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.

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


Also, don't forget to check Forum:Index for a number of unresolved forums.


Contents

Colours

I think we need to vote on this: Do we use LEGO's colour name e.g. Bright Purple, the scientific colour name Barbie pink, the name lego characters refer it as raspberry or just what people refer it as "pink" Unsigned comment by Soupperson1 (talk • contribs).

The official name, but in instances of commonly used terms for the colour there may be a redirect (e.g. "light bley" to "medium stone grey"). In instances where there may be multiple colors referred to by the same name, such as "blue", there should be a disambiguation page. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Official name (thought it would be a no-brainer). Redirects and disambigs wouldn't hurt though of course NovaHawk 01:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually ment referring to colours on pages, I need to explain things better :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

  • Oh, right :P I tend to use what's most readable (but link to the official name), but a set policy on this would be a good idea NovaHawk 12:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Vote

Use only official names in articles
  1. If we link why not? I know most of the official colour names it didn't take long to learn them either. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Allow unofficial names in articles (but still link to official names)
  1. To me, it just makes things easier to read. Maybe not for me, but for other people who haven't spent hours rearranging templates for LEGO colours NovaHawk 04:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    And by this, I don't mean replace it with a fan-based term that casual readers may not understand or think is a typo (like "bley"), I mean replace it with something everyone will understand (like "tan" instead of "Brick-Yellow") NovaHawk 04:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  • Not really sure how I want to vote on this... Even "common" names such as "purple" could be confusing to a reader, especially with the numerous amounts of purple shades there are. Same thing for green, blue, and basically every other color... --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Review team

Seeing how the QCG is dead, half of users in it haven't wrote a review since the merge, I think we should do a review team. I think this is a necessary idea to revive the review sub site. I think the reviews of this team should be featured on the homepage similar to what brickset does. But I don't know some things: should it only include admins or be treated like the news reporter group, should there be creative freedom or a guideline. Anyway I think if the site works together I'm sure we can get over a hundred reviews within a year. Also small sets take short time to review and we allow reviews for collectible minifigures and pollybags so everyone can join without hassle or bankruptcy. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Notes

  • Since we have this years DTCs: http://en.brickimedia.org/wiki/Brickipedia_News:2015_Gift_with_Purchases_and_DTCs_revealed , the set of the month should be the featured review unless no one has the set, but I'm sure there's a set which reflects that moth that LEGO has made a set of.
    • The QCG isn't related to reviews? CJC95 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Nope, that's BP:RQM. But since the ratings extension doesn't even work in the reviews namespace, I don't see a point to it NovaHawk 03:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh good - I was gonna say, I don't remember being a review quality person :P CJC95 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
          • The ratings extension doesn't work in the reviews namespace? Do you want it to? ;) UltrasonicNXT (talk)
            • Yes please :D And the inventory space as well if you could- I thought you said there was some problem with it working in more than one namespace, so had to disable it before? NovaHawk 22:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
              • And the new Part: namespace as well if you could :P NovaHawk 06:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
                • Done. This actually should have already been happening (it did surprise me a little), just some localsettings statements were in the wrong order. (Hmm I think I rewrote that bit of the code after that so that's irrelevent) UltrasonicNXT (talk)

Customs + Stories = ♥

Warning: This section breaks protocol. Reader discretion is advised.

It's a sad day when someone comes to these forums to get something recognized. The only other option seemed to be a blog, and maybe I'll try that too because now that I think about it that might make more sense. Anyway, Customs has a tendency to die and nothing was getting done in regards to the stories merge, so I thought I would bring it up here. I'm basically looking for ideas because I have no idea what to do. The only things that I recall discussing with Bug (and in a forum before it died) are:

  • SirComputer requested that we keep the visual identity of Stories intact. This is kind of vague, but something that we would like to honor, though, to be totally honest, I have no idea how to do that.
  • We also want to use the opportunity to give Customs a makeover. There was a bit of debate, and then the forum just sort of died without any results.
  • Whether we want to import stories upon request or just import them all at once.

Knight said that Stories should be to Customs what Reviews is to En and I kind of agree, but to be honest, the implementation between the two is awful and feels inorganic. (I know we are trying to fix it, and I've thrown around some ideas myself, but anything that our site tries to get done in regards to redesign, aside from the upcoming Refreshed layout I suppose, seems slow since most of these are issues we have had for years.) That is something I want to avoid. I want to find a way to integrate stories into the wiki better and to encourage people to write them, even if it is something short. I want it to be clear that it is there. Perhaps not in-your-face, but not something to ignore either.

