Brickipedia:2016 Changes

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki

Hello everyone. This is a big forum to discuss some big changes which could be coming down the pipe for 2016. Each section represents a separate proposal, and will be implemented technically if approved. Please add / remove to the benefits and disadvantages of each, and add any other major proposals at the bottom. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

New hosting[edit source]

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 The result was withdrawn

Proposal: To move our hosting from RamNode to Harrell Securities, a private company co-owned by Meiko.

  • Benefits: Substantially less cost for more specs
  • Disadvantages: New hosting option; unknown drawbacks.


  1. ToaMeiko (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. While its hard to say for certain, I can see no issue with this, especially if we do the server-load reducers below. CJC95 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Worth trying for a month. We can move back to ol' unreliable after if needed. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support the idea of new hosting but I'll be more happy if we could get money to buy the domain because it only make senses to have when we'll just have Brickipedia (assuming we follow through consolidating all projects together if that gets a consensus). Of course no money but I'll look into getting money myself. Codynguyen1116 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    That can always come later too. Domains are easy to point where they need to go. --ToaMeiko (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. If there are any issues, we can decide when they arise. But, since we will not know the issues until it is implemented, I do not see any reason not to do this. Latenightguy (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  6. --Knight
  7. Sounds like its worth a try. ~Storm
  8. -- MtMNC (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  9. Vasko (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  10. As long as, you know, we don't get dumped without any backup. Berrybrick (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  11. Per Berry Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  12. I really don't know a whole lot about servers, but if it means the site will be down less I am all in.-Albus Potter (talk)
  13. Per Ajr. SKP4472 (Admin) 01:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  14. MeltE2 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  15. For all it's worth, here's my support. Less crashing, more goodness, as long as everything's transferred right (and most of it is). -SirComputer (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  16. LegoFan4000 talk 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  17. Omega X (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  18. Captainjackster (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. Very weak oppose. NXT's echoed a couple of my concerns and has added a few more to the list, at this point I just think the risk is outweighing the rewards NovaHawk 22:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


  • Things to note about my server: It's much smaller scale than Ramnode is and right now the only other site it hosts is It has more RAM and potentially better all-around performance than our current site (especially is we consolidate the sites, as to be discussed), however a lot of things will still need to be tested so you must bear with us till then. However we're willing to get this underway and host Brickimedia if need be. Plus, since it's smaller, it's more personalized. If we want to upgrade specs for Brickimedia, we can buy more RAM or whatever other spec we're trying to upgrade and upgrade it ourselves, rather than having to pay more each month with Ramnode for more specs. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral. We've crashed before, so I guess I'm just more worried about crashing again than I should be. Also, what would happen with backups? NovaHawk 00:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    Backups would still be a thing. FWIW we crash pretty routinely on RamNode; maybe Meiko's thing would have better uptime. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    Backups are fine and can continue to work no matter what our host is. :) UltrasonicNXT keeps all of our backups externally on Dropbox, and to my knowledge, everything but images are backed up. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as free lunch. I'm not against the idea per se, but moving a site — especially as big as Brickipedia — is a pain and has to be carefully thought out. But there are so many moving parts here, so many things that can easily go wrong...I think other options should also be considered. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I put together a kinda half-arsed mockup of Bricki on the new server at (domain temporary if you couldn't already infer that). It's got pretty much every extension we have and a more or less similar batch of settings, so it should give you a good idea of what page load times will look like on the new site. For me they're faster, Ajraddatz said it was instantaneous, and others have said it's pretty quick too. If it's slow at loading for you, try one of two things. 1) load it again, chances are it'll be faster since it will likely have generated some cache by the second load. 2) download a page speed tester browser extension and let me know how fast it loads in comparison to the current site (this one). If you have any questions, just ask. Don't bother making accounts at the testing site or anything, it's all temporary. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Basically everything is imported now except for images, Customs' policy pages, a few policy pages from Meta (terms of use, privacy policy, etc), and of course GBC Wiki. That's all that's left to my knowledge. If anyone knows anything else I might have missed, please let me know. Once that's done, all that's left is some slight webserver config, and then route the DNS for to the new server the same way as is currently, and then we're officially moved! :D --ToaMeiko (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral, swaying towards oppose on this. Honestly I don't see any problems with the current arrangement, since we fixed the error 50Xs it's been fine. Some good advantages have been pointed out. However, just because a server is fast when a few of us look at it when checking this forum does not mean it will be fast when the whole site is there. The RAM of a server is not the only important thing, but think about the CPU, bandwidth available, and most importantly how that server is connected to the web. When my computer connects to, the data passes through 8 routers. When I connect to, it goes through 15 routers. Now I don't know how important this is, but let's just say Ramnode is a big network run by people who know what they're doing. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
    • The internet plan the server's on is gonna be upgraded before launch anyways FYI. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The way to look at this is what are we getting vs what do we have? Right now Adrian pays out the ass for a server that doesn't meet our needs and as a result we have very little ability to grow. Since we moved off Wikia, we've implemented some new features, but along the way we've cut back on sooo much since our server was limiting us. We've upgraded the server a few times since then but it's still the same situation. We're maxing out it's potential and at this point can't afford to pay more monthly for Ramnode. However, self-hosting ourselves gives us everything we have right now (all our content, all the functionality, back-ups galore, etc) and more, as well as the potential to grow and expand as we need. No more "can we afford to pay more each month" scenario. The specs are already proving to be better on the new server. We're buying a dedicated internet plan for the server alone. Everyone's remarking over how fast it is already, well once it's got it's own network to itself, it can be expected to be even faster. Plus, if we want more fast, we can upgrade that network again down the road. We have unlimited potential, unlike our current host who profits off us and we can't afford to get anything better from them. UltrasonicNXT brings up other specs besides RAM- the great thing is, since we're self hosted, we can upgrade all that whenever without having to pay anything extra besides the cost of parts (that's a 1 time purchase rather than paying more every month). Also @NXT: Error 50Xs haven't been fixed. Cody and I, as well as my bot, experienced them countless times last night alone while we were performing various tasks. You improved it but the server still maxes out its RAM usage fairly regularly. As I'm writing this, we have 27MB of RAM free...

