User talk:Surel-nuva

Welcome! Hello, Surel-nuva, and welcome to the BS01 Wiki! Thank you for your contributions. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. As you can see, the BS01 Wiki is a place where you can type out all of the things you know about BIONICLE. If you don't know how to fully use the features of this Wiki, these will be some great links to look through: BIONICLEsector01:Community Portal How to edit Help pages How to create a User page Templates, Navigations, Userboxes etc. Tutorial Lexicon of Terms - What certain tabs and messages mean BIONICLEsector01:Administrators and Moderators - Any questions about the Wiki can be asked to one of the staff BIONICLEsector01:Policy - Be sure to read all of the policies before you start editing Member Opinion Hub - Any suggestions or ideas which would help us improve this Wiki We hope you enjoy editing and contributing to the biggest BIONICLE encyclopedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Try to remember, the Wiki Staff monitor the articles, and articles are edited constantly, so if any of your edits are reverted, or another edit is placed, don't worry about it. If you need help, just ask the existing members and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, in order to improve this Wiki, your feedback is very much appreciated. To provide feedback, please place it on the Member Opinion Hub. If you have any questions regarding the Wiki in general, they can be placed on the Help Desk. If you have any criticisms to make regarding the BS01 Wiki staff, they can be placed onto the Complaint Center. (After you have read and understood everything above and the notices below, feel free to remove this template.)

Notices Looking for a project? Check out BIONICLEsector01: Maintenance. It lists many pages that need content, rewrites, etc. Check out what needs to be done and help make the BS01 Wiki perfect! Please do not upload any of your personal images to the Wiki. Instead, use an image hosting site like Flickr for all of your image hosting needs.

-- Dorek _Talk 23:18, 17 July 2015 (CEST)

Thanks

I'm glad someone was awake enough to try to handle this :) You have my thanks. -- ^{Owner (talk|contribs)}

Again, great job about reverting that vandals edits! I'm PMing some staff members about this. --Vartemp ^Talk 15:21, 31 January 2016 (CET)

And again you helped out with a vandal attack. Thanks again for being around and being willing to help =) ζox• ^Histories

Set Pages

Are you in charge of them? -- Toa Jala ^{The AFC needs your help!} 06:37, 19 March 2016 (CET)

Not really, I just edit them, because some pages are lacking in content :) -- Surel-nuva (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2016 (CET)

Oh haha okay. Well, anyway, good work. I was wondering how you would feel about incorporating some of these images into the set pages. For example, this image would be an early version of Set:8729. Do you think they should be put right on the pages, or if we should stick a link in a "See Also" section? The latter was what ET recommended. -- Toa Jala ^{The AFC needs your help!} 07:48, 20 March 2016 (CET)

Something like this? -- Surel-nuva (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2016 (CET)

Actually, the idea was that once Gallery:Prototypes gets passed in AfC, that section would lead the visitor to the gallery. If they clicked on that link, their screen would look something like this. I kinda like yours better, though. Maybe we should do both, so once the gallery gets passed, it'll look like this:

See Also

• An early prototype of the model
• The Igniter prototype of this set
• Gallery:Prototypes

So yeah, why don't we do what you did with 8729? When the gallery gets passed, we'll add a link there. :D -- Toa Jala ^{The AFC needs your help!} 05:16, 21 March 2016 (CET)

Help with Canister Sets

Can I ask you for a favor? I've been kinda busy in Real Life moving. Zo;tomana says we should add [[Category:Medium Sets]] to all the Canister Set pages EXCEPT the Stars. Would you mind helping me with that please? Maybe you could do 2006-2009? I've already done 2001 and 2002 and I'm working on 2003 right now. -- Toa Jala ^{Order a Sig!} 04:52, 7 April 2016 (CET)

I'll do it -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 10:20, 7 April 2016 (CET)

Thank you so much. Love the new sig. -- Toa Jala ^Converse 06:52, 11 April 2016 (CET)

Matau's Quote

That's my fav, too! :D -- Toa Jala ^Converse 18:38, 5 June 2016 (CET)

ey

can you pass the adventures PDF sweetie? --- Creep 17:54, 25 November 2016 (CET)

You can find them there. These are pictures of them, I used a program to convert them into PDFs :) I'd pass them to you, but I know no way to do it

http://cross-wired-freak.tumblr.com/post/68472919868/bionicle-chronicles-bionicle-adventures-bionicle
-- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 18:12, 25 November 2016 (CET)

Oh hey I remember this, from good old /biog/ in 4chan. Forgot this existed. Thanks brother --- Creep 18:14, 25 November 2016 (CET)

Krana-Kal telepathy

Bzgl. http://biosector01.com/wiki/index.php?title=Krana-Kal&curid=2801&diff=112701&oldid=112698

I read everywhere, that the Bohrok-Kal (meaning all Bohrok-Kal) could communicate telepathically, so I assume that all Krana-Kal had telepathical abilities. Is this right? (If so, this information should be added to Krana-Kal and to Bohrok-Kal.) Krana-Za-Kals additional abilities are reading non-communicative minds and sensing strong emotions.

(The telepathy could also go out from an other area of the Bohrok-Kals body, if not from the Krana.)

--- MKW (talk)

The information about the Krana-Kal are came from the Comic 11: A Matter of Time... comic description, so we don't need to change it. Can you see? -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 19:19, 26 November 2016 (CET)

So, do all Krana-Kal have telepathical abilities? The Bohrok-Kal article says: "[...] They [the Bohrok-Kal] also gained the ability to communicate telepathically and speak the Matoran language. [...] They were powered by Krana-Kal and could telepathically communicate in the Matoran Language. [...]"

This sounds like all the Bohrok-/Krana-Kal had telepathical abilities! Is this just bad formulated?

