1

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki
< Brickipedia:Forum‎ | Archive‎ | 2016
Revision as of 22:09, 7 February 2016 by CJC (talk | contribs) (+archive)

Review team

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Nothing done

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. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

  • Support as nominator. Soupperson1 Jeepers!Runninh Gang.jpg
  • Support the idea. --LK901 22:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Meh - I don't mind the idea of putting more reviews out there, and making them more noticed and stuff, but a group of special people who have reviews automatically placed on the homepage may not be the way - especially since our main page works fundamentally differently to Bricksets. Surely, just have it so if we have a new good review, we tweet it or something. CJC95 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean put it in news like: 41100 Heartlake Private Jet reviewed! And then pipelink to the review or do a new reviews section on the homepage. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  1. Oppose - what's the point in having a team when noon even does reviews? Just seems an extra user group for people to feel special but not actually do anything to me. NovaHawk 02:54, 24 January 2016 (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? 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 NovaHawk 03:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh good - I was gonna say, I don't remember being a review quality person :P CJC95 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
          • The ratings extension doesn't work in the reviews namespace? Do you want it to? ;) 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? NovaHawk 22:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
              • And the new Part: namespace as well if you could :P NovaHawk 06:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
                • Done. This actually should have already been happening (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) UltrasonicNXT (talk)


Categories on figure articles

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was not done

I use Disney wikia for one reason only, the categories! See them at the bottom of the page, categories such as "Spouses", "Females", "Heronies", "Pet owners", "Protaganists". I think categories such as these and more (species, figure type, hair colour, age group, eye colour, skin colour)could make us a really useful tool for people gathering information. Example

I don't think these categories are very encyclopedic and would be too much work and upkeep for not enough usefulness. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand the enclyopedic argument but what will we have to upkeep? All we have to do is add the categories when we're adding the minifigure file/creating the page. I don't understand how they would be useless either, if people want to know how many characters by LEGO have light nougat skin or how many female characters they are they could use us. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Strong oppose- those are "in-universe" categories, which is suitable for a Disney wiki, but to me, not for here. Apart from the background section, figures should be treated for what they are- plastic toys. @above: I don't really know about upkeep so much (although, with the release of every movie, there will probably be additions needed for most characters), but I do know it will cause arguments- eg, if the old SW canon was still intact, take Luke Skywalker's possible categories- "Alliance to Restore the Republic", "Jedi Order", "Alliance of Free Planets", "Bright Tree Village", "New Republic", "New Jedi Order", "Dark Empire", "Order of the Sith Lords", "Galactic Federation of Free Alliances", "Jedi Coalition", "Humans", "Tatooine", "Polis Massa", "Jedi trained by Yoda", "Jedi trained by Obi-Wan Kenobi", "Rogue Squadron", etc... the list would never stop, and there would be fights over whether to include him in the Sith Lords (or even original Jedi Order) category, whether the include him in the Polis Massa category, etc. Basically I think it would be a huge disruption and we wouldn't be getting anything useful out of it, sorry NovaHawk 23:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Questions for @Soupperson1::
    1. How do we define such categories? Do we create a master list?
    2. How do we deal with categories that could cause controversy? (any relating to sex, gender, race, etc.)
    3. What do we achieve by this?
    4. Does increasing it so every figure has 12 categories on reduce the use of the system as a way to find information?

On a note, in terms of use, a category like "minifigures released in 2012" including not just new minifigures but old ones as well would be more useful (although you could make them separate categories obviously) CJC95 (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose:
    Semi-agreed with George. Personally, I think such categories are very much encyclopaedic, however, they lack any real practicality for the site.LCF (talk!) 18:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Normally I would probably oppose right away, but I am reminded of BFN suggesting something similar as a way of us providing something which other LEGO reference sites don't. I think we would need strict guidelines, but I would be happy to entertain the idea. Berrybrick (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: With so many categories I actually believe this might hurt navigating through the wiki, plus agreeing with what NovaHawk and George said. Codyn329 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


Scrap ratings?