    Already paid out of pocket a few hundred putting this server together for my other sites, but it'd be nice to have Brickipedia there too... Especially considering the amount of hours and sleepless nights that have gone into preparing the server just so that it'd be excellent for Brickipedia. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • One more thing to note also would be that considering one of the other sites/companies this server runs is an unlimited cloud storage service (on another drive/RAID array). We could set it up so Brickipedia backs up there. Right now Brickipedia backs up to Dropbox, but we don't have any backups of our images. What are we gonna do if Ramnode fails us like they already did once in the past? Last time we lost everything, but if it happens again we're still gonna lose all of our images. That's something we could avoid on the new host... --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Consolidate the sites[edit source]

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

Proposal: To merge all images from meta and customs onto the main site, meaning that and would be the only two sites we host. Get rid of ideas, which is inactive.

  • Benefits: More efficient use of server resources. Consolidation of community onto one site.
  • Drawbacks: It can be nice having different sites for different projects, even if they are largely inactive.


  1. Basically going back to what we had on Wikia... kinda a step back but also a step forward. Should help community grow and makes things easier for new users to understand. Gives us better performance too, and should make things easier to keep track of rather than having different forums taking place all over the place on different wikis. Also will make the backend server-side stuff a lot simpler, which will make it easier for newer sysadmins (Codynguyen1116 and MtMNC) to step up and be able to work backend when necessary instead of just front-end. I support. ToaMeiko (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Been thinking about this myself for a while.
    • I have nothing against Ideas, and this is going to sound like some sort of insult when it's not intended that way, but I've never really understood it- you can go to the Ideas site itself and view exactly the same thing
    • When I was merging Customs and Stories content, I thought it'd just make much more sense if it was all on Bricki.
    • Images- what actually happens here? Are they split so GBC gets all their images and Bricki takes the rest, so there's no common image host?
    • Note- I think this proposal should be discussed publicly and not on admin though
    • NovaHawk 00:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
      • As it says at the topic, this was meant as a draft for Meiko and I to work on. Then people started to comment on it :P Ajraddatz (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Oh. You mean that big bold sentence at the top of the page? Who reads those? :D (sorry) NovaHawk 01:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
        • (looks around awkwardly, pretends not to have been the first person to comment) CJC95 (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support from me. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. I like the idea of easier back-end thing. :P Fully support that. But what about a Brickipedia Commons and a Brickipedia, like a Wikimedia and a Wikimedia Commons? Also @NovaHawk: It's more of a site for all the projects that got erased after LEGO CUUSOO migrated to LEGO Ideas, but I get what you mean. Codynguyen1116 (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Right now images are confusing to people who don't know the ways of Brickimedia. They don't get why they're sent to another site to upload images and then have to come back to another site to use them. It's kind of an unnecessary hassle. And once we consolidate the wikis, it'll make even less sense that one of three projects ("Commons", Brickipedia, GBC) is just for images when the images could just be on Brickipedia. Plus, being on Brickipedia they'll get more attention and people might actually care to categorize them instead of leaving it the mess it is currently. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. The only condition that I have is that any Customs content is sectioned, alike the Reviews content. Latenightguy (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  6. --Knight
  7. -- MtMNC (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  8. It's a good way to save space. --Worlds ocean1.jpg CPplayer90210talk 14:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  9. As much as I hate to kill off Ideas, its received four edits so far this year and its dominated by spambots (not many get through the filters, but at least 100 accounts were created in the past 24 hours alone.) Still, the other ideas are all fine - easier moderation, easier access for users, better brand recognition. All good. CJC95 (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  10. I don't see a reason why Customs needs to be separated if reviews isn't. If we can do the same style as Reviews (colour scheme and all), I don't see the issue. Heck it might even be cooler, if we have a unique colour scheme for fan art, stories ect. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Conditional support - remove ideas but retain customs separate


