View source for Brickipedia:Forum

[[File:Forums.svg|center]]
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
Welcome to '''Brickipedia's forum'''. This is the place to propose and discuss any amendments to the [[Brickipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] or suggest new policies. To make a new proposal, please [http://en.brickimedia.org/index.php?title=Brickipedia:Forum&action=edit&section=new make a new section at the bottom of the page]. Please see [[Brickipedia:Forum/Archive|the archives]] for past discussions - [[Brickipedia:Forum/Archive/2014|2014]], [[Brickipedia:Forum/Archive/2015|2015]].

-----
Also, don't forget to check '''[[Forum:Index]]''' for a number of unresolved forums.
-----

== TV episode transcripts ==
Should we host TV episode transcripts? I see pages for them such as [[The Call of Cavora/Transcript]] but personally I don't think it's the best idea. Sure, if we can get them all compiled that'd be nice but it's veering into possible copyright violation by hosting them here, plus I don't know if we'll ever get all of them. If we could find a site that hosts them already it'd probably be best and safest to just use that as an external link. What are everyone else's thoughts on them? --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 01:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
:For copyright matters, I'm not an expert. But if we don't think about that, it would depend if people would actually care to watch the episodes and make a transcript. Obviously we'd need to see if we could legally do it, though. --Knight
:It doesn't seem like something we should be worrying about. [[User:1999bug|- Bug]] ([[User talk:1999bug|talk]]) 01:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
::Well having one of them up for deletion already and the possibility that others are infringing upon copyrighted material sounds like something we shouldn't ignore... --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 03:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
:::I meant that we shouldn't be worrying about hosting transcripts. [[User:1999bug|- Bug]] ([[User talk:1999bug|talk]]) 03:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Oh ok. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
:Delete, I was worried about copyright violations myself. An external links seems best. {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 05:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
:Yeah, per Nova. I'm not actually sure what the laws about transcripts are, but from what I've seen, you probably shouldn't be hosting them unless you have express permission from the creator/copyright holder. -Cligra
:Alright, so does anyone know a reliable source that hosts them already that could be an external link? :P --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
::A Google search brings up a website called livedash.ark.com. I don't know anything about them, though, and I am not going to volunteer to research them. [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 18:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
:::That's a neat site. Here's [http://livedash.ark.com/transcript/legends_of_chima-(the_legend_of_chima)/4590/TOONP/Friday_October_03_2014/758353/ the first episode's transcript]. It looks decently accurate. Should we use them? --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 18:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Sure. [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 21:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

