World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc.

I'd put earth bull 100WD

On the Dark Cancer page, it says Dark Cancer CH120SF. Its supposed to be FS.

Takara realesed it with SF, actually.
WTF: http://wiki.worldbeyblade.org/index.php/Desert_Sphinxer

For the Flame Byxis article: 230 should be used in MF-H Basalt 230D, not Scythe 230D, its not that great imo.
I also agree with WD being changed, but only to Phantom AD145WD.

Just PM'd kei to ask about these, but anyway:


First, Fortress Base: There is no way to fit any more than a single pair of ball bearings in there unless you count having them sit at weight-disk level as legal, in which case there are other bases I can just throw balls at to add weight. Most that will fit is one pair of balls, there is a pole blocking you from doing the same thing as in Draciel S, and other than that, the bearings just sit awkwardly next to the SG.

Secondly, Wolborg 2's shaft in Burning Cerberous' base: The only way to do this is to force it through unnaturally or remove the tip and replace it after placing the sg in the base, which I seriously doubt is "intended".

That's all mentioned on beywiki, so yeah, unless I've missed something.......

Going through and editing some stuff that's wrong on plastics articles. Mostly places where some idiot has added that wolborg 1 and 2 have identical SG's (which has been removed before iirc). They aren't identical design wise, wolborg 2's is taller and has an extra "compartment" at the bottom. It's also not possible to put a wolborg shaft in wolborg 2's sg, so it's pretty obvious they're different. The difference in casings has been verified by Mc Frown, iirc.

I've also edited Wolborg 2's article to reflect this.

Might edit a couple more things related to that once I've got off my butt to try/verify some stuff too.

Also removed "[[Burning Kerberous]] and [[Takara]]'s [[Zeus]] also allow for the placement of two bearings." from the wolborg article, where it discusses placing bearing stingers shaft wolborgs casings. For starters, takara's Zeus doesn't "allow for the placement of" two bearings, it just has two bearings, which are inaccessible without compromising the legality of the part (at least I recall Kai-V saying that disassembly of parts like that makes them illegal, though maybe it was about F: D or F: S). Secondly, this is totally irrelevant as the shaft of MDBS can't be placed in either of those SG's, IIRC (well, definitely not in Zeus' SG, and the Burning Kerberous article doesn't mention placing MDBS' shaft in it's SG).

Either way, MDBS' shaft going in a casing that isn't Wolborg's is irrelevant on an article about wolborg.

Also, I think the "defense customisation" section of wolborg 2 needs a look over, as that defense combo is better using a left SG and Wide Defense anyway (unless it's against a left spin opponent, same as the zombie combo's).
TBH, the other combo's should just use Wide Defense anyway, not wide survivor.

Also, 10 Heavy doesn't help the beys balance at all, that's just plain wrong.

In summary:

Fixing some wolborg stuff, but wolborg 2's article needs some serious TLC. I might go so far as to post an edit to be approved by the staff. Not only is it worded poorly, but there's stuff in there that's just silly.

I'd also like it if someone with Wolborg 1 and/or 2 and MDBS could make sure the shaft of MDBS fits in the SG's of both wolborgs, seeing as the part where it says it can be used in wolborg 2's casings may have come from the misconception that said casing is identical to Wolborg 1's. I'd also like Wolborg 1's checked just to be sure that's not an error too, ahah.

(Nov. 05, 2011  5:14 PM)th!nk Wrote: [ -> ]Going through and editing some stuff that's wrong on plastics articles. Mostly places where some idiot has added that wolborg 1 and 2 have identical SG's (which has been removed before iirc). They aren't identical design wise, wolborg 2's is taller and has an extra "compartment" at the bottom. It's also not possible to put a wolborg shaft in wolborg 2's sg, so it's pretty obvious they're different. The difference in casings has been verified by Mc Frown, iirc.

That "idiot" is G, who originally wrote the article. I don't have a Wolborg, so I'm not sure if what you're saying is true or not, so you should try to contact him. Or, have Mc Frown or someone else post pictures.

(Nov. 05, 2011  5:14 PM)th!nk Wrote: [ -> ]Also removed "[[Burning Kerberous]] and [[Takara]]'s [[Zeus]] also allow for the placement of two bearings." from the wolborg article, where it discusses placing bearing stingers shaft wolborgs casings. For starters, takara's Zeus doesn't "allow for the placement of" two bearings, it just has two bearings, which are inaccessible without compromising the legality of the part (at least I recall Kai-V saying that disassembly of parts like that makes them illegal, though maybe it was about F: D or F: S). Secondly, this is totally irrelevant as the shaft of MDBS can't be placed in either of those SG's, IIRC (well, definitely not in Zeus' SG, and the Burning Kerberous article doesn't mention placing MDBS' shaft in it's SG).

I've never had/used a Takara Zeus, so I'm not sure about that, but I do know that Bearing Stinger's shaft cannot be placed in Burning Kerberous's casing. Well, it can, but it will fall out.

