updates 1

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki
< Brickipedia:Manual of Style
Revision as of 01:05, 29 August 2010 by NovaFlare (talk | contribs) (archiving)

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.

Contents

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)

Oppose

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)

Oppose

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)

Oppose

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)

Oppose

Comments

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)

Oppose

Comments

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

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

Support

Oppose

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)

Oppose

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

Support

Oppose

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)

Price should contain multiple currencies, including (where available):

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)

Oppose

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)

Oppose

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)

Oppose

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

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)

Oppose

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)

Oppose

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)

Oppose

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)

Oppose

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)

Oppose

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.

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)

Keep the quotation section the same (±0)

Allow either form to be used (±0)

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)

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

  1. 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)
  2. Per Nighthawk leader --Lcawte 08:38, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Ajraddatz Talk 03:18, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I am neutral. User:Samdo994/sig2 15:16, March 11, 2010 (UTC)


Image placement

I noticed that the images are sometimes put all over the place. Mostly they end up on the right side of the articles and due to the long infobox on short articles this means they actually end up below the box far away from the text (8399 K-9 Bot). Also, sometimes people put the (slanted) box art into the infobox, sometimes the promo pic (with white bg). I think we should establish a policy for this.

I propose to use box art (or the instructions cover) for the infobox and to put other pics (especially the ones with white background) into the text, in a place where they look like an actual part of the article (10199 Winter Toy Shop) and not like something that was almost forgotten. I really hate it when I see a single pic, most not even resized, ("an hq pic of the set") at the bottom of a page XD .--User:LegOtaku/sig 06:28, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • Third point down under "Set articles" states that the box images are to be used for the infobox when there is a box image available (it was already voted on twice with the same result). As for the placement of other images, I totally agree with you- they do look like they're all over the place. The main problem (at least the main problem I have with them) is that if you put the image to the right, it usually goes under the infobox and doesn't look right, and if you put it to the left, if there are any titles or bullet points, it looks wrong there (eg bullet points actually go on top of the image). And I also agree- the captions for some images could really do with some cleaning up :) NovaHawk 06:43, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • There's no problem with placing images on the left if {{clear|left}} is put before the next section heading. --User:LegOtaku/sig 06:58, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Minifigure Gallery Update

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to implement the template

We have what looks to be a functioning horizontal scrolling template for minifigures up and running here. An example of it in action for the minifigures in the 10188 Death Star is up here. Just wanted to know what everyone thought about it, if it should be added to the MOS for set articles (where the template would be used to display the minifigs in the sets), and if there are any suggestions for improvements/modifications. NovaHawk 12:15, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Really helpful template. Btw, by clicking the No Image available image, you get redirected to the upload page. User:Samdo994/sig2 12:58, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I like this idea :) Ajraddatz Talk 15:46, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Guess I should have put this vote in earlier NovaHawk 12:48, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a little hard to follow, sice you have to keep scrolling and scrolling and scrolling and scrolling and etc. etc., but I guess it's ok. Construction Worker Do you need help? 20:33, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - There's a sign on the wall, But she wants to be sure, 'Cause you know sometimes words have , Two meanings ---- Kingcjc 21:33, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Sooo... How many votes do we need to get this through? :D User:Samdo994/sig2 10:40, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't know... maybe give it a week from the time the "take a look at MOS proposals" message came up in the sitenotice? ie until May 7. And if there's no opposition at that time, put it through? NovaHawk 04:57, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • But nobody votes on this. That's what is getting me mad. User:Samdo994/sig2 11:43, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
      • It's May 7 now, put it through? I'd suggest at first adding it to the FAs, then to the GAs, then to the CAs and then to the usual articles. User:Samdo994/sig2 16:03, May 7, 2010 (UTC)


MoS for years

The following is a suggested outline by Samdo994 for how year pages should be formatting and what content they should contain:

Year Articles

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to implement the proposal

Year articles should contain:

  • The Template:Year
  • A list of events which happened in that year
  • A list of themes and subthemes that were introduced or discontinued in that year
  • A wikitable with the sets released of that year. The products are listed via the wikitable. Inside the table there should be informations about the set number, the set name, the piececount, the amount of minifigures included and the month release date.
  • Appropriate categories

Recommended Order of sections and section headings

  1. This will happen/has happened in <year>: Events happened in that year.
  2. Themes introduced or discontinued in <year>: List of themes that were introduced or discontinued in that year.
  3. Sets introduced in <year>: List of the sets released in that year.


Support
  1. NovaHawk 00:48, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  2. User:CaptainJag/sig1 03:29, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Including the price in the wikitable. User:Samdo994/sig2 12:18, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  4. --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 15:55, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
Comments
  • Price should probably be disucussed as well- should we have US$ only, the four prices we use in the MoS, or no price column at all? NovaHawk 00:13, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd say only the US $ price, the other prices can be looked up on the set's page. User:Samdo994/sig2 11:56, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


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

Videogame/movie parts/accessories

This is another minor rule that I think should be set up, but still:

I think it shouldn't be allowed to create an article about parts/accessories that only appear in videogames. That's the most minor reason to create an article, in my opinion. That's like creating several articles for trees that appeared in videogames. Movies should be included too. So I think it should be listed under the section "Parts":

"Articles should not be created on parts and/or accessories, that only appeared in videogames or movies."