== Reviews of multiple sets ==
How should we go about handling reviews of multiple sets? Examples would be a wave of Mixels, a series of Collectible minifigures, or a group of Bionicle sets. Not every set needs a review of its own, and a common thing to do is review a couple similar sets at once especially when they're in the same wave. We have no format to do this though which I imagine could complicate things very easily... Any suggestions for a way to go about this would be appreciated. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
:I'm not sure about the "master page" for all of them, but they could be interconnected by separate review pages where it says something like "For a review of <set name> with <others> please see <here>" [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 03:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
* Because of switchtabs and the way reviewpages are set up, the only thing I can think of which would actually work would be to just pick one set to do it on, and redirect the other names to that page. {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 05:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
*Take a page, say Review:Mixel Season 1. Now, this will not play too nicely for that review page, but we can just pretend it doesn't exist. Now, for each set in season 1, on that page, put a little "this is reviewed as part of season 1 here". Ta dah. [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 10:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
* Stupid question- is there a reason why they can't be reviewed separately? They are separate sets after all. As for a series of collectable minifigures- review the series page. {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 10:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
*:Because the person reviewing them has written a piece that focuses on the way the sets interact as a series, and not just how good the individual sets are? Like how, writing an album review is very different to reviewing a song. [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 12:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
*:Like CJC said. It takes way too much time both to write and to read. Especially on things like Mixels, the sets are so tiny I cannot imagine people reading 9 different reviews for each individual set in a series, but they could more easily read 3 reviews (one for each tribe) or 1 review (for the whole wave). --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 17:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
*:Not until there's a demand for it, I'm the only person who writes reviews remotely often and I don't think anyone has enough sets to do this idea anyway. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
*::[[User talk:ToaMeiko]] [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 18:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
*:I was going to make the same comment as CJC, so per him. -[[User:NBP3.0|NBP3.0]] ([[User talk:NBP3.0|talk]]) 19:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
*::According to his brickset collection he dosnt have a wave of anything to review {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
*:::Because everyone must always have their Brickset collection up to date. [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 10:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
*::::To look stylish {{c|Im preety sure he does :P}} {{User:Soupperspn1/Sig}}
*:::::I really don't keep it up to date well (and I do in fact have a complete wave of Mixels series 1). --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
*:I'm in support of having this feature happen in any way. Myself, along with two other Mixel Wiki-based members have big reviews coming up that would greatly benefit from being able to do multiple sets reviewed at once. --[[User:ZootyCutie|ZootyCutie]] ([[User talk:ZootyCutie|talk]]) 05:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
**:Mixel reviews aren't big reviews :P, as the sets are small. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
***: I know the sets are small...but having to repeat some of the same stuff over-and-over (like, say we reviewed the Max for that tribe, it would be the same thing on each review) on each separate review would just get redundant and inconvenient. Having them in one place would make it a lot easier and put-together. --[[User:ZootyCutie|ZootyCutie]] ([[User talk:ZootyCutie|talk]]) 21:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
* Ok, I think I might have worked out a way which doesn't mess up everything else, or cause us to create a reviewpage for every possible combination of sets ever. I've made a template, {{tl|ReviewMultiple}}. All you have to do is make a review as normal on one of the sets being reviewed, and put this template at the top of the review (well, on the line below the one that says "please start your review below this line"). Then it'll show up on all the review pages of the sets being reviewed. For example, I made [[Review:Test1/NovaFlare]], and the template had <nowiki>{{ReviewMultiple|Test1|Test2|Test3}}</nowiki>. As you can see, the review is showing up on [[Review:Test1]], [[Review:Test2]] and [[Review:Test3]]. So... let me know if this is an ok method for doing things or if there are any problems. {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 09:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
** Forgot to mention, the first parameter in the template (in the example, "Test1") must be the name of the set where the review is actually located (eg, Review:Test1/NovaFlare), otherwise it won't work {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 09:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
*** That's a good way to do it. The only thing that still bothers me is the page name will look like it's a review of one set in the URL and when you want to search for it. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 18:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
**** If we search for 41000 a ton of different names come up for one set, you could just redirect the pages. The only thing we can't do is the URL {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
**Can we not have some "special" review pages, say Review:Mixels Season 1? And then use the above template? [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 20:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
***That's what I was thinking. Then have some special parameters in {{tl|ReviewPage}} to specify that it contains multiple sets like the template Nova made. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
**** Well, as for the title, I was thinking we could simply use DISPLAYTITLE in a noinclude tag, save us from creating a billion reviewpages, all of which won't have a working switchtab since it doesn't link to a corresponding set/inventory. {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 22:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
***** I never like to consider DISPLAYTITLE a solution to anything. It's just confusing when it comes to linking to things, and works against us as far as SEO goes. When it comes to SEO, CJC's idea will work best. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 22:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
*** Well, if we use the multiple review template so the multiple reviews show up on all of the individual set review pages but don't create a reviewpage for each combination of sets, that wouldn't cause any problems for switchtabs or SMW, and would mean we wouldn't need an infinite amount of reviewpages. The template would just need an extra parameter for the review title. {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 04:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

==Humans ==
Which humans deserve pages? Voice actors? Staff on video games/ other media? Designers? (It be really cool if LEGO let us interview the designers :P) Also what photos should go on these pages? {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
:Photos of them. [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 21:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
::What photos though childhood? {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
:::No. Photos of them at the beach. Obviously I just mean photos of them, like say a Wikipedia article would have, not a photo gallery of them at every birthday, or a picture of them eating ice cream or something like that... [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Well sorry for not taking your generic comment generically. :P JK. I think we could have childhood photos, photos of designers with sets, photos of actors in their movies, photos with their siblings kids or grand kids. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
:Ideally we should have pages for every designer. Any significant people in the company, e.g. chief executives, founders, maybe board members, should also have articles. Not sure about voice actors because anyone who's anyone can be a voice actor for one thing and then have no further involvement with anything LEGO. And it's very easy to get interviews with LEGO designers through LEGO's press department. It's even easier to interview designers whom I'm personally friends with. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 21:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
::It be great if you could interview one of your friends as a trial interview for the site. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
* I'd say everyone directly affiliated with a LEGO product (incl. actors/voice actors, directors, etc), just limit their bio mainly to their LEGO-related works {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 01:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
** I suggest we include detailed bios on how they got their jobs though, especially if they're a set designer. People often like to know what work it took a person to get to where they are (especially for fellow LEGO fans who dream of one day being a designer). --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 22:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
*** Yeah, sure, I meant moreso we don't want to go into detail on every movie an actor's been in, or get into their personal lives too much (kids, marriages, divorces, etc unless it's really relevant) {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 07:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
**** Ah okay, that makes sense. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 05:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's an example of a voice actor page:[[Chris Pratt]]. Is anything else needed? {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
:Dunno, because we don't have a MoS. Maybe check out [[Forum:Brickipedia:_The_reincarnation/Manual_of_Style#Real-world_people_articles|this]]? {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
::I personally think they should have descriptions as we'd be unique :P {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}

