updates 1

This page serves as an archive for former votes and discussions about additions to the Manual of Style that were conducted at Forum:MOS proposals.

Sets

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

Should contain:

Set header template (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Set infobox (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources (if needed) (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
4. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 22:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I would add links to Peeron etc. as sources for basic information (number of pieces, minifigs, release year, does it exist at all)--LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories for theme, set number, year released (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

At least one image of set, where available (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 06:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. --Coupon11 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Just note that some don't have an image.
4. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

---

For sets which have been released twice, but under different names and/or numbers (please vote for only one below):

Have one article for each release (+6)

Support

1. It's too confusing to have an article called 1272/1282 Turbo Racer/Blue Racer. Some of these sets are also released in different themes and years (6100 Aquashark Dart and 1095 Super Sub), which makes the info in the infobox even more confusing. I would just add a small note that the respective set is similar/identical to another one and link to the other article.--LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC) - I used to hate it when I saw that, hence why I split the Star Wars ones. I definitely support a article for each release
3. As long as there's a clear link that stands out to say that points to the article of the same set. I'll make a template for this if this proposal wins out. NovaHawk 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Using / as an "or" in titles is a bad idea. It would be a subpage of the first number. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 22:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Coupon11 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Have one article on the set, with title "<num1> <name1>/<num2><name2>" (±0)

Comments

• Maybe a title like "<Set name 1>/<Set name 2>" i.e.: 1272 Turbo Racer/1282 Blue Racer instead of 1272/1282 Turbo Racer/Blue Racer in rare cases. --LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion added NovaHawk 09:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

US Dollar (US $) (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. kingcjc 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. --Coupon11 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
4. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Euro (€) (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. kingcjc 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. --Coupon11 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
4. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

UK Pound (£) (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. kingcjc 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
4. --Coupon11 00:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian Dollar (AU $) (+2)

Support

1. NovaHawk 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. kingcjc 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 14:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Coupon11 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotation Template

• Hi, I was wondering what people thought about the new template, {{quoteLEGO.com}}, being added to the Manual of Style for sets in the quotation from LEGO section. NovaHawk 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Make {{quoteLEGO.com}} a part of the MOS (+3)

1. NovaHawk 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
2. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 05:32, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
3. --User:Coupon11/sig 22:09, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Minifigures

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it, however, feel free to add any other minifigure suggestions

Should contain:

Minifigure infobox (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Description (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Appearances Section (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Minifigure theme category (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Template displaying all minifigures in theme (eg {{SWfigs}}) (where applicable) (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

At least one image of figure, where available (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 06:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. --Coupon11 11:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. kingcjc 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Quotation Template

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

• Hi, I was wondering what people thought about the new template, {{quoteLEGO.com}}, being added to the Manual of Style for sets in the quotation from LEGO section. NovaHawk 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Make {{quoteLEGO.com}} a part of the MOS (+3)

1. NovaHawk 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
2. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 05:32, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
3. --User:Coupon11/sig 22:09, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Voting will end September 22, 2009. NovaHawk 02:51, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Position of LEGO Shop description/naming and order of sections in general

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. I think the LEGO Shop description should be positioned at the end, just above "See also" and "External links". Right now the box is just like a roadblock that cuts off the "Notes" section below. Also, some articles have a section called "Background", which is actually just a lead section and does not provide any "background information". Other articles have lead sections that are captioned with "Description". The lead section shouldn't have any caption at all. --User:LegOtaku/sig 13:42, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Video game appearances

