Brickipedia:Forum

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki
Revision as of 23:45, 4 December 2014 by NovaHawk (talk | contribs)
Forums.svg

Welcome to Brickipedia's forum. This is the place to propose and discuss any amendments to the Manual of Style or suggest new policies. To make a new proposal, please make a new section at the bottom of the page. Please see the archive for past discussions.

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? --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. - Bug (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... --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I meant that we shouldn't be worrying about hosting transcripts. - Bug (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh ok. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete, I was worried about copyright violations myself. An external links seems best. NovaHawk 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 --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. Berrybrick (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a neat site. Here's the first episode's transcript. It looks decently accurate. Should we use them? --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure. 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. --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>" 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. NovaHawk 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. 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. NovaHawk 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. 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). --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. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    User talk:ToaMeiko CJC95 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    I was going to make the same comment as CJC, so per him. -NBP3.0 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    According to his brickset collection he dosnt have a wave of anything to review Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    Because everyone must always have their Brickset collection up to date. CJC95 (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    To look stylish (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). --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. --ZootyCutie (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Mixel reviews aren't big reviews :P, as the sets are small. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
      • 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. --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, {{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 {{ReviewMultiple|Test1|Test2|Test3}}. 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. NovaHawk 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 NovaHawk 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. --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 Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    • Can we not have some "special" review pages, say Review:Mixels Season 1? And then use the above template? CJC95 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
      • That's what I was thinking. Then have some special parameters in {{ReviewPage}} to specify that it contains multiple sets like the template Nova made. --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. NovaHawk 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. --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. NovaHawk 04:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

VIP Points

I was wondering if we should consider implementing VIP point values in set pages (especially because they change in value, adding some kind of archive of the changes would be smart). I know it is minor and usually easy to figure out but I figured it was worth consideration. -NBP3.0 (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Sounds interesting. Maybe a field in the infobox? --LK901 17:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Basically what I was thinking of, perhaps below the price template. -NBP3.0 (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure. That's a fine piece of information to include. -Cligra
  • Neutral... the things I have against it is that I just think it's a lot of work to go and add it back to all our articles, most of which won't have this information available since they've been pulled from the shop site, and the information isn't excactly super useful either. And isn't the number of VIP points just however much the sets costs in USD? NovaHawk 22:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Basically, so we would not have to look into much. Just if there were any sales or specials where a value pack was double, or one set on sale gave you double VIP, etc. It would provide validation more than anything, and I look them up on S@H instead of Bricki. That's why I feel we should fill these holes. -NBP3.0 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral Not sure what VIP points are. CJC95 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Then VIP points = floor(price USD)? So, I guess I support if Mediawiki has a floor function, then it would be as easy as say, setting so every set released on LEGO.com had an parameter VIP=True, and that just took the floor of the USD setting in the price template. Wait, did I say easy.. CJC95 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Sounds like a waste of time to me (It'll be hard to obtain information on older sets..), but maybe someone else would appreciate it. - Bug (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Per buggy that's 1000s of sets we'd need to update, and all they are the american dollar price minus the . and numbers which follow it. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • As I explained above, if we had say, this, it can be automated based of the USD price. CJC95 (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Problem with automating it is that it will mean that it will add a VIP points section to sets which were discontinued before the VIP program even began (as an aside, we can just use a parserfunction for floor, eg {{#expr:floor(2.5)}} produces 2) NovaHawk 05:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Didn't realise that existed :P But you could have a (slightly more effort though) add on variable. Like "VIP = yes", set default to no. CJC95 (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm ok if it's an "opt-in" thing, I just don't think it should be there for all the pages and we'd have to go around and turn them off manually :) NovaHawk 23:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, opt in is easier than opt out. CJC95 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

So, to clarify, this change will: 1. Set us apart from the old wiki in our new info in most set pages while 2. Still being practical and easy to install. Obviously it is rather common knowledge, but it sets us apart from other sites as having this information and I would rather take the risk and increase our site traffic a little. It would be rather simple to set up (thank you CJC) and would only require a slight change to the set template. -NBP3.0 (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Just putting it out there but maybe we should have an article on what VIP points/the VIP program is before we bother with this. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Mayhaps. (Looks at NBP.) CJC95 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • (Looks around for other user to do something) -NBP3.0 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Set up a vote below:
Do
  1. Can't hurt I guess. Obviously shouldn't be compulsory for older sets NovaHawk 23:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Do not
There is no opinion
Comments

Administrative notice Re:ClickABrick

Just a notice that (as I had no where else to place this), as Clickabrick appears not to exist anymore, I have removed it from the (currently mid-revision) mainpage template. If it is back, it can be readded without need for vote and what not. CJC95 (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

PageInCat extension

  • Any chance of getting this installed? I'm thinking of doing a few things for BrickiProjects, where articles will have extra icons next to their names apart from just their rating, like a "requires update" icon, etc. I can do it semantically if needed, but this should work much more effectively NovaHawk 22:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm interested in what you're thinking about. Do you want me to install it on http://georgebarnick.com/refreshed-beta because 1) I forget how to install extensions here and 2) I'd like to see what could be done with said icons in the new skin. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, what I'm thinking of actually isn't that interesting :P Just for projects, I thought it'd be useful to see a bit more info on pages than just the rating, for example, on Brickipedia:Project Ultra Agents, instead of just seeing
you could use {{#pageincat:Articles that need to be updated|[[File:Ambox_warning_yellow.svg|x20px]]}} to detect if an article needs an update, which would produce something like:
NovaHawk 00:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Unlicensed minifigures

  • I think this was either ignored or voted down last time, I can't remember, but since policies are undergoing an overhaul at the moment, I thought I may as well bring it up again. Our unlicensed minifigure pages are a mess. That is, the pages that we have in the first place. We don't even have pages for most of them. So, I'm proposing that every individual (as in, different combination of head/body/legs/hair) gets its own page. If we have them all on one "type" page, they'll never get updated, and never realistically get to a "complete" status- take Police Officer for example- if that was done correctly, we'd have literally over 100 variants on the page. One issue that has always been brought up is that they'd be hard to name. I'm not really seeing an issue, we could either do "Police Officer (2014-3)" for the third unique Police Officer which was originally released in 2014, or "Police Officer (60010)", for a unique Police Officer first released in the set 60010 (if there are more than one in a set, do "Police Officer (60010-1)" and "Police Officer (60010-2)". Anyway, feel free to discuss/add suggestions, or more likely, ignore this section entirely. NovaHawk 06:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I have a suggestion for things like Police Officer. Since realistically we don't want every variant of the police officer on one page because it'd be too much for one article, maybe we should separate the variants by year? Like "Police Officer (2014)"? And then if any police officer figure has more significance than the others, they can have their own article, such as Chase McCain. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I like the sound of that. Doing it that way would also mean we could keep things like soccer players grouped by teams (since they all usually come out in the same year), and would save us needing an article for each of them. NovaHawk 23:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Sounds good. CJC95 (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.brickimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brickipedia:Forum&oldid=940890"