== Colours ==
I think we need to vote on this: Do we use LEGO's colour name e.g. [[Bright Purple]], the scientific colour name Barbie pink, the name lego characters refer it as raspberry or just what people refer it as "pink" <small>&mdash;''Unsigned comment''</small>{{#if:Soupperson1|<small>&nbsp;''by'' [[User:Soupperson1|Soupperson1]] ([[User talk:Soupperson1|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Soupperson1|contribs]])</small>}}<small>.</small>
: The official name, but in instances of commonly used terms for the colour there may be a redirect (e.g. "light bley" to "medium stone grey"). In instances where there may be multiple colors referred to by the same name, such as "blue", there should be a disambiguation page. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 21:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
:Official name (thought it would be a no-brainer). Redirects and disambigs wouldn't hurt though of course {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 01:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I actually ment referring to colours on pages, I need to explain things better :P {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
* Oh, right :P I tend to use what's most readable (but link to the official name), but a set policy on this would be a good idea {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 12:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

== Animals ==
Do we count animals as figures included? There seems to be a lack of agreement over this amongst pages. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
:Personally I don't think it's necessary. Maybe in a separate section than "Minifigures Included", but I think it could be better-saved for the set's inventory. I'm willing to hear what others think about this though. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
* I'm always confused by what to do too, I was wondering if we should have a separate infobox field? :S Same goes for things like Skeletons, and creatures (like Dragons, Rancors, Wampas, Thestrals, etc). {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 01:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
* I'd support having a separate field in the infobox, and a separate MinifigGallery template. -Cligra
:I second Cligra's idea, mabey it could be called other characters included and we can put build-able characters such as Uni-Kitty, animals and the other characters hawk suggested {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}

== Forum Results ==
In the future, when a forum topic is resolved, could we have that posted in the Sitenotice, so that people actually know something has happened? <br>
Something along the lines of ''"We just concluded a vote on whether or not Brickimedia should change its name to "Splarp". The result was an overwhelming "yes". To see the archived topic, click here."'' <br>
-Cligra
:I'd prefer "Splerp" to "Splarp". [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 11:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
::Well your in the underwhelming minority {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
:I'd rather not personally. The sitenotice to me should be used for something relevant to everyone, whereas policy changes a usually just for regulars. I wouldn't mind seeing a page like "Brickipedia:Recent policy changes" or something though {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
::I think a message about the outcome could be left on everyone who commented in the fourm if we can't do Nova's idea {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
:::I would not be opposed to installing [[mw:Extension:MassMessage|MassMessage]] here. Works great on Wikimedia. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 02:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
:I agree with Nova on the sitenotice, though it's still important that everyone knows when and why policy changes are going into effect. Perhaps we should look into the extension mentioned above. As someone that doesn't frequent the forums on Brickipedia, it'd be useful for me. Surely it would be the same for plenty of others. [[User:1999bug|- Bug]] ([[User talk:1999bug|talk]]) 06:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
* Just a note- I've started [[Brickipedia:Site updates]] anyway- I'm not saying this is the way to solve this, it's just there partly to help with the issue. {{C|It's also partly so when someone does something that's against policy, I don't say "it's against policy", and while I'm typing it I start to wonder if I'm just making it up, then spend hours digging through old forums. If the results are all in the one place, it's easier to check}} {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 11:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

== Birthday ideas ==
This should probably be called anniversary ideas but birthday is easier to spell and more LEGOey :P Anyway.. I think we should start planning for February 1st now as we're unorganized as it is, if we leave the plans to last second the day will fly by unnoticed. So to prevent this we should start planning or at least suggesting ideas now.
:This would be the perfect opportunity to try out the podcast thingy, and most people would show up because the sites a year old. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
:: I like it, "Brickipedia's Birthday Podcast." I'd be happy to be a part of this. It would also give us a chance to do the [[User blog:Brikkyy13/Advertising ideas|YouTube channel idea]] as well. {{User:Brikkyy13/sig}}
:We could have a cake building contest as I have an unfair advantage in the baking department (because female-feminists must hate me :P). Also building is more LEGOey. Eurobricks turtle contest was very popular and this would be in similar to style to that. If we all make a cake it'd turn out great. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}

Brickipedia's "birthday" is [[January 29]]. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 03:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::"1 February: Brickimedia is officially open!" From the main site :S {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
::: January 29, 2006 = the date Brickipedia opened (on Wikia) {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 11:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: We have too many birthdays... {{User:SKP4472/sig2014}} 22:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Just have a four-day birthday extravaganza. [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 22:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::That wouldn't be too unusual-- BZPower celebrates their anniversary as their "anniversary week" with perks throughout that entire week. We should recognize 29 January as our official birthday/anniversary though as it's when we were originally founded (we didn't leave that kind of historical event behind when we left Wikia; we still need to hold onto our site's history). 1 February was just a good date that I decided I'd call the official opening since it was the earliest "good" date after we more or less finished development. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 03:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Then let's do it! :P {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
:Oh, I thought this was for me. :P I like the cake building contest idea. [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 22:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::Maybe it will secretly be for you disguised as Brickimedia's birthday {{User:Soupperson1/Sig1}}

