Old discussions

This page is an archive of past FA nominations.

Old votes

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

Star Wars

Support

1. As Nominator. Currently contains no redlinks, and all sets (past, present and known future) are listed in a well-organised order. NovaHawk 03:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree Agree with Nighthawk. Kingcjc 10:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 15:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I see there is much support for this article. But it is only a list of links. What should be put on the main page? --Bahnpirat 09:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

Brickipedia News

Support

1. As Nominator. —Unsigned comment by LegoManiaCrossovers1002 (talk • contribs).

Oppose

1. There is already a news section on the main page so, it would be redundant. MarioGalaxy2433g5 10+ {talk/contribs/Logs} 21:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Same as MarioGalaxy NovaHawk 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

7101 Lightsaber Duel

Support

1. As Nominator. —Unsigned comment by LegoManiaCrossovers1002 (talk • contribs).

Comments

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

Lego Batman the Videogame

Support

1. As Nominator. —Unsigned comment by LegoManiaCrossovers1002 (talk • contribs).

Oppose

1. Too short and not very good article. --Bahnpirat 09:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Same as Bahnpirat NovaHawk 09:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

2009

Support

1. Should be a good way to start the year, and list is well up to date NovaHawk 00:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

Castle (+3)

Support

1. Coupon11 19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
2. --GERMAN77 Come To TalkContribsTemplate:Color 04:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
3. --LegOtaku (talk • contr) 06:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Great page, Lot's of work.--Coupon11 19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

Classic Star Wars (±0)

Support

1. User:FerrariBricks/Sig
2. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 18:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Needs to be updated with the new theme infobox, and the minifigures part of the infobox will probably have to be placed somewhere else. Other than that, I would be happy to support NovaHawk 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
   • Only still opposing until we figure out what to do with the minifigures now :) NovaHawk 00:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
     • Need to figure out what to do with minfigures still, but I also agree with LegOtaku now too- sorry NovaHawk 07:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
2. The article is actually just a list. --LegOtaku (talk • contr) 06:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Very well planned out. Sets are categorized into the year they were released in User:FerrariBricks/Sig
  • Nighthawk: Infobox has been replaced, minifigures have been archived on my test page (to be retrieved later), but can you tell me how to resize/make the image small in the infobox on my talk page. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 06:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

Space Police III (+2)

* Detailed pictures. Great list of creatures/sets.

Support

1. --User:Coupon11/sig 21:12, September 1, 2009 (UTC) (Nominator)
2. Looks pretty good to me! -Nerfblasterpro 19:02, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
3. A really great page. Deserves a nomination/award! Velociraptor78 19:48, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
4. We've all Been Working on this for months! This Deserves To Be elected--Crotocall 23:15, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Currently little more than a list. --LegOtaku (talk • contr) 21:51, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
2. Agreed. And much of the first paragraph talks about the videos, not the sets or the history of the theme NovaHawk 02:43, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

7775 Aquabase Invasion

• Nominated by: User:LegOtaku/sig 08:56, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: Well-researched set article and one of the longest.

(+4 Revs/+1 Users/+5 Total)

Support

1. NovaHawk 04:16, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
2. It is long, and contains all of the needed info. Ajraddatz _Talk 04:33, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
3. Ok, support now. :) Good article, long, interesting (Thought gallery was neccessary). -Nerfblasterpro: It's Nerf, or Nothing! 01:41, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 02:33, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
5. A wonderful article for this wiki. GG 360 19:42, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Object

Comments

• This set doesn't seem to have a gallery, but neutral, pretty long, good pics. Like I said, the one thing it lacks is a gallery, only 3 pics included. -Nerfblasterpro: It's Nerf, or Nothing! 19:45, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, a gallery is actually not a required feature of an FA. --User:LegOtaku/sig 13:25, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
• Needs to have other prices filled in (if available), a quote from LEGO.com if one can be found (it was released in 2007 so it should have a shop description somewhere). Also, for the sentence "This is the only set that contains the huge round window pieces colored in light blue. Another rare piece is the transparent tunnel whose only other appearance is in 7894 Airport.", maybe the pieces in question can be linked to? NovaHawk 04:19, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. -User:LegOtaku/sig 13:18, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Approved as featured article 23:36, December 30, 2009

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

Pirates

• Nominated by: User:LegOtaku/sig 08:56, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: This is already a GA and I think it contains enough information, that is also presented well enough, to become a FA.