So, basically I posted this in the wrong spot because I need ideas and to see those ideas actually come to light. I will move it to a blog if I absolutely must (and even if I don't, I might to account for some users who don't read the forums but might have feedback I would like) but I am not relegating this to Customs where Bug and I will be responsible for everything because we can't do it alone. People don't go there to discuss policy, only to upload MOCs. Sure, I can prod them on chat to check every time there is an update, but who wants that? Berrybrick (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Not all at once, guys. :P Kahuka just linked to [1] this on chat and I thought, if we are going to allow stories, why not fan art? Might as well add that option while we are (hopefully) transitioning to bigger and better things. Berrybrick (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm definitely up for fan art, but I'd like to avoid things like poorly photoshopped video game covers. This would mean that policies defining art would have to be put into place. - Bug (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you think you would be able to come up with that? I'm not the person who is good at defining what constitutes art and what doesn't, but I could probably say something sounds reasonable. :P Berrybrick (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure. I could just stick something on that article requirements page once we've combined. - Bug (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to import every page on account of the majority being from authors that have never contributed to Brickimedia. It'd take mere minutes to transfer the work of our own authors (regardless of requests), which would keep the site organized and easier to maintain. - Bug (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. --Knight
I don't know if Sherman would be okay with this, but I don't have any strong feelings of my own going either way. Berrybrick (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly why I didn't want to mention it prior to you bringing it up. - Bug (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Is Stories going to be on a different namespace? Like, the colors change in a similar fashion to Reviews here on En? I'd totally be on board with that, and it'd probably make it easier to maintain their style and stuff. Also, would it be possible for me to change how only Stories looks in my cache CSS whatever it is? --Knight
Read Berry's second paragraph. - Bug (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
And, while on the subject, I agree with him. - Bug (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I already read that, I just wanted to put more discussion on it. :P One suggestion I have to make it feel more organic is to have it have a lot of representation on the main page. As much as the MOCs. Like, it'd have Featured Story, WotM, etc. I dunno what we'd do with the MOC gallery, but we could do something. We could also have some colour-coding on the WotM and Featured Story to make it quick to realize they're different namespaces and to make them stand out. --Knight
I'm not sure why you asked the question if you already knew that it was still up for debate, but I digress. Anyhow, I don't think the lack of representation is what makes it feel "inorganic." I do agree that it feels this way, however. Regardless, you won't have to worry about integration; Berry and I have already discussed the main page. - Bug (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Any other suggestions on how to make it feel more organic? --Knight
Not at the moment (I'm trying to work on that) but what I basically meant was I don't want it to feel like two totally different sites when they are the same wiki. Berrybrick (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
We could have something like Story: or Fiction: in front of the titles of any stories, but leave the background the same. - Bug (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we could make it do what you say, except make it so the background is technically separate in code, but looks the same. That way I can change it in my cache if I want or something. --Knight
I don't know if that would be possible without putting unnecessary effort into things.. but I'm not the one that'd be setting up. - Bug (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone know if it would be possible to make it so a page can only be edited by its author and any admins/moderators (preferably with the ability to add other authors)? People editing others' pages isn't really an issue at all, but I think people might appreciate the security if it's possible. Still coming up with other ideas (kinda) but thought I'd ask this. :b Berrybrick (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I've seen a few fanfic wikis that plaster a warning template on the top of their pages. This isn't foolproof, but I'm sure it'd give some authors peace of mind. Perhaps we could integrate something into the infoboxes..? - Bug (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Ideally there should just be a policy and a notice about that and the etiquette of it all. There is the ability to do this kind of thing and there are similar extensions already available (but for this particular implementation we'd have to write our own I believe). It's not something I'd advise doing because it does make things a little frustrating especially when a user (non-admin) wants to do some cleanup, fix a template, etc and doesn't have permission (BS01 Wiki has this kind of protection on user pages and it was always frustrating before I was an admin there). --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bricki, I'm back whilst my IDE saves. If it's easier for you, I'm happy for the visuals of LSW to be abandoned to get the content on, then if you want to you can give it it's own little skin. All I meant by keep the visual stuff was maybe the LSW colour and stuff, but the browny colour was never the best. Customs admins, see admin/Handing Stories Over for stuff that we never finished and should probably be done. I see you're getting plans together - brilliant! However, I'll leave you all to it, and good luck. -SirComputer (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been gone for a week and can't comment yet (the wiki keeps breaking for me and I have other things to do anyway) but I'm going to post here anyway as a nice little bump. :U Berrybrick (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to copy over what SirC said on the admin wiki because I think that it won't hurt for other people to see:
  • See above link from 1999bug for comments on visuals by me - if it's better for you, you don't need to preserve it. The content is more important than the visuals.
Well, that comment at the "above link" would be what is right above this.
  • Info/Dev template needs to be rolled out - Info templates need a theme parameter corresponding to their theme category (so a bot could do this maybe) and Info/Dev should become Info, as that implements the theme parameter. Bit confusing, but you should see after a while.
This is something to work on. Perhaps Customs' infoboxes could do with some retooling too, to get a separate visual identity from En. I'll probably regret suggesting that, because it is more overhaul stuff that won't get done, but any ideas? :P
  • Adopt policies for other fan-made stuff - I saw a wish for fan art, and Awesomeknight wanted comic strips to be allowed. If we're merging into Customs we have a chance to evolve Stories into a general fan-made stuff wiki. Feel free to plan big - this is where dropping the visual identity will help you expand tons.
Yeah, I probably should have been putting thought into policies. There was no reason to figure out the visual identity before doing that. Whoops. O\ Anyway, "a general fan-made stuff wiki" is pretty much what I would like to see Customs become. How do we do that though? I'm not sure how well suited a wiki layout is for that, but there has got to be a creative solution that isn't too difficult to use, right? Maybe?
  • I think a wiki format would work fine. Like how there are categories and templates for "custom sets", "custom minifigures", etc, add "artwork", "comic", and "story", while keeping the same overall content organisation as Customs has now. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • We'd also need to work on a number of new infobox types. Having several different forms will get confusing, so an omnibus would be nice to have, too. - Bug (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Finish anything you find we left incomplete.
Anyone who knows their way around stories better than me find anything which felt unfinalized? Now would be a good time to speak up. :P

People pages, part 2

  • This has been nagging at me for a couple of weeks, but now there's been a James May minifigure made, I can't ignore it any longer- how do we deal with real-life people who have made some sort of contribution to warrant an article here, but have also been minifigures? For example, James May (now a promo minifigure, but also hosted a LEGO episode of Toy Stories), Adam West (a minifigure, but voiced by the actual Adam West, so would count as a voice actor) and Stan Lee (same as Adam West). What MoS should they follow (minifigure, person [which still hasn't been made], or a separate new MoS)? Or should they be split into two articles (eg, Stan Lee (person) and Stan Lee (minifigure))? NovaHawk 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • This is tricky. For James May, he definitely deserves a Category:People article because of the Toy Stories involvement, however for ones like Adam West or Stan Lee I'm not quite sure. I would say for those two have it be just the minifigure article and have a note saying "Adam West voiced his minifigure in media name here". Same thing for Shaquille O'Neal who voiced his minifigure in The LEGO Movie. That's not all that big of a contribution to deserve a People article as well. I'd say James May should stay as a People article and doesn't need a minifigure article either. Since the minifigure appeared in a video promo instead of something like a game, there's not all that much to write about it so it doesn't really need its own article. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, going to take a shot at some sort of formalised policy:
    • People whose only contribution to LEGO is that they voice a minifigure based on themselves as a real-life person should have a minifigure article only (for example Conan O'Brien, Jim Lee and Shaquille O'Neal).
    • People who have voiced both themselves as a minifigure and as another character should have both a person page and a minifigure page, with the title of the minifigure page taking precedence over the person page (for example, John Smith would be a page about the minifigure, while John Smith (person) would be a page about the person). For example, Adam West (person) and Adam West, as Adam West also voiced the Gray Ghost.
    • People who have made multiple contributions to LEGO as themselves and have voiced a minifigure based on their likeness will be assessed on a case by case basis (for example, James May).
? :S NovaHawk 11:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