I reverted the article back to how it was before with the final sentence in the SG Bearing Version section because I believe what is trying to be said is that, while the casings of SG Bearing Version only had room for one bearing, the casings of Burning Kerberous and Zeus rectified this problem by being able to hold two. I've thus updated the sentence to clarify this:

SG Bearing Version section of Wolborg article Wrote:However, Burning Kerberous and Takara's Zeus casings rectify this problem, as they can carry two bearings.

Although, if the bearings Zeus has are inaccessible, perhaps we should just not mention it at all? I do see what was trying to be said, but if you can't access them, it doesn't make sense to mention it.

(Nov. 05, 2011  5:14 PM)th!nk Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I think the "defense customisation" section of wolborg 2 needs a look over, as that defense combo is better using a left SG and Wide Defense anyway (unless it's against a left spin opponent, same as the zombie combo's).
TBH, the other combo's should just use Wide Defense anyway, not wide survivor.

Also, 10 Heavy doesn't help the beys balance at all, that's just plain wrong.

The point of that custom is high RPM defense. Or maybe it's more of a Compact. Either way, it's not trying to be a Zombie.

(Nov. 05, 2011  5:14 PM)th!nk Wrote: [ -> ]Fixing some wolborg stuff, but wolborg 2's article needs some serious TLC. I might go so far as to post an edit to be approved by the staff. Not only is it worded poorly, but there's stuff in there that's just silly.

The Wolborg 2 article is great as it is, in my opinion. What is this "silly" stuff you speak of?

That's "Re-added", not originally written, as it was removed before. Pardon the somewhat harsh language, it is an irk of mine, though in retrospect I don't know why I used the term there at all though I've been moody lately for medical reasons. I hold G in very high regard, for what it's worth.

However, it's not always the easiest thing to communicate with the original writer, nor is it often that productive (memories fade easy on such small details). To be honest, is it really that important, and as much as I care about getting it right, surely there's someone still around who would point out any possible oversights arising from not waiting a week to a month for a response?

As for the casings, considering I own both and pointed out that difference in a video today, I'm roughly 100% sure that they are different, and I'd appreciate if it were kept in mind I generally don't post anything that bold without adequate justification, because I'm a fairly rational human being. Maybe "verified" wasn't the right term and led to some confusion about whether I owned both parts (at least, I hope this is the case.) I basically meant "has also stated this".

As for that high rpm defense combo, from the couple times I tried it it did miserably in terms of both defence and stamina. I will do some formal tests when I post my revision of the article later, though I do hope not doing them im the says of OtC is now considered a valid testing condition, because I recall at least one case of modern tests being considered "less relevant" if they happened to dispute older tests/ideas, even if the basis of those ideas was foggy.

To be honest, at the very least that combo could be improved (wolborg 1's base? really?)

My point is, "why isn't it trying to be a zombie instead of wasting this parts potential?" A defensive zombie is both more useful and more relevant than that "high rom not quite compact not very stable" thing.

As for wolborg 2, it's poorly written in purely grammatical terms, but I can't remember the "strange things" off the top of my head. I'll post my draft-edit after I get some sleep and check it over.

I'm just going to respond to parts of this right now, since I honestly do not have time to go over your new draft and it's accompanying commentary right now haha.

(Nov. 06, 2011  11:47 PM)th!nk Wrote: [ -> ]As for the casings, considering I own both and pointed out that difference in a video today, I'm roughly 100% sure that they are different, and I'd appreciate if it were kept in mind I generally don't post anything that bold without adequate justification, because I'm a fairly rational human being. Maybe "verified" wasn't the right term and led to some confusion about whether I owned both parts (at least, I hope this is the case.) I basically meant "has also stated this".

You're more than likely right, but it would be nice if someone could post pictures so that we can all be sure that you're right, and so that we can all understand what the difference is.

(Nov. 06, 2011  11:47 PM)th!nk Wrote: [ -> ]As for that high rpm defense combo, from the couple times I tried it it did miserably in terms of both defence and stamina. I will do some formal tests when I post my revision of the article later, though I do hope not doing them im the says of OtC is now considered a valid testing condition, because I recall at least one case of modern tests being considered "less relevant" if they happened to dispute older tests/ideas, even if the basis of those ideas was foggy.

It was never claimed that it was the best combination of all time, so this is OK. And of course we should take into consideration modern tests, but we shouldn't ignore what was done in the past either; things that were done when the entire community was focused on testing Plastics!

(Nov. 06, 2011  11:47 PM)th!nk Wrote: [ -> ]To be honest, at the very least that combo could be improved (wolborg 1's base? really?)

My point is, "why isn't it trying to be a zombie instead of wasting this parts potential?" A defensive zombie is both more useful and more relevant than that "high rom not quite compact not very stable" thing.

Perhaps it would make more sense to use a Left SG; I don't see any reason why it shouldn't have one. And don't quote me on this–as I don't own the BB–but I believe SG Bearing Base was chosen because it is more compact.