== Review team ==
Seeing how the QCG is dead, half of users in it haven't wrote a review since the merge, I think we should do a review team. I think this is a necessary idea to revive the review sub site. I think the reviews of this team should be featured on the homepage similar to what brickset does. But I don't know some things:  should it only include admins or be treated like the news reporter group, should there be creative freedom or a guideline. Anyway I think if the site works together I'm sure we can get over a hundred reviews within a year. Also small sets take short time to review and we allow reviews for collectible minifigures and pollybags so everyone can join without hassle or bankruptcy. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
*'''Support''' as nominator. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig1}}
* '''Support''' the idea.  --{{User:LK901/Sig1}} 22:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
=== Notes ===
*Since we have this years DTCs: http://en.brickimedia.org/wiki/Brickipedia_News:2015_Gift_with_Purchases_and_DTCs_revealed , the set of the month should be the featured review unless no one has the set, but I'm sure there's a set which reflects that moth that LEGO has made a set of.
**The QCG isn't related to reviews? [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 16:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
*** Nope, that's [[BP:RQM]]. But since the ratings extension doesn't even work in the reviews namespace, I don't see a point to it {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 03:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
****Oh good - I was gonna say, I don't remember being a review quality person :P [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
*****The ratings extension doesn't work in the reviews namespace? Do you want it to? ;) [[User:UltrasonicNXT|UltrasonicNXT]] ([[User talk:UltrasonicNXT|talk]])
****** Yes please :D And the inventory space as well if you could- I thought you said there was some problem with it working in more than one namespace, so had to disable it before? {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 22:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
******* And the new Part: namespace as well if you could :P {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 06:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
******** Done. This actually should have already been happening {{c|it did surprise me a little}}, just some localsettings statements were in the wrong order. (Hmm I think I rewrote that bit of the code after that so that's irrelevent) [[User:UltrasonicNXT|UltrasonicNXT]] ([[User talk:UltrasonicNXT|talk]])

