Forum:Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Manual of Style

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki

Section 3: Manual of Style

What needs to be on a page (all types of articles need to be discussed)

  • To be honest, I think our manual of style is good for now. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I assume the content is all there, perhaps could do with some prettying on the page. CJC95 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • We could replace the opening line on every single set from "1324 blah is a set from the blah theme released in blah" as we've used that to start every set article for at least 7 years :P CJC95 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think that's specifically a part of the MoS, it's just the only line that makes sense :P NovaHawk 23:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Prettying in the page? Like an image of "This is an infobox"? My suggestion was going to be bullet points (because those are easier to read than a text wall) but it seems those are already there. It still needs to be broken up somehow. Berrybrick (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • We need to discuss a MoS for television series, television episode and film articles, and possibly others I haven't thought of. I'd also like to work on the usability of the page with nav at the top, and "back to nav" links for each section. NovaHawk 23:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • One thing I have noticed is missing is where to put a LEGO.com bio (or other big quote) on a minifigure's page. I just put it either above or below the gallery of variants (I forget which; it is where ever it goes in relation to a gallery on a set page) but it isn't clear for someone who isn't familiar. Also, I think we should not have minifigure galleries on theme pages. It is a ridiculous amount of work for any theme with more than a few characters. Just a minifigure template at the end of the article or a list of minifigures should do, I think. I don't believe that is in the MoS, but it has become common practice so maybe it should be addressed? Also, Nova is right that we need some sort of style guide for those things. I vaguely remember a forum where someone (probably him) had some proposals for them, but I guess they were never implemented? Berrybrick (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What image to use for set infobox image

  • Set boxes in the infobox. Thoughts? CJC95 (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I still prefer the box personally. An alternate idea would be to have both the box and white image and click between them like on here (I don't see much point in that though) NovaHawk 22:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I much prefer Nova's idea over the box being in the infobox, however I could see this being difficult. I'm basically neutral on just keeping what we're doing but I would like that idea much better if it were applicable. -NBP3.0 (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Nope, that'd be very easy to implement. We'd still have to choose whether to use the white background or box image as the default. NovaHawk 01:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd say use the box image unless there is a different image that better-depicts the complete set. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Layout (all types of articles need to be discussed)

  • We often have these cosmetic sorta discussions, so I can't think of anything. I often advocate all themes and sets and minifigures have relevant navbars at the end, but I'm the only one who does them so that never happens. Maybe throw that in? CJC95 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Already there for minifigs and sets :) But the layout for themes, books and years isn't specified NovaHawk 23:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I just realized that we don't have a "recommended order of sections and section headings" for theme articles. If we want some degree of consistency this is a necessity. Looking at various theme articles which have reached featured status, this seems to have caused discrepancies in what type of information should be included, other than an overview of the theme's story which I found to always (or almost always) be present when applicable. Berrybrick (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed ^ Otherwise we're pretty well off. Feel like we've had these MoS forums open forever now. -NBP3.0 (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing

  • Info on future sets and recently released sets should be always sourced. I'd advocate sourcing more than that, but I wouldn't expect any one would actually follow it. CJC95 (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue here

  • The main one is that Brickia haven't changed their layout either. I know we created and perfected this style over many a year and many a hard work, but we do need to at least rewrite the content of our big articles to stop google seeing it as copy for the rankings. CJC95 (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Many of them could probably do with a cleanup anyway NovaHawk 23:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd be willing to try and do some of this, but I would like a list of what articles to rewrite (or even write). Berrybrick (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay, I guess I'll do that myself. :P I'll start with BIONICLE and brainstorm more when I finish. Berrybrick (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Open MoS forums

  • If nothing more is said on any of the "MoS threads" on Forum:Index, I'm just going to assume they're good to go through at the end of these forums. NovaHawk 22:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)