Brickipedia
Brickipedia
avatar 46.118.153.31

Brickipedia:Forum

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki
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 archives for past discussions - 2014, 2015, 2016 (Jan - Feb, Mar - onwards).

For recent updates to the site and any policy changes, please see Brickipedia:Site updates.



Changes to appearances sections[edit]

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

This is just something that's been bugging me for a while, but never got around to proposing.

Appearances sections for minifigure pages with lots of variants and appearances

Appearances sections on many minifigure articles like the main Ninjago characters are getting left behind. I think part of this is because it's a long list, and there are little notes next to everything... it just looks a mess to me. I think it would be much better to group the appearances by each major variant- as it's really only new variants coming out, you can see right away what needs to be added, and it's also more useful if you want to see what set a specific variant appears in. There's an example here (as opposed to here- note that it's missing about 5 sets on the list). NovaHawk 00:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I think that it might be useful to indicate years (i.e. Trainee (2006 - 2007, 2009)) as well as variants. Even just one of those is probably a more sensible way a person will browse than by set number. I do wonder how well this would work for minifigures like Batman who have an absurd amount of one-offs and "New hat!" variants. Berrybrick (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Per Berry. LCF (talk!) 01:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
You mean years in the heading (eg, DX (2011-2012))? That'd be fine with me. @Batman- that's why I said "major" variant- eg, Cole's ghost airjitzu is grouped with his normal airjitzu, it just has (ghost) next to it, you could do the same thing with the different-shaped cowls. I get what you mean for one-off suits, though I still think it'd be slightly better this way overall :S NovaHawk 03:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I like the new layout, but Friends has unique (throwing a random leg piece and torso together) variations for each set. So that'll look messy regardless Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Just had a look at all the variants/appearances on Emma, and yeah it'd be pretty pointless on Friends since nearly every set would have its own heading :S I don't think there needs to be a fixed rule for when to use this formatting, just more of a "use when it makes sense to use it"-type thing NovaHawk 03:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess it could apply to most themes par City, Creator and Friends. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

"Mentions, depictions and portrayals" section

I've had a problem with the appearances section ever since it came out, and wasn't sure how to fix it. Take Lloyd- his kimono suit comes as a physical minifigure in 5002816 LEGO Ninjago: Character Encyclopedia. Technically, at the moment this should be listed under "Book appearances", along with novels and other encyclopedia which just mention him or have a picture of him. There's no real way we have to indicate whether a minifigure actually appears or is just mentioned. I think the way to fix this might be to have a subsection of appearances just for video games, books, etc. It'd look something like:

==Appearances==
* [[9443 Rattlecopter]] {{C|ZX}}
* [[9457 Fangpyre Wrecking Ball]] {{C|ZX}}
* [[5002816 LEGO Ninjago: Character Encyclopedia]] {{C|Kimono}}
===Gear appearances===
;Key chains
* [[850442 Lloyd ZX Key Chain]]
;Clocks
* Lloyd clock
===Mentions and portrayals===
;Video games
* ''[[LEGO Ninjago - The Final Battle]]''
;Television
* ''[[Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu]]''
** Season 1
*** "[[Rise of the Snakes]]"
;Books
* [[5002816 LEGO Ninjago: Character Encyclopedia]]

Note I've also got a "gear appearances" section for things which physically appear as Lloyd, but aren't 100% a minifigure. Also, the character encyclopedia appears twice because he both appears as a physical minifigure and is pictured/mentioned in the book. NovaHawk 00:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This makes sense, but I'm not sure about the name. I think its "mentions" which gets me, and then aren't portrayals and depictions the same thing? I'd just pick either of those, personally. I'm just nitpicking your brilliance though. :P Berrybrick (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I meant to say I had no idea what to name it :D And yes, they're the same, I won't take you through the crazy process I went through to have both there :P Removed one of them, if you like the other feel free to change it NovaHawk 00:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that our current handling of "mentions and portrayals" is sufficient. Lloyd appears in the book, yes, but shouldn't it already be clear that there is a section for his physical appearances? Perhaps the "appearances" section should be renamed to "Set appearances" or "Physical appearances"? I believe that the problem would lie more with the generic nature of the lone word "Appearances", not the other way around. LCF (talk!) 01:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Well the book sections are bound to be incomplete :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Looks good, organized and nice instead of jumbled up - good idea you brought up! I didn't think of this and it'll help make articles better :) @Berry: I'm fine with "mentions" personally - the only synonyms I could find/come up with were either too long or too complex - "acknowledgements", "utterances", "recognitions" - while "mentions" is short and sweet. :P Also expanding on LCF's suggestion (or maybe I'm repeating, I don't know) - I personally think this structure would be better since it's less repetitive:
==Appearances==
===Sets===
===Gears===
===Mentions & portrayals===

The reader already recognizes the top section is about appearances, so you can just say the prefix without the "appearances" suffix as it's already defined.

SamanthaNguyen (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not that I don't like the word "mentions" but that I'm not sure that listing where a character is mentioned in a section called "appearances" makes much sense. I can see that that was totally unclear though. :P Berrybrick (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Anything come of this discussion? CJC95 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just need some clarification on the bottom section before I take this away and write it up- should we have a "sets" subheader as suggested by Sam or just have sets directy under appearances as is currently done? (totally agree about removing the redundant "appearances" though, if anyone has any objection to that please say so below) NovaHawk 04:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Reevaluating "subtheme"[edit]

Also, "supertheme" and "toyline".

I am not sure in what official capacity the term "subtheme" has ever been used. In my experience, it has mostly shown up on fansites like Brickset and Bricklink where it is used for organization. I wouldn't be surprised to find the term in some official materials, like The LEGO Book, but I would expect that that would be more so because of the of the way that fans use the word. Essentially, Black Falcons was a revamp of the Castle theme, and that's what makes it a subtheme. "Black Knights is a Castle theme." Considering that the sub- prefix means "beneath" or "under", this makes sense. Castle, in turn, would be an "umbrella" or "supertheme" which also encompasses Royal Knights, WolfPack, and even, though we don't seem to consider it one for some reason, Nexo Knights. Though I don't know what our current organization is, under this reasoning, City would be a "subtheme" of the Town "supertheme". This will sometimes show up when themes which we probably would not call "super", like Adventurers or Alpha Team, get rebranded as "Jungle" or "Deep Sea". The original version of the theme (just plain Alpha Team) usually gets treated as the "supertheme" because it has nothing particularly special about it (Adventurers being an exception because of the clearly defined desert setting in its first year). This doesn't make much sense because, even if we haven't got a name for it, the first year of Alpha Team releases is as much of a subtheme as the second. In short, a subtheme is a variation on a theme.

As far as modern themes are concerned, we don't really do this any more from what I can tell though; we don't record an Outlands subtheme for Legends of Chima or a Rebooted one for Ninjago. The only place that we see subthemes now is with licensed themes. The Desolation of Smaug being a subtheme of The Hobbit theme. This doesn't always make a ton of sense though. I've noticed recently that Toy Story 3 is a subtheme of Toy Story. The equation seems to be that since the name of the first movie is the name of the franchise, then the sets based on that first movie are not sub to the franchise like the sets based on the other movie are.

The third point that I wanted to address is toylines, which we usually classify by the building elements they use. I think that this is should be more about what sort of product they are delivering. For example, Constraction is a building system, not a toyline, so we would classify BIONICLE, Galidor, etc. sets as part of an Action Figures, Constraction Figures, Ultrabuild, or whatever toyline. Collectable Minifigures would be one. I think that sets like 71241 Slimer Fun Pack should be considered part of a Dimensions, Video Games, or Toys to Life toyline with Ghostbusters as the theme. And Ideas would be handled a similar way, I think. Probably things like the new BrickHeadz, too, and maybe Mighty Micros and MicroFighters. Ninjago spinners and Chima speedorz would be toylines. Friends and Elves would be "Girlz only no boys allowed!!1!1". The question I guess is sort of how to go about this because if I would consider Ideas a toyline, then what toyline would "normal" sets like City and non-spinner Ninjago classify under? "Classic" or "what it's always been" I guess, unless we wanted to equate superthemes like Town, Castle, and Pirates to toylines, which might make sense.

So yeah, that's my overanalysis. Accept it or not, I think that we need to question what "theme" means. Because right now, it seems to have less to do with a rebrand or "new take on an old classic" and more to do with what kind of sets are being released under the same banner. And I think that leads to some messy organization. Admittedly, it's not usually too bad, but I think that we can do a lot better.

With what I am thinking this will, for example, join all Ghostbusters products from across the Ideas/Dimensions/Sets divide while still allowing it to remain part of those things.