== [https://www.youtube.com/user/brickimedia YouTube channel] ==

On my [[User blog:Brikkyy13/Advertising ideas|last blog post]] I suggested the idea of using our YouTube channel to its full potential, kind of like how BZP uses theirs. Maybe we should give certain users access to the channel ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNRpkj7bEaI via their own channels]) so they can begin uploading reviews/news/etc. Once the videos are up, people will find them and hopefully come to the wiki and start editing, and we may finally have as much traffic as {{C|*shudders*}} wikia. Thoughts? {{User:Brikkyy13/sig}}
:As I stated on your blog, I'm not really in favor.  If ''someone'' wants to do it, fine.  But, I'm not volunteering :P --{{User:LK901/Sig1}} 22:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
: -*cough*I hope people take this seriously this time *cough*- (Sibo2808)
: I have some experience with YTube now, and what I've found out to do for attention is to post news ... [[User:Sibo2808|Sibo2808]] ([[User talk:Sibo2808|talk]]) 22:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:Per LK. It's definitely a good idea, but not one I have the skills or desire to really run. We do have a YT somewhere, but I don't think it has had any videos since before the first launch. [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 22:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:: I think I've stated before (if I haven't I've said it here now) that I'd be happy to do it for us, I'd just need someone to add my channel to the page {{User:Brikkyy13/sig}}22:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::: Who currently has access? [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 22:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: BFN might. I think he made the trailer. Otherwise, I'd ask Meiko. [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 23:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: Me and only me right now. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 03:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
: I'd rather avoid giving anyone else access to the account right now, one because it's on a personal Google account of mine, and two because I don't want too little accountability for what's posted, e.g. I'd like to be able to keep track of who's posting what before we go giving too many people access (more to have to keep track of and entrust with it). Whoever runs it to start (probably me since it's my account right now and until I manage to change it to not be associated with me) can just upload other people's things they send via email or whatever. Before we go uploading random stuff I'd also like to ensure we have some quality standards and guidelines, e.g. I'd like to avoid poorly made videos with someone's cell phone that they can't hold still while they film it). I'd like to make sure anyone who's contributing content to the YouTube channel has the adequate resources to put together a halfway decent video. I'm not saying we need to invest in a studio like BrickNerd and The Brick Show, but anyone filming things for our channel should have decent lighting and filming equipment and have basic editing software and skills at least. I'd also like to make sure, since we'll probably have multiple people from various places contributing to it, that there's decent consistency among videos. For example I don't want a video that one person adds to have superb lighting and filmography and then have someone else's video be too dark, washed out, with bad sound and all. Without consistency I don't see our channel doing well, because any subscribers/viewers won't know what to expect from us. If we really want to be serious about this, I wouldn't like to rush into it without this kind of planning and more. I myself haven't stumbled much into videography even though I'm a professional photographer. I only have basic understandings of film equipment and editing currently, and I don't know what kinds of knowledge anyone else has on this technical end of a YouTube channel. I have personal friends (not involved in the LEGO community at all) through my work as a photographer who have better experience with this that if we want to be serious about, I could ask them for help. The only problem is they're in the same town as me, not in every town all of you are in, so they'd only be able to help me in any videos I do. This is my biggest concern about starting this channel is that very few of us are near each other, so it could be hard to coordinate any of this technical work between all of our YouTube contributors. If we had more disposable income I'd be willing to use it to get equipment for various YouTube contributors for our site, but unfortunately we don't have those kinds of resources currently. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 03:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
*<nowiki>:P</nowiki> your 17 and a professional photographer?! Anyway couldn't we just make a new account and you can keep your own email's account. I've edited YouTube videos before and it's not hard to find materials for news videos like Windows Movie Maker. I assume it's not hard to give guidelines for videos and just change the password if the person doesn't follow them. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
** Yeah, I'm a professional automotive photographer ([//instagram.com/georgebarnick my portfolio]). :) I can just set it up to not have anything associating the existing account to me. I should have been more clean&mdash; it's on a personal email account of mine, but it's not an email account that I ''use'', so it's not a big deal. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 22:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
*** So why the speech xP I don't think Instagram makes you a professional photographer, but nice pictures anyway :) {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
**** The fact that I make the vast majority of my income from photography and get hired for photography jobs makes me a professional. I linked to my Instagram because I figured it was easiest for you to browse. You can also find me on [//500px.com 500px] or just look at my [//georgebarnick.com website]. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 22:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
***** Next time link your website :P I thought you just ment having an Instagram made you a photographer {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
* Firstly, if it's connected to your personal account we can always create a new account, under a different easier name such as "Brickipedia" rather than "Brickimedia Association." Then to avoid any confusion, you can give access to users via the add manager link I pointed out. Finally, I completely agree about quality standards. Lighting is a big issue, you don't want a video review to have a yellow glow to it :/ . I personally have a pretty good setup with my Nikon that can even support a green screen (though I haven't used it much, my channel only has 2 LEGO related videos and they were right before I got my setup, I've just been too lazy to upload anything), but other people might not. As for that final thing, we start off by giving only a few users access who have proven that they meet quality standards and who can coordinate the videos. {{User:Brikkyy13/sig}}01:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
** I don't think we can have video reviews as we all have different accents, and set ups (including lighting, background, pitch ext.]] which may be distracting for the viewer and become a turn off. I think we should try and focus on writing reviews as we need more, rather then diving into video set reviews which every Tom, Dick, and Harry seems to be doing. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
** I'd like to avoid making any new accounts. Anyone who already subscribes to one account will get confused, and there is already a YouTube account called "Brickipedia" that I don't have access to and don't know who does. Making a third channel will make things more difficult for everyone. All I'd have to do is change the password to the email account and rename the channel... that's no big task.  --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 22:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
*** Well, when the general consensus among users is in favor of this channel we should definitely look into it. {{User:Brikkyy13/sig}} 00:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

