Brickipedia:Forum/Archive/2015
The following is an archive for the forum for 2015. Please place all new entires at the bottom of the page.
Broadening news articles[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was allow
In relation to Brickipedia News:Check Out These Carbon Fiber LEGO Tiles, created with the comment:
No. It's not "this is how we should do things, deal with it", it's "hey community, do we want to be doing these types of things as news articles"?
|
Category for collectable minifigures[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was have at Category:Collectable Minifigures
|
Naming convention for disambiguation pages[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was avoid "(disambiguation)" as much as possible
|
Just annoying the BAG a bit more...[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was it's underway now
|
Brickipedia News namespace[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Done
Should the Brickipedia News namespace be made a content namespace? It's more of one than things like User and whatnot that are not content namespaces, but I don't know if other community members consider it enough of one. I feel like it should be as members who are news reporters are performing one of their main roles to the community by editing in that namespace, and it's a namespace that doesn't pertain exclusively to members like the user, talk, forum, and project namespaces do. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Extension:NumberAlpha[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was done
|
TV episode transcripts[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was allow external links only
Should we host TV episode transcripts? I see pages for them such as The Call of Cavora/Transcript but personally I don't think it's the best idea. Sure, if we can get them all compiled that'd be nice but it's veering into possible copyright violation by hosting them here, plus I don't know if we'll ever get all of them. If we could find a site that hosts them already it'd probably be best and safest to just use that as an external link. What are everyone else's thoughts on them? --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Part pages for those with a lot of Element IDs[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was do
|
Category:Parts[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was do
With the parts namespace now being made the primary location of parts pages, should we remove and delete Category:Parts? It's hardly different than Special:AllPages/Part:. On a similar note, Category:Templates is also stupid. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Part names, part 2[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was do
|
Split OT Star Wars theme[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was do
As many of you know, LEGO no longer does official subthemes on their sites. For Star Wars sets, what they are doing is saying what movie/TV series the sets are from in their descriptions, eg one of the points in 75074 Snowspeeder says: "As seen in Star Wars: Episode V The Empire Strikes Back", and similar points are consistently there throughout all 2015 shop descriptions. Therefore, I'd like to split the Classic theme to Episode IV/V/VI for the following reasons:
There is one problem- I've gone through the OT sets and there are a number where the movie is ambiguous (but the trilogy isn't):
Either way, let me know what you think. NovaHawk 08:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Allow anonymous forum posting[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Allowed
I forget why we initially disabled this; it might have been related to spam. I think anonymous users should be able to contribute in Special:WikiForum. There could be some cases where they want to say something but don't want to create an account just for that. It could bring more WikiForum activity and engage new people who could potentially create an account later on. The only downside I can see is the fact that there could be spam, and that m:Special:AbuseFilter doesn't work on WikiForum posts. I think it would be worth trying out though. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Adding link to Brickipedia News:Reports on main page/Brickipedia News:Home[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Add links
In the News Reporter rights section Berrybrick pointed out that Brickipedia News:Reports isn't linked to anywhere, and that is most likely the cause of its underuse. I propose we add a link to either or both of the pages suggested above, preferably in the phrasing: "Have news? Report it here" or related. BrikkyyTalk 09:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Vote Add link
Comments
|
Comment Sections[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was fixed
Anybody know what's up with comment sections lately? The comments show up under Special:RecentChanges, but on actual articles, many of the comments do not show up for me. Berry has had this problem too. BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Admins unable to alter news reporter rights?[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was fixed
|
Blocking from Chat[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was fixed
So, today, I had to block someone from chat for the first time in ages. The user's name was MYASS, and the offense was vulgar language. I removed their visibility in the chat logs, because, well, "inappropriate comment", but any admin can check it out if they're curious. Anyway, when I tried to block him, "blocked from chat" appeared under "Groups you cannot change", though I could still kick him. I just blocked him for now so that his trolling would stop, because it's not like he'd have a reason to protest the ban or edit the wiki productively, but is there a reason I can't ban him? Is it a bug, or do admins need chat mod rights too, or is there a forum that addressed this that I'm forgetting? BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
|
YouTube channel[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was closing for now, it's inactive and no solid ideas/suggestions for what to host has really come out of it. Feel free to re-open if needed
