avatar Log in

Forum:Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Miscellaneous

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki
Forums - Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Miscellaneous
This page is waiting to be archived by an administrator. Please do not edit the contents of this page.

For things not big enough for their own forums, or ones which already exist elsewhere


This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area.

  • I'd be happy to keep as is. Although, when there is no BotM, I suggest we go with a "random past BotM" like on Customs NovaHawk 04:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • If its someone active perhaps, otherwise its a bit odd, no? :P CJC95 (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • True, keeping the list to people who have an account here would be a good idea :) NovaHawk 23:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Per Nova. SKP4472 (Admin) 16:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Per Nova as well. -NBP3.0 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


  • My vote's for scrapping it entirely. However, I don't know what we'd put there on the main page instead... NovaHawk 01:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We could replace it with a hall of fame like I have suggested before, but I'd be fine with getting rid of it to. I don't know what to put in its place, unless we could do a random review that changes when the page refreshes? Or maybe a gallery of reviews like on the Customs main page? Berrybrick (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer a Hall of Fame instead of "xxx of the month" for reviews and customs. Maybe something to draw the viewer in like "Check out xxx's review on the new LEGO set!". I don't have enough time to textwall, so I'll post that later -TheNightingale
  • Per Nova again. Perhaps it could show a random past Review of the Month? SKP4472 (Admin) 16:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I like a hall of fame idea, I agree it needs some thought and planning but I definitely think it would be better than RotM. -NBP3.0 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have some ideas, but not the will to go in depth at the moment, and it would tie in with the Review Moderators, so I'm also not quite sure where to put it. Berrybrick (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm Split. If someone takes the time to make quality reviews for the wiki, they deserve to be noticed. But a Hall of Fame idea sounds peculiar and interesting enough to work. -Nexus

Minifigure inventories[edit]

  • Do we need them? You can see the pieces of a minifigure just by looking at a picture of the figure, and the parts are inventoried on a set's inventory anyway. NovaHawk 07:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd say no, but part of the help might be finding links to the part pages easily. Berrybrick (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Since most minifigures only have ~4 pieces, minifigure inventories could work as a section on the minifigure article itself (probably will work best by transcluding the inventory namespace page, but could work by being hardcoded into the minifigure article itself). --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's fine for single variant minifigures, but for a minfig with 20 variants, then you've got a big long list of 80 parts. We used to actually do that I think when we first started doing part articles, it looked a little messy to me personally (but at the time it was just a simple list of parts) NovaHawk 06:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Split on this one a bit but I like the idea of having a way to access the parts. Consider me neutral as long as there is a way to access the minifigure parts easily. -NBP3.0 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No from me. Box art shows enough about the minifigures and possible reviews of sets can also cover it. It seems like a waste of time to focus on inventories rather than pages that actually need serious attention. -Nexus


This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area.

  • Support keeping as is (lasting 1 week) NovaHawk 00:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think WIP's are useful so I'd support keeping them. SKP4472 (Admin) 17:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course per SKP and Nova, keep these at 1 - 2 weeks. -NBP3.0 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Gotta say, in my opinion, WIPs are pointless. They prevent most users from editing a page, and while it may be nice to know you won't get an editconflict, getting one is really very very unlikely, and it's not that much of a bother if you do. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
    • True, I guess they are when you put it like that :) I guess I don't mind either way if they're kept or not, but I do oppose lengthening the 1 week. NovaHawk 01:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • From experience people will get tremendously pissed off if someone obstructs their work when they're making major revisions to a page. They may not be serving much use most of the time but they sure aren't doing any harm by having them. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
      • The harm they do is preventing users editing pages. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
        • It shouldn't be hard to wait one week to edit something or as soon as the person using the WIP finishes. It's common practice that if you want to make a major change to something someone has a WIP on, you notice them on their talk page instead of just doing it. It's really not hard. If you need a line about that on the WIP template. --ToaMeiko (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
          • If I see a small edit that needs to be made (like I'm replacing one template with a newer version or something) I'm not going to write the name of that page down just so I can fix it a week later. No one is. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
            • "If I see a small edit that needs to be made". Yes, the point of the WIP template is to advise people not to make major changes while someone else is working on also making major changes. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Well perhaps this should be advertised somewhere, on reading {{WIP}} it sounds to me as though you shoudn't make any edits, regardless of size. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
    • When I use a WIP, I find it is less worrisome that I leave the page sort of messy after editing because any viewers will be able to easily see that the page is under construction. It's helpful for editing big pages (or making them big) like I'm in the middle of right now. Berrybrick (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Definite support from me. I've used them multiple times and they've been a useful tool to have - Nexus
  • So, keep WIP's, keep length at 1 week, but change WIP's so minor edits (spelling corrections, etc) may be made by anyone even while the article's marked as a WIP? NovaHawk 00:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Part Namespace[edit]

This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area.
Suggested by Meiko a while back in a forum that fizzled out. Basically, should we move parts to their own namespace, eg, Part 92738 becomes Part:92738?