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was change as per 4th last comment

This is just sad. We have someone who spent hours making this article, then putting it up for nomination. In the 15 days since it was created, after the nominator going around to about 10 people's talk pages who knows how many on chat, we've had:

  • One person voting in support, even though they haven't read it
  • One person going all the way to the nomination page just to say they "don't care"
  • In response to being asked to check the nom on chat, one QCG member (whose absolute minimum duties are to review FA/GA nominations) said "nah lol", "tl;dr".

I'm not "blaming anyone" in particular, this is just a sad reflection of the general lack of caring/enthusiasm that this wiki seems to love. There were a couple of articles I had lined up to get to at least c2 status (writing them offline since I have limited internet at the moment). After seeing this, I just can't be bothered. But, back to the topic- is there a point in even having ratings anymore? If there are only two people who seem to be bothered looking at noms like this, there's no way an FA's going to reach +5, even GA's reaching +3 seems unlikely. So why have them at all? NovaHawk 23:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care for the rating system, so I kind of want to, but I don't really want to get rid of FA...maybe we could just elect someone to select FAs. If people don't care enough to be democratic, then it wouldn't be so terrible to change it so they leave a nomination and discuss it with someone who is elected. it's not something I would usually suggest, but it's better than the bureaucracy we have now. I have some time to look at it now, so I will, but I realize that shouldn't really be compensation.... Berrybrick (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we should just do majority rules for two weeks unless there's a discussion. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
I've been meaning to vote, but I want to read it first, and I've yet to find time to read it without rushing it. (Then again, I'm not QCG :P) - Anyway, for the rating system in general, I'm sure I've advocated removing nearly all ratings many times - FA is enough, and even then, having fixed rates and special groups just seem like too much hassle. Berry's idea could work, although puts more pressure on that one person. Perhaps just a general majority? CJC95 (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
CJC might be on to something here. I always liked the rating system, but I don't think we have enough of a community here to use it. :( Ajraddatz (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything said above. Just some ideas for simplifying:
  • Have three ratings: FA, complete (currently C1 and C2) and nothing (currently C3/4/5. Nothing=no icon at the top of the page, and is the default rating. Saves you from having "unrated" at the top of every page).
  • Majority rules vote on FA's, but still keep the technical check in place- featuring content on the main page which has typos or whatever is a bad idea.
  • Leave c2 as is, but officially rename back to "complete". I know some above are saying get rid of everything except FA, but I still think complete is a good idea- the reason it was introduced in the first place was to let a reader know that the article is up to date and covers everything relevant about the topic
  • Scrap the QCG, and give the rights to change ratings to admins. With only two real ratings, and one of those ratings requiring a vote, I'm sure admins can handle this. No admins would be "obligated" to do QCG stuff, they'd just have the ability to do so (I'm sure one or two admins would do this stuff anyway).
? :S NovaHawk 03:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
https://media.giphy.com/media/a6Ki6lSz5M2Y0/giphy.gif CJC95 (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Berrybrick (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'd like to keep ratings. They actually give me a reason to edit half the articles I come across, because frankly, I wouldn't give a damn otherwise. I see some class 4 or class 3 articles, I try to improve them. Without any ratings, I would just overlook them. Nothing tells me that they're almost incomplete articles. LCF (talk!) 18:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


Countries

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was do not have

I did a nationalities thing ages ago (that involved speculation) but here's a somewhat different idea. Country pages! Here's an example for Ireland, besides the stuff included on that page we could add a list of LEGO stores, sets based in that country. Thoughts? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