Feel free to ask questions. I understand that my thinking isn't always so easy to follow, and even if you can, there are sure to be a lot of "what about thises and thatses?". I'll work on a more precise plan in the mean time. Berrybrick (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay I am not exactly sure what you are proposing. We could first do what Bricklink does and sort everything under whether its a set, book, video game etc. Having that additional category may be helpful. Then each theme could include sets, video games, clothing etc.
What comes to mind is allowing sets to have more than one theme, so the Dimensions pack would be in the Dimensions and the Ghostbusters themes. It solves the problem, but it makes sorting more confusing.
Maybe we should make a new category for things which span more than one theme/system.
  • LEGO Education (Dacta), at school a few years ago we had old TECHNIC Dacta. But looking at Bricklink, there is also Dacta which uses System, DUPLO and Jumbo Bricks.
  • Not just different systems, but themes also. There are Town, Castle and Creator sets that are still Dacta.
  • Dimensions and Ideas are the same. There are different themes under each of these "themes".
Maybe we should stop thinking of Education/Dacta, Ideas, Brickheadz and Dimensions as themes and instead as lines, like you said. So a set can still only be part of one theme, but can also be part of one of these additional categories.
You mentioned Speedorz, I don't understand what is wrong with having those under Chima, as on the boxes they say Chima Speedorz. The Town theme is long gone now, so really I suppose City sets actually replaced the Town theme. I need to think it through more, maybe draw up some diagrams showing all the different themes.
I don't know if that reply helps much, I'm not very good at collecting my thoughts together! Lachlan (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. :) I'm not proposing anything yet (I need to collect my thoughts), I just wanted to get people thinking about the way we categorized based on theme and toyline. I'm glad you seem to be. :P
  • I had forgotten all about Dacta. That would be classified a toyline, at least in my thinking. That way it can encompass different themes, but those themes could still have regular products. Sort of like Ghostbusters having sets in its own theme, Ideas, and Dimensions. Does that make sense?
  • Speedorz would still be under Chima. I'm thinking that the banner on set pages which currently goes like [{System -> Legends of Chima -> Speedorz}] would instead be more like [{Speedorz -> Legends of Chima -> {subtheme}]. We could keep thinking of them as a subtheme and it wouldn't be the end of the world (especially since only Chima gets them), but I suppose my thought there comes more from thinking that we ought to do something about subtheme coming to mean "special kinds of sets within regular theme" rather than "rebranded version of the theme".
  • On City/Town: Yeah, I'm not sure how clear I was, but the thing about Black Falcons was that that more or less replaced Castle, and then Black Falcons was in turn replaced by something else. We treat Castle, Space, and Pirates as superthemes and (almost) every new incarnation as a subtheme. By that logic, City would be a subtheme of the supertheme Town (or we could even call the supertheme City if people wanted to; though Town is more historical). Supertheming is a practice that, at least for those four themes, I like, but it has sort of started to teeter off with the way that people have started to think of subthemes.
  • I'd be happy to see what you come up with. I'm afraid that whatever we do though, it'll be a lot of work, but I think it will be worth it for a more organized site.
Berrybrick (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow. I was going to write something long on this months ago, but didn't for mine (and your) collective sanities. I haven't read this yet, but be prepared for a long thing on it. CJC95 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A couple of points:
  1. I had forgotten that City, at least, still has subthemes "officially" distinguished. Thanks.
  2. We shouldn't think of DUPLO as a theme. We don't with System or Constraction. I don't know what to do about TECHNIC though. :/
Berrybrick (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I have yet to read the whole thing, but so that I can quickly reply before this gets forgotten... I think we should think of DUPLO as a theme still. Most other sites, including LEGO.com, do, and we should be consistent with that. 96.51.149.32 01:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
If we want to imitate LEGO then I guess I haven't got a leg to stand on, but what I'm imagining (which hasn't been fully drawn up yet, but can best be seen in these notes) but considering DUPLO a theme would kind of compromise it. I guess that if there is really nothing better to put in the theme box DUPLO can go there--since that is probably what'll happen with TECHNIC anyway--but with the magic of wikilinks, it really won't be at the loss of any functionality or maneuverability. All of the articles which are linked to and from DUPLO now would be then. Searches and browsing will hardly change, and of the items which would be getting a status change, DUPLO is probably among those which will be effected the least. Berrybrick (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've put down some notes that might help you all understand what I am thinking. If you've got any questions or things you want to add, feel free to do it there or here. Just please make sure I see it. :P Berrybrick (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Well. That was long :P Not sure what to think about the toyline idea yet- "toyline" was intended to be what you call "system" in your notes when the set header was created, so this would be a whole other category. Put me down for a neutral for now, I probably need to reread it again :)
    • The whole subtheme thing started because the online LEGO Shop originally used to group stuff into subthemes, eg check the sidebar here. The whole Toy Story both being a supertheme for all Toy Story movies and a Toy Story 1 subtheme is probably a mistake on our part. Although for some reason I seem to remember that Cars and Toy Story used to have bars that went "Cars" for Cars 1 sets and "Cars > Cars 2" for Cars 2 sets. I could be wrong though. I'm pretty certain PoTC used to have a bar that went "Pirates of the Caribbean" for POTC 1-3 sets and "Pirates of the Caribbean > Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" for the 4th though. Spider-Man on the other hand did seem to group them separately- Spider-Man was one theme, Spider-Man 2 was another. So that was definitely our mistake. Now I think of it, POTC/Toy Story/Cars may have been listed the same was as Spider-Man was and we handled it badly NovaHawk 01:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I would have dropped that bit about sequel nesting had I thought ahead more. :P It's not a big deal. We don't have to do anything about it right now. And @Toylines, I guess that I saw the term used in a different capacity yesterday and sort of ran with it.... Anyway, thanks for the correction about where subthemes come from. I guess I just didn't expect that they would be so thoroughly added retroactively. Part of my text wall was that we don't seem to identify subthemes by the same conventions anymore, and I would sort of like to get back to that, which is why I was distinguishing toylines (and hopefully not making it more confusing by making them something new :P). I hope that makes a reread easier. :P Berrybrick (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the level of organisation we can achieve depends on whether you want to keep the theme names "official". Looking at the Toy Story sets, all the boxes say Disney on them, so this is how I would organise it:

Nowhere on the Toy Story 3 box does it imply that Toy Story 3 is a subtheme of Toy Story (although after reading the text above maybe the LEGO website did).

I may be taking this a bit too seriously, but being a wiki admin for four years now makes me want to categorise everything correctly. So this is my suggestion for better organising of sets:-

  • What it is - Set, videogame, boardgame, t-shirt, pen etc etc.
    • System of construction (for the items above that include bricks) - System, TECHNIC, DUPLO, QUATRO, Modulex, Jumbo Bricks, Galidor, Scala - one only per set (these are all different methods of construction, correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK in every set the majority of bricks belong to one of these)
  • Theme - so Disney > Toy Story - only one final theme per set (maybe not assigning a theme to every set might help organisation for generic DUPLO and TECHNIC sets)
  • Toyline (or whatever you want to call it) - Dacta, BrickHeadz, Collectable Minifigures, Ideas, Dimensions etc - Not related to theme, a set can belong to one of these as well as a theme.

I know this will require a lot of work to re-categorise sets, but if we want the system to make more sense then that might be inevitable. Please consider this, I will now find some examples for this. Lachlan (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


So, here we are. I'm going to use subheadings.

Themes
  • What is a theme? Is it a general term for a grouping of thematically related sets? Sometimes we use it as such, but I think the best thing to go by is either a) what LEGO say or b) how LEGO brand it. So Airport is a no, for example. That was just made because its nice for a database to group Airplane related sets together.
  • "So a set can still only be part of one theme," Disagree. Some sets get redefined themes midway through their existence, especially those in the "box of bricks" sort of category, when LEGO decides to rebrand it every couple of years, but still have the old sets to sell :P
Subthemes
  • I agree that we only use subtheme because Brickset/Bricklink/etc do. Because, lets be honest, when I made pages at least, I just copied the information from them...
  • The issue with subthemes comes from this unofficialness. I was going to bring this months ago, but we use them as umbrella terms, like Berry says. The only reason we call those 80s Castle lines subthemes is because they are Castle based. So why not Nexo Knights? I don't know.
  • "we don't record an Outlands subtheme for Legends of Chima or a Rebooted one for Ninjago". This is literally only because we make the pages before we know they are "subthemes". If we were making them 10 years done the line we probably would :P
  • "DUPLO and City list all their subthemes on their websites, otherwise things are in fact pretty vague for unlicensed themes." DUPLO has themes, not subthemes (although its confusing as they also have apparently themeless sets...). For what its worth, City website doesn't actually call them subthemes either.
  • "Although for some reason I seem to remember that Cars and Toy Story used to have bars that went "Cars" for Cars 1 sets and "Cars > Cars 2" for Cars 2 sets." It would say Cars for Cars 1 because Cars 1 was called Cars? :P Same with Toy Story
    • Well yeah, I guess now you say it Cars > Cars would look a bit weird. Guess we should have picked up on that and had "Toy Story" and "Toy Story (subtheme)" NovaHawk 00:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Toylines
  • These are a historical relic here.
  • They were nominally to divide system based sets and duplo based sets. Even in the 90s boxes said System on them and stuff. But that doesn't mean its a linear thing. Lines are blurred. Is Architecture a system theme because its using system bricks? Or is it not because they are clearly different styles of set from the sets that used to say "System" on them.
  • Berry raises an interesting point about "action figures" and "toys to life" and stuff. I'm not sure my thoughts on it.
  • "Okay I am not exactly sure what you are proposing. We could first do what Bricklink does and sort everything under whether its a set, book, video game etc. Having that additional category may be helpful. Then each theme could include sets, video games, clothing etc." This to an extent happens already. Its just instead of "sets" we are using System/DUPLO/TECHNIC/whatever for sets.
  • Education sets confuse things even more...
Lachlan's idea at the bottom
  • The perils of writing this as I read them is that I didn't see this until I wrote all that stuff above.
  • Anyway, I'm interested in it. May I suggest we look at some sets (at random) to work out how they'd get classified, to ensure that this idea will work fully?

CJC95 (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Another problem I have just noticed is that the early sets from the Bob the Builder theme are "Explore" sets, and the later ones are not, meaning the Bob the Builder theme actually has sets in two different themes, if that makes sense.Lachlan (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • According to the page, Explore was formed by merging DUPLO and Baby, and lasted two years, before it went back to being DUPLO. CJC95 (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hm, how should I format this?