On my last blog post I suggested the idea of using our YouTube channel to its full potential, kind of like how BZP uses theirs. Maybe we should give certain users access to the channel (via their own channels) so they can begin uploading reviews/news/etc. Once the videos are up, people will find them and hopefully come to the wiki and start editing, and we may finally have as much traffic as (*shudders*) wikia. Thoughts? BrikkyyTalk
|
Indicators[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was implement when we upgrade
MediaWiki 1.25 will implement a new featured:
|
Changing access levels of Special:Nuke[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was change
|
Scrap QCG and give the rights to admins[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful
I don't see a point in the QCG if none of its members are active in the group. Admins are easy to contact straight away to rate (via chat, and we know who they are because of the gold minifig logo). I can't see any downside to this besides us loosing a dead group. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3
|
Change to Refreshed skin colour[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was changed
|
Animals[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Add to infobox and gallery
Do we count animals as figures included? There seems to be a lack of agreement over this amongst pages. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3
|
More reviews things[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Add three suggested things
I'm fine with the first two. I'm okay with the third but are you saying underneath {{ReviewPage}} or at the end of an individual review? I do the latter already and I've seen people ask questions there. Not sure how necessary it'd be on the former, but it could work. I wouldn't mind. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
All sounds good to me. Berrybrick (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Forum Results[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was There is a page
In the future, when a forum topic is resolved, could we have that posted in the Sitenotice, so that people actually know something has happened?
|
People Pages[edit source]
- This has been nagging at me for a couple of weeks, but now there's been a James May minifigure made, I can't ignore it any longer- how do we deal with real-life people who have made some sort of contribution to warrant an article here, but have also been minifigures? For example, James May (now a promo minifigure, but also hosted a LEGO episode of Toy Stories), Adam West (a minifigure, but voiced by the actual Adam West, so would count as a voice actor) and Stan Lee (same as Adam West). What MoS should they follow (minifigure, person [which still hasn't been made], or a separate new MoS)? Or should they be split into two articles (eg, Stan Lee (person) and Stan Lee (minifigure))? NovaHawk 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is tricky. For James May, he definitely deserves a Category:People article because of the Toy Stories involvement, however for ones like Adam West or Stan Lee I'm not quite sure. I would say for those two have it be just the minifigure article and have a note saying "Adam West voiced his minifigure in media name here". Same thing for Shaquille O'Neal who voiced his minifigure in The LEGO Movie. That's not all that big of a contribution to deserve a People article as well. I'd say James May should stay as a People article and doesn't need a minifigure article either. Since the minifigure appeared in a video promo instead of something like a game, there's not all that much to write about it so it doesn't really need its own article. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Can we add a description to people pages too? :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3
- We've had a few forums on this already, but nothing's getting decided. So I'll set up a forum with straight votes, and go through them step by step.
Section 1: Who to have articles on[edit source]
The first thing is- what articles on real-life people should we have on the wiki? Feel free to add other sections for other types of people if you can think of any NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Set designers[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
|
Creators of LEGO Ideas projects which are made into real sets[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
|
Voice actors for LEGO films/video games/web thingies[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
|
People actually in LEGO movies[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
|
People involved in making LEGO video games, films etc[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
TV/film directors/producers, etc, game directors (Arthur Parsons), etc
|
People involved in the running of the LEGO Group[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
Ole Kirk Christiansen, etc
|
Members of the LEGO Ambassador Program[edit source]
Section 2: A MoS[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was all passed
Please suggest alternatives for, add or discuss any sections below. Note- initial discussion began at Forum:Brickipedia:_The_reincarnation/Manual_of_Style#Real-world_people_articles NovaHawk 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) A lead section
Biography
Work with LEGOProposed as subheading of "Biography"
List of works
Interview with Brickipedia
References/Sources/External links
Category structure
Changes to infobox
|
Reviews of multiple sets[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Allow reviews of multiple sets on the wiki
How should we go about handling reviews of multiple sets? Examples would be a wave of Mixels, a series of Collectible minifigures, or a group of Bionicle sets. Not every set needs a review of its own, and a common thing to do is review a couple similar sets at once especially when they're in the same wave. We have no format to do this though which I imagine could complicate things very easily... Any suggestions for a way to go about this would be appreciated. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Combined reviewsI think I brought this up once before but never got an outcome. With the way our current review system there is no ability to review multiple sets in one review, since the review pages are associated with a single set page. For themes such as Mixels, Bionicle, or Minifigures where there are individual waves of sets in a small number, it would be more efficient if there were a way to review multiple sets in one review. I'd like to have the community come up with ideas to fix this issue. If there were a way to make a review page associated to more than one mainspace set article, that would be a good solution I think. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
