Talk:Sets/Combiners and Alternate Models

Alternates vs Combiners

Currently each year (where applicable) has a combiners section and an alternates section. In my opinion this creates a less than ideal flow, for example by having Waikiru separate from other Bionicle.com models and not having all 2006 playset alts together. I think we should do away with the separation of "combiners" and "alternates" and instead create other sections as needed. For example in 2002 it makes sense to have Bahrag/Boxor/Exo-Toa alts separate from Kaita so we could have "instruction manual combiners" then "titan alternates" or even still "instruction manual alternates" for 2002 but still not have the "Combiner Models" and "Alternate Models" section headers. Then instead of "Inspired By BIONICLE" three separate times in 2002 we can combine all that. In 2001 Rahi alts would still have its own section, in 2005-2007 playsets would still have their own sections but in 2006 the caravan crawler would go with other playset models and in 2008 the Destral cycle would go with the other 3 from online instead of having its own category. Imo this would make the page flow much better Turaga of Force (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Ranama and Kirikori Nui

The 2002 section mentions Ranama and Kirikori Nui but they are not listed or pictured. While they are arguably not "combiners" or "alternates" as the article states, imo they should be listed, because technically they are combiners just of a lot of different sets and, more importantly, because someone looking at the 2001-2002 Rahi builds (Pokawi, Waikiru, Fikou, etc) will probably also be equally interested in Ranama and Kirikori Nui, and also because they are from the same source (a section of Bionicle.com) as a lot of the combiners/alts listed on this page. I am not very familiar with wiki editing/formatting so I will leave the final decision to someone else but I strongly encourage their addition. -Turaga of Force

I would like to list them because they are offiical models, but they do not have set numbers, and thus I don't know how we would link to them. ~ Wolk (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

In this article the listed models are just a picture with set numbers and name, so the same could easily be done for these two but with no numbers below the pics, just name. If having their own aticles is undesirable due to lack of item numbers, then in this article the pics could just not link to anything. Turaga of Force (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Just want to add - I don't do wikis much so maybe I am missing something but if having their own articles is desired why not just an article called "Set:Ranama" and one called "Set:Kirikori Nui"? Turaga of Force (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

So, the set boxes are not just a name and a picture, they use a set number to generate the link. However, your solution might be workable... ~ Wolk (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Shadow Spawn

Should we add the Shadow Spawn to 2016? Because it can be built out of Umarak and Onua sets. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 14:27, 17 June 2016 (CET)

I don't think so. Since LEGO won't release the instructions, it's not counts as an official LEGO combiner. -- 14:40, 17 June 2016 (CET)

Yeah, it's more akin to the contest winner models than anything else. -- Dorek _Talk 18:29, 17 June 2016 (CET)

Remove "Set:"

So, I want to remove the "Set:" before the numbers in the set pages and the "Set:876655+78681" will be a redirect. Because these are not sets, just combiner-alternate models. I'll update the ModelBox template for them, but before I do this, I want to ask you, if is this a problem? Or am I the only one that disturbs to see the "Set:" before a combiner/alternate model's name? I'm pretty sure this would work without the "Set:" in the name and the pagenames. I'll do the upgrades/edits. — Surel—Nuva (Talk) 09:06, 25 July 2017 (CET)

I'd tend to disagree with that plan. I think the "Set:" prefix is useful to denote all pages that are part of the set database (the part of the site that focuses most on the plastic toys instead of the story). The combiners aren't sets, to be sure, but their pages still fit within the larger set database. There are other non-set pages that I think would have the "Set:" prefix, too. For instance, I think it would be nice to eventually have a Set:Kanohi page, separate from the main Kanohi page, that details which masks were released each year, what sets contained each mask, and other set-related details. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2017 (CET)

Adding Playset Alt Models?

Would it be a valuable addition to include the alternate models for the playsets to this page, too?

Visorak Battle Ram Alternate Model

8757 Visorak Battle Ram (Reverse of box, no official instructions)

Because I can't find a cohesive list of these kinds of sets. Not sure where else it would be good to put this kind of information Though I'm not sure if the playsets would be best put alongside their own year, or in a new section appended to the bottom of the list.

Eg. 11: 2015 12: 2016 13: Playsets

I'm totally pro that, I think we discussed them at a certain point (like the weird underwater zamor bug and all that). The only problem was there wasn't a lot of information so I don't think we made any set pages for them (which might be fine, in the end? I don't know if they need them).

I'm moving away from using modelbox though, let me roll out the new system here. -- Dorek _Talk 18:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense, I think it would be useful personally. It's a list I want to work on anyway, for my personal collection, so I might as well put that effort to use somehow.

What's the new format, instead of the modelboxes? --MightBeAlon (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It's on User:Dorek/Sandbox. I just need to figure out the most efficient way to color in cells (for when it doesn't use up to six sets). -- Dorek _Talk 19:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"Combiners"

This might just be me, but the current page name sounds weird and informal. I would suggest moving to "Sets/Combination and Alternate Models". ~ Wolk (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Well in later days they were called "Combi-models" but that might have been after the cancellation. I guess it could be Combination, but it's already such a long title... -- Dorek _Talk 17:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Irnakk as a combiner?

I mean, would you consider Irnakk a combiner. He used the parts of Vezok, Thok, and Reidak. I know that he has the exclusive gold Thok spine and four gold tubes, but still.Lenny7092 (talk)

He's much more a retail unique set, since you can't just build him out of the three component sets. You have to buy the set to get the exclusive pieces.--SurelNuva (Talk) 06:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Aye. The version without the gold additions is a combiner, Irnakk is a set. ~ Wolk (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

But technically the version without the gold parts is a hypothetical combiner as official it doesn't exists afaik.--SurelNuva (Talk) 11:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)