(+3 Revs/+2 Users/+5 Total)

Support

1. I think It's a good one! :) - Nerfblasterpro: It's Nerf, or Nothing! 19:42, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
2. Apart from liking the toy line, I love this article. It is well written, and with lots of info on it. Ajraddatz _Talk 04:31, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
3. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 02:33, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
4. I think is a wonderful contribution to brikipedia!! - User:nicolay12 (UTC)
5. Nicely done page, although there are four red links. User:Samdo994/sig209:01, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Approved as featured article 17:26, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

Pepper Roni

• Nominated by: User:Boidoh/sig 02:00, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
• Nomination comments:

(-4 Revs/-1 Users/-5 Total)

Support

Object

1. Does not have an appearances section, needs to have infobox filled out more (theme/appearances), years in infobox need to be linked, could do with a few more links in the text as well. Speculation section should also either not be included or sound a bit more neutral. NovaHawk 08:20, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
2. I inserted a few links and sectioned the text, but the article is still lacking, e.g. an appearances section, it doesn't even state if this is a video game-only minifigure or not. There could be a section that summarizes which parts are used. All in all, it doesn't feature most of the information that could still be added. Brickipedia has better articles to offer. User:LegOtaku/sig 08:37, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
3. I write a nice long speech about how this article shouldn't be on FA status, but it is easier to just second everything said above ;) Ajraddatz _Talk 04:30, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Ajraddatz. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 02:33, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
5. Not suitable. User:Samdo994/sig209:01, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Try a GA nomination first. --User:LegOtaku/sig 07:21, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

• How many RV votes are needed for a removal? (couldn't find this anywhere) NovaHawk 02:57, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Vote to remove nomination (rev only)

• Remove - It seems clear that the article is unsuited for FA status. -- --User:LegOtaku/sig 17:37, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
• Remove - Per LegOtaku NovaHawk 22:39, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
• Remove - I would rather just have this off. It's been here since the beginning of forever. :P -Nerfblasterpro: It's Nerf, or Nothing! 01:44, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

Crusaders

• Nominated by: User:LegOtaku/sig 08:56, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: Content-wise this article is pretty much complete. It may need some reorganization though.

(-1 Revs/0 Users/-1 Total)

Support

Object

1. It could use a bit more organization... Ajraddatz _Talk 15:43, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

Black Knights

• Nominated by: User:LegOtaku/sig 08:56, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: Content-wise this article is pretty much complete. It may need some reorganization though.

(+3 Revs/+5 Users/+8 Total)

Support

1. Great looking page with very detailed info --Clone Commander Fox 19:55, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
2. Seconded. User:Samdo994/sig209:01, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
3. Yay Olde Castle. AM I allowed to vote here?User:BobaFett2/sig2 02:04, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
4. NovaHawk 07:51, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
5. -Nerfblasterpro: It's Nerf, or Nothing! 12:08, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
6. Looks great, but could use a few more pictures... =\ Construction Worker Do you need help? 00:26, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
7. --Lcawte 16:39, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
8. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 18:25, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Object