--- MKW (talk)

No. The Krana-Kal could communicate in Matoran language via the Bohrok-Kal. And All Bohrok-Kal have the ability to communicate in matoran telepathically. But that kind of Krana-Kal [Krana Za-Kal] have telepathical ability without any Bohrok-Kal. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 19:35, 26 November 2016 (CET)

Oops, right, sry. I was unsure, now I scrolled and read the Krana article in the magazine. Thx, now I understand

--- MKW (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2016 (CET)

FaRotS Scans

Could you tell me where you found those scans? Thanks =) --OnionShark 20:10, 18 January 2017 (CET)

There, but it's russian. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 20:20, 18 January 2017 (CET)

isn't that comic on the bmp? Intelligence4 (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2017 (CET)

Actually, it isn't. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 15:13, 20 January 2017 (CET)

huh, would have thought they'd have archived it. is there an english version anywhere? (can i assume you can read russian?) Intelligence4 (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2017 (CET)

I'v just found it, but I can't read it for I haven't learnt russian. The FaRotS, the AOSR, and the TET were exclusive comics, only available in their Graphic Novels. Just like the Hydraxon's Tale, so I'm glad that the Hydraxon's Tale was uploaded in 2009 to a site, but it has been removed. (Fortunately, it was translated into hungarian by a fan, so I could read it in my language, and maybe it hasn't been removed from BrickShelf.) Maybe I could try to translate it, but it won't be a perfect-masterpiece translation :D -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (CET)

since when are you hungarian. I thought you were american. --- Creep 07:26, 21 January 2017 (CET)

I've been learning english since I got interested in the BIONICLE's story (via the MNOG and MNOG2 in 2006, later the story serials & podcasts in 2007. I've become a fan in 2004, my first set was a Bordakh, but I was just 7 years old), and I wanted to read it in enlgish and understand what was written there (BS01). I know I make mistakes when I'm editing the pages but I'm trying not to make them, but sometimes I just mistype and didn't notice it in the "show preview." -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 08:34, 21 January 2017 (CET)

do you ever use english in your day to day life? your english is quite good, actually... i would have never guessed it wasn't your first language. Is hydraxon's tale up on the internet anywhere? that was another one i never got to read. Intelligence4 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2017 (CET)

Yes, I use it everyday. First place, I learn english in school, on the other hand I use english while I'm here. And there's the comic in hungarian. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 09:34, 22 January 2017 (CET)

i knew someone linked me to that comic from this site haha - thanks!. (it's much shorter than i thought it would be lol.) Intelligence4 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2017 (CET)

your set collection

your bio notes that you've been a fan since 2004 - how'd you collect the 2001 sets like the turaga after they weren't on sale anymore? are they recent internet finds? Intelligence4 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (CET)

Yes, they are. The my pre-2004 sets were bought after 2010 from various sites. :) And as I said, the HT was uploaded online, but it has been removed. -- Surel—Nuva (Talk) 21:29, 23 January 2017 (CET)

Re: Spaces

Sorry, I was trying to cut down on the bytes used per page (and by extension, the site as a whole). I didn't mean to cause a problem. :/ -- Toa Jala ^Converse 21:28, 31 January 2017 (CET)

Originally, I did the same thing, but I realized that almost every page have these, so removing them would take more time than I have. And When I edited the pages I hardly could see how many "=" wrote before and after the names/words. -- Surel—Nuva (Talk) 21:39, 31 January 2017 (CET)

Recent addition to your bio

What's LDD? Intelligence4 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2017 (CET)

Lego Digital Designer. =) Well, I would need a Vahki head, Visorak foot pieces, Rahkshi heads, and a couple of more thing for Lariska, what the program doesn't have...-- Surel—Nuva (Talk) 22:18, 26 February 2017 (CET)

huh, cool, i didn't know such a thing was available. :) Intelligence4 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2017 (CET)

Koronan

I never used Tohunga - that one's pretty obvious - but could I have a source for "Koronan" not being canon? Among other places, it still exists in the post-lawsuit revision of MNOG alongside "Matoran", and I don't see how it would fall under the purview of the lawsuit without "Koro" also being deemed unacceptable. Also, is it just me or are these Koro pages kinda bare on detail and images? The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2017 (CET)

I mean, is there an official source for that? --The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2017 (CET)

Here's the thing, though: In all of the examples you stated, they're only non-canon because they contradict the existing versions of those events in mainstream media. For example, it was already stated that there were only two Manas, so the depiction of multiple Manas in MNOG is non-canon, fair enough. However, there is nothing outside of MNOG stating that "Koronan" is an illegitimate term. For that matter, "-Koronan" technically means something entirely different from "-Matoran" - a Ta-Matoran is a type of Matoran who is imbued with the element of Fire; a Ta-Koronan is just someone who lives in Ta-Koro. For example, Vakama isn't a Ta-Matoran, but he is a Ta-Koronan.

The fact of the matter is, though, we cannot deem something non-canon just because Greg didn't mention it - it can only be considered noncanon if Greg or later writings EXPLICITLY say it is. As things stand, there is zero information supporting the claim that Koronan is non-canon. And frankly, to assume it's non-canon without any evidence is not how a Wiki should operate. --The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2017 (CET)

Except, that's TOTALLY how a Wiki works. It is not canon, therefore it doesn't belong on the Wiki except in passing mention in Trivia sections only. It's like pointing at a Nintendo system, and calling it a Sega. Sure, someone probably CALLED it a Sega, but it isn't a Sega so it's therefore incorrect. Matoran were briefly called both Tohunga and Koronans, but those terms are obsolete and to continue to use that term in pages causes confusion. Therefore, we reflect the Wiki pages to say that. -- ^{Owner (talk|contribs)}

With all due respect, you keep insisting that it's not canon, but there's still nothing to support that. As previously stated, "Koronan" is NOT the same thing as "Matoran" - "Koronan" applies to anyone or anyTHING that hails from a given village - it's the Mata Nui equivalent of "Metruan". This is not to be equated with Tohunga, which is obsolete because it was explicitly replaced by the word Matoran, which means the exact same thing. However, since there exists no other word that means the same thing as "Koronan", I urge you to reconsider your position on this matter. --The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2017 (CET)

Can someone search the old Greg documents for any questions involving the term "Koronan"? That should clear this up. If he said the term is non canon, then it's no canon. But if he never said anything one way or the other, it's used in an official storyline source, so there's no reason not to accept it. --Angel Bob (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2017 (CET)

The "Koronan" was ONLY used in the MNOG and its walktrough... and by the fans. but every time a fan asked Greg about the "koronan" (eg.: Le-Koronan) Greg answered with "matoran." (eg.: Le-Matoran) And since the maori thing the "koronan" word, along with the tohunga, are omitted from any media, except the MNOG. But no (non-semi canon) books, no comics, no Templar online animations use the "koronan" word. It is long forgotten with the tohunga, as I re-read the OGD stuff. And Swert is the owner, if he says the Koronan should not be here (except MNOG stuff), it must not be here. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 18:06, 20 March 2017 (CET)

That still doesn't qualify as Greg decanonizing it - he could just be more accustomed to saying "Matoran", or be referring exclusively to them. But unless he contradicts its existence, there's no reason for us to assume it doesn't exist. And while it is no longer possible for us to ask him if the term "Koronan" is canon, I don't see why he would say no - after all, the term could not have been part of the Maori lawsuit without the base word "Koro" also going the way of "Tohunga". Furthermore, since it has no other true equivalent in canon, the term is very much not obsolete.

