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)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Power Miners Nominated by:User:BobaFett2/sig2 16:03, March 24, 2010 (UTC) Nomination Comments:This is a great article, I have worked on it with Agent Chase and Mariofighter3 Re-Nominated by: -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 15:04, May 23, 2010 (UTC) Re-Nomination Comments: I have renomated this so I can make sure the article may meet the two objector's sugjestions. (±0 Revs/+7 Users/+7 Total) Support I have been helping Boba get this to Featured stats.--Agent Chase: :Agents in Action! 16:25, March 24, 2010 (UTC) -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 18:18, March 24, 2010 (UTC) Per above. Ajraddatz Talk 18:26, March 24, 2010 (UTC) User:Samdo994/sig2 19:28, March 24, 2010 (UTC) What's wrong with it? Nothing Commander Code-8 08:07 March 27, 2010 (2010) Maybe another external link --Clone Commander Fox 12:10, May 2, 2010 (UTC) Very informative and contains almost everything Power-Miners related!--Munchman14 21:39, May 22, 2010 (UTC) Object Well, how about making the "New pieces"-list an actual informative text as in Divers or Dragon Masters, instead of giving the reader just a list of obscure numbers? Oh, and a larger lead section would also be nice (remember that this is the part that goes on the main page.) :) --User:LegOtaku/sig 15:57, April 6, 2010 (UTC) Per LegOtaku- for a GA, fair enough, but to be an FA, it needs to be basically perfect NovaHawk 02:00, April 9, 2010 (UTC) Comments Yep, you have. I really hope this works. What about the not added colors of the other parts? User:Samdo994/sig2 19:28, March 24, 2010 (UTC) When it says [[Part xxxxx]] (Color), it's because that part first came as that color from that theme. If it just has [[Part xxxxx]], it's because the part is entirely new. Great to see that there are so many supports.User:BobaFett2/sig2 20:36, March 24, 2010 (UTC) Ugh I new this would happen. I don't want to change the list of parts because it took my so long to make the pages and list.User:BobaFett2/sig2 22:06, April 6, 2010 (UTC) Didn't think that this would work. Well, can you help me, anyone? I don't know much about the theme.User:BobaFett2/sig2 20:58, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 6986 Mission Commander Nominated by:User:BobaFett2/sig2 01:07, May 18, 2010 (UTC) (+3 Revs/+2 Users/+5 Total) Support It seems well writenUser:Mackmoron11/sig 01:43, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 15:57, June 15, 2010 (UTC) User:Ajraddatz/sig 21:48, June 22, 2010 (UTC) NovaHawk 06:27, June 24, 2010 (UTC) By process of elimination of the other "candidates" really. W:User:Kjhf/sig Oppose # First of all, in the first paragraph, the {{clear}} needs to be removed and the image repositioned, because that white space is weird. Also, I'm not sure why we have Dutch prices- is this intended for a substitute of Euro pricing since the set is pre-Euro? (that isn't an oppose reason, just wondering). But, on the whole, I'm sorry, I just don't think it has what it takes to be an FA. Take a look at FA's like Castle, Pirates and 6195 Neptune Discovery Lab / Aqua Dome 7. They're much longer and more descriptive. Not all articles have the potential to become FA's (which is one reason why we have GA's and completeness), and I don't think this one can. In it's current state, I'd support it for GA, but not FA. Sorry. NovaHawk 23:36, May 18, 2010 (UTC) #Just doesn't really "wow" me. Could use some work. -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 18:26, May 25, 2010 (UTC) # I agree on the points of Ajr. and Nerf. I mean, really, most of the nominations from you, boba, are all Space Related. Can't we have something like a movie theme's something to be a FA or GA? -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 22:30, May 25, 2010 (UTC) Comments It could use more of a neutral point of view in areas. Ajraddatz Talk 01:14, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Okay, I'll fix it.User:BobaFett2/sig2 01:29, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Fixed.User:BobaFett2/sig2 01:31, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Pirates is awful short for a theme. The dutch price is there because it's a price.User:BobaFett2/sig2 23:49, May 18, 2010 (UTC) Ok, nvm. -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 