|
{{Animal}} infobox[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was remove animal infobox, add extra parameter to the minifigure infobox for categories
|
BS01 and HS01[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was BS01/HS01 don't want to
Would it be possible to get them under brickimedia? Or at least the header on top of their wikis. And we add them to our headers. Pit could be impossible but I think it would benefit all of us if it worked. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3
The only real downside is lack of autonomy; since splitting from BZP back in the day (which I think was mostly a technical issue anyway? Wasn't around then) BS01 has always been independent. It just works for us. You're right about all the technical issues, which is generally out of my control anyway. But I don't pay the bills, which is what this boils down to. We're more comfortable being a separate entity, warts and all. Not to say we don't like you guys <3 (also completely unrelated but your dropdown menus aren't working for me, although I'm sure you're working on it) --Dorek (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
Addition to LEGO Store MoS[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was add
|
Remove all rights, and start again[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was don't do
It was mentioned a while back on the reincarnation forum, but nothing ever came of it. Because half of our admins never edit, and many of our patrollers haven't been seen in months/weeks, I think it would be a good idea to remove all rights except for functionary (might have to add the
Personally, I'm not open to this. The way I see it, it's pointless. Everybody will just end up with the same rights anyway :P BrikkyyTalk 03:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Having to revote for me, Nova, Berry, etc as admins will solve the "problem" of half our admins never editing (tbh I haven't noticed this problem)? --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Updated financial reports[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
Hi all, just wanted to let you know that I am publishing detailed and public financial reports starting this year. You can see them at m:Financial_Department/Reports. I haven't in past years because I didn't think it would be worth the effort, but I'll give it a try here. Adrian (Brickimedia - talk) 00:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Remove chat edit notice[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
It was suggested to remove the popup that appears that says "You've done lots of chatting, why not do some editing here too". I don't think it convinces many people to actually edit, and gets annoying when it pops up even when you're actively editing. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Current themes[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
Disney Princess and DUPLO aren't featured in the over heading. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Done. I think it takes a few days to show up though NovaHawk 08:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Split it into A-L/M-Z so the lengths of the lists are as close to equal as possible without the second list being longer than the first. NovaHawk 07:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC) |
Refreshed switchtabs[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was fixed
Refreshed's switchtabs (inventory+review links) need to be fixed. They stopped working after Refreshed 3.0 was enabled and I can't get them to work. --ToaMeiko (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
Customs + Stories = ♥[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was ?
Warning: This section breaks protocol. Reader discretion is advised. It's a sad day when someone comes to these forums to get something recognized. The only other option seemed to be a blog, and maybe I'll try that too because now that I think about it that might make more sense. Anyway, Customs has a tendency to die and nothing was getting done in regards to the stories merge, so I thought I would bring it up here. I'm basically looking for ideas because I have no idea what to do. The only things that I recall discussing with Bug (and in a forum before it died) are:
Knight said that Stories should be to Customs what Reviews is to En and I kind of agree, but to be honest, the implementation between the two is awful and feels inorganic. (I know we are trying to fix it, and I've thrown around some ideas myself, but anything that our site tries to get done in regards to redesign, aside from the upcoming Refreshed layout I suppose, seems slow since most of these are issues we have had for years.) That is something I want to avoid. I want to find a way to integrate stories into the wiki better and to encourage people to write them, even if it is something short. I want it to be clear that it is there. Perhaps not in-your-face, but not something to ignore either. So, basically I posted this in the wrong spot because I need ideas and to see those ideas actually come to light. I will move it to a blog if I absolutely must (and even if I don't, I might to account for some users who don't read the forums but might have feedback I would like) but I am not relegating this to Customs where Bug and I will be responsible for everything because we can't do it alone. People don't go there to discuss policy, only to upload MOCs. Sure, I can prod them on chat to check every time there is an update, but who wants that? Berrybrick (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Changes to BP:GD[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Nothing.