==More reviews things==
* Just some more ideas to try and get reviews going:
** Changing the infobox to look more like [[Template:Part/new]]- the review infobox at the moment is very large, and you have to scroll on some screens to even see that there are reviews.
** A rating section between the infobox and reviews- basically, a vote box where people rate the set out of 5 stars (like in [[c: Doctor_Psycho|infoboxes on Customs]])
** Probably the most controversial- a comments box underneath the reviews. I don't think reviews is getting a whole lot of activity because people don't want to write novels. If there's a comments box, people can write mini-reviews, and since it doesn't seem like Answers will ever get off the ground, people can ask questions about the set in this area as well.
:Anyways, that's about all I've come up with in the last month or so to try and fix reviews {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the first two. I'm okay with the third but are you saying underneath {{tl|ReviewPage}} or at the end of an individual review? I do the latter already and I've seen people ask questions there. Not sure how necessary it'd be on the former, but it could work. I wouldn't mind. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 00:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
* Yeah, I meant a "master comments" section on the reviewpage underneath all of the reviews {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 00:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
All sounds good to me. [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 01:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
* I like the first idea but I think the info box is so large, because we don't have any reviews. :P We should probably change it anyway for the select sets that have reviews. The second mightn't work as we'd have trolls who be like 1, 1!! MWHAHA or younger uneducated users who would be like:GIRLS SET EW!!!-1/BOYS SET EW!!! - 1. I like the third but I think we should have a review team where select users write reviews. Users who want to write 'novels' can simply join the team :P {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
:* Those troll comments would be easy to delete. One thing that I think would be nice is before a person can post a mini-review, they have to say that they own the set. I'm not sure how easy (and non-intrusively) that could be done though. [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::*I don't think we can remove votes. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
:::*Admins can. :P [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 16:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::* I think Soup means that they'll vote 1 star purely to be idiots, not make a spammy comment (I can't see this being a massive issue, if we get enough people voting, it should only have a small impact on the average) {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 08:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::* I don't think we have enough users at the instant, I know 38 is a reasonable number but if you think everyone's going to vote they're not. If you link anything site related in chat everyone's like D: I say we  have 15 users who are willing to vote, but we'd all have to vote on all the sets to look professional but most of our users buy less than 50 sets a year (do not include me in this xP) so it be hard to get an honest opinion on some sets. Also we'd probably need a guideline to vote on. E.G. The Disney Princess sets aren't remotely accurate but they have useful pieces but I don't think children (readers we need) care about those factors. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
::::::*Somehow I read "votes" as "comments" (or maybe it did say that and it was changed :P ). I don't see what buying less than 50 sets a year really has to do with anything. 40 still seems like a lot to me, as does 30 or 25 or 15. And though you might think that the Disney Princess sets are bad (which I'm not arguing, they kind of are :P ) doesn't mean that everyone thinks they are bad. That's kind of the point of a poll, to gauge the ''popular'' opinion. People are probably more likely to do something if it involves pressing just a button, as opposed to reading a wall of text. I see your point about troll votes, so we don't need to implement that if we really want to play it safe, ''but'' I'd kind of like to get the comment thing as soon as possible if there are no problems there. When I write a review, I kind of feel like I ''do'' need to write a novel, so I end up with very little quantity. The only big issue I see with the mini-reviews, myself, is that if we use comment tags (which I assume we would) they couldn't be edited. [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 02:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::*But why would you vote on a set you don't own? Then you don't know if it's good or not as you haven't bought it :/ What I mean is out of our 38 users 10 will vote, we probally have 200 different sets between us, that's 400 pages with not votes. {{User:Soupperson1/Sig}}
:::::::::*It's fine to have an opinion on something you don't own. It might not be the most educated opinion, but it's fine to ask. We won't be using the data for research, just to make the namespace more interactive. Or, at least, that was my takeaway. [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 22:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::*^ That's what I was after- people like clicking little star boxes, so it might keep them around longer. If the results are skewed- who really cares? :P Besides, the ratings on Customs seem to be pretty fair the vast majority of the time, so it shouldn't be ''too'' bad here {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

== Indicators ==

MediaWiki 1.25 will implement a new featured: <code><nowiki><indicator></nowiki></code> tags. What these are is essentially the things we have that we position in the top corner of articles using CSS like the ratings. The indicator tag integrates these into the skin so the CSS hacks aren't necessary, which as a result makes it compatible on all skins that have various layouts. I'd like to convert our templates to use indicator tags soon. It's an easy conversion. All it requires is to make a template like {{tl|Rating}} and have a rating tag inside an indicator tag. Then when you transclude {{tl|Rating}}, the rating tag will be implemented as an indicator. Indicator tags '''have not''' yet been implemented in our current version of the Refreshed skin however, but they are implemented in the upcoming Refreshed 3.0 update that will be deployed soon. I'll be posting an announcement soon before the new skin is depoloyed, but when it is, I'd like us to be ready to take advantage of the new features. This is mainly just an announcement to you all since I didn't see it fit for a blog post. :) You can read more about them [[mw:Help:Page status indicators|here]]. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 23:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
* That's a good feature to have, I didn't see it when I was going through the changes :) However, as far as I'm aware, we don't have any templates which actually need that anymore- everything's done through the ratings extension (<code><nowiki><rating/></nowiki></code>) so... (and stupid question- just tried using indicator, and it didn't work- I'm guessing it isn't enabled yet?) {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 00:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
** DeepSea and Refreshed 2.* don't support it. Rating tags aren't automatically placed in the upper corner though. That's something that's being done on a per-skin basis with JavaScript and CSS. Doing <code><nowiki><indicator><rating /></indicator></nowiki></code> in {{tl|Rating}} and then transcluding {{tl|Rating}}  (almost like how we used to :P) will include the rating tag as an indicator and will automatically be placed wherever each skin defines indicators to be, without the need for CSS/JS hacks that won't work as soon as a skin changes its layout or we add a new skin. :) If you look at [http://georgebarnick.com/refreshed-beta/index.php?title=Page_status_indicators Refreshed 3.0] you'll see the page status indicator is automatically placed up in the corner with just the indicator tag and no CSS since all the placement is determined by the skin itself (so Vector, Monobook, etc will all have it in the appropriate location, no custom CSS needed for each skin). You can line a bunch of indicators up and they'll all be in the correct location without you having to put in a bunch of <tt>position:absolute;</tt> CSS coordinates. :) Plus if we reform how ratings/content improvement are done like how CJC and I were talking about in chat today, we'll be able to put icons like "stub", "featured", etc up there similar to how such tags may appear on Wikipedia. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 01:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*Stupid me, just fixed a mistake. These aren't added in 1.24, they're added in 1.25. So we'll have some time before we have to worry about using them. My bad! --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 01:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*We need to come up with a solution so ratings are still shown on DeepSea etc. Not tricky at all, but needs to be done. (Probably just this {{rating}} template just including one of the new thingys plus an old style rating, then the new one can be set to display:none in skin css for the old skins, and the old one can be set to display:none in skin css for the new skins.) [[User:UltrasonicNXT|UltrasonicNXT]] ([[User talk:UltrasonicNXT|talk]])
**We can make DeepSea support it. Nobody's really maintaining DeepSea's code anymore but it only requires an addition of one line of code to support indicators. That's not hard to just throw in there as soon as we update to 1.25. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 21:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