News reporter rights

Following in the aftermath of some drama that I was unaware of (until I searched through the past revisions of this page), I would like to suggest that we remove the news reporters group and allow autoconfirmed users or registered users to submit news articles. Admins, or maybe the current NR members would then approve it for quality, truth, news worthiness, etc. Admins (and NR if we kept the group), would be able to instantly publish an article. I'm not sure if it is possible to do this via current extensions/core functionality, or whether we would have to develop/install something. --LK901 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reposting this. Yes, this is exactly what I proposed yesterday. Brickipedia is "the LEGO wiki that anyone can edit". News is part of that, so anyone should be able to contribute to news without going through a request process for rights that shouldn't be necessary. Anyone is able to contribute to mainspace, reviews, etc, so the same should be for news. If someone's news article isn't the best quality, other members can help them improve it. That's what a wiki is about-- collaboration. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Then we should let everyone ban & kick too because of spam and such. Actually, Yay, let's remove every single user right! ~~ Sibo the First (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Unlike reporting news or writing an article, kicking and banning isn't contributing to the site. It is moderating the site. Berrybrick (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It was kinda a joke you know :-P ~~ Sibo the First (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In terms of practicality, this can be done as follows:
    • It wouldn't enter the rss feed until approved by someone. Hence not on the main page, nor an rss reader or any twitters that take our rss, until someone approves it.
    • Also note that this would not mean any old news article could end up on the Twitter either, since any news posted there is done manually by someone with access (currently myself, Meiko, Berry and probably Lcawte).
  • In terms of usefulness of this:
    • People who find news can report it.
    • Anyone who can write in English can write something.
  • In terms of why this won't lead to spam or bad articles:
    • It won't enter the feed until its approved - so it will only be found by those in RC until then, basically.
    • If an article is good but needs editing to fit style, it can be done by an admin/news group person before it enters the feed, so we get more good content (similar to how newspaper reports would be edited before publication).
    • Rubbish/content that isn't news/duplicate stories/spam can be deleted.
  • Basically, this is no different to me and Berry reading Nexus's stories yesterday and editing them and then publishing. CJC95 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think this will work as people were once gun ho about ratings and now look where we are. Also people will make reports on MOCS/fan ficus ect. We need a MoS for news before we do this Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    • No one was ever that excited about ratings.
    • Then they won't get published on the RSS or Twitter. They would be deleted.
    • No we don't - we never needed one for news reporters, so why would we need one now? I'd trust the same people who write reports now to judge whether something is good or not. CJC95 (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh. It seems I must have misunderstood before- from the way the original post read, I thought there was going to be a lengthy approval process for each article. I'm totally fine with what CJC's saying. If it's just a quick yes/no from a news reporter like how it's a quick yes/no from a QCG member for the lower tier ratings, then that sounds ok to me. How would the protection for the namespace work though? It shouldn't be autoconfirmed, as it would mean anyone could post articles that go straight out to RSS feeds, but it shoudn't be sysop either? Or just keep it news group protected and have it so the submissions for news articles can be posted in the Brickipedia: namespace? NovaHawk 21:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The idea would be that the article would exist in the news space, but wouldn't go to the RSS until its been approved. So anyone can post in the namespace, but that doesn't automatically mean it will go to the RSS feed, it will wait until its been approved by a reporter. So, if say someone posted spam there, it wouldn't go to the RSS or main page. It can just be deleted. CJC95 (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
      • If that was to happen, it's going to be a real pain to code... NovaHawk 01:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the terms of "the LEGO wiki anyone can edit," I do not believe "special" articles are covered in that. News is not Ninjago, you can't have anybody writing it. Yes if this idea gets through there will be the approval, but really think about it, who would really use it other than the current news reporters? Isn't the approval process you're suggesting exactly the same as Brickipedia News:Reports? Reports is never used, so why would a process essentially identical to that be used too? BrikkyyTalk 22:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't even know that Reporters existed until you used it briefly, to be honest. I don't see it linked to here, on any individual articles, or on the main page, which is where I would look to find it. Berrybrick (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (By "Reporters" I meant Brickipedia News: Reports. I obviously knew what reporters are. :P ) Berrybrick (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • All people ever used that page for was to post a link to a news story, and then one of us had to write it. That is not the point of the proposed system. CJC95 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The only thing is that I don't see why anonymous users can't contribute news articles. Is it because we are worried about spambots? Something similar to what is described here could probably implemented, right? Anyway, I support this idea (as I did yesterday, I just didn't understand that one part and wanted it clarified :P ). Berrybrick (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Brikkyy. Also, I don't see why changing everything would improve this site: We are in a community where people have (also had) their places in a community. Like News Reporters. They are our journalists. A Rollbacker/Admin could be seen as our police, or representatives. I'm just saying that if such change would be set in action, it wouldn't get us forward. Most people see the news themselves. Then they won't bother sharing it. Unless they have NR. :-P ~~ Sibo the First (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Food for thought: All opposition has given reasons why this might not work. Are there any concerns about why it might actually be damaging? Berrybrick (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • We tweet out stupid reports like:New Kai/Emma fan fiction is out! :P Or you know a moc news report that isn't dedicated to this site Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
      • You are presumably suggesting that Me or Berry would decide to tweet that out? Because, you know, if we wanted to do that we could now... CJC95 (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Honestly, CJC's system sounds practical, and it'd be nice for people who actually care about news to write it instead of forcing people who don't care about it to write the reports because they're the only ones that can. I imagine the ones written by those who actually care would be more comprehensive. And there's no good opposition I've seen to this idea. Worst case, if we try it and a totally unexpected problem arises, we just revert back to the old system. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
          • We need a support/oppose section. Should I go ahead? --LK901 10:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Added a vote below so we can finally resolve this and get rid of some clutter :P NovaHawk 04:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Vote

With the "new system" being that anyone can write news reports, but it is up to the news reporter group to decide whether to publish the reports to our news stream.

