Talk:Combiner
Personally, I am inclined to say that this article is not an appropriate place to make a list of combining toys. Arguably there is no appropriate place for that, since we already have a combiners category. Does anybody else want to chime in? I don't want to just revert Evil-yuusha's work without at least making sure I'm not alone on it. --Steve-o 05:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I like the article as it is. Yes, there's a combiners category, but I think having an article with a list of combiners that's further broken down by method of combination is cool, too. --KilMichaelMcC 05:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm gonna have to agree, primarily on the basis that it's not just a simple list; the combiners are broken down into type, and the various types explained and detailed. - Dark T Zeratul 08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then, let's discuss how to improve this. I think that having the lists inbetween definitions of terminology is a bad idea. It puts too much space between the definitions. Also, the lists remove two-robot combiners from the "gestalt" category even though the text of the article explicitly cites that as a point of contention. At the very least, I think the lists should be moved to a newly-created section of this page, but creating a new "List of combiners" article might be even better. The page was written as an explanation of what combiners ARE and what different words people use for them, so inserting complete lists of combiners into the middle is incongruous. --Steve-o 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey everybody, I kinda just added those list on a whim (something to do on lunch break), sorry I started so much discussion! I didnt know there was a combiner list elsewhere, in fact I still can't find it! (Help!) Actually, since then I've been working on an updated draft for the Combiners page that clarifies some stuff and more or less reorganizes everything. I guess I agree with Steve-o, the list do kinda break up the flow of the page, but Im not sure how to move (or remove) them and still have them tie in with their associated terms at-a-glance.
In trying to unmuddy the Combiner waters, I devised some new terms (at least i think theyre new!) to describe the often-argued "gestalt or not gestalt" combiners, as well as the "not quite an official combiner" characters. If anyone would like details before I post, or if the Mods think Im being too bold, please let me know! Evil-yuusha 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
