Brickipedia:Manual of Style/updates 2
This page serves as an archive for former votes and discussions about additions to the Manual of Style that were conducted at Forum:MOS proposals.
LEGO.com or LEGO's?[edit source]
| The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Use LEGO.com Description
I noticed on quite a lot pages that the header for the {{QuoteLEGO.com}} is called "LEGO's Description". On other pages it is called "LEGO.com Description". Shall we call it LEGO's, LEGO.com or anything else? User:Samdo994/sig2 15:00, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
If the LEGO trademark is used at all, it should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example, say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGO BRICKS". Never say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGOs" http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=fairplay regardless of what the company wishes people would use, the term LEGO's is often used by the Lego group themselves although in most if not all cases its used in material directed towards the American market, where as the European and Australasian markets typically if not always use LEGO for the singular and plural. My opinion is that LEGO's is a grammatical error. In response to NHL regarding "in case it's not from the website" then the source should be cited , for example Lego Magazine Description not LEGO'S Magazine DescriptionGladiatoring 10:06, July 20, 2010 (UTC) VoteNote- if a user has indicated that they like a particular name from comments above but has not made a vote below, their name has been added here with a * next to the name. If you are the user, feel free to remove your name from here, change it to another option, or to remove the * next to your name to indicate you have officially voted. This was done only to attempt to save time on voting, and these votes may not count if decided that they should not be used. LEGO's Description
LEGO.com DescriptionLEGO Description
Official Description
Official LEGO Description |
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Continue to use the /
PricesHello. I would like to propose that if multiple prices exist in an infobox, that they be changed from
Sorry, at present, I think I'd have to oppose. NovaHawk 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
VotingContinue using /
Use <br/> |
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was continue to use the set number
In the title section of the infobox put the set numberSupport
Oppose
CommentsHow about a comprimise where by the item number section is removed and the set number is added to the title. Just an idea please don't be mad. User:SKP4472/sig 16:30, September 27, 2010 (UTC) |
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to change the order
Proposal: Set ArticlesThis is a proposal to change the order of some required fields of a set article. If a set article is fixed up exactly according to the MOS, the minifigure gallery section sometimes causes a good deal of white space to appear between itself and the section above it, making the article seem shorter than it actually is when first looked at, but it is actually a lot bigger than it needs to be. This is because the parameters of the minifigure gallery automatically set it up so that it fits to the whole page, which also makes it impossible to fit alongside, and sending it below, the set template, causing major white space. And, quite often, there is not enough information regarding a set that can fit in between the top of the page and the minifigure gallery to eliminate all white space. An effective solution to this problem would be to give the LEGO.com description section more importance over the minifigure gallery. The LEGO.com description section will use up any space that it is given, meaning no more large white spaces in the middle of articles. This change would be a good one, because Wikia is about conveying information, and we want to pack as much information into a small space as possible, and not leave any part of a page blank. --TheGrandEditor 11:19, October 5, 2010 (UTC) Interesting idea. I'd agree with you, but our problem would remain the same unless we increased the length of all the articles. The notes section should go before both of those too, so that they don't get shoved out by the set template.User:BobaFett2/sig2 13:05, October 5, 2010 (UTC) I don't think the problem would remain the same. Before I knew exactly what order the sections were supposed to go in, I was putting the LEGO.com description before the minifigure gallery and it always looked much better after I did. --TheGrandEditor 16:39, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Here are two examples of both set-ups. The one that follows the order is a really extreme example, and the the one that doesn't has just enough information in that order that it fits very well, but if it followed the order, would have a good deal of white space. http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/30042_Mini_Sub http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/7625_River_Chase TheGrandEditor 21:49, October 7, 2010 (UTC) |
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was do not include Bricklink in external link template
BricklinkI was thinking that since this is an encyclopedia, we should link to everything about the set. I use bricklink as an image source and to find parts and set images, and think that a link should be in the external links section or in a buy this set section. Users have argued against it, saying that it is free advertising. I disagree, and think that we should also link to bricklink.User:BobaFett2/sig2 14:03, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
Actually I have gotten over 1000 pics from there (boxes, sets, and set features)User:BobaFett2/sig2 20:37, May 20, 2010 (UTC) True, the page seems to be more of an eBay of LEGO more than anything. Sure, I can see it being a good resource for images, but the parts count is inconsistent with ours (since they don't include minifigures as parts), and we don't want someone seeing that and changing all the piececounts all over again, and the content of the set isn't really consistent with what we're going for. I would oppose, but defintiely source them for any images uploaded here from there of course. NovaHawk 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
Agree with NBP. Also, value packs.User:BobaFett2/sig2 17:29, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
|