Adopt new system
  1. On the condition that the news reporters are still the only ones able to edit the Brickipedia News: namespace, and reports are written in a separate namespace (like on "Brickipedia:News reports" or something), then when approved they're copied to the new namespace. Otherwise a whole new system with the SMW stuff is going to have to be set up so our RSS/external feeds aren't spammed (it's currently safe because one of the conditions for a news report to be published is that it's in the news namespace). And, as the person who'd probably get stuck with working on this, I'm saying now that I am not wasting my time working on trying to develop a new safeguard that can be trusted to protect the feeds 100% of the time. NovaHawk 04:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand how your adopting a new system if you want everything the same. :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
I don't? All I'm saying is that the page that anyone can write the reports on shouldn't be in the News namespace. NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep old system
  1. I find the current system fine, and even if we change it who else is going to write news reports? We don't have an abundance of users let alone editors let alone people who will write news reports. The only issue we had with the system is when Nexus applied, but that was because of little site activity. I think it will be a large amount of hassle to change the system when we could you know edit, make a custom or a review. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Comments

People Pages: the people page section to end all people page sections

  • We've had a few forums on this already, but nothing's getting decided. So I'll set up a forum with straight votes, and go through them step by step.

Section 1: Who to have articles on

The first thing is- what articles on real-life people should we have on the wiki? Feel free to add other sections for other types of people if you can think of any NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Certified Master Builders

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was allow
Support
  1. NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. --LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Have a list (but not individual pages)
Oppose
  1. I don't think they're involved enough in the LEGO group Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    Readers would be interested in this sort of thing, though, wouldn't they? Also, I don't see how they'd be less involved than voice actors. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Their whole lives revolve around working for LEGO, how much more involved can you get? :P NovaHawk 23:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  • If people want to make pages, I guess they could go ahead, but I think a list might be more suitable. Berrybrick (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Is this talking about Master Builders, or LEGO Certified Professionals? They're two very different things. "Certified Master Builder" isn't a title I'm familiar with. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Closing as passed if there are no more votes in 1 day. Otherwise this will never get resolved. NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Members of the LEGO Ambassador Program

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
Support
Have a list (but not individual pages)
  1. NovaHawk 23:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Berrybrick (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. --LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. We don't need a page on Meiko. CJC95 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  • Maybe as a list would be useful. I don't know about doing individual pages though. Berrybrick (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Added a new "have a list" section to each vote NovaHawk 23:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • General note- closed all those with unanimous support. NovaHawk 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Closing in 1 day as make a list (I think 75% is safe) NovaHawk 04:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I highly oppose this change as it's more work than necessary for no benefit. A LEGO ambassador is not a part of the LEGO Group and thus is not significant to Brickipedia's project scope. The list of LEGO Ambassadors changes yearly and in some cases more frequently than that, therefore it's highly unlikely we'll ever have an up to date, also given the fact that no up to date list is available to anyone except for LEGO's CEE team and the list of members on http://lan.lego.com which the list will change come 2016. Brickwiki at one point attempted to compile lists and as you can see that's nowhere near up to date and was often incomplete. What this would mean would be that I would have to go and manually copy and paste each ambassador's name (some of which use their real name, some have names on LAN such as "iainy73", so there would hardly be any consistency or sense in such list), put them all in a wiki formatted list or table, and update that every time an ambassador changes, which on its own is a ridiculously unreasonable task to complete since some ambassadors never even post in LAN and don't introduce themselves. Honestly there is no point in including such a list. I've tried to get a page on the Ambassador Program/Ambassador Network created for a while since that actually does pertain to our project scope as it's a part of the LEGO Group, but a list of members, many of whom have no significance to the LEGO Group at all, is just unnecessary. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, knowing this, I'd definitely revoke my vote, not sure about everyone else (or if they already knew that when they were voting) NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Writers/Illustrators

Including writers/artists of comic books, novels, reference material (visual dictionaries), etc.

Support
  1. NovaHawk 23:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Have only those contracted to write original stories

(see ToaMeiko's comment below for what this section means)

  1. Per my comment --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Have a list (but not individual pages)
Oppose
Comments
  • Forgot about this one NovaHawk 23:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of them are just random authors that work for Scholastic to write a book that's the exact same story as the LEGO theme's TV series or something (especially Ninjago, Hero Factory, Chima, and other themes' books). I don't think we need pages for people like that. But for people writers like Greg Farshtey and illustrators like Stuart Sayger, yes. So basically only if the individual was contracted by the LEGO Group, not by Scholastic or DK or whatever. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Added a section. NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Section 3: Anything else?

For anything else not covered in the MoS or what characters to have.

Ordering of items in {{ListOfWorks}}

  • How should the works be ordered? By type, name or year of first release? NovaHawk 00:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Year of release could be good. It'd make it easier to follow a person's work over time, especially for senior set designers who have worked at the LEGO Group for many years. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking for some technical help...

  • We're getting hit with a new breed of spambot- instead of making pages, they're editing their own social profile. Problem with this is deleting a social profile userpage doesn't really delete it, you can still see it even after it's been redlinked- take User:AileenV60wanzxi for example. Any ideas how to solve this? (@admins- if you could check suspicious bluelinked names in the user creation log and block them if they're spambots, that'd be great) NovaHawk 23:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is essentially related to the concept of social profiles; the original developers of the social tools thought of social profiles more like traditional user profiles (on a forum, for example) instead of traditional wiki pages, and as a result of this, social profiles are treated differently, and thus they're not world-editable the way this page (or most other pages) are.
There's no definitive "right" answer on how to solve the issue, but we can definitely mitigate it:

  1. Setting effective thresholds. Instead of allowing all users to edit their social profile right away, we could require them to make N edits to the wiki('s content pages) or to have X friends or have made Y comments, etc.
  2. For cleaning up the damage which has already been done, a group (probably the sysop group) should be given the editothersprofiles user right, which allows them to access Special:EditProfile. This special page is essentially like Special:UpdateProfile, but it allows to edit an arbitrary user's social profile instead of your own. There might be some privacy constraints to this, since this tool allows to view users' e-mail addresses.

tl,dr: Some anti-spam measures are already available, but policy discussion/community consensus is likely needed on what to enable. Suggestions for new anti-spam measure are always more than welcome. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

