Talk:Kibble

Would 'Undercarriage junk' fit in here?

Is it important enough to warrant a mention?

I mean, it DOES plague pretty much every jet Transformer to some degree.

Jargon category

I would really like there to be a category for fandom jargon, such as kibble, shellformer, and so on. I would just "be bold" (as they asy on Wikipedia), but I confess that I'm not sure what the best name for this category should be ("fan[dom] jargon"? "collector slang"??), nor what supercategory it would fit in. Anyone have suggestions? --64.109.166.197 20:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, the low limit to category contents is just three, and we have well over three articles that could qualify. I'm generally opposed to overcategorization, but this idea would be a handy idea to decipher the meaning of some of those entries without having to actually read the article.

Not that people shouldn't read the articles.--Sntint 21:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I on't know how it would help decipher the meaning of those entries without having to read the article, but it would be a useful aid for newbies who want to brush up on terminology. I confess that I sometimes have trouble with the articles (and even more trouble with In Space, No One Can Hear Starscream ;) ) --64.109.166.197 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The low-limit to category contents is EIGHT. --ItsWalky 21:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think for non-character articles, we can be a little lenient. I mean, we made the "eight" rule so every minor subgroup ever wouldn't be Categorized unnecessarily. --M Sipher 22:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also, I suggest the name for the Category be as simple and direct as possible. "Fan terminology" or "Fan terms", which would probably fall under the "Fandom" Category itself. --M Sipher 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the already-existing Category:Fandom isn't good enough? If we push fan terms into a subcategory, we'll have to decide which words are "fan terms" as opposed to design, manufacturing or marketing terms that fans use all the time. Where does "gimmick" go, for example? (Now that I look at it, maybe gimmick shouldn't even be in the fandom category at all, but just under Category:Toys like the articles about different types of joints. I dunno.) --Steve-o 04:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is more controvercial than I had expected! I'm a newbie here, and unaquainted with your customs. But, see, that's exactly why I would like such a category: it would make it easier for people like me, who enjoy Transformers but have never been part of the fandom community, to learn about terminology. It doesn't seem like it makes sense to write a glossary page for all the technical terms, but a category page would be a very easy way to get all the words in one go. --64.109.166.197 20:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And I suspect it wouln't be that hard to find eight articles on this sort of terminology, especially if you include things like redeco, and even iffy items like army building (not exclusive to transformers fandom, but still an important term), and even the above-mentioned gimmick (an every day word, yes, but it has a specialized meaning in TF circles). --64.109.166.197 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I ask again, directing my question to you, 64.109.166.197: What is it about Category:Fandom that makes you feel it isn't serving this purpose already? --Steve-o 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm hoping for something purely lexical. Things like Fox Kids, Fan fiction, and The Official Transformers Collectors Convention refer to things, rather than terms (except possibly "fan fiction," but that's pretty damn ubiquitous). These are currently in Category:Fandom, but would not be in my proposed category. Likewise, there would not be lists of notable people, e.g. Chris McFeely, Raksha, Ben Yee (again, all in Category:Fandom), or useful miscellanious information such as Misconceptions and urban legends about Transformers. It would simply be a list of words and expressions. You raise the point that some terms are borderline, but I would suggest that in most cases it won't be too hard to make a decision (and heck, if it were up to me, marketing terms would have their own category too).

Speaking for myself I know I would find a "Fan terminology" category appealing, and more useful than Category:Fandom as it currently stands. And there may well be other readers (anonymous or registered) who agree with me. If this were wikipedia, I have no doubt such a reorganization would be considered a Good Idea. But of course this is not wikipedia, and you have every right to do things differently (the difference in writing style, I confess, is one of my favorite features of this wiki). If I read the discussion between M Sipher and Steve-o correctly, the consensus here is that it's better to have the categories be too vague than too numerous. As I have no history in this comunity, I can't really offer an informed opinion as to whether or not my proposal would upset your categorization scheme too much. I will have to leave the decision up to you regulars. But I do think Category:Fandom would not be hurt, and could ineed benefit from some subcategorization. --64.109.166.197 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think we could at least spin off "Category:Fandom People" for Raksha, Ben Yee, etc. (especially once we get all the various fans who have done official stuff up, there's a lot of them now), and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a "fan terminology" category as well, leaving the larger "Fandom" category to hold things like convention info, general fandom info, etc. -hx 16:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Chair

Shouldn't Leader Class Bulkhead and his Magnificent Chair be mentioned? King SweaterHead 01:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixing External Links

I see this page still has a "Recovery-2" status on it, pending repair of external links. What repairs need to be done, exactly? Does it just need to have the links look neater (i.e., formatted to look like numbers instead of having visible post IDs)? Have them turned into footnotes?--Apcog 06:47, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

It matches the way they were presented in the cache copy. When Starfield stuck the bookworm template on it, the blockquote tags were all messed up, but those have been fixed already. I think the page is pretty much fixed now. --abates 07:06, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Bananaman

Good artlce, spells it out really weel. Question: Are the jet wings on the G1 Seekers really kibble in robot mode? I noticed that at times when they are flying around in robot mode the wings seem to come in to use then, if even just for stabilising purposes...?

Yeah, it counts. Anything that is attached to the body and doesn't represent a humanoid body part is kibble. Also, stabilizing purposes? Jetformers with flight powers tend to just kinda float. MBG (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

Secondary anatomy

From Into the Abyss: Dark Cybertron Chapter 4: "Check out the chest turret. That's clearly part of some secondary anatomy. They've got alt modes". Should this be mentioned in the article?omegatron (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

"Faux-Parts"

Considering just how colossal and bloated the "faux-parts" section has gotten, and how incredibly common it's become lately - seriously, you'd have a hard time naming an Optimus toy of the last few years where the windshield and grill on the robot mode were his actual windshield and grille - it seems like it should either get pruned down to size or made its own article. As it is now, it's just kind of a vague, disordered list of increasingly bombastic proclamations about how, no, this kind of faux-parts is the craziest - no, this one is. MBG (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2018 (EDT)