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was no change in policy
PartsOn part articles, there is a discrepancy in format. For the appearances, I put the number of that part in that color in the set behind it, others put it in front. An example can be seen at Part:2436. Which way is correct?User:BobaFett2/sig2 13:13, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Well I think we should group parts by color below the infobox because it would be useful to see, and list how many of the part after the set it's in.User:BobaFett2/sig2 12:21, June 9, 2010 (UTC) |
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was continue as before
Minifigure count/names in Template:SetFirst thing, I was wondering if we should only state the number of minifigures in the Template:Set, instead of adding the linked names. That was the info box wouldn't get too big, unknown names are not added and we can still add the linked names to the == Description == part. Any opinions? User:Samdo994/sig2 15:08, June 8, 2010 (UTC) I think that would be OKay.User:BobaFett2/sig2 16:38, June 8, 2010 (UTC) I would have to oppose this. I don't see what's wrong with a couple of extra lines for a lot more detail NovaHawk 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC) It's not like there's anything wrong with detail. If the minifigure has a name, keep it (example if I wanna know if Darth Vader appeared in a certain set and it doesn't have a picture, i'm not gonna know because it'll say "1" in minifigure count). GG 360 |
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Addition of "Details" title heading to the MoS
Description or Details?Second thing, I thought of changing the header == Description == of set and theme pages to == Details ==. That sounds much better and we could solve the problem regarding using "LEGO's" or "LEGO.com Description". We would use "Description" there instead. What do you think of that? User:Samdo994/sig2 15:08, June 8, 2010 (UTC) Description, please.User:BobaFett2/sig2 16:37, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Details sounds better, but that just my opinion Agent Charge: If it's details, isn't it still repetitive?User:BobaFett2/sig2 20:50, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
VotingUse Description
Use Details
|
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was follow current MoS
Year Price
Why US only? I think we should have all prices because US only makes this wiki more centric to US then other parts of the world. US is not the main market, and thus we should use multiple to provide a broad perspective.—Unsigned comment by BobaFett2 (talk • contribs).
VotingList US$ only
List the 4 prices from the MoS
|
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
Appearances/variants/years in set infoboxes with video games/movies{{Minifigure
|Title =Chewbacca
|Image =Chewbacca_Reddish_Brown.jpg
|Imagesize=10
|Theme =[[Star Wars]]
|Variations = Reddish brown<br />brown
|Accessories =Large old gun<br />Bowcaster
|Years =[[2000]], [[2001]], [[2004]], [[2005]], [[2007]], [[2008]], [[2009]]
;Video games:
[[2006]]
|Appearances =[[3342 Star Wars #3]]<br />[[4504 Millenium Falcon]]<br />[[6212 X-Wing Fighter]]
;Video games:
''[[LEGO Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy]]''
}}
Should we have video game/movie appearances listed in infoboxes? Some alternatives I can think of are:
Personally I'd just vote for "no", as the appearances are already listed at the bottom of the article anyway. Any opinions/other alternatives? NovaHawk 02:16, July 8, 2010 (UTC) I'd say #3, it looks cool. User:CaptainJag/sig1 19:03, July 8, 2010 (UTC) Number 2# I say it's distraction. Agent Charge:
VotingYes
NoOnly when VG/movie only
Yes, but have headings |
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
Sets not made of bricksMany LEGO "sets" are t-shirts, books, etc... I have noticed that they include the toyline in the infobox (Template:set). In articles about sets from "brick" themes (eg: System, TECHNIC, DUPLO, etc...) they do not have that in the infobox often. With many TECHNIC and DUPLO sets it makes sense since they have no supertheme or subtheme but I think we should not include the Toyline in the Set template unless there is no supertheme or subtheme. This would mean that for example, instead of having Fireman's Axe as a [[Toys___]]<br />[[City]]<br />[[Fire]], it would just be [[City]]<br />[[Fire]].User:BobaFett2/sig2 00:11, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
@Glad: I'm certain that they do so I do that whenever I see otherwise.—Unsigned comment by BobaFett2 (talk • contribs). |
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was use all three tenses, depending on circumstance
Tense of articles
set xxx consists of xx pieces, including xx minifigure
I think that present tense sounds better because old sets such as ones released in 1980 can still be purchased today, and words like "consisted" and "included" gives the idea that the set is unavailable anymore. Another issue is that if we go by Gladiatoring's suggestion with 2010 being present tense, come 2011, we would have to change all 2010 sets to past tense and the same for every year after that, whereas having it in present tense would eliminate that issue. User:Danjam/Sig 13:05, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I think we should use future tense for sets yet to be released. But, you make a point. Just like having to re-edit pages to make 2010 sets past tense in 2011, we would also have to change "will be released" to present tense, so either way we will have to re-edit pages, though going with the past tense option will double the amount. User:Danjam/Sig 13:44, August 10, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Glad.. ish.. if its currently on sale from LEGO, have it as present tense, if its not, past tense.. --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 07:20, August 11, 2010 (UTC) I disagree strongly. A set still "includes" the same things it used to include as it is.User:BobaFett2/sig2 21:22, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
It should always be present tense, because it's not like all of the sets were destroyed or something. Construction Worker Do you need help? 14:06, August 16, 2010 (UTC) I've set up voting, if you don't think we're ready yet, feel free to take it off. (Providing there aren't several votes there already.) User:Captain Jag/sig 20:27, August 16, 2010 (UTC) I'd say past, present and future IF that means that in sets you will only use present tense for what it includes-due to it still including that.User:BobaFett2/sig2 21:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC) VotingHave only present tense
