Brickipedia:Forum

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! <3}
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! <3}
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! <3}
  - 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! <3}
- 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)

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

Solomon Blaze

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:

Solomon Blaze

NovaHawk 00:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Broadening news articles

In relation to Brickipedia News:Check Out These Carbon Fiber LEGO Tiles‎, created with the comment:

obligatory "yes brickipedia pays attention to the rest of the lego community and not just sets" post. we should do more of these in more frequency because news actually gets people to come to our site plus things like this are different/intriguing

No. It's not "this is how we should do things, deal with it", it's "hey community, do we want to be doing these types of things as news articles"?

Personally I'm opposed to the idea of promoting third-party things for individual news posts, simply because they're not actually LEGO. We're a LEGO site. And our focus is on sets and news. I've got nothing at all against these kinds of things as interesting side-stories in weekly roundups, but making posts designed only to advertise third-party products or certain people's Ideas projects seems like cheap promotion to me NovaHawk 07:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Broader scope = wider assortment of users and visitors. I've researched our user base a lot and we don't cater well to more than half the AFOL community. We cater to those who collect or buy new sets and those that research old sets. We can't really cater to other types of people in our articles very well but we can in news. News should be something the AFOL community can use to find interesting things. That doesn't have to be directly the same thing as they'd find in our mainspace articles. See The Brick Fan for example as they've been one of the fastest-growing LEGO fan sites in recent times. Their news is very broad and doesn't necessarily pertain to new LEGO products. Brickset's news is the same way, and they're even more similar to us since they also serve as a LEGO set database as their primary purpose. They cover anything from interesting third party products to AFOL conventions to new LEGO communities, etc. If their news were solely about new products from LEGO, they'd lose a vast number of visitors, and right now they get over 400x the viewership we do. Heck, our site would hardly be known since our biggest growth in account creation and viewership is when we're featured on Brickset's news. When we were featured on Brickset, that's hardly anything more than "cheap promotion" as all it was was an advertisement for the only real site that can be looked at as Brickset's "competition". But they advertised us, we appreciated it, and it helped us out. We can do the same thing, and people can appreciate us and new visitors can be made as what we feature could be of interest to them. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Basically this^ Berrybrick (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess, whatever helps the site get more viewers what we should be focussing on, if it's this kind of stuff, so be it. I won't be paying much attention to the news anymore if it gets anything like Eurobricks' front page news (95% mocs, third-party custom parts and internal contests), but that's just me :) NovaHawk 04:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should decrease the amount of news we're writing about new sets and other stuff we write about currently, I just think it can't hurt to add more news topics alongside that. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Category for collectable minifigures

The autocategory at the moment for things like Mermaid_(Minifigures) is "Category:Minifigures minifigures". Because the theme is technically called minifigures. But it sounds weird. Does anyone have a better name for this? NovaHawk 00:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I know it is unofficial, but "Collectable Minifigures" would probably be best. On a tangent: Pages like this have a category for "BIONICLE minifigures", which they clearly aren't. Would "BIONICLE figures" be possible? :P Berrybrick (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, collectable minifigures is what I was thinking too. Fixed the figure problem (see Kopaka, the others will take time to manually switch over). Also added in Disney Princess mini-doll figures, and Friends was sorted from the beginning. Let me know if there are any others that need doing :) NovaHawk 06:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Support "Collectable Minifigures". -Cligra

Naming convention for disambiguation pages

I swear we've had this discussion a million times before, but I can't find where. For disambiguation pages, should we have a (disambiguation) in the title or not? NovaHawk 04:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- No idea. I think it depends on whether or not the base page name (without the parentheses) is already an article or not. If not I think the base page name should be the disambiguation. So for example I don't think something like Slave I (disambiguation) needs the parenthetical since Slave I isn't an article itself. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Similarly, if say, its obvious that people searching Emma will most likely be looking for Friends, I'd suggest that "Emma (Friends)" be at Emma and then Emma (Disambiguation) exist. CJC95 (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  - Then what do we do for pages like Anna/Batman/Robin? Where people are looking for both Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}
    - Well, in the case of Batman, we can do it how we have been doing it, or since the Batman theme was retired six years ago, we can just move the minifigure article to Batman and keep Batman (theme). Honestly, nobody is going to be looking for Friends Anna or Robin over the Frozen and Batman characters, but there would be "This article is about the <> character, for <> see...". :P Berrybrick (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
      - Per Berry. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Per Meiko and CJC. Berrybrick (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ideally I'd just like to avoid using the word "disambiguation" if it can possibly be avoided. -Cligra

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? Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Photos of them. CJC95 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What photos though childhood? Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

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... CJC95 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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. --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. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

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 NovaHawk 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). --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) NovaHawk 07:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example of a voice actor page:Chris Pratt. Is anything else needed? Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Dunno, because we don't have a MoS. Maybe check out this? NovaHawk 22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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" —Unsigned comment by Soupperson1 (talk • contribs).

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. --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 NovaHawk 01:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually ment referring to colours on pages, I need to explain things better :P Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

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 NovaHawk 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. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

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. --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). NovaHawk 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 Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

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?
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."
-Cligra

I'd prefer "Splerp" to "Splarp". CJC95 (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well your in the underwhelming minority Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

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 NovaHawk 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 Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Contents