The fact remains that there is no solid evidence for us to regard the term non-canon - at the very most, it is canonically ambiguous. But unless someone here was officially given creative control over BIONICLE's story, none of us have the right to entirely omit established material from the recorded canon without concrete evidence that contradicts its existence. And frankly, such a "when in doubt, not canon" attitude can only be detrimental to the quality of this Wiki's content. --The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2017 (CET)

I'm just reading all this, so i'm a little late to the party (and it seems that some of the comments were deleted anyway haha) but i'd like to chime in and say that the bionicle chronicles books did refer to some of the matoran as koronans. that said, i remember reading something that said that cathy hapka used that term in error, since she didn't have all the info on all the nuances of the diction to be used. Intelligence4 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2017 (CET)

You can find the other half on The Aimless Wanderer1's talk-page. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 19:46, 22 March 2017 (CET)

Yes, I've already read that. Unfortunately, Wiki material still doesn't qualify as an official source, since anyone can edit it. For that matter, the cited sentence could use some rewording: The way it's written, it seems to suggest that ALL instances of "Matoran" in MNOG were replaced by "Koronan" - which is far from the case in any version of MNOG. -- The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2017 (CET)

As Greg answered: The Koronan was never a legal/canonical term. And as long as I'm right, the released version of the game which can be downloaded via the archived link (how clever was I for adding it :D) doesn't use it — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 09:05, 30 June 2017 (CET)

Chat

Surel-nuva could you please visit the chat? I want to discuss reasoning behind my few edits I did. Delete this if you need so.--BionicleMax (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2017 (CET)

It's better for me, because if you write something there, I'll get a notification on the top of the page(s), so I can answer, and usually, I don't check the chat. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 17:01, 22 March 2017 (CET)

(Formerly) Format

I think the reason you may have experienced "X (formerly), Y (formerly)" being changed to "X, Y (both formerly)" is because we used to list things all in one line, as opposed to using the <br> tabs. For a horizontal list like that, it makes more sense to have the (formerly) tag after both of them. For a vertical list, though, it really doesn't sit right with me. Does that makes sense to you? Think we ought to change it? --Angel Bob (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2017 (CET)

No, I experienced after I started to list the things horizontally on the pages, because placing everything in 1 line made No sense for me, and this horizontal listing make the pages clearer (okay, also makes the infobox larger, but it worthy). It was either you or Morris, who removed the (formerly) tags after the different things and replaced them with a single (all/both formerly) tag having said that it should be like this. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 23:21, 23 March 2017 (CET)

Ha, really? I'd forgotten. My bad. Well, I've changed my mind: I would prefer to use the "X (formerly) <br> Y (formerly)" format that you tried to implement. Does that sound like a good idea? --Angel Bob (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2017 (CET)

I'm not 100% sure that it was you, It could be Morris, I don't remember exactly. For me the "x (formerly)<br>y (formerly)<br>z (formerly)" makes more sense than "x<br>y<br>z (all formerly)." — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 23:42, 23 March 2017 (CET)

Yeah that may have been me, heh. If so I was just doing it to be consistent with other pages. Honestly I think that the current (both formerly) setup is more confusing than it needs to be, and that having (formerly) on each line is generally better. That said, if we adopt this new system, we should iron out some more details first. For example, let's say someone wielded two weapons (A and B), got rid of both at the same time, and then picked out a new weapon (C). Saying A {{C|formerly}} <br> B {{C|formerly}} <br> C {{C|formerly}} suggests the character had A, then had B, then had C. In this case the following system conveys more information: A and B{{C|both formerly}} <br> C {{C|formerly}} suggests A and B were wielded together but were replaced with C. How do you think we should deal with edge cases like this? -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2017 (CET)

The Hagah's formation II and Kanoka

After lots and lots of research, I haven't found anything about the time of the creation of the Hagah. Still, I may lack proof for saying that some of their formations were made separately, but it's the same for you to say that they were all formed at the same time, so how about this:

Currently the timeline page puts the events from NOGLB in the "Sometime before 75,000 years ago" section, and they are followed by the creation of the Hagah as if it was one event. Since we are not certain that their creations happened all at once we could put the events from NOGLB in a new "Sometime between before 75,000 years ago (which is the creation of Spiriah's team) and at least 7,000 years ago (which is when TSO is shown having Varian in stasis in BL4)" section, and change the Hagah formation event to "The Brotherhood of Makuta starts selecting Toa from various teams to serve as bodyguards for its members, calling them Toa Hagah."

What do you think? ~OnionShark 18:48, 29 March 2017 (CET)

Or Ancient didn't have the Levitation-kanoka boots yet when the NOGLB happened. The short story doesn't mention Ancient having them, so it isn't a reason to change it. Leave it like that, until we find a way to ask Greg to clarify it. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 19:05, 29 March 2017 (CET)

The DH attack the Toa with them in NOGLB, I was going to change that thing but fortunately I saw a link leading to the Kanoka page while skimming through the page. Untill we have that clarification, which I think we won't ever get, stating that that fact is confirmed is technically wrong, isn't it? ~OnionShark 19:18, 29 March 2017 (CET)

Technically, we should remove the whole Toa Hagah and NOGLB story from the Timeline, because we don't have real specific time periods for them. But for Spiriah had a Toa Hagah team, the formation of them should be before his self-exile what happened according to the BIONICLE: World 75-70,000 years ago. And maybe the Metru Nui style Kanoka was invented on Metru Nui 4,000 years ago, but they used normal ones (like Lurker, Gatherer and Ancient) before the invention. Remember, each Metru had a special ability for their Kanoka. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 19:28, 29 March 2017 (CET)

That's kinda the point I was trying to make on the Hagah's fromation, we don't have a precise time period, so let's put it in an approximative one, like basically almost every other section in that Timeline. Is there any problem or can we do like I proposed? ~OnionShark 19:31, 29 March 2017 (CET)