  • Your proposal doesn't mention Ideas, but your options do. Can I assume the proposal is to just kill off Ideas? CJC95 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
    • In the first sentence it says "Get rid of ideas" :P Kinda sucks to kill off a project but it is pretty much inactive... :/ --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Actually its the second sentence, which I must have forgot to read :P CJC95 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm in support of the images bit so far, (makes it easier to maintain them, categorise them, remove stupid file names, find usage, etc.). Its customs side of this proposal which I see more to discuss in. Would we move it back to its own namespace ala on Wikia, similar to our review namespace? In many ways, this would perhaps get greater eyes on it (customs userbase is restricted to the 4 people who knows it exists). CJC95 (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
    • You're correct, it would be much like how we had it on Wikia. We'd recreate the Custom namespace (Or "Fan" or whatever now that we rebranded Customs) --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Re:Branding - with meta gone, and all the sites gone, a clear good thing is to avoid the confusion between Brickipedia and Brickimedia, since the latter would just lead to the former. CJC95 (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Yep, had this same thought. I think now would be a good time to acquire and/or and use those. It'd not only help our SEO but it'd make more sense. Only thing is someone's probably gonna have to pay out of pocket to buy those domains... --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Namespaces are cheap. It'd also make anti-spam work a bit easier (less sites to check), but depending on the amount of edits these new namespaces would get, it might clog up the recent changes (etc.) on this wiki. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't be too much of a problem. As it stands right now, Customs wiki doesn't see significant enough activity to outweigh the mainspace and other contributions this wiki gets in the recent changes --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral. It seems like a good idea, and my only hangup really is that I have this notion of different skins for Customs and Reviews being disorienting, but maybe it's not worse than having a separate wiki.... Pros probably outweigh the cons.... I'll maybe support later. Glad we worked this out. Berrybrick (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I was going to suggest later- can't we just scrap this skin thing and keep them all blue? Or maybe just change the top bar in the skins but keep the blue background? NovaHawk 22:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Oppose to that, the colors aren't about us, they're about separating the aspects of the site for the visitors. If all the skins look more or less the same as far as color goes, people can easily be confused into thinking a custom is an actual wiki article. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
        • I never said it was "about us". If I was sitting around reading an article somewhere in a nice neutral blue skin, then hitting the "customs" and getting suddenly blasted by red, I wouldn't appreciate it as a visitor. I get what you (and below) mean about separating it from the other content, I just think it'd be nice if it was slightly less drastic. NovaHawk 06:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
          • That's a separate issue no - after all, the current colours were voted on in that fan wiki forum (I'm not sure who, as all I've seen is people saying they don't like them :P). Clicking through to a namespace and clicking through to a wiki are hardly different here though. Summary: colours can be changed to whatever we vote to change them too. CJC95 (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
          • Per CJC, colors can be determined later. But FWIW, if we're trying to make it so people aren't being "blasted" by color change, I think we're moving in the wrong direction. Originally our colors were dark which are all much more similar to each other since they each share a larger number of blacks in their shade, but progressively we've moved away from that. Brickipedia is no longer a dark blue. Customs is no longer a dark red and is now a bright orange. --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I'd have to agree with Meiko here - the point of the skins is to be, as Berry put it "disorienting", so they don't confuse the encyclopaedic articles with the customs articles. CJC95 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
        • I really like the different colours, honestly. It makes it clear which part of the site you are on. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Since Customs and Stories content has been merged, would be have Stories in the Customs namespace or have two separate namespaces? NovaHawk 06:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    • How were we planning to distinguish them for fan wiki? CJC95 (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I figured it would be a "Fan" namespae (as I mentioned at one point above in this section).--ToaMeiko (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I'd recommend separating customs and stories (unique colours too <3), as there's plenty of both. I'm not sure if we should keep fan art separate and wait til we get art (I have this awful Olivia drawing to upload, and we have like one other :P) or just add it in with customs. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
        • It took us a year or two to merge the two, let's not split them up again... There honestly aren't enough stories to deserve their own namespace, and they get 0 activity so they'd basically be the next "Magazine" namespace that everyone forget exists for 5+ years until a forum to delete it is proposed. --ToaMeiko (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Customs is officially kill. This is the first completed step for the move since everything seems unanimous so far. is now read-only, and will be deleted probably tomorrow after I can talk to Berry and others about transferring the last few pages to the new server. All that's remaining is Project namespace stuff like policies which need to be imported individually to the new server. All the content can be seen on the new server at I've also imported en but it'll get a bit out of date as changes are made to this wiki. Everyone's user accounts have been imported too and you should be able to log in fine same as you would here. --ToaMeiko (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Readership and Engagement survey[edit source]