Or something similar. What do think about that? User:Samdo994/sig2 20:21, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


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

Infobox

In the theme infobox, many people are putting the theme then a line break then the subtheme. I find this redundant and nominate that a rule against it is put in the MOS.User:BobaFett2/sig2 00:34, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think the line break is okay, but there should be then a bit more indent, like THEME<break>indent as : SUBTHEME. But I don't know how to add indent after a line break... User:Samdo994/sig2 16:02, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying to make it not like that. Also, the indent is bad too in my opinion. I think that there shouldn't be a need to even have the theme before the subtheme because the theme is already stated.User:BobaFett2/sig2 23:16, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

My vote's with Samdo's suggestion. And you can do: 

theme
:subtheme

for the indent. NovaHawk 08:41, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Please no it's so ugly.User:BobaFett2/sig2 12:07, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Boba, that's your opinion, so we're not tossing the idea because one person thinks it's ugly (that isn't even a reason to oppose). Construction Worker Do you need help? 22:17, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
I think the indent is okay. User:Samdo994/sig2 10:37, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy with the indent, but could we switch the ordering around? Alot of the subthemes are getting their own colors for the infobox, and having them the other way round would enable the subthemes colors to work (I think..) --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 15:58, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I can understand Boba, since there is quite a lot of space between the lines with the themes, when using the indent... User:Samdo994/sig2 14:35, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

  • Ok, well, how about we make a template containing a line break and four spaces (ie < b r / > & n b s p ; & n b s p ; & n b s p ; & n b s p ; ) which indents it a little bit, but not as much? An example of the code in use can currently be seen at Darth Maul. Just a suggestion NovaHawk 01:00, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
That look perfect, but there's still one thing: if someone whould like to have another indent under the second one, it would be the same line as above, when using the template. Any idea how to solve that? The template could be called {{Smallindent}} or {{si}}. User:Samdo994/sig2 18:05, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
I guess I could try something with that, not sure how to do it, but I'll see if anything comes up. But is everyone ok if a template is created which does this and add it to the MOS? NovaHawk 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)


The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was To use UK English in articles

Spelling

We've never stated whether the spelling here should be in a UK or US form (eg "colour" or "color"). From what I can see, US users are probably our biggest userbase. I'm not sure what version of English the Danish use when they use it, but I think it might be the UK one if we want to go with using the version of English that the "home of LEGO" uses. At any rate, I think we should formally establish which version of English should be used here so we don't have inconsistencies everywhere.
Following on from this is the first subtheme of Harry Potter. The US uses "Sorcerer's Stone", but everywhere else uses "Philosopher's". So, should we either:

  1. Use "Sorcerer's"
  2. Use "Philosopher's"
  3. Use both (eg "Philosopher's / Sorcerer's")

I know that the Harry Potter Wiki uses Philosopher's Stone, but this is also probably due to the fact that they use UK spelling.
So, any thoughts/comments/opinions on any of this? NovaHawk 05:51, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should have an informal poll set up just to get an idea of what spelling most people use. I thought the same for international prices, see what most people use and then use those currencies. User:CaptainJag/sig1 06:04, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
British Spelling should be used, the English Language is from Britian, and J.K Rowling, is also from England. --Lcawte 07:22, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Well, here, I believe that British spelling be used here. However, I would like to see US spellings used around the rest of the wiki. (But that's just me, and hey, I'm from the US :D) User:Cpatain Rex/sig 04:01, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that US spelling is better. But that's just me, I'm from the US.User:BobaFett2/sig2 14:15, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Which ever is used more commonly. GG 360Gamegear.jpg 23:30, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, my vote goes for British spelling since the EU (which includes Denmark, the home of LEGO) uses British spelling (source), and it makes spelling consistent with spelling in the Harry Potter theme. NovaHawk 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

So, overall to date, we have 2 votes for British spelling (Lcawte and myself) and 2 for American spelling (Cpatain Rex and BobaFett2). Any other votes on this? We really should have some sort of decision on this sometime to stadardize it... And this wasn't mentioned before, but whatever the outcome of this, the "spelling rule" will only apply to the mainspace- for forums, talk pages, user blogs, user pages, etc, feel free to use whatever spelling you want there NovaHawk 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

I vote Brit Kingcjc 22:28, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
A bit late here but per Boba. -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 22:33, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • UK sounds better since it's what LEGO uses and this IS a LEGO wiki. Agent Charge: Agents-Logo.png No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:21, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with you, CW, if most of the users are from the US, we should have US spelling. But are they? User:Captain Jag/sig1 19:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • Whats the decision here? ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 20:55, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, it's 4 all... so there is no decision yet. I really think we need a result soon though... NovaHawk 01:08, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • I vote British Gladiatoring 06:18, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • I vote american.User:BobaFett2/sig2 14:00, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • Boba your vote was already cast and counted Gladiatoring 14:04, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
I vote british because that's what it was called throughout the majority of the world. We rae not an American-exclusive wiki. GG 360Gamegear.jpg 14:08, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • I count that 6-4 to British. ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 20:23, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I vote British... now it's 7-4 to British. User:Captain Jag/sig 21:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Finally, a consensus! Ok to give this until 0:00 Sunday UTC to run (approx. 24 hours)? It has been open for over 5 months... NovaHawk 00:13, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.brickimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brickipedia:Manual_of_Style/updates_1&oldid=671607"
... more about "Manual of Style/updates 1"
RDF feed
Has parent pageThis property is a special property in this wiki.
Brickipedia:Manual of Style +