22:42, May 25, 2010 (UTC) Thank you for understanding MF3.User:BobaFett2/sig2 22:51, May 25, 2010 (UTC) Yes!!!!User:BobaFett2/sig2 17:45, June 15, 2010 (UTC) Approved as featured article 23:01, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Orient Expedition Nominated by: -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 21:22, June 9, 2010 (UTC) Nomination comments: I worked work very hard on this for a while. Follows MoS, has correct spelling and grammar, has enough length span for an FA theme, everything seems good. Thanks Boba for helping me and encouraging me. Tell me if anything is wrong, because I'll change it in a heart beat. Thanks. (+3 Revs/+2 Users/+5 Total) Support User:BobaFett2/sig2 22:21, June 9, 2010 (UTC) -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 17:06, June 16, 2010 (UTC) User:Ajraddatz/sig 21:48, June 22, 2010 (UTC) User:Samdo994/sig1 11:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC) NovaHawk 06:27, June 24, 2010 (UTC) Object Comments Approved as featured article 23:01, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 8098 Clone Turbo Tank Nominated by: User:Cpatain Rex/sig 01:39, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Nomination comments: Well, I know that it is not yet released, and it needs a description from LEGO.com, but it won GA status, and I thought that it might be viable as a FA. Just wanted to see what everyone else thought. (+4 Revs/+2 Users/+6 Total) Support I actually like this article, it seems very complete and nice. If the fact that it is unreleased is a problem, then we can wait and re-nominate after it comes out. Ajraddatz Talk 13:54, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Even though Nighthawk has a huge point, this artcle is VERY describtion, so per Captain Rex :) User:Mariofighter3/sig321:22, March 5, 2010 (UTC) This article is great (with the shop description it will be even longer!)--Clone Commander Fox 00:57, March 18, 2010 (UTC) It's a great article and it tells the world that we have the inside scoop on stuff.User:BobaFett2/sig2 21:34, March 26, 2010 (UTC) User:Samdo994/sig1 09:57, July 13, 2010 (UTC) Knew it could be better. And so Cpatain Rex's legacy lives on.... -Nerfblasterpro: Can you believe it's only been a year? 13:00, July 13, 2010 (UTC) User:CaptainJag/sig1 19:12, July 16, 2010 (UTC) Object # I just don't think we should have an FA on an unreleased set. Things may change in the future, making the information false. We're not 100% sure about the tactical droid, so the information in incomplete. And, it's not following the MOS with not having a shop description. I know one has been released yet, but I still think that it should have one if it's to be an FA. I'll be happy to vote for it after it's released though and everything's sorted out with it. NovaHawk 02:49, March 5, 2010 (UTC) # Per Nighthawk. User:CaptainJag/sig1 03:46, March 5, 2010 (UTC) #Totally agree with Nighthawk!-- WHAT?!?! User:Eddlikeshotsauce KABOOM 16:20, March 18, 2010 (UTC) BOR Strike- objection (set not released) has been addressed for over a week, and objector has been absent on page for over a week NovaHawk 23:45, July 14, 2010 (UTC) What they said. -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 15:19, March 20, 2010 (UTC) #We can't Feature this when it hasn't been released! I may be new to Brickipedia, but I know how Featured articles work Commander Code-8 08:03 March 27, 2010 (UTC) BOR Strike- objection (set not released) has been addressed for over a week, and objector has been absent on page for over a week NovaHawk 23:45, July 14, 2010 (UTC) Comments Removed support vote Rex due to nominators not being allowed to vote for FA noms NovaHawk 02:49, March 5, 2010 (UTC) After re-reviewing this page, it definetely could be an FA, but it has not yet been released. I say it should be an FA in about 6 months or so, but not yet. -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 21:39, March 23, 2010 (UTC) But having it before it is released says to the world: Look here, Brickipedia has the inside scoop! Either way, it can be made better. -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 18:18, March 24, 2010 (UTC) I see this set on Ebay, they say they ship it to you in a few days, so they say it's not being pre-ordered. The sellers are from Japan and Netherlnads, maybe it was released there. This set has been released in Australia already (I've seen it at Target), so would that help get it FA? It hasn't been listed on the LEGO Star Wars website or LEGO Shop@Home Australia yet, however.