Comments

• Could do with an updated infobox. Sorry, I don't have time to really look at it/fix anything up now. NovaHawk 10:39, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed it, fixed Lego to LEGO, and updated some links. :) -Nerfblasterpro: It's Nerf, or Nothing! 19:56, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
• Can someone explain the question mark just above the "See Also"? If this needs to be verified, it should be. NovaHawk 07:54, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed, I removed the sentence since the set is not related to the Black Knights in any way. --User:LegOtaku/sig 08:16, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
• It would be great if this article had a longer lead section, which is what will be shown on the man page. --User:LegOtaku/sig 08:16, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that a longer lead would make it just a bit better, but the article overall looks pretty good to me. NovaHawk 07:51, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Worked hard on fixing this page. -Nerfblasterpro: It's Nerf, or Nothing! 00:34, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Approved as featured article 23:30, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Hogwarts Nominated by: User:LegOtaku/sig 08:56, December 16, 2009 (UTC) Nomination comments: Provides a collection of information that may not be found anywhere else and has considerable content. (+4 Revs/+4 Users/+8 Total) Support NovaHawk 23:48, January 18, 2010 (UTC) User:Cpatain Rex/sig 06:14, February 17, 2010 (UTC) Great! Clone Commander Fox 17:52, February 17, 2010 (UTC) User:Samdo994/sig2 12:53, February 22, 2010 (UTC) Awesome!User:BobaFett2/sig2 -- WHAT?!?! User:Eddlikeshotsauce KABOOM 16:26, March 18, 2010 (UTC) Ajraddatz Talk 14:44, March 20, 2010 (UTC) -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 15:19, March 20, 2010 (UTC) Object Comments I know, that this article still has a GA nomination going. But I think its quality level is sufficient for FA. --User:LegOtaku/sig 08:56, December 16, 2009 (UTC) I think this article needs some more images included, it looks somewhat bare... User:Samdo994/sig209:01, December 31, 2009 (UTC) ** I agree with Samdo, it could use a few other images NovaHawk 07:51, January 9, 2010 (UTC) Approved as featured article 01:02, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. LEGO Duck Nominated by: -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 13:53, February 13, 2010 (UTC) Nomination comments: Though it does not go with the manual of style too well, it is still a very good article with an image of a set from the 1930s, plus descriptive information. (-4 Revs/-2 Users/-6 Total) Support Even though the article does not have much content,it is still pretty unique.-- WHAT?!?! User:Eddlikeshotsauce KABOOM 16:25, March 18, 2010 (UTC) Object This would not even pass as GA. In particular, it does not meet 4, 8 and possibly 2. (btw, nominators are not allowed to vote.) --User:LegOtaku/sig 15:44, February 13, 2010 (UTC) Sorry, it's just too short. NovaHawk 21:49, February 13, 2010 (UTC) Way too short!!! Clone Commander Fox 17:51, February 17, 2010 (UTC) Per Nighthawk User:CaptainJag/sig1 05:43, February 27, 2010 (UTC) User:Cpatain Rex/sig 01:32, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Per above. Ajraddatz Talk 15:50, February 22, 2010 (UTC) To short to even be complete. —Unsigned comment by BobaFett2 (talk • contribs). Comments It's very short.User:BobaFett2/sig2 14:57, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Vote to remove nomination (rev only) NovaHawk 02:51, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Ajraddatz Talk 13:55, March 5, 2010 (UTC) User:LegOtaku/sig 14:38, March 20, 2010 (UTC) Just get it out of my sight! :P -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 15:19, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 6195 Neptune Discovery Lab / Aqua Dome 7 Nominated By:User:BobaFett2/sig2 01:19, April 22, 2010 (UTC) Nomination Comments (+3 Revs/+4 Users/+7 Total) Support As nominator.User:BobaFett2/sig2 01:19, April 22, 2010 (UTC) I too am impressed, although have no complaints with the article. Great job :) Ajraddatz Talk 01:23, April 23, 2010 (UTC) Lookin good, you cookin with gas now ? Gladiatoring 13:12, April 25, 2010 (UTC) Well written, everything seems great.User:Mackmoron11/sig 18:35, April 25, 2010 (UTC) NovaHawk 04:42, April 28, 2010 (UTC) User:Samdo994/sig2 14:03, April 28, 2010 (UTC) -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 14:46, April 28, 2010 (UTC) Object Comments I don't know, but this appears to be as perfect as the page will get. I would like any feedback about it because I worked really hard and love the set.User:BobaFett2/sig2 01:19, April 22, 2010 (UTC) Wow, I'm impressed :) It's improved a lot even since