Have present and future tense
Have present, past, and future tense
|
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
Spelling (Part II)There have been a couple of set name changes recently, such as "7203_Jedi_Defense_I" to "7203_Jedi_Defence_I". I was wondering if anyone knew for sure if the set was actually released under the name of "Jedi Defence I" in non-US areas (it's obviously no longer on the shop site, so I can't look it up). If in the case it is released under the name "Defense" in places such as the UK, shouldn't we keep it at "Defense" since that would be the name of the set? Also, there is one word I'd like to suggest that we keep with US spelling- "lightsaber". From what I can tell, it has on occasion been spelled "lightsabre" in some areas, but toys, movie reviews, etc in these areas have mainly stuck to "lightsaber" anyway. NovaHawk 06:51, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it is on LEGO.com. Although you can't search it through LEGO.com you can search it on the internet and find the deleted product page. LEGO Lord 22:41, December 23, 2010 (UTC) |
Green Baseplate Background Pictures[edit source]
| The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Opposed
This has been bothering me for a while now, all minifigures that have a green baseplate background picture, needs to be changed, LEGO doesn't make pictures with any color behind the minifigure except white. And the reason why is because other colors give it a blury look, it also gives it a messy look, meaning that it is hard to concentrate on that minifigure. Anybody that agrees, just post a comment. Contact back. LEGO Lord My Talk 21:51, November 17, 2010 (UTC) CommentsI personally disagree.User:BobaFett2/sig2 21:52, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
|
Parts included in this set[edit source]
| The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
This may take hours of hard work, but I think we should all try it together. People who search this Wiki would probably like to see what pieces were made in every set. I think we should make a section for every set article titled "Parts produced in this set" and then add links to every piece that was made in that set. I think it would be a great idea to add to every set article. What do you think? LEGO Lord 23:53, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
|
Collectable Minifigures or Minifigures?[edit source]
| The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Voted on at BP:PNC
I see the logo, and all it says is Minifigures. Perhaps we should move it to an article named "Minifigures (Theme)"? LEGO Lord 19:59, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
But, LEGO itself calls it just plain "Minifigures". LEGO Lord 02:09, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
We should definitely call it "Minifigures (Theme)", because the theme is called "Minifigures" by LEGO. All sites that call it "Collectable Minifigures" or "Collectible Minifigures" are wrong and fan made. Brickset and all other LEGO related sites that aren't affiliated with LEGO are wrong. If we strive to be the best LEGO recourse we should name it to the proper name. Perhaps you two should reconsider your oppose. LEGO Lord 19:34, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
|
Colours for infoboxes[edit source]
| The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
I believe that making the infoboxes different colours for each theme is a terrible idea. Making them different colours makes it look annoying. When I am searching around this wiki I am finding different colours for the infoboxes. Why can't we just make them all the same colour? I believe it would look more possessional, and more easy for us. Plus the colours don't really match. Who supports and who opposes? LEGO Lord 00:05, January 2, 2011 (UTC) I disagree. It makes it easier to tell what theme it is (color is easier to identify than words) and it suits the article.User:BobaFett2/sig2 01:32, January 2, 2011 (UTC) Um, its been this way a while...It also helps identify a theme at a glance and looks nicer :) Don't you get bored of white, black and dark blue always on the screen? ---- Kingcjc 01:39, January 2, 2011 (UTC) I don't get bored of white, black and dark blue. The more consistent the more professional. And I know that we have had them for a while now, but just because of the effort placed into colouring infoboxes doesn't mean we need to keep it this way. And who cares if it is easier to know what theme it is from, I don't believe it suits the article, it makes it look like junk. The colour scheme for them is disgusting. And I am sorry if I am being highly too critical. LEGO Lord 02:14, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
I can't see what's so disgusting. Don't say who cares-because some people DO CARE. And professional does not equal boring.User:BobaFett2/sig2 02:16, January 2, 2011 (UTC) I didn't really say that professional equals the level of being boring. And I say it looks disgusting because of the colour scheme. Brickipedia uses greyish-pink and greyish-tan as colour schemes. Just look at Wikipedia, they are only one colour, plus aren't they professional. Most of you may not know where I am going with this, sorry for complaining. LEGO Lord 02:35, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
|
Past or Present Tense (again)[edit source]
| The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was use past tense
After cleaning up the "Background" section of Anakin Skywalker, I think that an added note might be helpful to clarify that all of our articles are written from a real-world perspective (i.e. present tense for fiction). Here is my proposed changes with any alterations in bold:
(Note that I have tried to minimize the use of brackets and have thus moved "keep it short and simple" up to "basic.") GhostUser 22:13, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
VoteUse Present Tense
Use Past Tense
|
Too many links[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Use the below policy
VoteProposed policy: A subject should be linked once upon its first appearance in the article's infobox, once upon its first mention in the article's lead section, once upon its first mention in the article's main body, and throughout the minifigure gallery (if applicable). Adopt the above policy
Do not adopt the above policy |