@Lachlan (post 2): This is very close to what I was thinking. Except "What it is" is what I was calling a Toyline. So my hierarchy would go like this:
  • Toyline or What it is - "Gear" or "Miscellaneous" being used to lump together things like pens and T-shirts, though if we wanted those to be their own thing, I guess now would be the time to do it.
  • System of Construction - Thanks for that term; the parts it is made from, being System, TECHNIC, DUPLO, CCBS, or whatever. I should note that I don't envision this appearing on the banner because DUPLO, TECHNIC, and a lot of minor Systems are also what we could call themes or toylines.
  • Theme
  • Subtheme
If there is a supertheme applicable (like Castle to Black Falcons) that would be the theme, but I suppose the confusing thing is that you can get "more sub" and have a subtheme of a subtheme because subthemes and superthemes are themes; they are just sub- or super-. With that in mind, I don't think that there will be a problem of things being broken down too far. As an example, "DUPLO > Super Heroes > Marvel > Spider-Man" (again an example; I'm not suggesting that we divvy up the Super Heroes line like that right now).
I'm not too worried about working out the subtheme nesting right now. Grouping all of the Disney sets (except Marvel and Star Wars, probably) under a Disney supertheme wouldn't be a bad idea though.
@CJC (14:41): I think we are on the same page, but you explain what is wrong with the system much more clearly than I did. Thanks.
@Lachlan (16:08): There are a couple of ways I can see to solve that using Toyline > Theme > Subtheme
  • We could consider Explore and Baby themes which are part of the DUPLO toyline and Bob the Builder an Explore subtheme. When the set is part of Explore, it would go "DUPLO > Explore > Bob the Builder". When it isn't, it would go "DUPLO > Bob the Builder".
  • Alternatively, we could consider Explore and Baby toylines. Then, "Explore > Bob the Builder" or "DUPLO > Bob the Builder" depending on the set.
I thought CJC was saying that DUPLO was Baby and Explore. If Explore is Baby and DUPLO, then it should be a toyline.
That was what I was trying to get across with the piece about Ghostbusters where right now we consider the Ideas and Dimensions sets as separate from the ones in the main theme. The idea is that different sets which are considered part of the same theme don't all need to be broken down in the same boxes to be together; they just have to fit one group, the theme, and the rest can be Venn diagrams.

Berrybrick (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that (at least recently), those issues haven't been a problem on say, DC Super Heroes - The system, duplo and juniors pages all have that as a theme atm. CJC95 (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I kind of have an issue with the Juniors pages because they consider DC a subtheme of Juniors when it isn't - at least not in the same way Black Falcons is a Castle subtheme - but the DUPLO and System ones are very similar to what I'm pushing for. Berrybrick (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick reply to Berrybrick as its getting late here, If people agree then I am happy to work on creating a Disney "supertheme". That eliminates the Toy Story and Toy Story 3 problem. Although I didn't realise that Marvel was owned by Disney, and Star Wars has sub-themes itself so it could get messy. But I think it would be better personally. 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Would Star Wars come under Disney? If so, what about sets from before the Disney purchase? CJC95 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
There is already Disney. You could just turn that page into the supertheme. The history section nearly covers everything already, and I'd be happy to expand that a bit if you don't want to. I don't think that Star Wars and Marvel should be a part of it though because it's more about franchise than ownership, I think. The Disney stuff sort of crosses over with itself with things like the CMFs and Princesses (especially with Ariel in both) whilst Marvel and Star Wars stay self contained. Also, would want to include Pirates of the Caribbean, Prince of Persia, and Lone Ranger or keep it to animated stuff? And what about Disney Princesses and all of those DUPLO shows? I'd say include, though maybe group the DUPLO shows into a Disney Junior subtheme? I don't know. Berrybrick (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Besides the TECHNIC/DUPLO thing we have now, what Brickset groups as miscelanious here is mostly what I am talking about as a toyline, plus some other things like Juniors and probably most of the "vintage themes", "pre-school", and "technical"...I guess that most of the confusing stuff like Architecture, Creator, and Bulk Bricks could just stay under System. There really isn't a problem with that now. \_O_/ Berrybrick (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think whoever had the Toyline > System of Construction > Theme > Subtheme is on the right track (I can't tell who's writing what in some areas). Plus it seems to be pretty much what we have but with an extra parameter so would be easier to change over. Not sure how I feel about Disney being a supertheme, I think it should be just for Disney stuff that doesn't already have a theme and stick Disney in the "related themes" field. Plus I like having Cars and Cars 2- that's how they were assigned officially and I think shorter lists make it easier to read. I think there was a suggestion above to scrap all subthemes- strongly against this. Firstly many of these were officially assigned, why not use them? But then there's ease of navigation to consider- say you were a casual reader looking for a Star Wars set, you didn't know what the set was called but you knew what movie it was from. Would you rather go through a list of 500+ sets in Category:Star Wars sets, but a list of 10-80 by looking at the subtheme category? @Berrybrick- I know what you mean about Juniors and Friends/DC/Marvel being treated as subthemes, that's an awkward one (I don't have any ideas on what to do) NovaHawk 00:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I've decided that Cars/Cars 2 doesn't really bother me. Sometimes you organize documents on a computer like that, so it's not a big deal. It might actually be confusing to do it any other way (aside from making Disney a supertheme, but I'm with you that I personally prefer that being separate, but that's only personally). I don't think there was a suggestion to scrap subthemes (aside from maybe things like Airport; CJC would have to comment on that), though I can see where you'd get that, it was more that our of idea of a subtheme has changed and become a bit inconsistent over the years and that we aren't using them to their full advantage because of it. But if I did happen to miss a petition to scrap them--again, I agree with you. I go through that process all the time. :P As for Juniors, my solution is to expand our definition of toyline to include things like Juniors because it's a line of toys that includes Friends and SH themed sets. :P So the banner would go Juniors (System) -> Friends, or something like that. CJC seemed a bit iffy on that idea. I'd like your input too. Berrybrick (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with subthemes (just not ones that don't exist :P). I don't think I'm iffy on that, but I really can't remember. CJC95 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that- Juniors is technically System, but it's being marketed as a bridge between Duplo and System so I guess it's fine to have it in the system of construction section NovaHawk 10:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Template:Theme gallery[edit]

I think we can all agree the majority of us are pretty lazy and if we're not going to edit why not make the site do it? :P In all seriousness even when we had editors other than Nova, those minifigure galleries were pains in the buts. So I have questions for you tech people. You see on http://en.brickimedia.org/wiki/Friends#Mini-dolls_2 there's a .further results button at the top of the theme gallery, how to we display part 2? Also is it possible to split it up into animals, non physical by the other templates we have? And lastly is it possible to make a set version or is that too harsh on the server? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

(I usually just remove galleries like that. They add video-game characters that shouldn't supposed to be there and the spacing is weird.) Berrybrick (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
That's why I asked could we do one without the video game characters. :P What's wrong with the spacing and could we fix it? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
That template is designed to grab the first 100 results only. I could bump that limit up to 500 if needed. However, a gallery of minifigures is now against the theme MoS anyway and shouldn't be there in the first place. NovaHawk 23:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Automate redirect creation again[edit]

Back in the day, NXT's bot used to create redirects automatically. I am preposing that we do that again with someone like MeikoBot or CJCbot.

Support[edit]

  1. LegoFan4000 talk 21:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Sounds good to me. LCF (talk!) 21:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • I think NXT's bot did it en masse once. I don't remember it being automatic. Anyway, a couple of questions:
  • Would CJC/Meiko/anyone be able to do it at all?
  • There were a couple (hundred?) extra redirects created last time; it would be nice if we could somehow keep it from happening to those particular pages again.
Berrybrick (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
My bot wouldn't. CJC95 (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It's one thing to actually want to do this, it's another to actually get a bot for it to happen. It's like voting that we should no longer have any bugs NovaHawk 00:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I second that vote. No more bugs I say. CJC95 (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll take a stroll through memory lane and hopefully get better at writing Python, and maybe one day I can write a bot that's not only functional but can actually do stuff like this. :P SamanthaNguyen (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually, it seems Pywikibot now supports Python 3, so I might be able to look at it too. I gave up before with it as it only used Python 2 and I couldn't be bothered to deal with the syntax differences :P CJC95 (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Archival stuff[edit]

So, I know the old AFD stuff and the old Forum stuff was all deleted for being unused, but I'm wondering whether we want to keep them or not. I ask because we keep some stuff for archival purposes, but not this, and we should either have a precedent or not. CJC95 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I was actually looking for some old forum stuff the other day, but since they were deleted I couldn't find any. I think that archiving old forums would be useful, as well as AFD. LCF (talk!) 00:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Archives sound good, and consistency is always good as well. SamanthaNguyen (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. It would be nice if we could restore the old forums which were delete too. Ed was looking for them today, and I had gone through them to find something just a couple of days before they were deleted. Berrybrick (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Done, I think. Let me know if missing anything. CJC95 (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

22 push up challenge[edit]

Hey I was wondering if you all could take a picture of a minifigure doing a push up? I will then put them in a collage and it will be our entry for the 22 push up challenge. Raises awareness for charity (https://www.22kill.com/22-honor-pushups/) and the site! Please add your name to the list with what theme you can do, ideally one that hasn't been picked.