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

Proposal: Conduct a one-month survey of readers, through an anonnotice, regarding their site experience and trying to get them involved in editing. No financial cost associated, can be run easily through Google docs.


  1. No reason to oppose, although past ones have been somewhere between useless to ignored. CJC95 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Can we put it in everyone's face like Wikipedia does when they ask for money? --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Was actually planning to post a survey this week :P NovaHawk 00:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support, also you mean Google Forms right? Codynguyen1116 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  6. Latenightguy (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  7. --Knight
  8. Surveys are nice, though I'd prefer not using Google. (Pretty sure that there's a MW ext. that allows the creation of surveys.) --Jack Phoenix (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    @Jack Phoenix: Why opposed to Google? Out of curiosity. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    @ToaMeiko: The usual privacy concerns (although I guess that point is moot if you're accessing Brickipedia without some kind of an ad-blocking extension installed in your browser), nothing special. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  9. Out of curiosity what sorts of questions do you have in mind? -- MtMNC (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  10. Berrybrick (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  11. Can we add a question on the survey about how old are you? It be interesting to see the different opinions between age groups. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


  • Re: Questions question. The WMF has "experts" make their readership and engagement surveys; I'll glean from the questions there most likely, using ones that seem to fit our site. In particular, I want to know how easy the content is to access, areas for improvement, and how the social side could be better advertised. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Can we have some questions on articles readability? Do they enjoy things like the minifigure descriptions? Do you want a long convulted background of the entire life of Darth Vader, or do they see it as unneeded? Etc. CJC95 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd like some stuff to do with design in general, for things like templates, considering there is work on new design guidelines going on. Could we do something like show a design and ask what they like/dislike, or show a couple and ask for preferences, something like that? CJC95 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Scrap the admin wiki[edit source]

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

Proposal: Remove the admin wiki, redirect discussion to the public site. Discussions which must be private can be conducted through mail.

  • Benefits: Further engages non-admins in community decision-making.


  1. I don't mind this too much, if something is really important we can use pms. Most oHf the stuff here I don't think isn't too admin(y) anyway, like voting on the budget or discussing spam bots. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  2. We did this before we moved. I don't remember why we brought it back really. Perhaps the only issue is the budgetry stuff? IDK CJC95 (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. ToaMeiko (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Yes please. NovaHawk 00:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Only my... however manyth time proposing this :P Ajraddatz (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  6. Codynguyen1116 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  7. Latenightguy (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  8. --Knight
  9. About time. The name "admin wiki" was misleading from the start as it blatantly ignored sysadmins who do not hold local admin rights. Important discussions affecting the site should be as public as possible, and sysadmins should be involved in technical discussions. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  10. All for transparency. -- MtMNC (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  11. Admin Wiki never got much activity anyway. Clone gunner commander jedi talk 07:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    To be fair, that is a good thing :P CJC95 (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  12. Vasko (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  13. op gives me the image of Meiko writing Ajr a letter with a quill by candlelight. Can we do that? Berrybrick (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    Why are you asking? I thought op was clear enough that's how it would be handled. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    Implying that doesn't already happen, Berrybrick. :P Ajraddatz (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


New subsites[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was failed LegoFan4000 talk 18:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: If we're adding Customs, fan art and stories as their own subsites why not nominate these now and have a giant new site day party or something.