I like the LEGO stores and Irish culture section. I'm not too sure about the minifigures and real people, but maybe. Berrybrick (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, personally I'm not really seeing how this benefits the site- seeing a list of LEGO Stores by country is as easy as going to Category:LEGO Stores by location (eg, Category:LEGO Stores in the United States). As for minifigures by country, that goes into the "two degrees of separation" for me- nationality -> character -> minifigure, when notes and info like that in my mind should pertain directly to the minifigure, not the character that the minifigure is based on. NovaHawk 06:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I think people (particularly children) would like to see country pages.They could be like look; Aurora, Harry Potter and The Queen in Cars ect. are british! Ooh the detective and royal guard where based off British culture! I never knew 41060 Aurora's Royal Bedroom, (insert every Harry Potter set), Big Ben Ect. we're set in Britian!. Even if they googled what LEGO characters are Irish we'd come up. The Scooby Doo wikia, Disney wikia and even Brickset have country pages and the pages are supposedly popular. I don't see how if we had country pages would hurt the site, they'd be as popular if not more then our voice actor pages. It will be something we'll have but brikia won't, even if we get one user out of the pages it'll make a difference. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
This would definitely be different, and is not something that I might have supported a long time ago. However... I think Soup kind of won me over on this one. These pages give us the opportunity to create some genuinely interesting content, and I can see a lot of people reading it out of curiosity, perhaps even sharing it or referencing it on other sites ("Brickipedia Article Showcases Scottish Prejudice by The LEGO Group" or something). I'd kind of see it as similar to List of references to LEGO in media. Instead of appealing to those who are curious of how the media references LEGO, though, this one would appeal to people who are curious how LEGO treats their nationality/country. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Personally I think this is more effort than it is worth. There are many country pages that would never get edited because nobody would ever know that there's content worth editing on them. Outside of first world and your home countries, I can't imagine anyone editing articles for a random other country, because I doubt anyone in this community stays in-touch with LEGO-related culture and activities in other countries. And when I say "other countries" I don't mean USA, UK, Germany, etc. I mean ones that you don't hear a ton of news coming out of but there is still a LEGO culture there. Brasil, Peru, Chile, Poland, Thailand, Malaysia, etc. Basically I just imagine this would end up being rather biased to first world countries that we already bias towards, and any culture and activities in other countries would be overlooked and neglected in our articles. --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Poland is first world :P Honestly there's not much point creating the majority of third world countries because LEGO isn't sold in most of them and there's nothing based off them, when was the last time you saw any minifigure based off a third world country. As for the rest of the articles USA and UK will usually be the only articles that will need an upkeeping as there they have the most sets/figures based off them. It honestly won't require too much effort doing the rest as LEGO haven't been global until recent years, except from Adventures. If people are bias then we do what we always do to bias people. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
USA and UK will not usually be the only ones that need upkeep. LEGO has had a global market for FAR longer than you have been alive. Germany has a larger market for LEGO than the UK does, so there's one example. If you think those are LEGO's only strong markets, take a look here. That's just registered AFOL user groups. Then you take into account AFOLs only account for 5% of LEGO's market audience, and you've got even more global audience. I don't even know what you mean by "except from Adventures" and I don't know what you mean by "If people are bias then we do what we always do to bias people". --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Eh I know there's a global market, but how often do see minifigures based off Irish, Italian, Dutch, Finish, Canadian, or Korean culture? Or a store opening in any country besides US or UK? A store opening is rare and collectible minifigures, Adventures, PQ are the only themes really to deal with culture, so we won't need to upkeep the pages often. We ban bias people :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
There's far more to LEGO culture than minifigures.... --ToaMeiko (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. For one part, it would be a new interesting concept and would also help differentiate us from Wikia. But of course, there's not enough information for us to put in a page for every country. --Knight

Then we don't give every country a page :P Honestly it's not like there's many (if any) Jamican, Mali ect. readers or LEGO buyers in general Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
[citation needed] --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Vote

Have country pages
Do not have
  1. Per what I said above basically- I can't see it being useful. Plus, I get the feeling we'll get hit by a lot of conjecture. NovaHawk 00:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. ToaMeiko (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  • Not opposed per say, but what are the chances that this leads to more than one page being half created? :P CJC95 (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


Category structure for inventories

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was done

Because stuff is annoying me in Category:Star Wars minifigures (essentially every minifigure is listed twice- eg, Darth Vader is followed by Inventory:Darth Vader), I thought I'd propose a category structure for inventories, where inventories are separate from categories for other things which aren't inventories. Here's the proposed structure:

  • Category:Inventories
    • "Category:Set inventories" (note the lowercase "I", currently at Category:Set Inventories)
      • "Category:Star Wars set inventories"
      • "Category:Marvel set inventories", etc.
    • "Category:Minifigure inventories"
      • "Category:Star Wars minifigure inventories"
      • "Category:Marvel minifigure inventories", etc.
    • "Category:Combiner model inventories" (currently at Category:Combiner inventories)
      • "Category:BIONICLE combiner model inventories", etc.