22PushUpFriends.jpg

Ideally something like this, a figure doing push ups with other figures of the same theme cheering them on with a set(s) of that theme in the back. If the last two aren't applicable just do a figure in a push up position Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

(Any chance someone with a babyfig could do one? :D) NovaHawk 06:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Can't tell whether or not serious :P (at this size they'd basically be planking haha) SamanthaNguyen (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Whoa, I'll do that :D Berrybrick (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Baby figs, Mini dolls and BIONICLE figures! <3 Anyone know anyone with Fabuland, DUPLO, Scala or Clickits or Gladior figures? :O Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Jack mentioned having Fabuland and Scala. Albus has Gorm. My brother used to have some of those Knights Kingdom figures, too, but I don't want to go through the hassle of rebuilding them. :P Berrybrick (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Aye, I have like two Fabuland figures, two Scala figures and maybe even some DUPLO ones (but frankly I've no idea where they are, so, uh, yeah). --Jack Phoenix (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I have four Fabuland figures if you want a Fabuland photo. I know I've done the Doctor Who one, but... Clone gunner commander jedi talk 22:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Will you accept minifigures with parts from OTHER minifigures? --cpplayer90210 #brickseperatorz 18:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure I guess, but do you not have one set with more than one figure? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Yes, I do. They're two Minecraft sets. --cpplayer90210 #brickseperatorz 21:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is mine. http://meta.brickimedia.org/wiki/File:KnightsKingdomIIPushups.JPG --Albus Potter (talk)
Done :P BrikkyyTalk 23:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't realsied someone already did Minecraft, but regardless I've added mine. Lachlan (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow up on user profile[edit]

So, to follow up on our custom profiles, do we want to let admins (or functionaries) have access to Special:EditProfile? Currently its only available to sysadmins, but it may be useful to remove stuff like http://en.brickimedia.org/wiki/User:Chickenx4 - while that was added before the customs were set, it now seems a bit inappropriate to have "favourite theme: sex and nudity" :P CJC95 (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Yep, I don't see our admins causing any harm. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  2. LegoFan4000 talk 20:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. This went unnoticed for a while, so I think it would be a good idea for this to be manageable. LCF (talk!) 21:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. I think it makes a bit more sense as a right for functionary, but I won't be too bothered if it is given to admins. Berrybrick (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Sysop access seems OK. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Support for functionary, oppose for admin. The question you have to ask it- can you trust every admin with knowing everyone's email address- not just every current admin, but every admin we've ever had (because we're bound to have future admins). I know I can't. NovaHawk 09:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. At the time this was made, LegoFan4000 was still an admin and I had trust issues with him, which is why I didn't vote. Like what NovaHawk said, I can't guarantee either that I can trust every future admin to have access to a community member's email address. SamanthaNguyen (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Admins would be good. I don't see any reason to limit it to functionaries. LegoFan4000 talk 21:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wasn't the catch that this would reveal email addresses to admins? Which, I guess isn't that big of a deal, but is there anything we should know before voting? Berrybrick (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • One thing I do want to note is that perhaps the functionaries shouldn't have access to everything, only the things that are public (email shows up in there). No idea how that would work, but it seems like a much more safe way to go about it rather than unrestricted access. LCF (talk!) 21:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, Special:EditProfile allows privileged users to see the target user's email address. I don't think it's a huge issue, as I for one trust our admins to follow the relevant policies and to use common sense in handling non-public information. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So, I was rather vague and suggested either admin or functionary, before the vote started. So, um..are people supporting for admin or just functionary? :P CJC95 (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not even sure why the functionary group exists, so I support giving it to regular admins. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I suppose it's a way to emulate the bureaucrat user right from Wikia. LCF (talk!) 20:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
      • It is checkuser plus some other rights that I can't remember. I think stuff like suppressing stuff from admins. Basically, the rarely used stuff. CJC95 (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm voting for just functionary. LCF (talk!) 20:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Post blogs as news?[edit]

Meiko said on chat: "User blog:Berrybrick/What's wrong with Orient Expedition? + User blog:Soupperson1/A mini-doll rant by a mini-doll fan is the kind of stuff we should promote more often to bring people to the site. People like opinion articles whether they agree with them or not because it incites them to either agree with you or disagree with you (e.g. activity!)" I agree with him and at least Berry's is well written. :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Meiko is right. A couple of things:
  • We did discuss the possibility of publishing editorials through Brickipedia News before. Either of those blogs could probably work there. I'd still choose to publish mine separately though, because some of them have a moralizing element (it might be small in these ones, but there are a couple of ideas I have which might be a bit larger) and I don't think that a LEGO news source ought to be doing that. Disclaimers are a thing for a reason though.
  • In the main page section above, I almost suggested a list of recent blogs to replace the recent forums. That wouldn't be enough promotion, but here I am suggesting it now
  • Creating a user blog isn't as intuitive here as it was at wikia. That would have to change if we want to promote people writing.
  • I'll probably comment again later when I have more speed, but some things to consider: Should this be a part of the "news"? If so who can publish "news" blogs? If not, what outlets? What gets Tweeted? What gets featured? Who decides these things? Berrybrick (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The person tweeting decides what get tweeted. CJC95 (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Per ^ I imagine all your blogs are good enough to be featured. Mine not so much, though I don't think that mini doll one is half bad. :P Nova has also had a few good ones, even promoting the missing Star Wars stuff one could be worthwhile. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • Opinion/discussions blogs like Soup and Berry's should be featured on the main page. I'm a bit skeptical about whether or not they actually qualify as news, but they at least deserve to be featured. Like Berry said, writing blogs on here is not as intuitive as it was on Wikia, so perhaps this will "inspire" more people to write blogs. LCF (talk!) 20:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Useless vote since I know it's going to be one vs everyone, which is fine and I can see why people are for it :P But oppose. I'm a weird person, but I only like to see news when I go to a section that says news. This isn't news. I can't remember the last time I've seen actual news on Eurobricks' news feed, Brickset's not as bad but I'd say only about 30% is actual news. (@Soup: yeah don't feature that SW one, despite starting it about 6 years ago, I'll most likely just get accused of copying Brickset's series that says getting a 6th Y-wing remake will help fill in missing gaps in Episode IV) NovaHawk 22:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I actually agree. I don't know what the alternative looks like though. Berrybrick (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see why it needs to be in news to be promoted. Give it a section on the mainpage (Sam was talking about that on Chat) and tweet it and stuff, but I'd rather have a separate newsfeed to this feed. Not that I care enough to passionately argue - as long as I don't need to do anything, do what you like... CJC95 (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @CJC and Berrybrick- I could set something up very similar to Brickipedia News:Home that gets selected blogs and sticks them on a main page feed as well. SMW may have to be enabled for the user blog space (not sure if it's enabled) but the rest would be very easy. NovaHawk 08:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Restore the "Collectibles and Merchandise" portal[edit]

Portal:Collectibles and Merchandise was deleted per Forum:Portals about two years ago, however, this particular portal is linked to by over 500 articles. It's evident that this particular portal had its use, but since it was deleted per referendum I'm going to have to make a vote on it. Any objections? LCF (talk!) 00:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry, can't decide yet! I'm thinking about it. SamanthaNguyen (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • We don't have a portal namespace (and I don't see a need for one personally) but we at least need an article for this. Either that, or redirect it to a collectibles and merchandise category. NovaHawk 12:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirects cause lag[edit]

  • I've noticed for a while that moving a page seems to take forever and doesn't let any other pages in other tabs load, but I've since realised that it seems to be actually due to creating or modifying a redirect page- if you supress the redirect when moving the page it's instant. Anyone have any ideas why this has been happening in the past year or so and/or how to fix it? NovaHawk 02:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I had an idea but it doesn't seem to be right after some thinking; you should probably wait and see what Jack Phoenix says, she probably has a better explanation. Unsigned comment by SamanthaNguyen (talk • contribs). 02:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • (@Jack Phoenix:: please respond whenever you can, thanks :) ) Bump SamanthaNguyen (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
      • This behavior is indeed easily reproducible (or was the last time I looked into this, anyway) but I have no idea how to solve it, sorry. I guess the usual rant — "we need a more powerful server" — applies here, too. (I mean, sure, you can run MediaWiki even on 13 years old hardware, just don't expect it to be fast. There's quite a difference between "it runs" and "it runs smoothly".) --Jack Phoenix (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Mould variations / using Bricklink part numbers[edit]

Yes I know it's blurry, but it was taken using a phone.

I know this is probably very boring for most people but LEGO have changed the moulds used for bricks over time (see picture). On bricklink, the brick on the left is "3002old" and the brick on the right is 3002. Should there be seperate pages for these slightly different pieces, and if so should I use the bricklink naming scheme? I'm leaning towards having only one page with separate sections for mould variations.