Why wouldn't we wait until someone else say something about this? Like @Morris the Mata Nui Cow, or @Angel Bob, or @Dorek? — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 19:37, 29 March 2017 (CET)

Why should we? ~OnionShark 19:39, 29 March 2017 (CET)

Because we're just 2 users, and they have more right to decide. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 20:01, 29 March 2017 (CET)

I unserstand Dorek and Morris, but why Angel Bob too? As far as I know he isn't among the staff. But still, if they have a problem with this they can always change it. I mean, one of the help pages says we shouldn't be afraid of making an edit, or something like that. As far as I know, Dorek and Morris haven't said anything against this, and leaving out info sounds like a bad idea in a place where people come to find info. I decided to see if you were fine with this since we previously strongly disagreed, but if it wasn't for this I would have simply made the edit immediately. ~OnionShark 21:22, 29 March 2017 (CET)

I'm definitely not one of the staff, but I'm happy to lend my opinion if it will help reach a conclusion. I have to admit, this is really a nebulous zone. It seems extremely counterintuitive to me that the Toa Hagah would be formed at different times, but we can't really assume anything one way or the other without evidence. I think OnionShark's suggestion, of giving an approximate time span (of 63,000 years - wow) for when NOGLB takes place, might be the most accurate thing we can do. Maybe we could add some notes on the NOGLB or timeline page clarifying the various theories, for readers to come to their own conclusions. --Angel Bob (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2017 (CET)

75K+ years ago is a rather approximate time. The key here is really the formation of the Hagah teams. Figure when the Hagah came into being, and NOGLB came behind that. Kanoka can then be said to either have gotten developed at different times in different places, or it was just an error on the part of the author that didn't really get caught. ζox• ^Histories

So, @Zo;Tomana, nothing will change? I mean the NOGLB and the Hagah formation is placed in "Sometime before 75,000 Years Ago" now. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 11:02, 30 March 2017 (CET)

So, considering the points that have been made here, do you have any problem with this change to the timeline? ~OnionShark 15:06, 30 March 2017 (CET)

Considering what Zo;Tomana wrote, we should not change anything in the timeline. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 15:45, 30 March 2017 (CET)

What? He didn't say we shouldn't, what you are suggesting is still based on the unconfirmed notion that all the teams were formed at the same time. Unless we can find a source that says so, this approximation is the next best thing (unless there's a problem with it that you haven't told us about, that is). @Zo;Tomana, Greg confirmed that Kanoka were created at different times in different places here. ~OnionShark 17:18, 30 March 2017 (CET)

Getting a 404 erros with your link there, alas. So then Kanoka being in the story is a non-issue, and their invention in Ko-Metru is simply the local invention. Which just leaves Hagah team formation. I don't necessarily have a problem with a change in the timeline, but it is probably best to leave it as it is until we know more, rather than make changes based on a lack of knowledge. If Greg says Spiriah had a Hagah team, then this team had to have been formed 75K+ years ago. While we don't have, as far as I know, official word that all the teams were created at the same time... we don't have word that they weren't. It would be most reasonable to assume they were recruited around the same time until we are told otherwise. I mean, really: why would Spiriah get a Hagah team before Teridax? ζox• ^Histories

I don't think we will ever get a confirmation, but even if we will, untill then we can't really consider either option canon, so an approximation should do. There might be many reasons for the Hagah to have been formed seperatly as well: for one, this guys are elites, and you don't just find them growing on some trees, it takes a considerable amount of time to find them, and then you should consider that some Makuta might have not seen a need for a Hagah team, especially Teridax, who was arrogance incarnated and would likely have thought that he didn't need someone protecting him. This is just to say, both options would make sense, and instead of just using the one that you think makes more sense, why not put the info in a way that could fit both of them? ~OnionShark 06:58, 31 March 2017 (CET)

Making both somehow fit into the timeline would be odd, I feel. The current situation is an approximation. It doesn't pin down when it happened, just when it did not. And it isn't really connected solidly to the NOGLB tale as you imply in the first post. They just both happen to take place sometime before 75K years ago, and that's all we know (besides that Teridax's Hagah team hadn't been formed until after Varian's capture). There's plenty of other, unconnected events related within the same blocks of the timeline, but we don't assume that they were all one event. Look at the "100,000 years ago" section.

As to "you don't find them growing on trees," the Hagah page relates that they were taken from Toa that were serving at the time by deciding which Toa were considered to be the best (Greg Source). This process would have taken some time, but given the resources of the Brotherhood it doesn't make sense it would take the tens of thousands of years necessary to split things up in the timeline. Toa served in the armies of the Makuta even while Miserix still led the Brotherhood, and Toa continued to serve (eventually as Hagah) until Terry's Hagah revolted. Not like the Makuta would have to do some kind of intense scouring of the MU to find capable, experience Toa.

Interestingly, that source also relates that there were certain Makuta who did not choose to have Hagah teams. Of the four listed as not having them, only Krika does not have a obvious reason to skip out. Icarax and Gorast are fighters, and vicious. Kojol was the Makuta of Artakha, and clearly did not want to reveal the location of his region to anyone, even other Makuta much less some Toa.

It is my strong feeling that we not move forward based on the idea that "because we don't know, we have to somehow artificially hedge our bets." We know Spiriah had a team. We therefore know the process had to at least start at the time we've estimated, and we know NOGLB happens prior to Norik's recruitment. We also know that, when the decision to form the Hagah was made, the Toa were drawn from existing teams. To me, that says that the Makuta surveyed the Toa who were serving at the time, and pulled the most qualified to act as Hagah for any Makuta who did not choose to go without a team. It is simpler to reason that these Toa were pulled all at once. All we have to assume is that Teridax was among the Makuta who decided to opt in when the decision was made. If we say "Teridax opted out, and then later opted in," we have to first assume that he opted out, and then assume that something happened which caused him to feel he needed a Hagah team. All things being equal, I would judge we go with the simpler option. ζox• ^Histories

So, @OnionShark, Nothing will change. Topic Closed! — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 16:41, 31 March 2017 (CET)

@Surel-Nuva, it's a little too fast to consider the topic closed if I haven't even had the chance to respond, don't you think?