==Part pages for those with a lot of Element IDs==
* For Design IDs which have a billion associated Element IDs (take [http://brickset.com/parts/design-76382 the minifigure torso] for example), the current convention is to simply make parts pages based on Element ID, for example [[Part 6039702]] refers to one very specific minifigure torso instead of all of them. I'd like to propose we change it so that in cases like this, pages are named "Part:Design ID/Element ID", so they'd be subpages of "Part:Design ID". Then the Design ID page would have the part infobox which would contain Design ID, part name, a single display image and the years in production. Under that would be a list of all the created Element ID pages (using <code><nowiki>{{Special:Prefixindex/Part:{{PAGENAME}}/}}</nowiki></code>). And the Element ID pages would look the same as normal Design ID pages. As I'm typing this, I'm remembering that the naming convention I'm suggesting was originally shot down when the problem was first encountered all those years ago, so feel free to shoot it down again :P {{C|@Meiko- I know I said we wouldn't need subpages for the part namespace because I couldn't think of a possible reason for needing them... that was until I just thought of this :D}} {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 01:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
** This makes sense. I'll enable subpages for the Part namespace now. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 20:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
*** Done. http://git.io/V9kutg --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 21:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

== [[:Category:Parts]] ==
With the parts namespace now being made the primary location of parts pages, should we remove and delete [[:Category:Parts]]? It's hardly different than [[Special:AllPages/Part:]]. On a similar note, [[:Category:Templates]] is also stupid. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 20:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
* I'd rather keep both as supercategories (Category:Parts containing just the autocats in [[:Category:Parts by year]], [[:Category:Parts by Design ID]], and a few of the other ones like [[:Category:Printed Parts]], same sort of thing goes for templates. I don't think any pages should go in these cats though {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 21:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
** Okay. I could have my bot remove Category:Parts from articles. Lemme know if that's cool with you. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 21:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
*** Yeah, I'm fine with that :) {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 21:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

== Customs + Stories = ♥ ==
Warning: This section breaks protocol. Reader discretion is advised.

It's a sad day when someone comes to these forums to get something recognized. The only other option seemed to be a blog, and maybe I'll try that too because now that I think about it that might make more sense. Anyway, Customs has a tendency to die and nothing was getting done in regards to the stories merge, so I thought I would bring it up here. I'm basically looking for ideas because I have no idea what to do. The only things that I recall discussing with Bug (and in a forum before it died) are:
*SirComputer requested that we keep the visual identity of Stories intact. This is kind of vague, but something that we would like to honor, though, to be totally honest, I have no idea how to do that.
:*We also want to use the opportunity to give Customs a makeover. There was a bit of debate, and then the forum just sort of died without any results.
*Whether we want to import stories upon request or just import them all at once.
Knight said that Stories should be to Customs what Reviews is to En and I kind of agree, but to be honest, the implementation between the two is awful and feels inorganic. (I know we are trying to fix it, and I've thrown around some ideas myself, but anything that our site tries to get done in regards to redesign, aside from the upcoming Refreshed layout I suppose, seems slow since most of these are issues we have had for years.) That is something I want to avoid. I want to find a way to integrate stories into the wiki better and to encourage people to write them, even if it is something short. I want it to be clear that it is there. Perhaps not in-your-face, but not something to ignore either.

So, basically I posted this in the wrong spot because I need ideas and to see those ideas actually come to light. I will move it to a blog if I absolutely must (and even if I don't, I might to account for some users who don't read the forums but might have feedback I would like) but I am not relegating this to Customs where Bug and I will be responsible for everything because we can't do it alone. People don't go there to discuss policy, only to upload MOCs. Sure, I can prod them on chat to check every time there is an update, but who wants that? [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 23:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

:Not all at once, guys. :P Kahuka just linked to [http://cache.lego.com/media/nxtlog/28fd54b9-fef1-4da7-b2b1-3369990022a6/800x507/GalleryFile.png] this on chat and I thought, if we are going to allow stories, why not fan art? Might as well add that option while we are (hopefully) transitioning to bigger and better things. [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 21:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

