should it be done in a different way, like the suggestions in that thread? I don't see why you would want to copy and paste the information over and over again when you can just link to it. Besides, the booster versions of each Bey shouldn't even be counted as an individual Beyblade. They are basically just customizations sold in a box.

---

Seems fine to me, Go for it!! >=D

---

I don't know why, but this way it seems cluttered. I preferred the version Brad proposed, but I can see this working just as well, if a bit messier. Why would we want to write an article on Pegasis145D and Pegasus105F?

Doing it brad's way, we would write the article about the one unique part of the bey, Pegasus, and then tracks and wheels would go in a separate place. We could then just link tracks to a specific track page (just like how 10 wide on most beys will link to the 10 wide page), and tips to tips. Of course, we would still write down variations on the blade itself, as seen with CWD 17g.

Or we could still copy and paste, but it would be on 1 page instead of 2 different pages. Then we could link all searchings for Pegasus trackx wheel y into the article Pegasus.

---

we would write the article about the one unique part of the bey, Pegasus, and then tracks and wheels would go in a separate place.

I think this way is good Makes a lot of sense to me

---

~Senshi Katana~

戦士カタナ

Doing it brad's way, we would write the article about the one unique part of the bey, Pegasus, and then tracks and wheels would go in a separate place. We could then just link tracks to a specific track page (just like how 10 wide on most beys will link to the 10 wide page), and tips to tips. Of course, we would still write down variations on the blade itself, as seen with CWD 17g.

Yeah, this would definitely work. However, this is different from weight disks in my opinion.

WDs are something that doesn't come with only one Beyblade. In this case, we have a Wheel that comes with a Track and Bottom that does not normally belong to it. It's like with the HMS Random Boosters, except you know what you are getting (aside from the Quetzlcoatl parts). We're not writing individual articles for an AR, CWD, or RC from a RB are we?

What I am trying to say is that, for example, Pegasis145D is like a customization. It is normally Pegasis105F, but if you wanted to customize it, you could put 145D or any other Track/Bottom onto it. We should not start writing individual articles for Tracks and Bottoms because I believe that it is not just the Wheel that is unique to the Beyblade, the Track and Bottom are as well. Despite the fact that they are being packaged with different parts in Boosters.

This is why I believe just linking to the article the parts in the booster come from is a better idea.

---

I see what you mean, and I guess this method does make sense also. What do you plan to do though? Or are you just trying to get some more opinions before you decide?

---

~Senshi Katana~

戦士カタナ

I'm going to wait for some more opinions.

---

Okay. Just for the record, I'm now leaning towards the way you just suggested (linking to the article the parts in the booster come from)

It makes slightly more sense to my brain, so yeah. I'm all for that way.

---

~Senshi Katana~

戦士カタナ

To be fair, this is just like every bey that comes with SG Flat, Semi-Flat, or Sharp. I do not believe that tracks will become unique, not yet, and I don't think that F, SF, and S will be as unique as you think.

This is my reasoning for why we should just write it as if it were the new SG Flat, SG Semi-Flat, or SG Sharp, and just note differences. I mean, even Wolf will come out with 125SF.

It is my belief that these should be treated either as real beys or all put together as something that comes with wheel x.

---

We can't predict what is going to happen with these Tracks and Bottoms yet, so it would be presumptuous of us to follow that format. However, I'm not a fan at all of what Kei is doing here ... I was initially very confused by the links and thought that they must be errors.

We can't predict what is going to happen with these Tracks and Bottoms yet, so it would be presumptuous of us to follow that format. However, I'm not a fan at all of what Kei is doing here ... I was initially very confused by the links and thought that they must be errors.

What do you mean? The way each Beyblade is in Starters, are its default parts. In other generations, the AR and BB/RC were generally its main parts. Do you guys see what I am saying?

What is wrong with the way the articles are right now? They look very similar to the HMS/Plastic generation articles.

---

I don't know why, but this way it seems cluttered. I preferred the version Brad proposed, but I can see this working just as well, if a bit messier. Why would we want to write an article on Pegasis145D and Pegasus105F?

Doing it brad's way, we would write the article about the one unique part of the bey, Pegasus, and then tracks and wheels would go in a separate place. We could then just link tracks to a specific track page (just like how 10 wide on most beys will link to the 10 wide page), and tips to tips. Of course, we would still write down variations on the blade itself, as seen with CWD 17g.

Or we could still copy and paste, but it would be on 1 page instead of 2 different pages. Then we could link all searchings for Pegasus trackx wheel y into the article Pegasus.

I like this idea. Has my vote. The way I read it, it'd be like this:
An article of Pegasus would have details on JUST the Wheel and Face. Then under "Track" and "Bottom" there would be a list of different Tracks/Bottoms and links to them. For example:
Tracks
Starter: 105
Booster: 145
DX Set: 125
105, 145, and 125 would be links to a separate article.

---

balls

But we don't know if those parts will become common, shared parts. It's presumptuous of us to do that right now.

Kei, I understand what you're saying, but I still think this layout I suggested would be better:

* 1 Pegasis
Wheel Info
* 2 Starter Parts
** 2.1 105
** 2.2 Flat
* 3 Booster Parts
** 3.1 145
** 3.2 Defense

Even so, the Horoscope MFB share the same Tracks and Bottoms. If they don't show up anymore (I bet they will), the parts will remain exclusive to the "Horoscope" series. And as far as I know, there's no differences apart from color. Either that or copy-paste each article... ._.

---

balls

But we don't know if those parts will become common, shared parts. It's presumptuous of us to do that right now.

Kei, I understand what you're saying, but I still think this layout I suggested would be better:

* 1 Pegasis
Wheel Info
* 2 Starter Parts
** 2.1 105
** 2.2 Flat
* 3 Booster Parts
** 3.1 145
** 3.2 Defense

How about this:

* 1 Pegasis
Face Info
Wheel Info
* 2 Starter Parts
** 2.1 105
** 2.2 Flat
* 3 Booster Parts
** 3.1 (Link to 145 in the Leone article)
** 3.2 (Link to Defense on the Leone article)

There is no way this would confuse users, IMO. And it wouldn't clutter the articles at all.

---

But we don't know if those parts will become common, shared parts. It's presumptuous of us to do that right now.

Kei, I understand what you're saying, but I still think this layout I suggested would be better:

* 1 Pegasis
Wheel Info
* 2 Starter Parts
** 2.1 105
** 2.2 Flat
* 3 Booster Parts
** 3.1 145
** 3.2 Defense

How about this:

* 1 Pegasis
Face Info
Wheel Info
* 2 Starter Parts
** 2.1 105
** 2.2 Flat
* 3 Booster Parts
** 3.1 (Link to 145 in the Leone article)
** 3.2 (Link to Defense on the Leone article)

There is no way this would confuse users, IMO. And it wouldn't clutter the articles at all.

Ohh I think I like it. Can you make a prototype?

---

How about

Booster Parts
___________

The Booster for Pegasis uses the Track and Bottom of Leone. For information, please see the Leone article.

One error on "Saggitario" should be corrected.

It should read

Face

The face on this Beyblade depicts Sagittarius, which is a sign in the Zodiac.

---

Going Away Blow Out Sale! PM ME

^ Fixed.

How about

Booster Parts
___________

The Booster for Pegasis uses the Track and Bottom of Leone. For information, please see the Leone article.

Perfect.

---