What do you think?Lachlan (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • It'd be nice if they had different Element IDs so we could easily separate them as normal... I'd vote to keep them on the same page at least NovaHawk 08:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, keeping them on the same page makes sense IMO. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Per Nova & Jack CJC95 (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ^ because when someone looks "Part:3002" up, they'll see two Part:3002s, which'll cause #confusion. --DKIdeasBook-1.jpg cpplayer90210 #brickseperatorz 23:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Same page, having a different page doesn't seem to make sense. SamanthaNguyen (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd keep them on the same article. LCF (talk!) 23:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"Twin" minifigures[edit]

(continued from Talk:Kabuki Twin). This relates to pages that are about identical minifigures but are two separate entities (ie, twins). I think we only have three cases- Fred and George Weasley, the Skull Twins and the Kabuki Twins. NovaHawk 01:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Per my comment on the talk page, the other twins are actually distinguishable because they have different personalities, backgrounds, and actual different first names. So:
    • If the twins can be distinguished, have different pages.
    • If the twins can't be distinguished, have one page. SamanthaNguyen (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's my opinion, it may not make sense- I don't know why but I'm finding this strangely hard to explain :D
    • I don't see why we need to make a special exception here- all our other pages done in a singular form, just because they're twins, doesn't mean they should be treated as one entity as they're still two individuals.
    • There's the simple logistics of it- if the article is about two minifigures, how many should you say appear in the set? Kabuki Twins (two) could mean two groups of two. Then on the minifigure page for accessories- if you say the minifigure has two claws, does that mean two total (ie, one each) or two each?
    • In the case of the Skull Twins and Kabuki Twins who don't have a backgrounds or personalities distinctly different from each other, it makes no sense to have pages like "Kabuki Twin 1" and "Kabuki Twin 2" since they'd be completely identical. Fred and George are different since they do, and also have separate video game characters as well.
      • So why not use the plural on the "xxx Twins"? We're talking about minifigures here, not the characters, and apart from the background, the page should be "out of universe". Since neither of these are Siamese twins, we're getting two separate identical copies of a single minifigure, just like we get two identical unnamed Stormtrooper minifigures or whatever so I don't see why this case needs to be treated differently.
Again, sorry if that makes absolutely no sense :P Basically, per Sam. NovaHawk 02:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Eh....
  • Logistical stuff:
  • Concern about Appearance section is granted, though I don't think it is an insolvable problem. Perhaps indicating "both" instead of "two" would do it.
  • I don't think that the Accessories concern is very legitimate though. If Batman comes with one batarang in a set but two in another, what do we do? I don't think we have to spell it out so much. Just put down "Claws." Descriptors like quantity and especially color seem sort of arbitrary to me; there should be pictures (or at least links to relevant pages) which show exactly what they come with.
  • "Two separate identical copies of a single minifigure": I don't know if I can reply to this in any way which is meaningful because my brain goes to Platonism.... A lot of the Ninjago ghosts are the same minifigure but have different names across the sets, yet we still consider them separate even if they are functionally indistinguishable. Same thing with Fred and George.
  • Definitely agreed about the backgrounds being what would keep functionally identical twins on the same page; I'd agree to "Kabuki Twin" long before splitting them.
  • What I think I disagree about is the philosophy behind the out of universe policy, at least here. With backgrounds it makes a lot of sense to me, but I tend to think of minifigures (at least ones with story roles) as being avatars or icons of the characters they represent, retaining a portion of that identity, and then communicating it through their design.
  • This is why, I think, we allow the Ninjago Ghosts to have their own pages and why we do not have an article for every separate variant of every minifigure (aside from practicality, of course).
  • And then, and this is what I was trying to articulate on the talk page earlier, being a Twin is part of that integral identity for the Kabuki Twins. That is an essential part of who they are. Like, I probably would say that they are "one [inseparable] entity that is two individuals." Fred and George don't have that, and neither do the Stormtroopers. The Skull Twins may be a little different, for reasons noted on the article, so I could agree with the Stormtrooper analogy there, but it could probably go both ways. The Kabuki Twins are one indivisible character, but part of that character is being twofold; one personality, two bodies, perhaps.
Sorry if this makes no sense. It's possible that I have been reading too much about theology and obscure religious rites. <_> Berrybrick (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Samantha. Berry, I like where you're going. I agree with you to an extent, but like Nova said, the article is intended to be primarily about the minifigure, not the character. One thing I want to point out, somewhat unrelated - why are Fred and George Weasley relevant here? The Weasley twins are two people that are not functionally identical - they're two distinguishable (perhaps not visibly) people, unlike the Skull Twins and Kabuki Twins. LCF (talk!) 00:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Looks like everyone who wanted to vote had voted - are we good to go with my proposal since it looks like everyone else agreed? SamanthaNguyen (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarify on titling articles with the same name but of a different concept in the MoS[edit]

Brickipedia's Manual of Style (BP:MOS) currently doesn't have any clarification on titling a group of articles that have the same name, but are a still different concept (e.g Ferrari the theme, or Ferrari the company). What naming standard should we set for existing and future articles to follow? There's:

  • Naming the most common/major thing just the name with no parentheses: Ferrari, which would be a redirect from Ferrari (theme)
  • Every article created after that has a parentheses: Ferrari (company) for the company article
  • The disambiguation page for readers to use have (disambiguation) in the title: e.g Ferrari (disambiguation)

Or...

  • Every article has parentheses, and it's status of how common/major it doesn't matter: Ferrari (theme), Ferrari (company)
  • The disambiguation page doesn't have parentheses: Ferrari

SamanthaNguyen (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm going to go with option 2 (what is currently mos-compliant from my understanding - correct me if i'm wrong here. regardless of whether or not, i'm sticking with option 2). LCF (talk!) 22:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll go with option 1- it's pretty much what we do and have done in the past, and it makes more sense to me. Keep in mind if you do go with option 2, there will be a lot of articles pointlessly linking to disambiguation pages because of what we're already established in those individual cases- think about all the pages linking to articles like Batman, Spider-Man, Harry Potter and Marvel to name a few off the top of my head- there are around 2000 pages linking to those four articles alone (I don't know if that's directly, but there are definitely a good portion of them that do). @Nigma: Not sure what you mean about "currently mos-compliant" since it's not even in the MoS. These are the I guess the "current trends" of what does seem to happen with names:
    • Physical minifigures generally take precedence over obscure video game characters, eg, (Chen vs Chen (Indiana Jones))
    • Themes generally take precedence over minifigures, eg, Indiana Jones goes to the theme, not the minifigure.
      • The exception to this seems to be for minifigures which also appear in more modern themes, such as Batman and Spider-Man since they're minifigures in the current Super Heroes themes (as opposed to the links going to old discontinued themes)
    • There are also cases where the page link goes to a disambig page, for example X-wing and Woman, because there isn't any page going to be clearly more used.
Anyway, basically why I think option 1 is a better idea (even if we did have a bot that could clean up the thousands of links if we went with the second option) is that as far as I can see, there are two things that need to be considered here:
  1. Ease of a reader finding a page through searching - if someone enters "Marvel" into a search box, 99.5% of the time they're going to want to find out about the Marvel Super Heroes theme, not that Marvel is a comic book company. Why make them click an extra link for no reason? Even for cases like Batman, most people are going to be looking for the guy currently being sold in sets and the star of an upcoming movie, not for some discontinued theme from 10 years ago (some people searching may not have even been born when the theme came out). It's not like they can't find the other page(s) if they needed to, there should always be one of those ""Marvel redirects here. For other uses of the term, see Marvel (disambiguation)/For the company, see Marvel (company)" type messages at the top of the page.
  2. Ease of editors being able to link to a page - While I think the above is much more important, even something as simple as [[Batman]] vs [[Batman (minifigure)|Batman]] seems like an unnecessary amount of extra typing (especially if you're making multiple pages in a row).
I'm not actually sure if I'm even awake while I'm typing this, so I'm going to stop now in case it makes no sense :P NovaHawk 04:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll go with NovaHawk on this. SamanthaNguyen (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Per Nova. Berrybrick (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Per Nova, make it the case where the obvious option is the main page. CJC95 (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Main Page- let's actually do something about it?[edit]

  • There was talk of redoing the main page and some attempts made, but nothing actually ended up happening. Anyone want to take a shot at a redesign? I'm happy to help out (but not designing it myself). Also, content-wise: with all the *OTMs apart from BOTM being retired, there seems to be literally no point in having a Reviews or Fan space main page- could we delete them and have Featured x on the main main page too? I'd be ok with having the MOC gallery of poll on the main page if people want them there too. I also think we should remove the "recent forums" section- noone uses the forums NovaHawk 23:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not exactly comfortable designing it either (but maybe our resident designer is ;-) but I agree that we should do something about it. Being Captain Obvious, I should point out that Lachlan has been the current BOTM since August (according to the BOTM page)...if we're unable to choose a new user every month, maybe we should consider retiring BOTM, too?
Agreed on the reviews/fan space main page thing — one main page to rule them all, and that page is Main Page, which is fine and dandy.
Regarding "recent forums", this is where I'd beg to disagree. Sure, your point is entirely valid, but the way I see it, the problem isn't merely "nobody uses [the forums]" but rather, "why does nobody use them?". We had that discussion in July, and although people did make some good points in the discussion, just like with the whole "let's redesign the Main Page" discussion, nothing ever became of it. Wikis are a social effort — and unlike most wikis, Brickipedia has plenty of social tools installed, which I'd claim further supports the claim that we also care about the community aspect, not just the content (although it goes without saying that content is very important, too!). I think we really should investigate our whole forum situation and decide what to do with the various forums before removing forum stuff from the main page or whatnot. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough about the forums- I would much rather see them being used than us giving up on them, I just thought that sticking them on the main page didn't get activity then nothing will. If there's any possible way to get more activity going though, I'm all for it. There have been over 5000 views on the Star Wars 2016 thread- but that could just be spambots trying to post then finding out they can't because it's restricted to registered users NovaHawk 23:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I like how the main page looks now. I wonder if there is more we could add on how to join up / post here? Ajraddatz (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Increasing the default image size of Template:ThemeSet from 50px to 200px (or something else > 50px)[edit]

Template:ThemeSet is used internally by Template:ThemeTable, the main template used to generate theme tables like this one on the Western page. By default it generates images which are 50px in size, or simply put, too small to be useful to anyone. This results in the user basically having to go to the set's page to see a more useful image, which in turn leads to user frustration (as well as at least slightly increased load on the server due to "unnecessary" page loads).

I'd guess full HD (1920x1080px) is a rather common display resolution these days, in both computers — whether desktop or laptop — and in smartphones; exceptions exist, though, especially in the lower-end segment of smartphones. Whatever the case, I hope we all can agree on at least one thing: 50px sucks and we need to change it to something larger. I propose 200px, chosen by the scientifically valid* "it popped into my mind just like that" method, but I'm open to other suggestions if you have 'em.