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. For minifigures which appear in both solid LEGO form and in a video game, I propose we have the standard ==Appearances== and list LEGO appearances as normal, then underneath have a ===Video Game Appearances=== or something along those lines and list the video games under this subheading. Also, for the above case, should we list the video game appearances in the infobox? I can think of three alternatives for this- yes, no, or add a separate "video game appearances" field. I don't really mind either way but I think we should establish what to do for consistency. NovaHawk 00:58, January 16, 2010 (UTC) I'm okay with that. But how about removing the appearances list from the infoboxes, it makes them sometimes longer than the rest of the article. Also, the information can be presented with more detail in the article itself. --User:LegOtaku/sig 06:28, February 15, 2010 (UTC) It sounds like a good idea to me- there has to be an "appearances" section anyway, so it's just duplicate information. And there is room for more detail in the appearances section than in the infobox. But, how are we going to remove the appearances sections? I mean we can take the field out of the infobox, which will result in the appearances information not being shown, but the content will still be there :S NovaHawk 06:43, February 15, 2010 (UTC) I could change it to trigger a hidden maintenance category in addition to not showing the content. --User:LegOtaku/sig 07:01, February 15, 2010 (UTC) So is everyone ok with this? Can it be added to the MOS? NovaHawk 01:17, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Order of sections and section headings for set articles

Lead section

Short paragraph that describes the basic infos of the set like release year, theme, rough overview of the content etc. Information about the sets release. It's common practice on most wikis that such a lead section does not have a section heading.

Description

Detailed description of the sets content and functions.

Background

Text that describes the background/context of the featured model in its respective fictional universe (keep it short and simple)

Notes

Additional information about rare pieces (pieces that appear in just one or two sets), pieces that make their first or last appearance in this set or other peculiarities.

LEGO.com description (don't know if there could be a better section heading)

(since the citation box looks like a "roadblock" it shouldn't come after the actual description because it's to obtrusive)

See also

Links to related articles on Brickipedia, e.g. sets with a similar subject, appearance etc. or articles that describe a related subject with a broader scope or present an overview of related sets. (Not links to the parent theme or a simple list of sets of the same theme)

Sources/References

reftags from the articles

External links

At the end of the article

--User:LegOtaku/sig 18:13, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Comments/Suggestions

• Looks ok to me- I would probably prefer the have LEGO's description before the Notes, but as you said the template when it's beside the infobox doesn't work well, so I'm happy with the ordering how it is NovaHawk 22:49, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
• I like it. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 02:06, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

• • So, can I just add this to the MoS, or should we hold a proper vote for this? --User:LegOtaku/sig 11:16, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it would be ok to move it now- we've got a +3 vote at the moment which is usually enough for such things, and has been open for comments/votes for a while now NovaHawk 22:30, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was To leave "Minifigures" field empty in set infobox when there are no minifigures in the set Having "None" / "0" in the set infobox or not We all have the problem that it isn't defined if we should type "None", "0" or don't type it into the |Minifigures= section of the Set infobox. There are themes, like Technic or Bionicle, which don't have any minifigures. Other themes, like Batman, have specific sets, that don't include minifigures, see 7784. Having the section left out may mean there are no minifigs, or that is it unknown if there are any. So I thought we should have to clarify this. Include information about it into the Set Infobox, and if yes, "None" or "0"? User:Samdo994/sig2 18:02, March 6, 2010 (UTC) I would vote for not having it, and if there are no figures included, the remove the Minifigures field from the infobox as it was inserted so noone puts things in there. It just looks untidy to me having a "None" or a "0" in there, and isn't necessary to me. In my opinion, something that doesn't have minifigures should have a minifigures field, like a minifigure that doesn't have variations doesn't have anything in its variations field. If we did have this though, I would prefer "None" to "0". NovaHawk 23:41, March 6, 2010 (UTC) So, will we do a vote on it? User:Samdo994/sig2 12:50, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Vote Have "None" or "0" in set infobox (please indicate whether you would like to see a "None" or a "0") Leave the field empty in the infobox It just seems irrelevant to me to have a 0 or none in there, especially for TECHNIC and other similar sets where there obviously aren't going to be minifigures NovaHawk 05:51, March 11, 2010 (UTC) Per Nighthawk leader --Lcawte 08:38, March 27, 2010 (UTC) Ajraddatz Talk 03:18, April 25, 2010 (UTC) Comments I am neutral. User:Samdo994/sig2 15:16, March 11, 2010 (UTC)