  • Every inventory has only one category- "<theme> set/minifigure/combiner model inventories"
  • Every one of the third-level categories goes into two categories- for example "Star Wars minifigure inventories" goes into "Minifigure inventories" (as indicated) and "Category:Star Wars minifigures".
  • Every one of the second-level categories goes into two categories- for example "Set inventories" goes into "Inventories" (as indicated) and "Category:Sets"

? Basically it's pretty much the same as what we seem to have except for the inventories are grouped by a theme category of their own instead of using categories which have traditionally been used for mainspace articles NovaHawk 11:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I like this idea. Can we add a category for polybags too? It would go like "Category:Polybag inventories" and then "Category:<theme> polybag inventories". We could also apply the same category tree to reviews. Codyn329 (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Good idea! I did wonder if there was a better way to deal with that, but forgot to bring it up. -King of Nynrah (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Mabye this idea will get people writing inventories again! Thank you Nova for always coming up with great ideas! Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Sounds good. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

{{{content}}}


Reference photos

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was allow

Do we want/need to add reference photos on are articles? So far only the minecraft figures have them. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

  • I like the idea personally, but only if the image contains both the model/minifigure/whatever and the thing it's based on in the same picture. For example, for one of those Minecraft comparison pics, I thought one of them was actually LEGO, but it turned out it was an actual Minecraft person, so it's kinda misleading. Also, I'm not sure how we'd handle pages like Anakin Skywalker- we wouldn't want a gallery of 30 comparison pics (one for each variant) :S But I think it would be useful as well for future sets/minifigs that we don't have any images of, like sticking this in a gallery at the bottom of 75099 so people can see what the set will be based on, and also just for the sake of having an image on the page NovaHawk 02:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I always like seeing what a model (or figure) is based on. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
  • Yes. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Nova, but also, people should be careful of which images they choose. There can be some pretty frightening and gory stuff for some characters (Carnage comes to mind). Oh, and if characters like Luke or Batman are going to have 30 comparison shots, make a gallery subpage and have that as a heading, maybe? Just include shots of the figures in the same frame or side-by-side. Berrybrick (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We had a discussion about that a while back. I don't know if it ever happens, but yes. :P Berrybrick (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This would be quite useful, especially for future sets/minifigures, as Nova pointed out. Unlike Nova, I don't think it needs to be limited to images containing both the reference and the LEGO version, though. Not only would this basically eliminate the benefit for future sets/characters, but image descriptions should be clear enough to eliminate confusion. Gorey references are just common sense to avoid. For large numbers of references, a separate gallery/page like Soup suggested sounds good. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Has this not recieved enough yeses to be approved? Soupperson1 Jeepers!Runninh Gang.jpg


Colours

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Allow unofficial names

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! <3Friends girls.jpg

  • 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)
    • Yeah I was gonna say, there's something somewhere about colour pages being named the official LEGO names or whatever. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
  • I think it'd be fine to just say pink, grey, green etc on the page but link to their official LEGO names in the words. -King of Nynrah (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Vote