A live demo of this proposal can be found at this subpage of mine, which is a copy of the set listing from the Western page.

* not actually scientifically valid

--Jack Phoenix (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Really? I'm using something a bit smaller (1366 x 768), although it'd be nice to have a 1920 x 1080 resolution. :P I like it, but maybe 150? SamanthaNguyen (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Even though the template breaks the page on most themes, for places it does work I agree the 50px we have is pretty useless and definitely support making it larger. I was going to say that there's a lot of scrolling there, but that's possibly just because the image for 5392 is so tall (maybe we could put a max height limit in there too? I forget how to do that but I know it's a thing) NovaHawk 12:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • We can do that with css (along with using the css parser function, {{#css:...}} :D) What we do is grab the base selector of Template:ThemeTable (which is .themetable), and then grab all the descendant elements thats an image (img), and use the max-height property. It'd look something like this:
{{#css:
.themetable img {
   max-height: 150px;
}
}}
(150px is an example value). Once the value for that is figured out, you just put that into the template. SamanthaNguyen (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Or just putting in 150x200px instead of 200px works too :D (looked it up, didn't have time before) NovaHawk 06:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Cool. CJC95 (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think Jack's version looks better LCF (talk!) 16:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Definitely in favor of increasing the size, but Jack's demo is comedically large on mobile. :P BrikkyyTalk 11:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC) while we're at it, I have a lot of issues with the mobile site, mainly relating to the menu bars. Is that just me?
    • Looks like Apple's iOS, right? Which version? (Not like it'll help, I don't have an iOS device of any kind nor access to one, but maybe some of our smarter people can figure out the situation...) What do you mean by your statement about menu issues? Menus not expanding at all when you tap on them? That's an intermittent JavaScript issue, which sometimes happens (regardless of your platform); refreshing the page fixes it pretty much always.
      I somewhat agree with your conclusion about the images on mobile devices, although I'd be inclined to blame the skin rather than the images — not being able to collapse/expand the sidebar on demand[sic] on mobile devices is problem, as there's less screen real estate than on a laptop (think about it, a 5-6" mobile device vs. 10-15" laptop screen vs. 27" desktop screen...). Given that the toggle to collapse/expand the sidebar already exists (for really small screens, ie. my mobile device in portrait mode, as opposed to in landscape mode), we could simply show it for all screen resolutions instead, which would then allow users to regain some precious screen space when viewing larger (=wider) pages, such as set listings. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • A related ticket (except for content sections @T143511), although I support the idea of collapsable sidebars for all resolutions, would require some rethinking some of the header interface though, because we'll need a button somewhere on there for opening and closing the sidebar menu. As for images on mobile devices (even though I feel like all the data in ThemeTables could be displayed in a better way visually (that's for another day)) I think that we could use a media screen query(@media screen) to define image sizes based on screen sizes. (See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Media_Queries/Using_media_queries for more information.) SamanthaNguyen (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it's iOS 8.3 (jailbroken, but I had these issues before jailbreaking). The "menu issue" I was referring to was more relating to the three bars on the side of the screen that are used to expand the sidebar. I can't think of a way to describe it right now, so just look at these screenshots :P BrikkyyTalk 06:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Juniors "subthemes"[edit]

How exactly should Juniors "subthemes" be handled? At the moment we just seem to be classifying sets by what theme they're based on and making that a pseudo-subtheme of Juniors on an article-by-article basis. LCF (talk!) 20:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Not sure, but I believe this goes in the 2nd section called "Reevaulating subtheme" (or something like that at least.) I'll keep thinking and then respond once I have my thoughts on it. :) SamanthaNguyen (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we sort of discussed it up there. I think the idea was to consider Juniors a toyline, and then things like Friends and Marvel would actually be the theme. Don't think I got much feedback on it other than "I guess that would be alright," though, and it was obviously never implemented (nor did I finish figuring out how all of that would be implemented). Berrybrick (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines on the background of comic book characters[edit]

I've noticed, especially in the Batman article, that his "background" section is not only a mess, but a pool of backgrounds on several different "Batmen" (Earth-One, New Earth, Prime Earth). It also makes references to Scooby-Doo Meets Batman. There is no real guideline specifying what exactly should be done regarding the character, given the fact that there are so many different (major: Earth-One, New Earth, Prime Earth) variations, covered or not by LEGO media. Since 76052 Batman Classic TV Series - Batcave includes the Silver Age, Earth-One (I believe) Batman, we should have a short description for that incarnation of Batman, one for the New Earth Batman, since the original Batman theme was released during its run and LEGO Batman: The Videogame's Batcomputer facts are based around the New Earth canon, and Prime Earth due to New 52 elements being used in the DC Comics Super Heroes line and games. It would be confusing, but it is much more factual than implying that the New Earth Batman and Prime Earth Ace the Bathound teamed up with Earth-One Mystery, Inc. to foil the Joker's plans. Or perhaps we should only have the LEGO media-only backgrounds for such characters. But regardless, a guideline will be necessary. LCF (talk!) 01:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Certainly needs some clarification; I'll contribute more here later. Scooby-Doo probably shouldn't be there. We haven't mentioned the team-up with Captain America, either, though I think that actually was some sort of New Earth canon. Berrybrick (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The Captain America team-up was part of the Earth-3839 canon, so that would not be relevant unless we wanted to add a bullet or two under the "Notes" section mentioning the Captain America and Mystery Inc. team-ups. LCF (talk!) 19:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought it existed some way in canon, even if its existence was erased at the end of the crossover because the Trinity series followed some plot points from one of the Marvel crossovers. But either way, those things probably shouldn't be there. Maybe the Scooby team-up would be relevant in the context of Dimensions, but otherwise I don't know. Anyway, here are some thoughts:
  • BP:NOT
  • I think it makes sense, in a lot of cases (i.e. Star Wars, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Ninjago) for characters to have some account of their character development. Comic characters are a little different though, because most of the really notable ones have very little permanent canon beyond their origin.
  • Even doing it in the context of "LEGO" probably won't work: We've got different Batmans between the sets, video games, DVD specials, magazines, and the cinematic movies.
  • If we had to pick one, I'd go with video games, at least primarily. They generally give most attention to the universe, I think.
  • Speaking of which, if the article is tremendously messy, we could split the page into "Batman" and "Batman (The LEGO Movie)." That might mean doing the same for Robin, Batgirl, Joker, Alfred, and everyone else too, but some sort of notability policy might help take care of that.
  • My thought is that, for sanity's sake, a background should explain the character's place in the larger world as far as it is stable. For Batman, that would be his origin, what he's about, relations to characters like the Robins/Batgirl/Alfred, the Justice League, Gotham City, and his Rogues Gallery. How detailed do you get though?
  • The issue is that this probably wouldn't make for a very good read. There might be some articles or websites we could find to get an idea of how to write like that, though.
  • And then, what do we do with the video game and movie versions? They probably shouldn't be the plot summaries that they are now; save those for the game/movie articles themselves.
So that's what I've got for now. Might have more thoughts later. Berrybrick (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
By "in the context of LEGO", I didn't mean the sets, as those do not have a real, larger story. I was thinking perhaps backgrounds in relation to the LEGO Batman series of games and related media, The LEGO Movie and derived media, The LEGO Batman Movie, the LEGO Justice League films and related media, and LEGO Dimensions. Each one of those five topics have their own version(s) of Batman that would need separate sections. Those would certainly be relevant to Brickipedia, as would be articles on the Dark Knight film series (all three films have at least one set), and the 1966 TV series, which is also directly identified as such (unlike most other sets, it's just "Batman" from Earth-God-Knows-What). I don't think that separating the articles per-theme would be such a great idea, though. Sure, our article on Batman has a section that is essentially the synopsis of all of the hero missions of LBTVG, but I don't think that would do very well as the plot for LBTVG either. It's already too long and detailed, and would need to be expanded further and also need to accommodate the other half of the game, 15 villain missions. That's a personal opinion, however; we don't have a guideline as to how long backgrounds must be and I don't think that's the main focus of this discussion anyway. LCF (talk!) 21:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
We have an objectivity issue on some articles, perhaps in part because of the way I used to write them. Articles don't need to be drowned in detail; that just makes things that are actually informative harder to pick out and causes the page to decay. We have this problem with descriptions too. The background I suggested, though it still has issues I would like to pound out, would tell people who he is without concerning itself with differences that are really quite arbitrary in all of those cases except for maybe The Dark Knight trilogy because of the way that series' world works (but I'd just ignore it; mention what it's based on in the description, and put an external link to where they can read about that and every other version, because BP:NOT). Batman is a very fluid character; trying to pin down all of these heads (by "earths") is not necessary. The only version I think needs to be covered in any considerable detail as "separate" from our generibat is the TLM/TLBM version(s), which is why I suggested splitting the article into "Batman" and "Batman (The LEGO Movie)"--and only those two(--though I'm not really for the idea either). As for transposing the stories to the the video game (or whatever) pages; of course it wouldn't be a copy and paste and shouldn't be that detailed, but anything on the Batman article needn't walk through every (or any?) scene. Also, though it is really just creating another head, the sets do have conflict and therefore elements of a story (albeit basic); yes, it would be chaff to write lines about that one time he saved an alien princess from an amusement park of doom, so let's not do it, but maybe it would be useful if the background could somehow explain how he knows this Joker guy whose face keeps showing up everywhere? Or how he knows these Robin and Flash people who keep showing up? Berrybrick (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Scooby meets Batman was referenced in a LEGO club comic Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
That should have probably been cited, not that we have very clear guidelines on what gets cited. Berrybrick (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I think there are people much better qualified to deal with this than me which is why I'm pretty much staying out of it. I guess my opinion is pretty much what Berrybrick said above:
"My thought is that, for sanity's sake, a background should explain the character's place in the larger world as far as it is stable. For Batman, that would be his origin, what he's about, relations to characters like the Robins/Batgirl/Alfred, the Justice League, Gotham City, and his Rogues Gallery."
Yes, there are multiple universes, but couldn't you just have one summary for all the bits they have in common? ie, "When he was a kid, Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered because they watched way too much opera. Bruce went away and trained for a while and came back as Batman. He hired Robin as his sidekick and they like to fight bad people with weird faces like the Joker." Plus maybe a small paragraph with a subheading each for the Nolanverse and DCEU universes if deemed necessary? The summary from the video games is good, but the level-by-level account belongs in video game level articles and a smaller more abridged summary would be much better here (although the LB3 summary could do with a slight expansion :P). No real opinion on splitting TLBM Batman, I'm ok either way. Anyway, that's pretty much my opinion but as I said, in this case I'm just going to defer to people who know their comic book stuff here :) NovaHawk 11:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
That all sounds fine to me, Nova. A general background that goes as far into detail as possible without crossing the story-specific boundaries. I wouldn't oppose that. But I feel like splitting the articles would only draw in more questions as to how it should be done for everyone, such as "why are we splitting it for this theme and leaving all the others in one article?" I agree that the article is too long, but I don't think that splitting it is the answer. LCF (talk!) 23:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
What themes are we talking about? Because I'm not sure I see the issue. Sure, some decisions might be a little arbitrary, but that is hardly the worst thing. Berrybrick (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Requirements for admin[edit]