Brick films

It's a shame we didn't get brick films to move, or didn't steal any of their users...:P I think it could still br valued by our readers though.

As in information on succesful brickfilms? or users own creations? CJC95 (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The first one, but users could make pages of their own if they wanted to advertise.Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
If they're notable enough, they can be mainspace. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Fan content in the mainspace? Ew. NovaHawk 00:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
No, BrickFilms has been alive for 10-11 years and has a lot of video content themselves. Codynguyen1116 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
That's like saying get rid of forums because Eurobricks is active. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg


  1. Im sure if we do a few it will eventually pick up steam. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  1. BrickFilms is alive and healthy, all the video content should be there. Codynguyen1116 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. --Knight
  3. As much as I love "brick films" (I detest the term) I don't see a need for us to have a namespace dedicated to them. Especially as it would be difficult in deciding what is deemed worthy of an article; I wouldn't want to see any articles on some terrible 2 second 10 frame webcam animations created by our users but I'd like the articles to be about the far more professional animators such as Forrest Whaley (Forestfire101) and BrotherhoodWorkshop (produces animations for LEGO to put on YouTube and their website). Although, going by that, I wouldn't be able to have articles on my animations but no one cares anyway, about "brick films" much here it seems. Clone gunner commander jedi talk 16:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    Your voting no, because you can't use your own brick films? :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    He is voting no, and saying as a consequence that he can't post his brick films. However, surely his own creations would fall under fan wiki, so no issue with it. Upload away Clone. CJC95 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    Actually, I voted no because I wouldn't want to see this be filled with terrible user created animations, and thus my animations wouldn't be included on there. I'd be all up for it if we implement some proper guidelines as to what animations should be featured. Also, I have no idea how anything should be formatted/presented on the Fan Wiki so am hesitant to post anything on there... Clone gunner commander jedi talk 20:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Latenightguy (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

#Issues with notability, with scope, with the point, with competition, with content itself. Just allow people to make them own on customs. CJC95 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. Moved to allow in fan namespace if created by user who made them. CJC95 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Allow them in the Fan namespace

Note- this applies only to Brickfilms created by the same person creating the article (like a custom model, but a video), not any sort of index of "established" Brickfilms.

  1. I don't see them needing their own namespace, but I can see them working as a subset of the fan area. NovaHawk 11:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Per Nova, but I'd assume that it would already be allowed. CJC95 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Sounds good, although, was this not already a thing we allowed in customs anyway (just no one ever cared enough to make any)? Clone gunner commander jedi talk 12:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Per everyone else. LegoFan4000 talk 22:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Fan material

Not our stuff, but things like Bricks magazine, third party non licensed stuff. It needs a new name though...Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Why would this necessarily require a new namespace? CJC95 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Because it isn't official :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
We have articles for things like BrickFair. They're fairly neglected, but they're fine in mainspace. Bricks, Blocks, BrickJournal, and other things like that can fit into mainspace too. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, some of these things, while being operated by third parties, tie in with the LEGO Group on an "official" level. BrickJournal even used to be sold in LEGO Brand Retail stores, and still is sometimes I believe. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
BrickJounral used to be sold on the LEGO Store I think too. CJC95 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Can someone explain this to me please? Codynguyen1116 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • So um...What would be the scope of this? What would be notable? What would be the point? CJC95 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


  1. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  1. Not exactly an oppose- I'm ok with this, only if it's in a separate namespace. But I'd like to see some clear rules as to what should be included and what shouldn't first. NovaHawk 00:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    This is a proposal for it to be a separate namespace. CJC95 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry for not being clearer. The "oppose" part is because I don't know the scope here, and can't support without an idea as to what would even be in this namespace. NovaHawk 11:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  1. Neutral LegoFan4000 talk 22:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


A light hearted wiki wouldn't hurt, and would appeal to different users.Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg


