Brickipedia:Customs and Reviews Referendum

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki

This page exists so that the community can input their opinions on allowing articles on custom LEGO sets and reviews on Brickipedia.

Custom LEGO sets would be in the Custom: namespace, and would have a different background from the rest of the wiki. A separate MoS will be developed for customs.

Reviews will exist at the Review: namespace. The system of reviews is still under discussion.

Please share your ideas at Forum:Customs and Reviews. This page is simply for voting on whether or not we should continue with the development and implementation of the idea. Voting will commence on November 3rd, 2011 and go on for two weeks. After one week, a notice will be placed on the main page requesting anonymous input.

There will be separate Recent Changes for each aspect of the wiki.

Arguments[edit source]

This is a list of arguments for and against the proposal.

Arguments for[edit source]

  • We will have increased activity from readers. Restricting creation of customs and reviews to logged-in users encourages more people to register.
  • We will further our development in becoming a fan site.
  • Instead of deleting reviews and customs made in the wrong namespace, we can simply move them to the appropriate spot.

Arguments against[edit source]

  • There is plenty of potential for confusion with real and custom LEGO sets. Users not familiar with the concept of a namespace may have difficulty reading or writing material in the correct spot.
    In other words, we have to be extremely careful in ensuring the difference between encyclopedic content and user stuff.
  • Philosophically, becoming a mixed fan site/reference site may not be the goal of the wiki.
  • Readers may become confused about the purpose of the site if they see both custom and review material.

Vote[edit source]

Please add your vote to the appropriate section, and leave a reason with it. Use the format *'''Support/oppose''' - Reason. ~~~~. Vote only once, please (or <del> out a previous one if you change your mind.)

Support[edit source]

As long as we can have some sort of eye-catching banner at the top and the bottom with big letters that says THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL SET/MINIFIGURE AND SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SUCH or something along those lines. Also, would it be possible to have the article comments available for reviews and customs? Berrybrick 16:00, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

    • Totally support that- I think we need to make it extremely obvious that none of the customs content is official. NovaHawk 06:40, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support Just Customs[edit source]

Support Just Reviews[edit source]

  • Just reviews.
User:UltrasonicNXT/Signature 17:58, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • Preety soon with customs we'll have everyone makiong everything. User:Mr. Minifigure/sig 23:15, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
    I suppose that is the idea? - Remembrance-poppy.jpg - Lest we forget - CJC 23:18, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
    Per CJC. User:SKP4472/sig2 10:17, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Super Strong Support - Just saying, when the BrickPost makes a come back, it'll be bring customs with it... or atleast, a forked version that I'll nurture (cause I've been neglecting Wikia recently)... --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 21:04, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose[edit source]

  • Oppose I want to stay formal. Only on Subpages will I allow it. I think they belong on Customs Wiki. User:Crazed Penguin/100DaySig
    • They will be something like Custom:CP's supercool set, you know... User:Captain Jag/sig1 17:35, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
      • It is on a subpage... Berrybrick 01:26, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
  • CrazedPenguin is right. Only on Subpages!
  • Slight oppose - I'm not clear on what exactly is going to happen, but the idea of having a hybrid reference site and fan base seems philosophically deviated from the purpose of the wiki. Brickipedia's unified purpose of being an encyclopedia is something I think is best left untouched. However, introducing more user-focused content will make our community larger and stronger. Is this advantage worth the loss of Brickipedia's singular and straightforward nature? (rhetorical question) Is FB100Z an idiot who needs to research things about a proposal before babbling on about how it's unencyclopedic? (not a rhetorical question) FB100Z • talk • contribs 01:48, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Comments[edit source]

  • Yay! Separation! How I've missed you... NovaHawk 04:49, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • I am going to refrain from arguing with opposers in this one. TBH I'm sick of repeating myself hundreds of times. User:Ajraddatz/sig 04:50, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
    • Me too- I started writng something, but I gave up for the same reason :P NovaHawk 04:54, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm new and already tire of it...Berrybrick 01:26, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Several questions:

  • One: Would we have different admins for the different namespaces, like the Avatar Wiki does?
  • Two: Would we have badges for reviews/customs?
  • Three: Last but not least, would we enable *shudder* article comments for the customs namespace, at least? They would seem to work fairly well there. User:Cligra/Sig
    • One: No. Admins would be global.
    • Two: Hmm... I’m not sure if badges can be enabled for those namespaces. Anyway, we wouldn't want someone to get heaps of points for just creating some custom sets.
    • Three: Again, I’m not sure if we can. We would need to contact Wikia to find out. But yes, you're right, they probably would work well... User:Captain Jag/sig1 17:53, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
      • One, no, but if they are needed we could look into it.
      • Two, yes, we can. All customs and reviews will be in supercategories.
      • Three, I don't know. I'll ask Wikia about that. User:Ajraddatz/sig 17:59, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • Although admins are global, I think we'll have admins gravitating to/away from certain namespaces. I guess if there's a problem with one namespace, we can always look for an admin for that area. Three- Yep, I agree article comments would work well for customs, and they work well on the reviews wiki (although there are only a few contributors there), but I was too scared to suggest this for obvious reasons. NovaHawk 22:00, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

User namespacing[edit source]

I personally question how this all fits in to Brickipedia's unified role as a LEGO encyclopedia, but at any rate...

Instead of having Custom: and Review:, how about User custom:Username/Custom name and User review:Username/Review name? Or is that what we're doing and I'm just clueless? FB100Z • talk • contribs 01:10, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.brickimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brickipedia:Customs_and_Reviews_Referendum&oldid=662606"