The minimum edit requirement for requests for admin rights currently reads "500 content namespace edits". This is a bit messed up. At the time the rule came in, there was only one "content namespace"- the mainspace (this is why the templates in the requests say "x edits, y mainspace"- to check that y>500 for admin requests). However, we now have several namespaces defined as content namespaces in the code- Brickipedia News, Fan, Inventory, Review and Part (at the time the rule was made, "Part" was a part of the mainspace, and the Fan namespace didn't exist- Brickimedia Customs did). So, basically just wondering if we want to re-examine which namespaces should count toward admin requests since so much has changed since the original rule was made. NovaHawk 11:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Personally, I'd be happy to just make it 500 for any namespace excluding edits in the User/User talk/User blog namespaces. It seems a bit silly to me that edits in useful places like the template namespace don't count. NovaHawk 11:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I've changed my mind (again!). As much as I don't agree with Reviews or Fan as being considered "content" (I still don't), however, I'd venture to say that it would be necessary for administrators to have experience with those two namespaces. However, editing Brickipedia News pages is reserved only for news reporters, administrators, and others with administrative rights, so I don't think that that should have anything to do with gaining administrative rights. It would also be nice, like Nova said, for admins-to-be to have knowledge of templates and how they work (and thus, edits in the template namespace). I think it's necessary to keep the edit requirements. I don't think that we could UCS on whose request is to be considered valid or not. The entire purpose of the edit requirement is to prevent that sort of business from having to happen, but primarily, to ensure that the user in question is well-versed in managing the primary function of this wiki: mainspace articles. I would not mind that we broaden the usage of the term "mainspace" in this context to encompass the mainspace, inventory, and part namespaces. That is the only real "content" on this site (sorry Reviews and Fan - you're not real content). I get it, administrators do a lot more than just edit our articles (which is definitely not what administrative rights are required for). Like others have said, yes, it would be nice to have administrators-to-be having much more knowledge about other parts of the wiki, such as participating in discussions and working with templates, etc. etc. But how would we factor any of that into the URR process? The edit requirement is something simple, something minimal that displays that the user is dedicated enough to qualify for administrator. LCF (talk!) 18:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Everyone has brought up some very fine points here. On the other hand, I'm against hard-coded edit count requirements, but the fact is that Brickipedia is a wiki and we need good edits for the site to thrive. One of the strengths of any admin team, but especially ours, is diversity. We have different people with different strengths and interests, and we are all united by our dedication to making Brickipedia the LEGO wiki. You know how templates work? And you've even created a few new ones on your own? Splendid! You've verified pre-existing inventories and written new ones? Wonderful! Knowledge of both is definitely a plus for any admin candidate, but the lack of edits in a namespace shouldn't necessarily be something to be held against a candidate.
      For example, on ShoutWiki we have an extension which enables "sharing" the help pages from ShoutWiki Hub to any other English-language ShoutWiki wiki which does not yet have local help pages (such as this wiki, which was just created yesterday). Although this analogy doesn't apply quite as well to well-estabilished, big wikis like Brickipedia, you can see why most ShoutWiki sites probably have a rather small amount of help pages, if any.
      I agree with Nova in that edits in the User* namespaces shouldn't count, but as for the rest, why not? Article edits are important, but so is discussing with other editors about potential naming conflicts and such, so most edits to various talkspaces are probably meaningful, too. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I mean, in many ways Template/File etc are also "content" namespaces. So I'd just remove the content namespace part of it to just say "500 edits". Then, if they do in the unlikely chance have 493 of those in User talk/User blog, then we can just not support it... CJC95 (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevancy of Brickipedia:Notability[edit]

Earlier today I came across the Iron Man 3 Poster article. I was puzzled by the existence of the article, and scoured the policy pages over page notability, but found nothing. After performing a page title search, I came across Brickipedia:Notability, which was not linked to anywhere (in fact, Template:Notable is the only page on this entire site that links to that policy). It seems that CJC95 wrote it over five years ago, where it has not been edited since. I'm facing a dilemma here as I'm unsure as to whether the policy is even relevant anymore. Whatever policy changes this site has undergone (at least, to my knowledge), have excluded the policy. LCF (talk!) 04:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't know about irrelevant, but I'm ok for re-examining (not saying there's anything wrong with it now though) NovaHawk 10:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm well, the policy seems to make sense? We can do an extensive review or rewrite if we need to though. SamanthaNguyen (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I mean, in many ways, the content of the policy literally just says "things that are notable". CJC95 (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Poster articles[edit]

Earlier today I came across the Iron Man 3 Poster article. I was puzzled by the existence of the article, which I eventually placed a delete template on, tagging it as LCP-2 and not notable. I didn't publish it, however, and made an AFD in which I jokingly mentioned how we didn't have an Avengers poster (surprise, we did!). At that point, I also saw the Poster article and Category:Poster. Some of the poster articles have set numbers. Others don't. The "Poster" article itself could be a LCP-2 article, but as I discovered that we have several poster-related articles that were questionable territory under the notability policy, whose existence is also questionable. I suppose the only way to figure out what to do with those articles is to create a discussion. LCF (talk!) 04:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I can't say I've ever seen this before, it looks like something out of the back of an instruction book. For promotional posters with an item number I'd say to definitely keep, not so sure about the others. NovaHawk
  • (Didn't know we had a notibility policy. Pretty sure I've implied we don't have one before. Oops.) I don't think it isn't necessarily notable. We have one for Man of Steel too, I think. I don't know if they have actually been released though. Berrybrick (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

LEGO.com Description e's and t's[edit]

In Refreshed, not sure if anyone else is experiencing this, but in the LEGO.com description template, some letters' lines are missing. For example, on 41237 Batgirl Secret Bunker, the t's in the "This is a description..." and the e's everywhere else are missing their horizontal lines for me. Now, the issue does not appear if using Vector (perhaps other skins too, I did not make a comprehensive test), or if zooming in past (what is for me) the default zoom on a desktop. So is it only for me that this occurs on default zoom? Or might this be the case for a large number of readers? 108.181.134.225 17:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have this issue. Anon is a liar. Berrybrick (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't reproduce this. Screenshot? SamanthaNguyen (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
imgur.com/a/sLw0a - One can still make out what's being said, of course, but it's a less fluid read for those odd moments when you confuse, say, c and e. 108.181.134.225 21:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to move domain to brickipedia.com as well as buy it[edit]

This would cost around $400, but could considerably help us make us more discoverable. Most people don't know the difference between Brickimedia and Brickipedia (or that there even is one), and Brickipedia is a term much wider-known in the LEGO community. This would take a considerable bite out of the current money we have (see Brickipedia:Financial reports ), but I believe it could help the site attract more people and gain a larger community. Thoughts, comments?

SamanthaNguyen (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Support as nominator. SamanthaNguyen (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support would be undeniably a good move to make. $400 price is speculation because the domain has to be bid on so there's no telling what we might have to pay for the owner to sell it to us, but considering 2016 proved to be Brickimedia's first profitable year, whatever the cost of the domain might be, it'll be paid off eventually. The potential benefits of moving the wiki to www.brickipedia.com are worth every penny of the cost. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - good luck to us getting it for 400$ haha but I can ask. That would be a good way to spend the surplus I think. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Oops, didn't know the domain had to be bid. :P Yeah $400 is a bit cheap when you look at https://flippa.com/5447307-brickipedia-com (linked from visiting brickipedia.com) - it's listed with the minimal offer as $1200 SamanthaNguyen (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I've offered them 50$ before but didn't get a response. Maybe they'll be more open to a bit more than that? They've held it for 8 years now, nobody has bought it and nobody ever will. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support (with attempt at $400). Could be a huge boost to traffic. It may get rejected, but as far as I know the domain's never been used, can't hurt to try NovaHawk 06:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Hopefully we'll be able to get the domain. Would changing the domain include changing hosts as well? BrikkyyTalk 11:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Nope, domains and hosts are different things NovaHawk 11:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support because brickipedia.com is more fitting. --CPPLAYER90210 71013-penguin.jpg T ~ C 21:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support-because I always seem to type "Brickipedia.com" by mistake. Albus Potter (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support Berrybrick (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support Per Nova, CP and Albus Omega X (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Comments/Neutral[edit]

  • Carrying over from here, would our LUG support be affected? Kim seems to have said that it relates to domain and identity, so it may be an issue. Even if we lose LUG, I still think moving to brickipedia.com is the right choice, but it would be nice to have both. BrikkyyTalk 03:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Set nav templates[edit]

Most of our set nav templates are hilariously outdated. So I've made a template, {{SetsByYear}}, which will just automatically display all sets in a theme by year. Currently it can only support up to 12 years, just want to know if I should bother to expand the number of years it could take before going ahead with it.