--S•h•o•b•y•4 (Talk•Edits•Contribs) 02:59, July 3, 2010 (UTC) Since the set is now available in stores, I'll let it run for at least a week, see if anyone knows of any changes that need to be made to the set, and if people want to strike their opposing votes due to it being unreleased. NovaHawk 04:40, July 3, 2010 (UTC) Approved as featured article 07:56, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Boba Fett Nominated by: NovaHawk 06:34, May 9, 2010 (UTC) (+4 Revs/+4 Users/+8 Total) Support 's Good.User:BobaFett2/sig2 12:32, May 9, 2010 (UTC) I made the clone wars info on him. Try to correct it if you know more on the topic. --Clone Commander Fox 23:10, May 10, 2010 (UTC) Good. Kingcjc 16:07, May 23, 2010 (UTC) Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 15:57, June 15, 2010 (UTC) Nice. User:Ajraddatz/sig 21:48, June 22, 2010 (UTC) --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 06:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC) Might as well, nah. It's awsome now! -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 12:59, July 12, 2010 (UTC) User:Samdo994/sig1 10:00, July 13, 2010 (UTC) User:CaptainJag/sig1 19:45, July 23, 2010 (UTC) Object #It is looking good, but there is one problem: The Clone Wars. There is no mention of him in the Clone Wars, which was a huge milestone for Boba. -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 13:00, May 9, 2010 (UTC) #Needs more references. -Legocity200 21:46, June 29, 2010 (UTC) (Stricken per BOR vote) Comments I disagree. BobaFett2 is from Episodes 4-6. He is barely mentioned in the 2nd and 3rd episodes. I think that you are thinking of Jango Fett.User:BobaFett2/sig2 13:11, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Incorrect my old friend! He did, but you would have to watch the Second Season finale of Star Wars: The Clone Wars to see him. -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 13:34, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Oh, sorry I don't watch clone wars. Hey MF3, will you work with me on an article to get to FA?User:BobaFett2/sig2 13:35, May 9, 2010 (UTC) There is no mention of him in the Clone Wars because he's never appeared in the LEGO TCW line, therefore isn't relevant to this article. I could also go on about him for ages in the Legacy Era, but it just isn't relevant, and also per this. NovaHawk 22:19, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Nighthawk: The only reason I said what i did because there is a subtheme for the Clone Wars. He did take place, only not in the sets. You see where I'm getting at? -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 22:36, May 16, 2010 (UTC) Not to be a jerk but this is a LEGO Wiki and if it's not LEGO it's not really necessary.User:BobaFett2/sig2 22:39, May 16, 2010 (UTC) Kind of, but there isn't a Clone Wars variant of him, therefore he isn't related to the Clone Wars as far as LEGO goes. Maybe when LSW3 comes out he might be in it an TCW content can be added then NovaHawk 22:46, May 16, 2010 (UTC) I don't think I can support this yet. We are going to get alot of info after summer, especially with the release of LSW3. I won't object, but I can't support yet. I will think on my decision. -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 18:28, May 25, 2010 (UTC) @Legocity200: We don't really have a referencing policy here, and there's no criteria that it should be referenced to be an FA. We have tried to do figure out some way to reference things before (there are at least two forums I can remember which talked about how to reference things, but the problem is that a lot of the times, the information comes from first-hand experience with a set, etc, and there isn't a place online which can truly back it up. Sometimes links to reviews can help, but not always. NovaHawk 03:38, July 1, 2010 (UTC) Do you want to point out where exactly you want references at least? NovaHawk 04:40, July 3, 2010 (UTC) This article cannot pass until you get at least one more BOR member. It's a bit sad... BobaFett2 12:16, July 3, 2010 (UTC) Well it can now :) However there's an outstanding objection. But, I've