@Zo;Tomana One event? What are you talking about? The current situation treats something that's not canon as if it was. And if you haven't understood it yet, there's no point in trying to discuss if it would make sense or if it would be simpler that the Hagah were formed at the same time or not if we don't have a confirmation, as both sides of the discussion have some evidence backing their claims. Neither is canon, both could be, then let's make an approximation that would make it possible for either to be true. It's better than treating an unconfirmed notion as canon at least. ~OnionShark 17:04, 31 March 2017 (CET)

He might be a little tired of the discussion being here on his page, so when you respond please do so over on my talkpage.

I am not convinced that your position has much, if any, evidence at all to back it up. Regardless, what would you suggest as the simplest way to remove your perception of ambiguity? ζox• ^Histories

@Zo;Tomana, I'm not tired of it, I just see it unnecessary. He wanted to change 1 word, it doesn't make sense... Why would Spiriah (the one who couldn't create a normal Rahi) have a Toa team before his LEADER????? Teridax was the kinda person who needed bodyguards as the LEADER of the BoM. Until we get the proper info we should leave the timeline like this.... — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 19:19, 31 March 2017 (CET)

Well, never mind about moving it, then.

And that point is one I personally agree with, Surel. Onion's point about Teridax opting out (temporarily) due to arrogance is also not so clear-cut. Not only does one have to make a double assumption (that he opted out, and that something happened to make him change his mind), but one could just as validly say that, because of his arrogance, Teridax would enjoy having a personal team of Toa t his beck and call, taking care of any threats he felt unworthy of his abilities. To my mind, the current situation, while not explicitly raised, is reasonable and likely, and much more so than the alternative. ζox• ^Histories

Sorry, I didn't see Surel's post before I moved part of the discussion to your page. ~OnionShark 19:52, 31 March 2017 (CET)

You're fine. Moving your post here for the sake of having everything here. ζox• ^Histories

Well, that's not really my position. It used to be, but just because I had misinterpreted a Greg quote, and I became impartial to both sides of the discussion when Angel Bob made me notice that. The thing is, I think that Terry's arrogance and underestimation of his enemies would make a good reason, I don't see why the fact that he's a leader has anything to do with this like SN is suggesting, and Terry might have not seen the need for a Hagah team but then changed his mind, might be for his arrogance, or for the fact that he had so many other Toa loyal to the Brotherhood that he could already use to serve him, or even members of any species stronger than Toa. I mean, as far as I know having a Hagah team is not mandatory for the Makuta.

But that's beside the point -- we could argue to death about which makes more sense, but if neither is canon, neither should be considered to be so by us, especially not because one seems simpler than the other.

What do you mean by "perception of ambiguity?" I think that the facts on the Timeline page are incorrect, I haven't said anything about ambiguity. The thing I suggested is this, copy&pasted from my original post:

"[...] we could put the events from NOGLB in a new "Sometime between before 75,000 years ago (which is the creation of Spiriah's team) and at least 7,000 years ago (which is when TSO is shown having Varian in stasis in BL4)" section, and change the Hagah formation event [FYI, it says that all teams were created at the same time, even though it's not confirmed] to "The Brotherhood of Makuta starts selecting Toa from various teams to serve as bodyguards for its members, calling them Toa Hagah."

So, what's the problem with this again? ~OnionShark 19:46, 31 March 2017 (CET)

I suppose the issue is that I still fail find it reasonable to hedge things quite that widely. I mean, even Angel has said that it is "extremely counterintuitive" for the Hagah to be chosen at such widely different times. The figure he gave was 63,000 years. Geez.

If you don't mind, I'd like to get another head to weigh in here. ζox• ^Histories

I don't mind, go ahead. But I just wanted to tell you that it doesn't matter if it's a big approximation or not, it matters that we don't treat non-canon stuff as canon. Besides, what's wrong with big approximations? @Angel Bob, why would it be counterintuitive to have some Hagah teams be formed at different times? ~OnionShark 21:16, 31 March 2017 (CET)

Well, this is certainly ballooning up again. I find the idea counterintuitive for many of the same reasons Zo;Tomana has stated: it requires us to assume that each Makuta individually chose to get a team of bodyguards at different times for different reasons, which has many moving parts. I still agree, though, that in the absence of canon clarification either way, we shouldn't make hard assumptions. So I would repeat my suggestion that we place the formation "Between before 75,000 years ago and 7,000 years ago" on the timeline, add a note (using the notes function) to explain the conflicting facts, and leave it up to the reader's interpretation. --Angel Bob (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2017 (CET)

Now that I think about it, every placement in the timeline should have some sort of explanation for why the event is where it is. But I don't think we need to put the two sides of the discussion in the notes and leaving it to the interpretation, it would be enough to say something to the likes of "we know the BoM started creating Hagah teams at least 75,000 YA, and we know that the events of NOGLB take place before 7,000 YA, therefore they must take place sometime in the span of time from the former date to the latter." It's just an idea, I'd like to see what you guys think of it. ~OnionShark 23:47, 31 March 2017 (CET)

I'm leaning toward Angel Bob's idea. It's the most technically correct option since it doesn't rely on any assumptions about when Teridax's team formed. (Good as those assumptions may be.) Tomana suggested rephrasing it as "75,000+ to 7,000 years ago" to cut down on verbiage, which I'm in favor of. We can add a note but, again, as has been noted (heh), we haven't done that for other dates. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2017 (CET)

I still stand by my feelings that this is one of the sillier questions about the canon (considering how much we've pinned down, we've gotten into the silly range, I guess). Here's my proposal: move all the Varian stuff to the "Sometime Before 7000 years ago" section. Change the language to say something like "Before Norik was recruited as a Hagah TSO ordered the capture of a Psionics Toa blah blah blah." Add a bullet point afterwards to say "Norik is later recruited as part of Teridax's Hagah Team." With the bullet point about The Hagah Teams being formed 75K+ years ago, we leave it there in the 75K+ section, but if we're going to be pedantic here about it, we can't say "Makuta begin recruiting Hagah teams" any more than we can say "Hagah teams are recruited." Literally the most accurate and neutral way I can think to put it is this: "Toa are recruited to serve as Toa Hagah for some Makuta." We don't say who, we don't say all, we don't imply a for sure process, we leave it open that more Hagah teams come later. If we ever to get to ask Greg, we can ask. That sound like a reasonable proposal on how to handle the placement of events? ζox• ^Histories

On NOGLB, I'm still in favor of the 75,000+ to 7,000 approximation, because it's a little more precise, but what you're proposing would also make sense. Either way should be good.