Use only official names in articles
  1. If we link why not? I know most of the official colour names it didn't take long to learn them either. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Allow unofficial names in articles (but still link to official names)
  1. To me, it just makes things easier to read. Maybe not for me, but for other people who haven't spent hours rearranging templates for LEGO colours NovaHawk 04:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    And by this, I don't mean replace it with a fan-based term that casual readers may not understand or think is a typo (like "bley"), I mean replace it with something everyone will understand (like "tan" instead of "Brick-Yellow") NovaHawk 04:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. ToaMeiko (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. CJC95 (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
  • Not really sure how I want to vote on this... Even "common" names such as "purple" could be confusing to a reader, especially with the numerous amounts of purple shades there are. Same thing for green, blue, and basically every other color... --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Why must we pick one? Or why can't we say "green" and link to "deep purple aqua green" or whatever these things are called? CJC95 (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what the second option means :P NovaHawk 23:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Third option? Kind of similar to two, but what about the writer uses either the official name (cool yellow) or a simple denom referring to it as a shade of a basic color (pale/light yellow, maybe even just yellow in some cases) but not something "flowery" (buttercup, lemon, etc.). Just leave it up to the writer whether the official or simple name is used. Make sure to link, and that should reduce confusion, I think, though with official names like Light Pink and Light Purple or Medium Lavender and Lavender it isn't ever going to go away entirely. Berrybrick (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I kinda like the direction you're headed with that idea... However, if I could derive your idea, I'd suggest to only allow the unofficial name if you've already listed the official name earlier in the paragraph, and if you refer to it again in the paragraph, it would be okay to refer to the "parent" color category. For example, if you're talking about a Flame Yellowish Orange part of a set, it'd be cool to refer to it later on in the same paragraph as just "orange". But I'd only really want to allow this under the circumstance that the official color name has already been used, because otherwise "orange" is vague and confusing. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't know...that might be confusing in itself, but I'm probably just overthinking it. :P I'd be okay with that idea. Berrybrick (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


People Pages: the people page section to end all people page sections

Please note- this discussion is closed, and will be written up and archived within 24 hours of 10:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC). The rest of the discussion can be found at Brickipedia:Featured_Forum/old.

  • We've had a few forums on this already, but nothing's getting decided. So I'll set up a forum with straight votes, and go through them step by step.

Section 1: Who to have articles on

The first thing is- what articles on real-life people should we have on the wiki? Feel free to add other sections for other types of people if you can think of any NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Certified Master Builders

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was allow
Support
  1. NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. --LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Have a list (but not individual pages)
Oppose
  1. I don't think they're involved enough in the LEGO group Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    Readers would be interested in this sort of thing, though, wouldn't they? Also, I don't see how they'd be less involved than voice actors. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Their whole lives revolve around working for LEGO, how much more involved can you get? :P NovaHawk 23:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  • If people want to make pages, I guess they could go ahead, but I think a list might be more suitable. Berrybrick (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Is this talking about Master Builders, or LEGO Certified Professionals? They're two very different things. "Certified Master Builder" isn't a title I'm familiar with. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Closing as passed if there are no more votes in 1 day. Otherwise this will never get resolved. NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Members of the LEGO Ambassador Program

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was do not have
Support
Have a list (but not individual pages)

# NovaHawk 23:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. Berrybrick (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. --LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. It's an official LEGO program, so having at least a single article that lists members of the program could be useful. LCF (talk!) 22:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. We don't need a page on Meiko. CJC95 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. I highly oppose this change as it's more work than necessary for no benefit. A LEGO ambassador is not a part of the LEGO Group and thus is not significant to Brickipedia's project scope. The list of LEGO Ambassadors changes yearly and in some cases more frequently than that, therefore it's highly unlikely we'll ever have an up to date, also given the fact that no up to date list is available to anyone except for LEGO's CEE team and the list of members on http://lan.lego.com which the list will change come 2016. Brickwiki at one point attempted to compile lists and as you can see that's nowhere near up to date and was often incomplete. What this would mean would be that I would have to go and manually copy and paste each ambassador's name (some of which use their real name, some have names on LAN such as "iainy73", so there would hardly be any consistency or sense in such list), put them all in a wiki formatted list or table, and update that every time an ambassador changes, which on its own is a ridiculously unreasonable task to complete since some ambassadors never even post in LAN and don't introduce themselves. Honestly there is no point in including such a list. I've tried to get a page on the Ambassador Program/Ambassador Network created for a while since that actually does pertain to our project scope as it's a part of the LEGO Group, but a list of members, many of whom have no significance to the LEGO Group at all, is just unnecessary. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. NovaHawk 11:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Latenightguy (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. The only page we need on a meiko is the singer meiko, okay maybe not. But Meiko is the one who should know about this stuff so I'm siding with him. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  6. Too hard to keep up with Codyn329 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments
  • Maybe as a list would be useful. I don't know about doing individual pages though. Berrybrick (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Added a new "have a list" section to each vote NovaHawk 23:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • General note- closed all those with unanimous support. NovaHawk 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Closing in 1 day as make a list (I think 75% is safe) NovaHawk 04:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please note- this section was originally archived, then Meiko came along and explained how it worked. If noone wants to change their votes, that's fine, just thought it should be brought up again due to the new info. NovaHawk 11:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Writers/Illustrators

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was those contracted to write original stories only

Including writers/artists of comic books, novels, reference material (visual dictionaries), etc.