Usage

Make a template like normal nav templates with colours etc, using Elves as an example (so you'd use Template:Elves sets as the name).

{{SetsByYear
|header-background-color = 2A576C	
|link = Elves
|link-2 = Set
|pipe-2 = sets
|link-color = FFFFFF
|template-name = Elves sets
|year={{{1}}}
|theme=Elves
|2015|2016|2017}}

The only different thing here are the bottom three rows. Don't touch the third-last row, that's what it needs to be. Second-last row is the theme (I'll need to work on something to get stuff working for things with subthemes like Star Wars). The last row is the important one- put down each year the theme had a set released.

Then, go ahead and use as normal, eg, stick {{Elves sets|2017}} at the bottom of an article, and it'll show all Elves sets released in 2017, with tabs for other years (example).

And that's it. You literally don't have to type any sets names anywhere and stuff will automatically update. All you have to do is add an extra year to the template when it's known that sets will be released in a future year.

Bad stuff
  • Only supports 12 years at the moment (easily changed)
  • Sometimes at the moment, sets are broken into smaller categories, eg Star Wars sets are typically broken into sections like "normal sets", "microfighters", "planets sets", UCS sets, etc. This doesn't currently support that, and without making categories, this can't be done reliably as far as I can tell. There would be a way to do manually exclude stuff and add it to a separate section, but that would require some coding knowledge.

So basically- should we use this template are not?

  • If we do use it, where do we want to use it? I mean, it'd be pretty pointless for themes that have only been out for one or two years, should we start after a theme's been going for 4(?) years?

NovaHawk 06:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at this later. At bullet point 2, shouldn't be that hard I believe, I'll try to come up with something. SamanthaNguyen (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Install OATHAuth[edit]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Passed 2600:1000:B024:5E75:8106:33B8:6304:E233 00:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to suggest installing OATHAuth. It provides 2fa which is a good way to prevent accounts from being compromised. 2600:1000:B03D:379B:8C91:2CE1:F295:DE65 23:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support

  1. Seems like a good idea (assuming it's not going to be a major drain on server resources, etc) NovaHawk 01:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. I support the idea behind this. CC'ing @Jack Phoenix: for comments SamanthaNguyen (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. To be totally honest, it's easier to just have a secure password. But I don't mind enabling it as an option for people. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    If only this were true... most people don't even know what a secure password is. And you should definitely have secure passwords... --Lewis Cawte (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Sure, I'm just not 100% sure whether it'll work with outdated and unsupported version of MediaWiki we're using. (Yes, I know what the doc page says, but docs suck.) --Jack Phoenix (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    There is:, github:wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-OATHAuth/tree/REL1_26. 2600:1000:B024:5E75:8106:33B8:6304:E233 00:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. As nom. 2600:1000:B024:5E75:8106:33B8:6304:E233 00:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

  • Just wondering- would this make two-factor authentication compulsory, or is it just there as an option for each user? NovaHawk 01:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    It appears as an option for each user. 2600:1000:B02F:CCF8:193F:E0F9:1D3D:E130 01:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


Server move/upgrade[edit]

  • I know this is still going on, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus coming out of it. I'm not closing it off or anything, but in the event that it doesn't pass, I think we need to look at a server upgrade or switch hosts ASAP so I'm just getting the discussion started now. Our site has been virtually unreadable for weeks- it got a bit better for a while, but it's back to being terrible. We have about 200 articles that need shop descriptions/updated images, and there's nothing I can do about it- I've been trying to add a single shop description since January 16 and keep getting the same error nomatter what article I try to edit. If we could get pricing info for an upgrade (I'm guessing only @Ajraddatz: could find this out?), or how much it would cost to host on a more reliable server, that'd be a great start. NovaHawk 00:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • For pricing info with our current host, you can view this page. We're currently on 3072MB CVZ plan, and I can't remember if we pay annually or if we started doing monthly instead, Ajraddatz would have to answer that. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the info :) Would there be any way to tell if upgrading to the 4096 plan would solve our problems? NovaHawk 05:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Also, would temporarily disabling SMW fix these memory errors? I know it would break a lot of things, but it'd be better than having our mainspace literally uneditable, searches broken unless you refresh five times and a lot of articles unreadable wouldn't it? NovaHawk 05:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
        • It certainly should/would. But I wouldn't call it a solution. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Neither would I, I was just thinking of it being a temporary fix until we move to ShoutWiki/do something with the servers NovaHawk 05:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I could bump us up to the 4096 option, for $12 more a month. We're on monthly billing so changes aren't an issue. I'm just curious whether that will solve the problem? Ajraddatz (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I mean, I don't know why I'm bothering, as nobody seems to pay attention to a word I say, but I've been saying this in the Brickimedia related discussions for years. Run away from RamNode. Here's an option for moving - pick up a dedicated server from one of the OVH brands, namely Kimsufi or SoYouStart. This way you get a server which is billed monthly, that we can actually use the resources on. And don't stick freaking Debian on it! --Lewis Cawte (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm definitely listening and think that it'd be likely that a server change would be the best way to go. However I don't know much at all about hosting so I'm not really qualified to comment. But as far as I can tell Kumsufi is offering better specs at a cheaper rate aren't they? I've never heard of them, but as long as you or someone on the technical team know they're reliable I don't see a problem with switching. Except, are they based in Canada or France (the flags are there, not sure why). Would that affect speeds with US users (who I'm guessing are our main audience)? NovaHawk 11:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Maybe by like (a fraction of) a ms or two. Kimsufi is part of OVH who are a big name in the dedicated server and hosting world. They've got a world wide fiber network. ShoutWiki has a server with Kimsufi (for staff tools, repository hosting, support, etc. All our non-user facing stuff.) and the Uncyclopedia move was or still is to Kimsufi. We're thinking of a move to SoYouStart in the next month or so for a whole host of reasons. --Lewis Cawte (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Their plans look good. But do we have the human capital to move everything over? I don't need to tell you that I'm not a technical type; I want to make sure that this can actually happen, with people able to make the transition. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Let's put it this way, I'll need more than one hand to count the number of times I've had to manage server moves for production MediaWiki sites. It's time-consuming and not that fun, but it's doable. However, these days I wouldn't shed a tear if Brickimedia in its current form simply fell apart, and I'm not sure I'm interested in volunteering my time to do the move myself. That said, if a move happened, I'd prefer it done well. What I don't think people really took away from the move proposal is that Brickipedia would be gaining a team that is experienced in running MediaWiki productions sites and that while you sort of already have two (well, okay, one - Jack) of our team member's attention, but Brickimedia isn't our focus. We just keep the Brickimedia ship afloat, we sail ShoutWiki. --Lewis Cawte (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Interwiki table[edit]

This is not a disscoussion but rather a friendly reminder to remove the interwiki prefixes for customs and ideas as the wikis were both removed. 2600:1000:B024:5E75:8106:33B8:6304:E233 00:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@NovaHawk:. :) 2600:1000:B027:73A8:1CC1:B09D:B23B:5E28 23:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Disable SMW[edit]

IP Oddity[edit]

So I (BFN), a locked out Vasko, and at least one other IP making questionable edits seem to share Special:Contributions/198.91.90.240, at least according to Brickimedia... Also this very edit is attributed to the IP Address, but I've just checked my local connection and it's a different address than 198.91.90.240. 198.91.90.240 00:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • It seems like this might have to do with the move over to ShoutWiki and IPs might not be currently configured properly... it falls in this range, more info about owner here. Just a guess though, I don't know for sure if that's the reason NovaHawk 01:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Ohh..... Yeah, February 27 is the date of this move-starting announcement and the accumulation of these contributions under one IP. Guess that's not a coincidence. Cool. 198.91.90.240 05:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Yep, seems like everyone has this address for now 198.91.90.240 07:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC) (NovaHawk)
        • Pretty much the case. The IP belongs to our Varnish cache server. The problem revolves around the X-Forwarded-For header not being accepted and displaying real IPs. It's two little bits of config, but one requires pushing it to the server which is something we are trying to avoid now we're working on moving. The other is in Nginx which I'll sort out shortly. --Lewis Cawte (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
          • This should be sorted now. The more heavily cached pages like the Main Page will show a random IP in the header (because the HTML is cached) but when you edit or visit more dynamic pages like Special:RecentChanges the IP will be correct. It's generally advised not to show IPs in the HTML like we currently do here as it doesn't help anonymous cache rates - which will mainly be readers, as opposed to editors. --Lewis Cawte (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
            • Thanks for sorting this out, all looked fine on my end when I just logged in :) NovaHawk 23:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Unrelated, but system emails from the site should be working again! Ajraddatz (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, they should be, but that all requires the IPv6 ranges to all have working reverse DNS which a few tests have shown not the be the case. Although it may just take a while to update. --Lewis Cawte (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I noticed when I was logged out that I nearly always got a "new messages" come up for IPs that had edited a day or two earlier. Probably the same thing. CJC95 (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)