==Part names, part 2==
* Was talking about this with Meiko before, would it be worth adding the official part name to the title of a part? For example, [[Part:20251]] would become "Part:20251 (MASK 9, 2015)"? The reason being that it could help with searching, and just readability in general- getting hit by a stack of numbers might be daunting for some people, if there's a description next to it, it might help. For those that don't have official names that we know of, we can just leave with Part:number. {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
**+1 this idea. For the record, "Part:12345" would still redirect to "Part:12345 (AWESOME PIECE)" so there wouldn't be any issues with redlinks. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 23:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
**I like this, though a lot of parts abbreviate "Assembly" as "ASS.," so...yeah. :P [[User:Berrybrick|Berrybrick]] ([[User talk:Berrybrick|talk]]) 23:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
***We could probably go about not using abbreviations (or the all caps) because we're all humans (most of us) reading the wiki so we don't need things in 10 characters or less to read them. :P --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 00:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

==[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:NumerAlpha Extension:NumberAlpha]==
{{Archive|result=done|content=
* Would it be possible to install this extension? To get an automatic appearances section on parts pages, I need a way to generate a unique number for every inventory row, and as far as I'm aware, there's no normal way to do this without drastically changing the way we do inventories. If I had something like this, I could group the data in the rows into SMW subobjects, and I ''think'' I'd be able to get everything else working from then on {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 07:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
*:It looks OK to add. It's still in the beta stage but doesn't seem to affect anything major (i.e. wouldn't break the site). You could file a github ticket for that. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] <small>([[User talk:Ajraddatz|talk]])</small> 08:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
*:: OK thanks, I'll do that as soon as I remember my password :D {{User:NovaHawk/sig}}
::::That is often the tricky part... [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] <small>([[User talk:Ajraddatz|talk]])</small> 08:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Got there in the end :D [[github:314]] {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 09:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
}}

==Split OT Star Wars theme==
As many of you know, LEGO no longer does official subthemes on their sites. For Star Wars sets, what they are doing is saying what movie/TV series the sets are from in their descriptions, eg one of the points in [[75074 Snowspeeder]] says: ''"As seen in Star Wars: Episode V The Empire Strikes Back"'', and similar points are consistently there throughout all 2015 shop descriptions. Therefore, I'd like to split the [[Classic]] theme to Episode IV/V/VI for the following reasons:
* Classic sounds stupid
* Smaller lists, so easier to sort through
* Keeps up with the current convention, and having three movies grouped into one theme while all the others are on their own seems wrong
There is one problem- I've gone through the OT sets and there are a number where the movie is ambiguous (but the trilogy isn't):
* [[7146 TIE Fighter]]
* [[2853590 Chrome Stormtrooper]]
* [[4547551 Darth Vader]]
* In addition to this, [[10188 Death Star]] is intentionally designed to be part Episode IV, part Episode VI. However, it could be listed as a part of two subthemes, it shouldn't be too big a deal.
Either way, let me know what you think. {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 08:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
* Oh, and either way, can we make the set categories into subthemes instead of just "Star Wars sets"? {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 08:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
* I, personally, prefer the idea of the sets being separated by "Prequel," "Original," and "Sequel," {{C|(or, simply "Bad," "Good," and "To early to tell.")}} but having them denoted by movie rather than trilogy seems like a good idea. As for the subject of a set fitting into multiple movies, I'd put them in whatever movie they appeared first in; So a TIE Fighter and The Death Star would go in "Star Wars" while podracers would go in "Episode I: The rise of [[Jar Jar Binks|an annoyance]]." {{User:Brikkyy13/sig}} 10:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
* Support the idea. As far as ambiguous movie appearance, just list all applicable subthemes I guess. <code><nowiki>[[Star Wars]]{{si}}[[Episode 4]]<br />[[Episode 5]]</nowiki></code> wouldn't be bad in my opinion. I don't have an opinion on the categorization. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 17:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

== Allow anonymous forum posting ==

I forget why we initially disabled this; it might have been related to spam. I think anonymous users should be able to contribute in [[Special:WikiForum]]. There could be some cases where they want to say something but don't want to create an account just for that. It could bring more WikiForum activity and engage new people who could potentially create an account later on. The only downside I can see is the fact that there could be spam, and that [[m:Special:AbuseFilter]] doesn't work on WikiForum posts. I think it would be worth trying out though. --[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 17:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
:Cool. [[User:CJC95|CJC95]] ([[User talk:CJC95|talk]]) 17:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
::It was definitely related to spam. I remember deleting hundreds of posts ''a day'' because of spambots. While I would like anonymous posting, I don't want to waste all that time again deleting every individual spam post {{User:NovaHawk/sig}} 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
:Yeah we were getting hit pretty badly from spam. Perhaps I should try writing a Captcha solution into WikiForum, a few other people have requested that. [[User:UltrasonicNXT|UltrasonicNXT]] ([[User talk:UltrasonicNXT|talk]])