    • To 1 I'm gonna enable this now with a very lot edit threshold (I'll say 5 edits) just to stop any more spambots in the next short while. If we want a different value, go for it, I'll just do this for the mo. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
      • I can't edit my profile at the moment. I think I have made over five edits. :P Berrybrick (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oops, I somehow missed this discussion, thanks for the responses :) I've set up a vote below NovaHawk 22:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: So, surely we need to give someone the permission to delete profiles to stop any profile abuse? In that, surely there is nothing to stop me writing in my profile various obscenities or fanfics involving Berry and Nova. CJC95 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Since we actually have had admins who have fished for real names and emails or used analytic tools to track people down (well, I'm thinking of one in particular) I'm kind of uncomfortable with this, but probably not more so than your fanfics.... Berrybrick (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Then give it to functionary, since we already have the power to track people down... (my point being is, if anyone can write stuff in there and no one can currently remove it) CJC95 (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I see your point. Functionary would work for me, but I still think that there should be some sort of threshold in that case, so that it isn't on three people to check and delete these things. Berrybrick (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, clearly the edit threshold will be in place, so spam should go down, and so only when someone reports something really bad would any be needed to be deleted. This shouldn't be something that is needed to be used daily or weekly. CJC95 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: If the right to edit other users profiles allows the user group to see email addresses, can other users' email addresses be changed through the edit profile menu? Looking at this as a possible solution to users being locked out of their accounts (github:306) and who don't have an associated email address to send a password recovery email to. --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, although email addresses changed this way will be marked as unconfirmed. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      • But even as unconfirmed, are they able to receive password resets? --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Vote

Set edit threshold

# Seems the best way to deal with it- it would be very unlikely that spambots would make five edits before they were blocked NovaHawk 22:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
  2. Berrybrick (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. NBP3.0 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Soupperson1 Jeepers!Runninh Gang.jpg
  5. I guess this would be best. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Give extra permissions to admins to delete profiles

Note- this does mean that administrators would potentially have the ability to see anyone's email address if they abused this right.

Do both

  1. Because 5 edits is too high, and any lower will result in spambots being able to create SP pages. --LK901 21:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    We could lower the 5 if you like UltrasonicNXT (talk)
    3, then? --LK901 21:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    How is 3 better than 5? :P Berrybrick (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    Some intense negotiations going on above me. -NBP3.0 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how doing both makes it better if you think 5 is too high? NovaHawk 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    I believe it was a mistake.. CJC95 (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • is. I'm not moving it to the above section, because other people have commented. --LK901 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Not giving admins this right is counterintuitive. It means that a spambot could post their spam, provided they'd somehow find a way past the edit count barrier (spambot authors are annoyingly clever people, as history has — unfortunately — shown), and we wouldn't have an easy way to remove it. Sure, we have a dedicated group for people with God-like access to the wikis, but really, sysadmins shouldn't be the ones to clean up ordinary spam or whatnot.
    Furthermore, ignoring spambots, consider the case of a disgruntled user (while rare, it's nevertheless a theoretical possibility): someone decides to post offensive things, or maybe even private info, etc. about another user or users of Brickipedia on their profile. An admin should be able to remove this kind of information without sysadmin intervention.
    Finally: if you can't trust your admins with a trivial thing such as an e-mail address, then I'd say you have a lot bigger problems than just this particular case. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. ^ Now you mention it, I don't see why it would be a problem doing this. And having the ability to remove any non-spambot vandalism from the socialprofile would be useful. NovaHawk 23:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Do neither

TV variants

  • I've noticed a lot of minifigure pages (mainly Ninjago) are having a "gallery of TV [or film] variants" section added to the minifigure gallery area. Do we actually want these? If so, it should be added to the MoS NovaHawk 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Vote

Add
  1. Lots of work has gone into these, and I actually look at them from time to time... --LK901 20:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. I think Metal Chen is the only one that actually has a variant that is just visible for a second. Variants like the Ninja's pirate and cultist disguises they wear for 1/4th of their respective episodes. Besides, the gallery contains only noticeable differences (it's not like there's "ZX no should pads, no hood," "ZX no should pads, with hood," "ZX with should pads, no hood" etc.) I don't see where else the variants would go unless someone would care to write up descriptions for each variant and having them in the regular gallery would just clutter it up with images of the different variants. --Vector Prime (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. They'll just end up in the regular gallery, with less information (or, at the very least, decentralised information) - people write it so I'll assume people want to read it... CJC95 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. It fits with the page so why not? I assume readers want this sorta thing, if we're striving to be the best source of information, why not? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  5. Per CJC. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Yeah, people could be interested in seeing what kinds of variants appear in TV (or film) whether or not the same variant appeared in physical form. Especially with series like Ninjago and Chima. Hero Factory, Mixels, and Bionicle might be a bit harder to differentiate a variant. idk --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not add (or allow on pages)
  1. I don't see the point personally. Unlike video games and physical minifigures, there are no static fixed variants- the characters just change their clothes from time to time. I don't see why if a character wears some clothes or appears in some "different" way for less than a second (eg, metal Chen) that it should be specially featured. These can all just go in the regular old gallery with the other pictures. NovaHawk 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    In Friends they have worn the same clothes in multiple episodes that aren't they're regular variants. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  2. Yeah they don't need their own gallery, they can just be put in other places in the article. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
  3. Per above. -NBP3.0 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Berrybrick (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    Just thought I would say: Part of this seems to be a misunderstanding of what the word "variant" actually means. It is not going to refer to a person changing clothes, which is mostly why I'm opposing (though I do also agree with Nova). It just doesn't make sense in context. :P Berrybrick (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    So...what are we talking about? We need like an example or two or seven of pages that would be affected by not allowing it, and in what ways said pages would be affected. CJC95 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well, it's kind of objective. For me, the inclusion of "TV show variants," when that isn't really what they are, is unprofessional, embarrassing, and trivial. The latter is probably the most subjective, since people might actually be interested in seeing them, but I don't like the way that we handle variant galleries much at all. It was designed with only physical variants in mind, so it gets messy when video game and animations are factored. Plus, since these aren't collectable, it is strange to give things special attention when our primary purpose is, from my perspective, to inform people interested in collecting. They might be more unorganized in the gallery, but part of that might also be because our galleries are disorderly jumbles of images...a lot of things could probably do with some reform, but we can't do that very well because people are more interested in finding more things to add to a page than actually increase its quality.... Berrybrick (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Then rename it from "tv variants gallery" to "tv images". Problem solved. The solution to the content not being in a correct format shouldn't be to remove said content. CJC95 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    Problem solved? It may address one of the points, but not all- as Berry said, these "variants" are trivial, and we're giving unnecessary special attention to pointless images NovaHawk 00:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    But we're a site that's about everything LEGO not just the sets. What's the big problem with including these? That they're not used more then once? They are :P It's not unprofessional if we describe the variant properly. People have enjoyed reading video game variants before so why not TV?Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Comments
  • Obviously this vote would apply to "movie variants" too (I forgot about those) NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