  1. The main reason I think this should happen is that having its own namespace means that parts won't show up when you hit "random page". It also just "feels" more organised to me NovaHawk 11:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. I guess. CJC95 (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. -NBP3.0 (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Pages related to the fan community[edit]


Can we have some sorta direction here? What do we count as news. Currently we have "big stories" and me posting links to rubbish I find on Google News with some dry comment, and that is our news section. So,

  • In relation to leaks - can we report them in the News section? I don't just mean things like when a Hungarian shop "accidentally" has 2015 DUPLO set names on them, but for example the "confirmation" at Eurobricks that Slave I is the next UCS, as well. How does this affect the whole TLG relationship?
  • Do we need more news reporters? Do we need to change how its given out or what not?
  • Do we, have articles on smaller stories that no one currently writes now, e.g., LB3 preorders, or have a daily roundup thing (of course that would need a consistent sorta rota to ensure it happens daily. No, I can't do every day :P)

And so on. CJC95 (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • This is just what I usually go by:
    • Leaks- only "confirmed" ones, from very reliable sources who have proved themselves in the past. From what I gather, posting information doesn't jeopardise the TLG relationship, as long as we don't post confidential images (so basically what we've always done). Might be better to check with Meiko again just to be sure, but that's basically what he told me. As far as the Slave I confirmation, I see no reason to distrust legozebra since he's a citizen and on a variety of sites, but haven't seen a history of him posting new information (but it's quite possible I've forgotten his name from past reports) so I'm only 99% sure so didn't change the name of 75060 to Slave I. Either way, just being one set, I wouldn't say it's big enough news for its own story.
    • More news reporters- I don't think so right now, we seem to be covering pretty much everything. About the way the rights are distributed, I was planning on opening that up in the user rights forum once we sorted out what the rights were going to be, but I guess we could discuss here instead.
    • What to report- I tend to think that only "big news" should get its own story, otherwise you're trawling through pages of insignificant stories to get at the big news. The smaller things can go into your weekly roundup and on the forums (not that anyone reads the forums right now...)
Just my opinions though :) NovaHawk 13:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, we can report leaks under two conditions: We don't share confidential or preliminary images and we should avoid being the origin of a leak if we ever get information before everyone else. It's perfectly fine to say "Eurobricks user _____ has reportedly found a list of 2015 Duplo sets" though. It would be great to have more news reporters, or at least report in greater frequency. Higher frequency in news equates to more potential visitors to the site who see a news story that catches their eye. Instead of having a news story catch someone's eye a couple times a week, it'd be best if it could happen at least once a day. For example, The Brick Fan is a blog I'm sure we're all familiar with. Allen is the only reporter there currently, but his site does extremely well because he keeps up with all the news anybody would be interested in. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Voting procedures[edit]

This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area.

  • This applies to things that have a "minimum vote count to pass" thing in place, like BP:UP, BP:Quality_Check_Group/Requests, BP:OFR, etc. I'd like to suggest that if they have unanimous support, they can pass regardless of the minimum vote count. For example, userboxes require a +3 count, but if only two people can be bothered to look at the proposals page, should the proposal really fail? NovaHawk 00:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd say if it's unanimous support with at least 3 total votes honestly. Otherwise if someone puts up a proposal and does "support as nominator", and nobody else sees/votes on it, it'd pass with "unanimous" support. --ToaMeiko (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I guess it depends on the thing (I'm basically saying UCS) - to have a unanimous support of 1 person, it would not be in our interests to pass an OFR. For a lot of forums (like, say this discussion here) though, where often you get 1 response, a few people seeing it and feeling no need to comment (either they lack anything to say or someone else had said it or whatever), is fine. CJC95 (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, so what am I meant to do when I spend all day talking to myself in these kinds of pages? Go around and personally beg every single person on their individual talk pages? (and if I do that, it seems like I'm trying to get them to support, not just to vote). If noone can be bothered to do anything around here, I don't really see why things such as this have to be penalised. NovaHawk 22:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure who that is at, but I specifically said that the exact thing you are talking about is perfectly fine... I was referring to things like "official friends", which would be silly to pass if just the nominator supported and no one else did, or other more "niche" stuff like that. (or, as I said, do as we've always done and UCS - I haven't bothered waiting for other people to comment on my forums for years...) CJC95 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Well yeah, fair enough I guess, it's not like OFR's are going to get ignored :) NovaHawk 00:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)