On the Hagah formation though, we can actually say that the BoM starts recruiting Toa as in "they start seeking elite Toa for prorection," not as in "they start forming Hagah teams," and I think it's more accurate than saying that some Hagah teams are formed. We could also add an event that says that Spiriah's team was formed in that section, at least that we know for sure. ~OnionShark 15:49, 3 April 2017 (CET)

My problem with the "start seeking" language is that, just as much as the current language implies one event, it implies a process. If we don't know either way, we should work to not imply either, shouldn't we? ζox• ^Histories

Actually, we know that there was a process of the BoM seeking Toa for recruitment. They sent some servants to find Toa for them, and we know when this process would have started (79,100-75,000 YA), so, no problem right? Can we go ahead with the changes? ~OnionShark 07:52, 5 April 2017 (CET)

Why do you bother about this? Why can't you leave it as it is now? I agree with Zo;Tomana. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 07:59, 5 April 2017 (CET)

As I've already said like seven times, the way it is now, the timeline is inaccurate and presents something that's not confirmed as canon. Is there something wrong with not wanting that on a wiki? I think that all the different things that have been proposed in this discussion are better than the way the page is now. ~OnionShark 20:41, 5 April 2017 (CET)

Surel, the general consensus is that the current version of the page is factually wrong. I'm getting tired of repeating this, so I hope it's the last time: we don't know if the Hagah were formed at the same time, so the next best thing we can do is an approximation. The last point of disagreement was when Zo;Tomana said that we didn't know that there was a process of the BoM recruiting the Hagah, and I responded saying that we actually do (in fact, the quote stating this was added in my last edit). That was the last remaining disagreement, I debunked it, so you are the only one that has a problem with changing the page, but can you really deny that the current version is wrong? Even though it makes unconfirmed claims? Because the only thing I did was removing those claims and replacing them with more correct ones. And if the other users think of a better way of structuring the page, as we were discussing before, they can freely make the changes they need. So, can you make your problem clear? It would help, because if it's still the "but Teridax is the leader so he would have had a team before the others" argument, it's an assumption we cannot treat as a fact, so the changes must stay. ~OnionShark 21:55, 15 April 2017 (CET)

Wow, this has gone on for so much longer than it seems like it needs to. I'm in support of the changes OnionShark made (except for adding a subheader of "Sometime afterwards" - that's not necessary). It says everything we know in the most accurate way possible. Out of curiosity, OnionShark, can you post the exact wording of the Greg quote you cited for the recruitment process statement? --Angel Bob (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2017 (CET)

That's the problem of this .. Because Greg never said either. He never said the Hagah were formed at the same time but never said that they were not. So Spiriah's team formation, because of this, should be listed AFTER the NOGLB. Except that OnionShark could give us the post when Greg said that the Toa Hagah were NOT formed at the same time. Or we can just get rid of that info from the timeline until proper info comes.— Surel—Nuva (Talk) 08:43, 16 April 2017 (CET)

@Angel Bob

Jul 15 2010, 01:00 PM

Q) When Makuta recruited their Toa Hagah teams, did they send a subordinate to do the job, or did they go themselves?

A) Most likely sent a subordinate

It's sort of an indirect confirmation. Also, I added that "sometime afterwards" because I really don't know how else to add that event, and it seems important enough to be on the timeline. Any idea of how we could add it?

@Surel, the current version of the page treats the "formed at the same time" option as fact, which as you said hasn't been confirmed. You are basically saying that since we don't know that they were formed at different times, we should treat the other option as canon, but couldn't we make the same argument for the other way around? Like this: "We don't have confirmation that they were formed at the same time so it must be that they were formed at different times!" The thing is that if neither is confirmed, neither should be treated as true by us. Don't you think that leaving it enough ambiguous that either option could be the correct one would be better? ~OnionShark 17:02, 16 April 2017 (CET)

I'm going to regret jumping into this one, and i haven't read most of the stuff above, but i think we just have to chalk this one up to a plot hole, which is bound to happen in a story that spans thousands of years like bionicle. there's too much info on the beginning and the end, but not enough on the middle, so stuff is inevitably going to be left out or switched around. Intelligence4 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2017 (CET)

Sorry, what plot hole are you referring to? There's no contradiction here, we just don't know a certain important detail and the discussion sparked from there. Basically, I'm saying that since we don't know if the Hagah were formed at the same time or not, we should make an approximation, while Surel-Nuva says that we should go with the first option 'cause it makes more sense to him. ~OnionShark 17:55, 17 April 2017 (CET)

Hey Surel, just reminding you that you should respond to my second-to-last post in case you missed it. ~OnionShark 19:20, 17 April 2017 (CET)

You seem to have misunderstood my objection about "process." By "process" I did not refer to a multi-step method of recruitment involving the vetting of Toa, the deliberation upon their qaulifications, their summoning... I was referring to a lack of evidence as to whether all the teams were formed within relatively short period of time (short enough that they can be said to have been formed at the same time) or whether it happened across so many years that each Makuta's team was formed at distinct intervals. When I say we have no evidence either way, and thus must avoid reference to either a simultaneous formation or a procession of formations, this is what I mean. We already know there was a recruitment process, but what we have no evidence for in either direction is whether the scouting and recruitment of all teams was such that all the teams were formed at relatively the same time, or whether each Makuta receiving a Hagah team had their formed at distinct, separate times across centuries or millennia. We can make perfectly valid arguments either way, though I tend to lean towards the idea that a particular direction is the more logical and reasonable, but any changes made to the Timeline ought to be such that they do not imply either a separation between team formations (what I meant by "process") or simultaneity the same. ζox• ^Histories

Well, we could phrase it in a way that doesn't imply either option, like I did before SN undid my edit: "The Brotherhood of Makuta starts sending servants around the universe to collect Toa that would form teams named Toa Hagah to act as guards for some Makuta." It doesn't imply that it all happened at the same time, but it isn't saying that it happened at the same time. It just says that the process starts for some Makuta -- which could be all those who had Hagah teams or just some of them. Leaving it this ambiguous should work fine. ~OnionShark 11:30, 18 April 2017 (CET)

But this event should/must be listed AFTER the NOGLB. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 12:33, 18 April 2017 (CET)