More TV stuff

  • We've never really discussed formatting the "TV appearances" section for minifigure articles, so there's nothing set in the MoS- added some sections below, feel free to add anything else. NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

How episodes should appear in text

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was quotation marks
Use italics
  1. Other sites seem to use this and it stands out more. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Use quotation marks
  1. I've been doing italics simply for consistency with other pages, but I believe the correct format is quote marks, and I've noticed a few people doing it this way too. NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. The correct format is indeed quotation marks. Italics are reserved for the larger works, like the name of the show. Therefore, for matters of correctness and distinction, I say use quotation marks. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Per BFN. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Per BFN. Its like how song titles are in quotations, but albums in italics. CJC95 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Using proper English makes the most sense to me. Berrybrick (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  1. If we make this a part of the MoS, should we also begin to use DISPLAYTITLE to format the title of the page the same way? We already have {{italic title}}, it's just not widely used. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    I guess we may as well.BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    ^ NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    Wait, I'd be ok with italics if that was the way, but the quotation marks in a title is a bit unecessary isn't it? NovaHawk 05:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Episode title links

  • Running on from the vote above, how should the title of the episodes actually look/what should they be?
Name the article with quotation marks

ie, name the pages themselves "The Corridor of Elders", etc (with the quotation marks)

Use DISPLAYTITLE to add quotation marks

ie, so the title of the page appears to be "The Corridor of Elders", but the page name is actually The Corridor of Elders

Don't use quotation marks when referring to the episode that the article is about
  1. NovaHawk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  • Feel free to add other alternatives NovaHawk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ordering of appearances

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

Should the episodes be ordered alphabetically or chronologically?

Alphabetically
Chronologically
  1. Makes more sense NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  3. Yep. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Obvs. CJC95 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Indented appearances

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

Some pages just list the episodes, some do an indented format. For example:

Have indented appearances (TV series and episodes only)
Have indented appearances (TV series, season and episodes)
  1. I have to say that this looks the clearest and most organized. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Per BfN. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. I could go with either this or the above option. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not have indented appearances
Comments


Tags

There are some tags that seem to be used occasionally, which ones should we allow? I've taken a few from Wookieepedia as well which could be relevant here.

Cameo

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
Allow
Don't allow
  1. Mainly because it's being widely used here, and being used incorrectly- a minor background appearance does not equal a cameo. But even if it is actually cameo, who cares? If they appear, they appear. NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Per Nova. Though a very weak oppose. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. If it's a cameo, it's still an appearance. I don't see why that matters. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  1. Put it in notes. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    Why? If they're under the appearances, the reader knows they appeared. What defines a cameo? --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Mentioned only

Allow
  1. Makes sense- if someone's mentioned in an episode but doesn't appear, it still makes sense to me to make a note of it NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, makes sense. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Works for me. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't allow
Comments
  • What about indirect mentions of a character? Like not mentioning by name but implying it or vaguely referring to the character? --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd say that so long as their reference quite clearly only pertains to one character, and it is obvious which character that is, then it should be included. BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Should we have a separate "Indirect mention only" one? (Wookieepedia does). I just didn't think LEGO series were subtle enough for us to need one :P NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Appears in flashback(s)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was chronologically
Allow
  1. Could be helpful for some things, eg, without the tag, people might skip to the appearances section for the Elemental Master of Fire, think he actually appears in Spellbound, then be disappointed to learn it's just a flashback. (ok, I doubt anyone would actually be disappointed, but you get the idea) NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Nova, worrying about what other people think about when reading something wrong is my thing. :( BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Lol, per above I guess. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't allow
Comments


Appears as a ghost or a spirit

Allow
  1. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  2. Often important to plot. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Berrybrick (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't allow
  1. I feel like them appearing as a ghost or a spirit is only a fact necessary in the synopsis of the episode or in the character's biography section, not something needed in appearances. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. I didn't vote on this before, but looking at this again, per Meiko. BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Can't see a huge point personally. NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  • So, is this vote for the appearacne episode thingy to say put "appears as a ghost" after the episode that they appear as a ghost in? CJC95 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Season pages

Not directly related, but should we have season pages? I know some sites have pages on individual seasons, eg "Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu: Season Four"

Have
  1. I guess it would allow us to give overviews for things much more easily- try explaining the Ninjago series without making the page extremely long. This may just split things up into more mangeable chunks. NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't have
  1. They all fit on the one page and no one will edit the older season pages. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  2. I wouldn't be writing it, so oppose to lessen unnecessary workload. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  • I'd only think this should be done if someone actually wants to write enough where they would begin to require their own pages, so I'm not going to vote on this one. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think "I don't want to write it" means we should "not have them" - I don't see why we should specifically add something to the manual of style saying "don't write pages on this" at all really. CJC95 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, I've got to say it's got to be one of the most ridiculous reasons for a vote I've heard on here (and it's not because I'm supporting, I don't really feel too strongly either way on this one). Not bothering to do any work is one thing. Actively opposing things just so noone else has any work to do is another. NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe do seasons as a category? Only problem is it's sometimes vague as to what makes a season. Like Ninjago, which just counts up in episode and is at #40 or something now. And I don't think there's ever been an official word as to what was season one of Ninjago (the 4 minisodes or the Serpentine story arc). I think I remember different "official sources" contradicting each other as to what season is what. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Um, nope, seasons are now all perfectly defined- the DVDs have "Season One" or whatever on the box ;) On the disc I have that has the pilot episodes, it just says "pilot episodes" or something like that (I can't find the DVD). It definitely doesn't have season 1 anywhere on it. NovaHawk 04:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Further minifigure things

The TV variants gallery kicked this off, I thought I'd go further and get this all ironed out at once. NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A "Video game variants" subheading for "Gallery of variants"

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was allow
  • It's widely used, but not actually in the MoS
Allow
  1. NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Of course. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. ToaMeiko (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't allow
Comments