  1. I don't see a reason why we shouldn't include it, as long as we keep it as separate from here, maybe have an orange or red colour scheme to completely separate it from here. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  1. As far as I remember the Wikia based one was active only for the day it was created with only Berry and Knight contributing to it and then it was forgotten. It is VERY likely the same would happen if we add it here, making the time and resources spent on adding it pointless. Clone gunner commander jedi talk 00:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Been proposed time and time again, no, especially not as a namespace of Brickipedia. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Would hate to see this on the same site NovaHawk 00:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. for reasons above Codynguyen1116 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. As much as I'd really love to have our own Uncyclopedia here, it just wouldn't work out. We're already struggling with Customs on the site. --Knight
  6. I am not sure what we would gain by bringing back a site that was not active in the first place. Latenightguy (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  7. It was rubbish anyway. CJC95 (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  8. Creates unnecessary confusion which is highly likely given the nature of the majority of our target audience. SKP4472 (Admin) 01:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  9. Unfortunately I'm opposing this. Never understood the need for it, especially when being a subsite of a "serious" wiki like the one we use now. Blogs would be a better medium for such purposes imo. Omega X (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  10. Per everyone else. LegoFan4000 talk 22:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

General comments

  • Subsites as in namespaces? Or domains? CJC95 (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    Answered on chat as namespaces. CJC95 (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Long time coming, but I've never proposed it. Brickipedia needs a notability criteria policy. Things like those fan magazines Soup mentioned are more than notable enough to earn mainspace pages. Large LEGO conventions (AFOL Con, BrickWorld, BrickCon, BrickFair, etc), large and well-established fan communities (Eurobricks, Brickset, BZPower, etc), and more all are notable enough for mainspace pages. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    That would be useful, if only because we keep passing that we allow certain types of articles (LEGO Certified Stores, Certified Master Builders, authors of original stories, composers, singers, musicians, Community Team), and I have no clue where to stick this information after we pass it :P CJC95 (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Mascot auditions[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was failed LegoFan4000 talk 18:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You know were supposed to have a mascot, according to,_Part_1:The_Vote I never made a part 2 of that form, only the lord knows why. :P Anyway I suggest we nominate a bunch here, if we're going through this new renisance why not have a poster boy for it? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

  1. Neutral LegoFan4000 talk 22:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Update the home page[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was 600px-Yes check.svg.png Done. LegoFan4000 talk 18:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

See:User:Soupperson1/Homepage, I just added the other subdominan's featured stuff, new good articles and new files. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

If we make a new homepage, let's get something more modern instead of the archaic boxy content style with rather uninteresting design. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Due to the increased content, I do support a redesign or tweak or whatever. Something has to be done to accomodate for all the new content. Whether that's just updating the bar or a complete overhaul's up to whoever wants to look at redesigning the main page. But I'm not touching it. NovaHawk 11:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll design it but not certain if I'll be the one to be able to put the design into code (with all the semantic stuff and whatnot). But I'll work with Codynguyen1116 and maybe MtMNC to make a new design that will work for a long time and be more modern than the old boxy idea. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  1. Neutral LegoFan4000 talk 22:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
600px-Yes check.svg.png Done. LegoFan4000 talk 18:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Creating the survey[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was failed LegoFan4000 talk 18:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Part 2 is creating the survey. We decide how many questions and what questions we want, so post them up on here. Codynguyen1116 (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


  • I know this isn't complete, so I may be getting totally the wrong idea here. But aren't we looking for things more like features that work and don't work on the site, what new things we might be able to implement, etc, moreso than extracting our user's personal details? NovaHawk 11:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah. I'll be looking at this over the weekend probably, but I'm too busy right now. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    I'd agree - we need data we can use. To that extent, some personal details (age ranges, countries, gender) may be useful, as it suggests things like countries we should pay more attention to news for and stuff. Others however are perhaps nothing more than a general "oh, that's interesting". I'd like things like comparing designs, discussing the mainpage design (hereby giving us ideas for what needs to be changed and kept), stuff like that. CJC95 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    @CJC95, @NovaHawk, don't worry, I'll be adding the UI and UX design stuff. :) Codynguyen1116 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  1. Neutral LegoFan4000 talk 22:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Status Update[edit source]

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

So... is anything going to be happening sometime soonish? Just thinking that having Customs locked off for so long is probably a bad thing... NovaHawk 05:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Snarky comment about customs usage being not much less when disabled here. CJC95 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
it does seem like its taking a little longer than it should be. LegoFan4000 talk 11:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Customs is imported here, Special:AllPages/Fan:. Import whatever templates are necessary and then will be closed.. ToaMeiko (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I have created all the templates as far as i know. The other thing to do is to copy some css modules from Mediawiki:common.css over there and paste them to Mediawiki:common.css here. LegoFan4000 talk 16:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)