The Timeline wouldn't put one before the other, but it would put them in different approximations. One that goes from 79,100 YA to 70,000+ YA for the start of the recruitment and for the formation of Spiriah's team, another one that goes from 79,100 YA to 7,000+ YA for the events of NOGLB (and maybe the formation of Terry's team, but I'm not sure). The way you are suggesting it implies that the events of NOGLB happen before the formation of the first Hagah, but we don't know that, so the approximations should work because they don't imply whether they happened before or after the formation. Are there still any problems or can we make the changes? ~OnionShark 14:12, 18 April 2017 (CET)

Can't you understand? BOTH will be between 79,000 YA and 70,000 YA. The other option would be ridiculously large for EVERYONE. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 15:29, 18 April 2017 (CET)

Can't you understand? The whole point of this discussion was that we don't know that NOGLB happened before the formation of the first Hagah because we don't know if all the Hagah teams were formed at the same time! Who cares if you think it's ridiculously large, it's still the best thing we can do without going against canon. You're suggesting to put the events of NOGLB in the same approximation as the formation of the first Hagah team just because the other approximation seems too big for you. Is that a even a point? "It looks too large to me, so it must be impossible!" Yep, a really good argument. ~OnionShark 16:09, 18 April 2017 (CET)

Guys, be nice. This isn't worth getting worked up about, and BS01 isn't the place for personal attacks. --Angel Bob (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2017 (CET)

Neither of us attacked the other, and if it seems like I did, I didn't intend to (I assume the same is true for Surel). ~OnionShark 18:39, 18 April 2017 (CET)

No personal attacks, I've been a bit nervous/furious for days, but didn't want to attack or intend to attack. I wasn't intend to answer before, because I was more furious/nervous, but OS waited for my answer, so I needed to write, even if I didn't want to insult anyone with anything or be offensive. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 20:44, 18 April 2017 (CET)

Don't worry, nothing you said was in any way offensive to me, I think Angel Bob is just exagerating a bit. ~OnionShark 21:11, 18 April 2017 (CET)

It's not that you have specifically made personal attacks, but the tone of the discussion has turned snippy, and attacks aren't far beyond that level. In related news: This discussion is going nowhere fast. It's been weeks and we're right back where we started. I think at this point, it would be best for everyone to table the discussion, cool off, and ask a staff member to make a definitive call on the timeline page. Otherwise, it's just going to go around in circles again. --Angel Bob (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2017 (CET)

We're not really right back were we started, and how can you be so certain that the discussion is gonna go around circles? It hasn't this far, when somebody made a bad argument and was then made aware of it, they didn't use it again in the discussion, (I assume that's what you meant, because what else could it be?) and we're close to ending it now, so why bother with asking a staff member to decide? I think it's better when all of us agree. When SN feels like responding, as most if not all of the misconceptions have been debunked, it will be just a matter of deciding whether there should be one or two approximations. Why put a stop to a debate that's about to end? ~OnionShark 13:55, 19 April 2017 (CET)

Because it did turn snippy for a bit there, and a couple days to look at other things and cool a bit never hurt anyone. Rather than really ending any kind of discussion, I have a better idea than debating about stuff we can't put our hands on. Onion: since this is a change you want to make, can you knock something together in the Sandbox for us to actually look at? Obviously don't put up the whole timeline page, but a mock-up of the new/changing sections as you would propose they be. We can see how that looks, fiddle with it as needed, and decide from there. Personally, I won't be returning to this discussion until Sunday: school is gross, man. ζox• ^Histories

Well, I had made the changes but they were reverted back :/. Anyway, here they are. I've also added the event of Teridax's team's formation in the 1,300+YA section 'cause Angel Bob didn't like the previous version. ~OnionShark 15:44, 23 April 2017 (CET)

Tridax and the meaning of "soetime"

Hey, could you give me the date of the quote in the OGDi that mentions that poll? Or you could use it as a citation for that section on Tridax's page. And before I tell you the meaning of "soetime," could you explain me the meaning of "coukd?" :P ~OnionShark 17:03, 3 April 2017 (CET)

You caught me :D Tridax, Antroz, Vamprah's region: OGDi: Nov 1 2009, 10:30 AM, #5 question — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 17:27, 3 April 2017 (CET)

If we don't know which Hagah were killed, then we can't just say that they were all killed, especially considering that the second quote you used says that some of them survived. It'd be better to say that their fates are unknown. ' EDIT: Uhm, you do realize that Antroz's bio says nothing of the Toa Hagah, right? Are you basing this off of his quote? 'Cause it doesn't really imply that he killed his team. ~OnionShark 17:38, 3 April 2017 (CET)

"Toa serve an important purpose in this world – they help me keep my claws sharp." - And we know he is aggressive, so He kept his claws sharp with his Toa Hagah out of range after the rebellion. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 18:15, 3 April 2017 (CET)

No, that might be a nice interpretation, but it doesn't say anything concrete about the Hagah. You can't just jump to conclusions like that. And what do you think about what I proposed? ~OnionShark 18:26, 3 April 2017 (CET)

I just like the timeline how it is now. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 18:40, 3 April 2017 (CET)

I was talking about this: If we don't know which Hagah were killed, then we can't just say that they were all killed, especially considering that the second quote you used says that some of them survived. It'd be better to say that their fates are unknown. ~OnionShark 18:54, 3 April 2017 (CET)

Good point. We could say something to this effect: "After Teridax's team of Toa Hagah rebelled, all other Toa Hagah either grew corrupt or were put to death. The fate of _____'s Toa Hagah is unknown." -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2017 (CET)

Okay, and put the OGD cite + the Farshtey Feed ref after the sentence. Another thing... Will we replace the Farshtey Feed stuff with their respective OGD/OGDi/OGQ GregCitations?? — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 19:29, 3 April 2017 (CET)

My inclination is yes, best to cite the original source when possible. I think we should let others weigh in before making those changes though. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2017 (CET)

It would definitely be better to cite the original source, especially given how often some nuances are lost in the Farshtey feeds. However, please note this will probably be impossible for any quote between Sep 26, 2008 and Mar 16, 2009 (they were wiped out during a BZPower crash). --maxim21 05:21, 4 April 2017 (CET)

Here seconding Maxim's point. A big part of the trouble with some of the information we have here is that we may not ever be able to cite it. A lot of it was added with the assumption that the OGD on BZP was there for anyone to trawl through to their heart's content. What citation there was would have been a link in the edit summary to the relevant post, and those are certainly gone. ζox• ^Histories

I meant that we replace the FF things with OGD/OGDi/OGQ ones what have. If there's something what is contained in a Farshtey Feed but not in the Official Greg Topics, the info should remain in the Farshtey Feed refs. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 14:57, 4 April 2017 (CET)

