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)
Thanks for chiming in again, Evil-yuusha. For the time being, I've moved the lists into a new section just before the trivia, and changed their headers slightly to avoid giving preference to one or another meaning for "gestalt". Personally, I'm satisfied with that, but if anybody has other ideas, feel free to bring them up. The only other combiner list would be Category:Combiners, which is organized alphabetically, like all other categories, so it's probably not ideal for all purposes. I think that introducing newly-coined terminology is something the Wiki should be wary of, although we did invent the phrase "continuity family" so it's not totally out of the question. I would recommend bringing up ideas of that sort on the talk page before incorporating them into the article. --Steve-o 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the article as it stands now still leaves some ambiguity as to what is or is not a combiner proper, and of those, what qualifies as a gestalt. I thought that the term "Demi-Gestalt" could acknowledge lesser combiners that have the basic criteria of a gestalt, but still sets them apart from the "giants", as some fans feel they should be (like Slamdance).
- I thought the term "Pseudo-Combiner" could be applied to characters that do "combine", but do not qualify as "Combiners" (like Omega Supreme). Just lumping these (and there's a lot of them) under the heading of "Not Combiners" with every other TF seems unfair somehow.
- As a side note, I think the term "Super Robot" needs to be redefined, as it can refer to most any "big, strong robot", be it combiner, gestalt, pseudo-combiner, or anything else. - Evil-yuusha 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am pretty adamant that we not try to prescribe a definition for "gestalt". To some fans it applies only to large combiners, to some only to combiners with more than two members, and to some to any combiner. There is no "real" or official definition of it for us to go off of, so, I would prefer we simply describe its varied usage and leave it at that. Similarly for Super Robot: it is used, repeatedly, in official materials to describe -- as you say -- almost any big, strong robot. It's not a very useful term for that reason, but that's what it is. I don't think we can legitimately redefine it. I can go along with your pseudo-combiner thing, although I feel a little like there must be a better choice of words... To me at least, there is little combiner-esque about Omega Supreme. He combines with his PARTS, yeah... but "combiner" has pretty much always meant combining-robots in Transformers. I admit the Not combiners section could use some work. Feel free to take a stab at it. --Steve-o 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Squawkbox
Since the first combiner was in the reign of Nova Prime, couldn't squawkbox be a legitimate combiner?