it made it as a GA. The only reason I'm not supporting is the "For this section in a list form, go here." section. The wording just sounds fairly unprofessional, and I can kind of understand the reason for putting it on a subpage due to the length, but maybe a scrollbox would be better in this case? Also, just a minor thing, but it might be a good idea to break the text up with some images (with captions)- some people may not bother reading the article if they see so much text altogether. But the content itself and all the different views of the set looks great to me. Also, no luck on finding other country's prices for the infobox? Guess it can't be helped since the set was released 15 years ago, but it would be good just to be complete (but still ok if you can't). NovaHawk 04:38, April 22, 2010 (UTC) Sure. I can do the images to break it up. I'm not sure about the list thing; LegOtaku opposed the Power Miners FANom because it was a list, are the admins OK with using a scroll box?User:BobaFett2/sig2 20:16, April 22, 2010 (UTC) Yay, this looks really great. But I second the notion to break up the description with the images. I will also rewrite the notes section. --User:LegOtaku/sig 07:17, April 26, 2010 (UTC) I did break up the description with images.User:BobaFett2/sig2 22:18, April 26, 2010 (UTC) Or did you want a different way of breaking them up?User:BobaFett2/sig2 22:36, April 26, 2010 (UTC) I think a slight tweak might be good. If you take a look at some Wookieepedia FA's, the image layout is in a diagonal pattern a lot of the time (ie aligned left, aligned right, aligned left, etc) Two random examples I clicked were Battle of Teth and Cody Sunn-Childe. So basically moving the middle or the top and bottom images to the left would have me 100% in support of the article, but I'm happy to support it now. NovaHawk 04:42, April 28, 2010 (UTC) Woah, now it's cooking! Yeah, I think the images might be good.User:BobaFett2/sig2 13:08, April 28, 2010 (UTC) Approved as featured article 14:30, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 10210 Imperial Flagship Nominated by:User:BobaFett2/sig2 13:49, April 28, 2010 (UTC) Nomination Comments:This may seem to hasty a nomination, but the article was already good status. It only needed a few more touch ups and some added detail, and voila. I have this LEGO set, and again believe the there isn't more to add. If you have any magazine pages or catalog pages pertaining to this amazing LEGO set, please upload them and include them in the article. (+2 Revs/+3 Users/+5 Total) Support User:Samdo994/sig2 14:15, April 28, 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't say this isn't worthy of a nomination, but I can't say it is the best FA I've ever seen. Weak support. Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 14:46, April 28, 2010 (UTC) In agree with Nighthawk, but sure. User:Mariofighter3/sig3 01:43, May 1, 2010 (UTC) Per above; a great article about a great set! Ajraddatz Talk 22:06, May 5, 2010 (UTC) Looks good... may need links to the minifigs (or a page for the minifigs) --Clone Commander Fox 01:53, May 8, 2010 (UTC) Yeah "Admiral's Daughter" and "Admiral" really should be created. NovaHawk 08:43, May 8, 2010 (UTC) Ok, a bit per NBP, but I'm happy enough to support it NovaHawk 00:34, May 11, 2010 (UTC) Object # Now tagged with {{Redbricks}} due to an excessive number of redlinks. This needs to be fixed if the article is to pass at all, regardless of vote count as it does not meet FA requirements. NovaHawk 05:01, April 29, 2010 (UTC) Comments Needs a See also section, but overall looks good! User:Samdo994/sig2 14:03, April 28, 2010 (UTC) Oh yeah, thanks for the suggestion, I'll add one!User:BobaFett2/sig2 14:04, April 28, 2010 (UTC) Oh, sorry. I'll get to it after homework today.User:BobaFett2/sig2 20:47, April 29, 2010 (UTC) I finished off the redlinks and added more content, so I'm waiting to see his reply.User:BobaFett2/sig2 01:44, May 1, 2010 (UTC) Phew, NHL no longer opposes.User:BobaFett2/sig2 21:10, May 3, 2010 (UTC) I added the minifigure articles is it good now?User:BobaFett2/sig2 13:02, May 8, 2010 (UTC) Looking better, although the cook and lieutenant could probably do with links as well. The sentence "Over each cannon port is a blue flap, which can be lifted. The cannons are of the new kind, which can fire, (US only , as all other countries already used firing cannons in the past.) unlike their predecessors" could really do with a cleanup too- is it saying that the sets with firing cannons weren't sold in the US before this one? NovaHawk 07:38, May 9, 2010 (UTC) It's saying that they weren't sold in the US before 2009 except for one year (I think when Pirates was released), after which COPPA banned them.User:BobaFett2/sig2 21:26, May 10, 2010 (UTC) Approved as featured article 01:16, May 15, 2010 (UTC)