Talk:Kibble - Revision history

MBG: /* "Faux-Parts" */

2018-04-27T22:25:07Z

"Faux-Parts"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, 27 April 2018
Line 44:		Line 44:

	=="Faux-Parts"==		=="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 this kind of faux-parts is the craziest. [[User:MBG\|MBG]] ([[User talk:MBG\|talk]]) 18:24, 27 April 2018 (EDT)		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. [[User:MBG\|MBG]] ([[User talk:MBG\|talk]]) 18:24, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

MBG at 22:24, 27 April 2018

2018-04-27T22:24:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 27 April 2018
Line 37:		Line 37:
	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...?		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. [[User:MBG\|MBG]] ([[User talk:MBG\|talk]]) 18:19, 27 April 2018 (EDT)		: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. [[User:MBG\|MBG]] ([[User talk:MBG\|talk]]) 18:19, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

	== Secondary anatomy ==		== 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?[[User:Omegatron\|omegatron]] ([[User talk:Omegatron\|talk]]) 07:26, 21 September 2014 (EDT)		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?[[User:Omegatron\|omegatron]] ([[User talk: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 this kind of faux-parts is the craziest. [[User:MBG\|MBG]] ([[User talk:MBG\|talk]]) 18:24, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

MBG: /* Bananaman */

2018-04-27T22:19:03Z

Bananaman

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 27 April 2018
Line 36:		Line 36:

	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...?		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. [[User:MBG\|MBG]] ([[User talk:MBG\|talk]]) 18:19, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

	== Secondary anatomy ==		== 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?[[User:Omegatron\|omegatron]] ([[User talk:Omegatron\|talk]]) 07:26, 21 September 2014 (EDT)		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?[[User:Omegatron\|omegatron]] ([[User talk:Omegatron\|talk]]) 07:26, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Omegatron: /* Secondary anatomy */ new section

2014-09-21T11:26:23Z

Secondary anatomy: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:26, 21 September 2014
Line 36:		Line 36:

	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...?		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...?

			== 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?[[User:Omegatron\|omegatron]] ([[User talk:Omegatron\|talk]]) 07:26, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

203.6.77.2: /* Bananaman */ new section

2012-07-09T02:14:20Z

Bananaman: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 9 July 2012
Line 32:		Line 32:
	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?--[[User:Apcog\|Apcog]] 06:47, 20 July 2009 (EDT)		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?--[[User:Apcog\|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. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 07:06, 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. --[[User:Abates\|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...?

Abates: /* Fixing External Links */

2009-07-20T11:06:55Z

Fixing External Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:06, 20 July 2009
Line 31:		Line 31:

	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?--[[User:Apcog\|Apcog]] 06:47, 20 July 2009 (EDT)		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?--[[User:Apcog\|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. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 07:06, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Apcog: /* Fixing External Links */ new section

2009-07-20T10:47:16Z

Fixing External Links: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:47, 20 July 2009
Line 27:		Line 27:
	== Chair ==		== Chair ==
	Shouldn't [[Bulkhead (Animated)\|Leader Class Bulkhead]] and his [[Bulkhead_%28Animated%29#Toys\|Magnificent]] [[Bulkhead_%28Animated%29#Trivia\|Chair]] be mentioned? [[User:King Sweaterhead\|King SweaterHead]] 01:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)		Shouldn't [[Bulkhead (Animated)\|Leader Class Bulkhead]] and his [[Bulkhead_%28Animated%29#Toys\|Magnificent]] [[Bulkhead_%28Animated%29#Trivia\|Chair]] be mentioned? [[User:King Sweaterhead\|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?--[[User:Apcog\|Apcog]] 06:47, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Deceptitran: /* Deceptitran fixes v1.0 - wikia_unspam#1 - */

2009-03-24T18:06:50Z

Deceptitran fixes v1.0 - wikia_unspam#1 -

New page

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? --[[User:64.109.166.197|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.--[[User:Sntint|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'' ;) ) --[[User:64.109.166.197|64.109.166.197]] 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::The low-limit to category contents is EIGHT. --[[User:ItsWalky|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. --[[User:M Sipher|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. --[[User:M Sipher|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.) --[[User:Steve-o|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. --[[User:64.109.166.197|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). --[[User:64.109.166.197|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? --[[User:Steve-o|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. --[[User:64.109.166.197|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. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 16:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

== Chair ==
Shouldn't [[Bulkhead (Animated)|Leader Class Bulkhead]] and his [[Bulkhead_%28Animated%29#Toys|Magnificent]] [[Bulkhead_%28Animated%29#Trivia|Chair]] be mentioned? [[User:King Sweaterhead|King SweaterHead]] 01:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hooper X at 16:07, 29 October 2007

2007-10-29T16:07:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 29 October 2007
Line 22:		Line 22:
	::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? --[[User:Steve-o\|Steve-o]] 23:07, 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? --[[User:Steve-o\|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).		:::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. --[[User:64.109.166.197\|64.109.166.197]] 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)<div id="wikia-credits"><br /><br /><small>From [http://transformers.wikia.com Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki], a [http://www.wikia.com Wikia] wiki.</small></div>		:::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. --[[User:64.109.166.197\|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. [[User:Hooper X\|-hx]] 16:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)<div id="wikia-credits"><br /><br /><small>From [http://transformers.wikia.com Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki], a [http://www.wikia.com Wikia] wiki.</small></div>

64.109.166.197: /* Jargon category */

2007-10-28T23:53:19Z

Jargon category

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:53, 28 October 2007
Line 11:		Line 11:

	:Not that people shouldn't read the articles.--[[User:Sntint\|Sntint]] 21:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)		:Not that people shouldn't read the articles.--[[User:Sntint\|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'' ;) ) --[[User:64.109.166.197\|64.109.166.197]] 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
	::The low-limit to category contents is EIGHT. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 21:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)		::The low-limit to category contents is EIGHT. --[[User:ItsWalky\|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. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 22:23, 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. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 22:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)