Support

# NovaHawk 23:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Have only those contracted to write original stories

(see ToaMeiko's comment below for what this section means)

  1. Per my comment --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Berrybrick (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Latenightguy (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  5. Codyn329 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Have pages for those who write original, throw all others on a list
  1. CJC95 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. The more potentially useful/wanted information, the better. LCF (talk!) 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Maybe with a bullet-point list of their contributions underneath? Or not, don't mind either way really NovaHawk 03:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    So basically a combination of option 1 and 3? I could go along with that I suppose. Certainly voting for option 1 though, that's a must. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    I assumed the list would include their contributions somehow, or else what would be the point of it? CJC95 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. As per Novahawk and CJC, include why they're relevant in the list part. Stormbringer Empire791
Have a list (but not individual pages)
Oppose
Comments
  • Forgot about this one NovaHawk 23:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of them are just random authors that work for Scholastic to write a book that's the exact same story as the LEGO theme's TV series or something (especially Ninjago, Hero Factory, Chima, and other themes' books). I don't think we need pages for people like that. But for people writers like Greg Farshtey and illustrators like Stuart Sayger, yes. So basically only if the individual was contracted by the LEGO Group, not by Scholastic or DK or whatever. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Added a section. NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Composers

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was have

For people who write songs for LEGO productions.

Support
  1. NovaHawk 12:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. ToaMeiko (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Berrybrick (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Latenightguy (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. I guess? Songwriting credits can get long though - (at least) 6 people are credited for writing "Everything Is Awesome" for example. Unsigned comment by CJC95 (talk • contribs).
  6. Sure Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Have a list (but not individual pages)
  1. I think that it would be optimal to have a list, as while they make great contributions toward productions, there's not really enough to say about them. Maybe an in-between choice like for the illustrators would be good.LCF (talk!) 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Codyn329 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Comments


Singers/Musicians

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was allow

For people who perform songs for LEGO productions.

Support
  1. NovaHawk 12:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. ToaMeiko (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. CJC95 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Have a list (but not individual pages)
Oppose
Comments


LEGO Community Team

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was allow

While they aren't a part of LEGO's management and don't contribute directly to the products, LEGO's community team (also known as CEE) is arguably the most important department of the LEGO for its fans. CEE is responsible for the LEGO Ambassador Network, fan event support, convention support, LUG support, and interacting with in-person and online LEGO User Groups (such as Brickipedia). Should we have articles for regional community team leaders?

  • Keith Seversen - Community Team Manager (retiring as of 30 April 2015)
  • Kevin Hinkle - North and South America
  • Kim Thomsen - Western Europe and Online
  • Jan Beyer - Eastern Europe, Asia, Oceania (to become LEGO House Community leader in 2016)

Then there are some other parts of the community team that aren't part of CEE, such as Peter Espersen, who heads ReBrick and any other co-creation projects run by TLG, Tim Courtney, who is head of LEGO Ideas, etc.

Support
  1. ToaMeiko (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. NovaHawk 23:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Berrybrick (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Have a list (but not individual pages)
Oppose
Comments
  1. Neutral don't really see a need for them, would prefer a list, but not fully against having articles BrikkyyTalk 21:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    A list could be fine, but there's more than enough content for them to have full articles. For example, you can see the article I just wrote on Kevin Hinkle (which I only used a few sources for, so there's still information to be added). --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


Section 3: Anything else?

For anything else not covered in the MoS or what characters to have.

Ordering of items in {{ListOfWorks}}

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was chronologically
  • How should the works be ordered? By type, name or year of first release? NovaHawk 00:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Year of release could be good. It'd make it easier to follow a person's work over time, especially for senior set designers who have worked at the LEGO Group for many years. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Chronologically. CJC95 (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
... more about "Forum/Archive/2016/1"
Has parent pageThis property is a special property in this wiki.