Appearances sections

  • We currently have "Appearances" with a "Video game appearances" subheading, and that's it. What about other stuff, eg, keychains, clocks, etc? And how do we handle books? Should they have a section if they appear in a picture only? If so, what do we do for minifigures that are included in a book- should that book go in the "book appearances" along with the other books where they only appear as a picture? NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And that basically summarises the attitude I've grown to know and love on this site lately :/ Back in the old days, CJC and I totally should have gone "there's over 9000 set pages we don't have articles on, we're too far behind, let's not bother", instead of, you know, editing. Anyway, back on topic, we do have existing book articles, so... NovaHawk 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think a bigger problem is that not too many people here are going to be reading every single LEGO book for young readers, whereas for creating things like set pages, all you really need is the image, set number, and year from another site and you're good. :P BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The books will be licensed, or else we wouldn't be including them. @Nova - as far as I can tell, half the things on this page boil down to "good idea but cba." CJC95 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keychains and whatnot should be considered sets as far as appearances are concerned if it's an official LEGO product. As for books, definitely. Of course we won't be up to date on that for a very long time, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start adding content on that front. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the reason why some articles have kept keychains separate are that, keychain minifigures aren't the same as normal minifigures- they've got some big metal chain strapped to their head and the pieces don't usually separate NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Remaining MoSs to sort out

  • Please discuss in headings below, or add headings for any other types. But if anyone says "we're too far behind on this type of article, let's not bother at all"- I will look for you, I will find you, and I will slap you in the face :P NovaHawk 22:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Part articles

  • History section on parts that have any sort of history, Trivia section for interesting information about it, section about prototype or development of piece. What else? --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't really think that the usual cadre of descriptions, backgrounds, and such ought to be required...appearances, external links, and the table though, those are important. Berrybrick (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we should only include backgrounds for parts with some interesting background worth writing about. I don't know how that could be written into the MOS. Every random part however, no background should need to be written. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Inventory articles

  • How would an MOS even work for these? They're basically just a table. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe some suggestions on what to use the note box for, where to get part numbers, and what to do in the event that they are unavailable? Berrybrick (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I guess that's good to state somewhere. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Book articles

  • Synopsis section is the only thing I think would be required by the MOS... and then ISBN and stuff in the infobox. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Off topic-ish:I think it's impossible to catch up with all the books, I'd per fair if they were kept away from figure articles. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    • *NovaHawk slaps Soupperson1 in the face
  • I'll just take a shot at this, basically what Meiko said is the most important part though:
    • Set header template
    • Book infobox
    • Lead section
    • Synopsis (where relevant- eg, reference books like visual dictionaries wouldn't have a synopsis)
    • List of appearances
    • Minifigures included (again, only where relevant, when a physical minifigure is included in the set)
    • Notes
    • Nav template
NovaHawk 22:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

LEGOLAND articles

LEGOLAND ride articles

  • We're too far behind, what's the point. Only one loser made articles on these anyway. CJC95 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should even bother with these... --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • we're too far behind on this type of article, let's not bother at all Berrybrick (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • *slap* *slap* *slap* If only I had three hands so I could hit you all at once :D
  • Nova didn't like my reason so I'll give a better one. I think that we don't need to cover every ride ever at any LEGOLAND park. For any significant, historic, or otherwise notable ride, it could be written about on the page for the LEGOLAND park. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • it's worth noting that I started merging them into the "area" pages. By start I mean I did one and then stopped because no one cared, but you know. See the two-three year out-of-date DUPLO Land or whatever it was called for an example. CJC95 (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think these are some what important though and they'd be enjoyed by readers. Even if we simply just created the page and not edit it just in case someone who likes amusement parks stumbles and crosses it. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Company articles

  • We don't have enough Company articles currently I don't think. The topics that could be covered in the Companies category are so broad, I don't know what should be required by an MOS. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Just an idea:
    • A {{company}} infobox
    • A lead section
    • Background (brief history of the company, what they do/make)
      • Work with LEGO (subheading of background. Does not apply to the article on The LEGO Group. Because that would be weird. Please feel free to come up with a better name for this heading)
    • References/Sources/External links
NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Song articles

  • Hi. Maybe "Everything is Awesome!!!" or even "Weekend Whip" deserve their own articles, but otherwise, I'm content with this approach now. Berrybrick (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We should maybe have pages for Cryoshell songs too. And if we do the Weekend Whip, the other songs by The Fold would be good to have too. And "Unleash The Power" (for Chima) by Finley. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Lyrics, Composer and Artist? I can make the friends songs pages. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • @Berrybrick: I think there was a forum about making song articles, at least for ones created for LEGO productions. I'm not completely sure though, I'll dig through the old forums sometime later. @Soup- I'm pretty sure with lyrics, we'd run into copyright issues- I know Wookieepedia removed lyrics from their song pages because of something related to this NovaHawk 22:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Video game articles

App articles

Online game articles

Clothes

Addition to LEGO Store MoS

  • I'd like to propose an "events" header to the LEGO Store MoS. To talk about events at the store. Obviously. Currently, events are to be listed under "description", but I tried it with an article that had an event, and it just didn't look right having opening dates and location in the same paragraph as an event. May just be me though NovaHawk 22:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Since I'm obviously talking to myself, closing in 1 day if there's no response (which means, closing in 1 day). NovaHawk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes to BP:GD

Just realised that the General Disclaimer is kind of outdated now that we are a certified LUG. I'm thinking that we need to change some wording, i.e.: While Brickipedia is sponsored by The LEGO Group it is not owned or operated by them and as such is not an official point of reference.

Obviously we can't use these words exactly, but it does need to be along those lines. BrikkyyTalk 00:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

We're not sponsored by the LEGO Group. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If we're not sponsored, what would you call our LUG budget? BrikkyyTalk 11:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
LUG Support. It changes nothing about our current disclaimer. --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Either way, maybe something should be mentioned about whatever you call the relationship we have with them, just so it's clear we're not hiding anything (I'm no good at wording that legal stuff though) NovaHawk 06:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
(Off-topic- Brikkyy: why were you even reading this? Who even looks at those little links at the bottom of the page? :D) NovaHawk 06:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)}}
(I was reading Meiko's message to that person who thought we were culprits of false advertising and followed the link :P) BrikkyyTalk 11:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)}}
(Permission to close both of your parentheses for you. Big pet peeve of mine. :P) -NBP3.0 (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Feature GBC.com and Ideas on the main page

Why not? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Support

  1. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Neutral

  1. I'd rather see the main page redesigned first, then look at it. NovaHawk 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Maybe feature Ideas somewhere near the bottom, but it's not really necessary. In refreshed, it's already in the sitenav dropdown. As for Stories, that's being merged into Customs and thus is redundant. --ToaMeiko (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments


Refreshed switchtabs

Refreshed's switchtabs (inventory+review links) need to be fixed. They stopped working after Refreshed 3.0 was enabled and I can't get them to work. --ToaMeiko (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Rating forum