That I can understand, didn't realise it was so long until I posted it. Gonna go back and revise it a little anyways, though I did want to include explanations for everything :3

Yeah, I'll take a picture in a couple of hours.

That's certainly reasonable, although I do recall one test on the wiki mentioning a hasbro stadium and uncustomised dranzer V2 as an opponent, I am sure most testing wasn't of this informal nature. I must admit I'm yet to go through the archived versions of OtC etc.

Even with a left SG, it won't have great spin steal and I'd still wager Wide Defense would improve the combo, but I will do some comparative tests some time this week.

As for the base, it's more compact, yes, but that compactness leaves it hugely susceptible to upper attack, and I'd think Customise Grip Base plus Defense Ring (the most compact defensive/zombie SP) would be a much more useful option.

One more thing, on the Parts List, it states Driger G comes with a final clutch base. My Driger G base, at least, looks and acts like a first clutch. All final clutch bases have the tabs that need to be pulled out to "set it", right (going off Draciel G and what I remember of my Dranzer GT here)? Because it doesn't have anything like that, just similar internals to my Metal Driger, Dragoon G, and Dragoon GT bases.


Oh, here's that comparison image.
[Image: WolborgComparison.png]
Note Wolborg 2's Casings have an extra gap at the base, and Wolborg 1's casings have a small spacer to where the top part of wolborg 1's tip rests, whereas if placing wolborg 2's shaft into those casings, you have to manually separate them, due to the different spacing.

Sorry the image isn't the best, not much I can do I'm afraid :\

I found this:http://wiki.worldbeyblade.org/index.php/No. What the?.........

Mm, looks like someone has redirected the contents page there or something. The Comittee may want to look into changing the permissions to prevent that in future. Can't fix the help:contents redirecting there thing myself because I'm on my phone, as my internet cut out again.

th!nk Wrote:One more thing, on the Parts List, it states Driger G comes with a final clutch base. My Driger G base, at least, looks and acts like a first clutch. All final clutch bases have the tabs that need to be pulled out to "set it", right (going off Draciel G and what I remember of my Dranzer GT here)?

You're right. It's fixed now.

Hm, my bad on Help:Contents. It's merely an official looking page or whatever the guy created.
http://wiki.worldbeyblade.org/index.php/Help:Contents

Which redirects to the "no" page.

The user was "Delgado", which, last I checked, was an unactivated account. Curious if it's possible to restrict editing access to activated accounts... And hey, seeing as only committee members or whatever create articles now, is it not possible to restrict article creation to that usergroup?

Woah, my bad on saying Zeus's SG cannot be opened, it's quite easy to open. I don't know what this may mean customisation wise or if it's legal. I will get back to you on it soonish I guess.

Einstein MS is listed as being Number: MA-09, but so is Advance Averazer - which also holds that position on the Beyblade product list.

Which is correct? And if Einstein is not MA-09, where did the normal green version come from?

Thanks

http://wiki.worldbeyblade.org/index.php/Einstein_MS
http://wiki.worldbeyblade.org/index.php/...e_Averazer
http://wiki.worldbeyblade.org/index.php/...TAL_SYSTEM

I think it was the Hasbro MA-09, because I remember Hasbro screwed up the numbering system with their HMS releases.

I edited Vulcan Horuseus' article so it doesn't seem like it's top tier anymore.

It just bothered me how out-of-date that article was, and the number of newcomers thinking it was still great.

(Nov. 14, 2011  11:57 PM)GaHooleone Wrote: [ -> ]I think it was the Hasbro MA-09, because I remember Hasbro screwed up the numbering system with their HMS releases.

Thanks. It seems that this is in fact an error then that should be corrected. Who has permissions to make the correction?

(Nov. 17, 2011  11:28 PM)Arupaeo Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov. 14, 2011  11:57 PM)GaHooleone Wrote: [ -> ]I think it was the Hasbro MA-09, because I remember Hasbro screwed up the numbering system with their HMS releases.

Thanks. It seems that this is in fact an error then that should be corrected. Who has permissions to make the correction?

Any member can, just sign into Beywiki.

Yup, using you WBO user, I believe.

(Nov. 17, 2011  11:24 PM)Byser Wrote: [ -> ]I edited Vulcan Horuseus' article so it doesn't seem like it's top tier anymore.

It just bothered me how out-of-date that article was, and the number of newcomers thinking it was still great.

My Eternal Gratitude: You Have It.


In retrospect I should've done it myself, but I tend to over-elaborate on things.

(Nov. 18, 2011  12:26 AM)Phoenix Inferno Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov. 17, 2011  11:28 PM)Arupaeo Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov. 14, 2011  11:57 PM)GaHooleone Wrote: [ -> ]I think it was the Hasbro MA-09, because I remember Hasbro screwed up the numbering system with their HMS releases.

Thanks. It seems that this is in fact an error then that should be corrected. Who has permissions to make the correction?

Any member can, just sign into Beywiki.

Thanks! Done.

Welcome, I edit the articles Bump King and Trypio, Bump King, Survival with Semi Flat. Flying Trypio.