tried asking what needs referencing (above), and referencing is not a part of the FA criteria (and none of the other FA's ave any/many references). The originaly objector has also been absent on this page for over a week (BP:BOR, rule #2) Would a BOR member be able to review the vote and see if it should be stricken? (I can't really give a neutral opinion since I nominated it) NovaHawk 03:22, July 13, 2010 (UTC) Hmm shouldn't the Maquette be in the gallery of variants too? User:Samdo994/sig1 10:00, July 13, 2010 (UTC) The maquette isn't an actual minifigure, and isn't produced by LEGO (made by Gentle Giant). I wouldn't put it in personally, but I wouldn't be opposed to it being in there. NovaHawk 10:12, July 13, 2010 (UTC) Now it can be FA again!User:BobaFett2/sig2 12:11, July 13, 2010 (UTC) Not with outstanding opopsing votes (see above comment) NovaHawk 23:55, July 22, 2010 (UTC) I think you should remove LEGOcity's oppose because it doens't make sense.User:BobaFett2/sig2 00:02, July 23, 2010 (UTC) As the nominator I'm not really comfortable doing that, as I may not be seeing it from an objective standpoint. However attempts to address this issue have been going for over 3 weeks, (first comment on July 1), and still no response. NovaHawk 00:05, July 23, 2010 (UTC) I think he's gone for a while. From a different viewpoint, his comment doesn't make sense. You have enough references/sources.User:BobaFett2/sig2 00:06, July 23, 2010 (UTC) Removal of opposition vote from Legocity200 (BOR only) Remove Vote taking place under rule #2 of BP:BOR NovaHawk 05:27, August 2, 2010 (UTC) I forgot I was BOR :). I think his vote is ungrounded so let's get rid of it!User:BobaFett2/sig2 12:39, August 2, 2010 (UTC) Agreed. -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 18:12, August 8, 2010 (UTC) Keep Approved as featured article 04:20, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to be put through as an FA 5988 Pharaoh's Forbidden Ruins Nominated by:User:BobaFett2/sig2 19:34, August 21, 2010 (UTC) Nomination comments: A long article, detailed description. MF3, there is nothing in the MOS saying you need to describe the minifigures. (+3 Revs/+7 Users/+10 Total) Support #User:BobaFett2/sig2 19:34, August 21, 2010 (UTC) (Nominators not permitted to vote in FAC) Good detail ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 19:50, August 21, 2010 (UTC) Maybe we should add international prices, or are those not available? User:Cpatain Rex/sig 19:58, August 21, 2010 (UTC) --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 20:05, August 21, 2010 (UTC) --Secretam Lots of nice pictures. Good writing also. User:Ajraddatz/sig 01:23, August 22, 2010 (UTC) --User:Captain Jag/sig 05:50, August 22, 2010 (UTC) User:Samdo994/sig1 12:52, August 22, 2010 (UTC) Gladiatoring 14:15, August 27, 2010 (UTC) --User:FreddyderHamster/sig 20:06, August 28, 2010 (UTC) NovaHawk 00:29, August 29, 2010 (UTC) Object # Looking good. However, I found a fair few spelling mistakes (mainly with "heiroglyphs->hieroglyphs"), don't know if there are any more. Also added and bolded UK name to stop it from being US-centric. But, the reason I'm opposing is that the "background" section is incorrectly used. "Background" refers to "in-universe" stuff, eg, "descripition" would be about the set itself (parts, accessories it had, etc), "background" would be for how it fits into a story (eg, if it's a scene from a movie, a brief description of the scene). "Largest set" stuff should be either in the description or notes. Other than that, I wouldn't be opposed to it at all. NovaHawk 05:45, August 22, 2010 (UTC) Comments Im still not fixed on that image at the bottom. it lookes better centered but would prob be better in teh galelery? Otherwise, very concise article. ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 19:47, August 21, 2010 (UTC) MovedUser:BobaFett2/sig2 19:48, August 21, 2010 (UTC) International prices are not available (at least I don't know where to find them). Okay will you un-oppose if I remove the backgruound section.User:BobaFett2/sig2 12:34, August 22, 2010 (UTC) Also the spelling mistakes have been fixed by samdo.User:BobaFett2/sig2 12:35, August 22, 2010 (UTC) Changed the background section to universe stuff.User:BobaFett2/sig2 12:36, August 22, 2010 (UTC) Approved as featured article 12:21, August 29, 2010 (UTC)