Can that be moved here? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

  • Strong oppose. I completely see what NXT was talking about now with a single forum being too long and disorganised. This will make it even longer and more disorganised. NovaHawk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't see how this is that unorganized. It's especially easier to find what I haven't replied to, and also makes it easier to see which forums were posted in chronological order. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove all rights, and start again

It was mentioned a while back on the reincarnation forum, but nothing ever came of it. Because half of our admins never edit, and many of our patrollers haven't been seen in months/weeks, I think it would be a good idea to remove all rights except for functionary (might have to add the userrights permission, if they don't already have it), and re-elect everyone. News reporter votes would have to be open to the community. Thoughts? --LK901 16:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think we have enough users who stay active to reelect. If we reelect who will take old admin places? I think there's about 5 regular editors including me who aren't admins, but most of us aren't suitable for being so. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • When I say re-elect, I mean that users who were previously admins/patrollers could be elected again. Just, all the users who never edit, would have their rights stripped, even if they make one edit every three months. --LK901 17:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, inactive admin here. What benefit would there be to this? We already remove people who are very inactive. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Ajr. I don't edit very much anymore during times of the year when there's not much LEGO news, but sometimes I'll still be online when there's a spambot or vandal nobody's gotten to yet, and I can delete the page/revert the edit/whatever before too many people have to see it. This just seems like a pointless thing to do. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Eh. I didn't see that all the really inactive admins (people who had only made one or two edits since the move, only editing every three months so as to keep admin), have been removed. Sorry about this :P --LK901 18:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Since there's like 5 people even doing anything these days, I don't really see a point NovaHawk
  • It's more like 10 people :P still very low though. We need more users, anybody want to finally try that podcast idea? :P BrikkyyTalk 03:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think he means 5 regular editors not like two days a week. How do we get people to come to the podcasts of we gave little users? Who'd show up?Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • I know a lot of us actually want to do it, it's the YouTube channel and management we're having issues with. This conversation should probably be in its own section if we want to continue it :P BrikkyyTalk 21:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not open to this. The way I see it, it's pointless. Everybody will just end up with the same rights anyway :P BrikkyyTalk 03:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Having to revote for me, Nova, Berry, etc as admins will solve the "problem" of half our admins never editing (tbh I haven't noticed this problem)? --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about people like GameGear360, Shadowwarrior etc. --LK901 17:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Their rights were removed due to inactivity a while ago [2] [3] --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It's every three months and I don't think admins are competing every 3 months to keep their rights. :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • I'm going to agree with Ajr on this one. Berrybrick (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • To what end? CJC95 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Ajr, absolutely no reason. -NBP3.0 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Updated financial reports

Hi all, just wanted to let you know that I am publishing detailed and public financial reports starting this year. You can see them at m:Financial_Department/Reports. I haven't in past years because I didn't think it would be worth the effort, but I'll give it a try here. Adrian (Brickimedia - talk) 00:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoever donated the 300$+ is very generous! (And rich). Thank you whoever you are! Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Ajr? --LK901 13:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if they want to be publicly named... they'll see this though and can reveal it if desired :) Ajraddatz (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Awkwardly raises hand. (Also not at all rich). -NBP3.0 (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
ALL HAIL NBP! :P BrikkyyTalk 23:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Your at least rich in heart ;) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

BS01 and HS01

Would it be possible to get them under brickimedia? Or at least the header on top of their wikis. And we add them to our headers. Pit could be impossible but I think it would benefit all of us if it worked. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Haven't we tried this before? Could be mistaken though. BrikkyyTalk 14:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It's been offered to them before. It would benefit them too, however I don't know how they feel it could be a bad idea. I'll link them to this forum though. For the record though, here are the benefits:
  • Right now their server is not equipped to handle both BS01 and HS01 running simultaneously, therefore HS01 is currently disabled.
  • Right now they're paying more for their server than they should be, and they're getting insufficient performance from it and are unable to upgrade their PHP or MediaWiki version because of it.
    • Allowing them to to use a newer MediaWiki version will allow them to take advantage of more MediaWiki extension capabilities, more skinning possibilities, more security, and better performance.
  • If they wanted to be Brickimedia projects, it would hardly even be a noticeable change for them. Not even the domain would have to be changed.
  • BS01 and HS01 are currently two separate MediaWiki installations on their server. Being here, it'd all be on one, making it easier to upgrade and they'd only have to upload images once and they'd be usable on all wikis.
  • Two of their admins, MtMNC and me, have developed a lot for Brickimedia. We know our way around how it works and what options there are on it. This makes it a less difficult technical transition if BS01 and HS01 wanted to join.
Now the only "downsides" I can see:
  • Have to import their content. - This is super easy for us to do and would keep all the revision history and everything.
  • Have to import their images. - They'd end up being imported to meta: as that's the central image repository, but would be easy to do as long as we're careful no existing images get overwritten by files with the same name from BS01.
  • Have to import their users. - This may be harder to do. I honestly don't know about it. If it's easier to add their user database rows to our existing user database, then it's very easy. If not, worst case scenario have their current active users create new accounts here. We already had to do that when we moved off Wikia, and there's no huge downside about that.
I'll link them to this and see what they think. Also this discussion would probably be better on meta: but oh well. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought about putting it on meta but no one reads that. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
lol they do when there's something to read. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The only real downside is lack of autonomy; since splitting from BZP back in the day (which I think was mostly a technical issue anyway? Wasn't around then) BS01 has always been independent. It just works for us.

You're right about all the technical issues, which is generally out of my control anyway. But I don't pay the bills, which is what this boils down to. We're more comfortable being a separate entity, warts and all.

Not to say we don't like you guys <3

(also completely unrelated but your dropdown menus aren't working for me, although I'm sure you're working on it) --Dorek (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Rating tags

Aside from a flash while the page loads, they aren't showing up, and at least one other person mentioned this problem to me. I think they are being covered by the page/discussion/edit/history/more banner. Knight says that he can still see them on DeepSea. Berrybrick (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Yep, definitely no problems in Deep Sea NovaHawk 23:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Temporary bug in Refreshed 3.0. It's being positioned in the top right corner like it always has, just it's behind another white element in Refreshed 3.0. Can be fixed by disabling the script that repositions it, someone putting it a patch to Refreshed 3.0 for the time being, or waiting until we upgrade to MediaWiki 1.25 and page status indicators are implemented. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)