Just realised that the General Disclaimer is kind of outdated now that we are a certified LUG. I'm thinking that we need to change some wording, i.e.: While Brickipedia is sponsored by The LEGO Group it is not owned or operated by them and as such is not an official point of reference. Obviously we can't use these words exactly, but it does need to be along those lines. BrikkyyTalk 00:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Proposal for new main page[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was update
See User:NovaHawk/a. Basically, this page:
Anyway, let me know what you think. NovaHawk 09:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Addition to set MoS: Availability[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was add
AvailabilityThis polybag is available with pre-orders of LEGO Marvel's Avengers in the following stores:
AvailabilityIn addition to LEGO Stores and the official online LEGO Shop, this set is available in the following stores:
Just thought this might be easier for people who are looking for where to buy sets in their local area. I've only put the four main countries we use down, but it could be used for all countries. NovaHawk 06:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Weapons to Objects[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was broaden to objects
I noticed that macguffins like Re-Gou Ruby and Moon Stones were being categorized as minifigures because they were using minifigure infoboxes. So, after BFN found Lightsaber and we realized that it didn't have any automatic categories, I switches it over to using the weapon infobox. I was wondering two things.
Berrybrick (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Looking for some technical help...[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was do both options
This is essentially related to the concept of social profiles; the original developers of the social tools thought of social profiles more like traditional user profiles (on a forum, for example) instead of traditional wiki pages, and as a result of this, social profiles are treated differently, and thus they're not world-editable the way this page (or most other pages) are.
tl,dr: Some anti-spam measures are already available, but policy discussion/community consensus is likely needed on what to enable. Suggestions for new anti-spam measure are always more than welcome. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
VoteSet edit threshold
Give extra permissions to admins to delete profilesNote- this does mean that administrators would potentially have the ability to see anyone's email address if they abused this right. Do both
Do neither |
Feature GBC.com and Ideas on the main page[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was no change made
Why not? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 SupportNeutral
OpposeComments
|
Inventory categorisation[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to be voted on
There are no guidelines on how inventories should be categorised. I've seen some with very minimal categorisation, and then I've seen ones using many categories found on mainspace pages (like "Themename minifigures", "Figures introduced in xxxx", etc). Does anyone have any ideas on what guidelines we should set for inventory articles? --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Out of universe[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was {{OOU}} created
I'm noticing a lot of backgrounds (particularly for licensed themes) which are written from an out of universe perspective. I was thinking that it might be worth creating a maintenance template to mark such occurrences, and that maybe (everyone has seen TLM right?) we could get a picture of Emmet after he falls out of the LEGO Universe (or The Man Upstairs if we can't find a good enough image) and maybe (I had to look at IMDb to find this) "You know the rules, this isn't a toy!" as a quote. Fun, right? (Please don't consider how many backups I could have fixed while I was pitching this.) Oh, and spoilers. Berrybrick (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Clutter[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
|
Star Wars The Force Awakens[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was embargo ended on 4 September
Back in June I received an email from Kim Thomsen at the LEGO Group that I didn't see until now regarding Star Wars The Force Awakens content.
If possible, it would be in our best interest for our relationship with the LEGO Group to remove images of the relevant Star Wars articles and delete them from Meta. Feel free to discuss and ask questions. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I've received another email regarding The Force Awakens sent out to all registered LEGO Users Groups. Sharing it here just to keep you all updated:
I take it that we've already removed all the images, correct? Just want to be sure. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
To clarify current confusion, as the details of this embargo have been confusing and ever-changing, as it stands currently, information about these sets is fine to keep in articles. This includes set pages, set names, item numbers, minifigure information. Images should be deleted from Meta until 4 September. No set lists of TFA Star Wars sets should be added to the main page until 4 September. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC) |
Give patrollers the ability to delete spam pages[edit source]
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was not done
The patroller right has always been an anti-vandalism tool, and lately the only vandalism we've been getting is spambots creating useless pages. I think it could really help the wiki if patrollers had the ability to delete these pages. If I'm not mistaken, spambots trigger the abuse filter when they create new pages. How I propose the ability works: patrollers are only able to delete pages that have triggered these filters. If an ability like that is possible, it would be a great addition to the patroller right and could help rid the wiki of annoying spambots. BrikkyyTalk 07:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC) SupportOppose
Comments
|