NM vs. M

I'm not sure we should be removing the "mentioned only" tag if "not mentioned by name" is also there. My understanding is that, in the current system, an appearance can be NM without being M, so if it's NM and M, both tags should be listed since NM doesn't imply M. (The system is poorly worded in that respect, since the phrase "not mentioned by name" seems to suggest the appearance was a mention, even though I don't believe it has to be.) Take my Memoirs of the Dead entry for example. (Sort of a self-centered example I'm afraid, but it's the first one that's coming to mind.) Piruk appears in the story and plays a notable role, but he is only described as a nervous Le-Matoran with claws without being outright called by name. Under the current system, that would be an NM appearance without being M. What do others think--should NM imply M? One solution I see is changing "not mentioned by name" to "not referred to by name," since that doesn't suggest the character's appearance was just a mention. Then appearances could be only "NR" (a nervous Le-Matoran with claws appears in the story), or "NR" and "M" (someone mentions a nervous Le-Matoran with claws). -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2017 (CET)

So there would be a "not referred by name/NR"=appeared but not mentioned by name, a "not mentioned by name/NM"= was only mentioned but not by name, and a "mentioned only/M"=was mentioned by name? Or did I misunderstand sy?? — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 23:23, 8 April 2017 (CET)

I was thinking:

• NR: not named
• M: mentioned only

So we could have combos of them to mean:

• NR only: appeared, but not referred to by name
• M only: mentioned by name
• M + NR: mentioned, but not by name

And we'd get rid of NM entirely. To reduce the amount of editing required, we could make {{C|NM}} and {{C|NR}} both map to NR. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2017 (CET)

It would be strange if the NM would be a redirect... I'll do the edits if we edit the Template:C. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 07:17, 9 April 2017 (CET)

Tomana suggests switching "NR" to "NN" (for "not named") since that's a bit simpler. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2017 (CET)

Sounds good to me, "M" (for "mentioned only"), "NM" (for "not named"). Maybe we could have a basic "MNN" (for "mentioned but not by name") instead of using combos? — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 15:04, 11 April 2017 (CET)

I strongly second a switch to "NN" (Not Named) - this is a much more elegant way of phrasing it IMO. I would actually oppose creating a MNN tag, though - I think combining tags is an easier way to implement and for readers to understand. --Angel Bob (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2017 (CET)

So... What's the final decision??? — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 09:08, 30 June 2017 (CET)

The Hagah formation dilemma is getting solved by Greg soon

Now that Greg is back answering questions I decided to ask him about the Hagah's formation, so we'll finally put this mess behind us. I presented him with two arguments for both sides of the discussion, if I missed any be sure to tell me, I'll edit the post. ~OnionShark 20:15, 1 June 2017 (CET)

He's back? --- Creep 20:43, 2 June 2017 (CET)

apparently he's answering questions on the ttv message boards now - i wish it was somewhere else that had better formatting so it was easier to follow his replies and questions and such. onion, could you link the discussion here? thanks :) Intelligence4 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2017 (CET)

Unfortunately the question had already been asked, so my thread was closed. The problem is that the other thread is buried and lacks any sort of explanation. I might post my explanations in the thread to revive it, but I'm not sure if I'm gonna be able to use my computer this weekend. (I'm on mobile and the mobile version of that site is unusable). ~OnionShark 10:08, 3 June 2017 (CET)

Ok, I did that, here's the thread. Now we only need to hope that it doesn't get buried a third time. ~OnionShark 19:20, 3 June 2017 (CET)

So we have to wait, I'm okay with that. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 19:42, 3 June 2017 (CET)

Honestly, at this point, i think we should just leave it alone. not every mystery has to be solved. bionicle had a few plot holes, this is one of them - do we really need to go around plugging them all? Intelligence4 (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2017 (CET)

Aaaand the thread got buried again. Double-posting is not allowed, so I can't revive it. Anyone else?

@Intelligence4 This is no mystery nor plot hole. It's an unclear part of the story, and since we're having trouble adapting it into the wiki it would be best to have solid references. ~OnionShark 19:26, 5 June 2017 (CET)

And I just tried to revive the topic — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 01:35, 17 June 2017 (CET)

Has been solved, OS, You were right :) — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 09:02, 30 June 2017 (CET)

Huh, that took longer than expected, but I'm happy finally to see it resolved. ~OnionShark 14:18, 30 June 2017 (CET)

Sources

All other sections have the sources in release order, shouldn't the same be for the Short Stories section? ~OnionShark 13:05, 4 June 2017 (CET)

Do we know exactly when they were written? I'm sure the Decadence was written after The Crossing (2009). If we know/have the correct dates, we can create a release date order. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 15:28, 4 June 2017 (CET)

We know that Protection is from 2005, the ATYU stories are from 2006, TMDoTT is from 2007, TK is from 2008, the first parts of the Crossing were released in early 2009, The Core War Contest was held in late 2009, and the Sleeping Awake contest in late 2010. We don't know the precise dates but we at least know what came first and what came later. ~OnionShark 17:39, 4 June 2017 (CET)

Okay, I'll add the years and change the order. Would you like to help me update the GregCitation dates? Surely you've noticed that the dates are different (they have a comma after the days, not just after the years). I have a kinda bad internet connection nowadays so when I can, I update them.

The Crossing was planned to be a book, not a short story. So it should be listed under the super chapter book category. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 18:37, 4 June 2017 (CET)

Instead of making tons of edits, let's ask Planetperson if he can change the date format back to match the text files. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2017 (CET)

Yes, that would be reasonable too. Could somebody do this? — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 21:27, 4 June 2017 (CET)

I had a thought... Since the Glatorian Mini Books are guide books, shouldn't we list them under the Guides section and have The Crossing as a sub-listing? Like we did for the Encyclopedia and BoaDH. ~OnionShark 19:23, 5 June 2017 (CET)

I like that idea! You should go ahead and do that. --Angel Bob (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2017 (CET)

It's done. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 09:44, 6 June 2017 (CET)

Stun Staffs (Sandbox)

Why did you remove the Stun Staffs section from the Sandbox? ~OnionShark 11:24, 27 July 2017 (CET)

I thought it was made before, I'm sorry, I mixed it with the Toa Hagah Spears. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 11:55, 27 July 2017 (CET)