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

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: obligatory "yes brickipedia pays attention to the rest of the lego community and not just sets" post. we should do more of these in more frequency because news actually gets people to come to our site plus things like this are different/intriguing 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"? Personally I'm opposed to the idea of promoting third-party things for individual news posts, simply because they're not actually LEGO. We're a LEGO site. And our focus is on sets and news. I've got nothing at all against these kinds of things as interesting side-stories in weekly roundups, but making posts designed only to advertise third-party products or certain people's Ideas projects seems like cheap promotion to me NovaHawk 07:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Broader scope = wider assortment of users and visitors. I've researched our user base a lot and we don't cater well to more than half the AFOL community. We cater to those who collect or buy new sets and those that research old sets. We can't really cater to other types of people in our articles very well but we can in news. News should be something the AFOL community can use to find interesting things. That doesn't have to be directly the same thing as they'd find in our mainspace articles. See The Brick Fan for example as they've been one of the fastest-growing LEGO fan sites in recent times. Their news is very broad and doesn't necessarily pertain to new LEGO products. Brickset's news is the same way, and they're even more similar to us since they also serve as a LEGO set database as their primary purpose. They cover anything from interesting third party products to AFOL conventions to new LEGO communities, etc. If their news were solely about new products from LEGO, they'd lose a vast number of visitors, and right now they get over 400x the viewership we do. Heck, our site would hardly be known since our biggest growth in account creation and viewership is when we're featured on Brickset's news. When we were featured on Brickset, that's hardly anything more than "cheap promotion" as all it was was an advertisement for the only real site that can be looked at as Brickset's "competition". But they advertised us, we appreciated it, and it helped us out. We can do the same thing, and people can appreciate us and new visitors can be made as what we feature could be of interest to them. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Basically this^ Berrybrick (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Fair enough I guess, whatever helps the site get more viewers what we should be focussing on, if it's this kind of stuff, so be it. I won't be paying much attention to the news anymore if it gets anything like Eurobricks' front page news (95% mocs, third-party custom parts and internal contests), but that's just me :) NovaHawk 04:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC) I don't think we should decrease the amount of news we're writing about new sets and other stuff we write about currently, I just think it can't hurt to add more news topics alongside that. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Category for collectable minifigures

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was have at Category:Collectable Minifigures The autocategory at the moment for things like Mermaid_(Minifigures) is "Category:Minifigures minifigures". Because the theme is technically called minifigures. But it sounds weird. Does anyone have a better name for this? NovaHawk 00:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC) I know it is unofficial, but "Collectable Minifigures" would probably be best. On a tangent: Pages like this have a category for "BIONICLE minifigures", which they clearly aren't. Would "BIONICLE figures" be possible? :P Berrybrick (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Yep, collectable minifigures is what I was thinking too. Fixed the figure problem (see Kopaka, the others will take time to manually switch over). Also added in Disney Princess mini-doll figures, and Friends was sorted from the beginning. Let me know if there are any others that need doing :) NovaHawk 06:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Support "Collectable Minifigures". -Cligra

Naming convention for disambiguation pages

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was avoid "(disambiguation)" as much as possible I swear we've had this discussion a million times before, but I can't find where. For disambiguation pages, should we have a (disambiguation) in the title or not? NovaHawk 04:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC) No idea. I think it depends on whether or not the base page name (without the parentheses) is already an article or not. If not I think the base page name should be the disambiguation. So for example I don't think something like Slave I (disambiguation) needs the parenthetical since Slave I isn't an article itself. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Similarly, if say, its obvious that people searching Emma will most likely be looking for Friends, I'd suggest that "Emma (Friends)" be at Emma and then Emma (Disambiguation) exist. CJC95 (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Then what do we do for pages like Anna/Batman/Robin? Where people are looking for both Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Well, in the case of Batman, we can do it how we have been doing it, or since the Batman theme was retired six years ago, we can just move the minifigure article to Batman and keep Batman (theme). Honestly, nobody is going to be looking for Friends Anna or Robin over the Frozen and Batman characters, but there would be "This article is about the <> character, for <> see...". :P Berrybrick (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Per Berry. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Per Meiko and CJC. Berrybrick (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Ideally I'd just like to avoid using the word "disambiguation" if it can possibly be avoided. -Cligra

Just annoying the BAG a bit more...

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was it's underway now Any chance of getting the parts pages moved over sometime? NovaHawk 23:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC) It's underway right now. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Brickipedia News namespace

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) Well, it's actually contributing of some value, so I can't see it hurting. As long as no news reporters get it into their head to make more news reports just for the sake of getting their content namespace editcount up (which I don't think would happen). I'm not really sure how I feel about them counting as actual "articles" though :S NovaHawk 06:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Went ahead and set it up. http://git.io/7tDhQA --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Extension:NumberAlpha

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was done Would it be possible to install this extension? To get an automatic appearances section on parts pages, I need a way to generate a unique number for every inventory row, and as far as I'm aware, there's no normal way to do this without drastically changing the way we do inventories. If I had something like this, I could group the data in the rows into SMW subobjects, and I think I'd be able to get everything else working from then on NovaHawk 07:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC) It looks OK to add. It's still in the beta stage but doesn't seem to affect anything major (i.e. wouldn't break the site). You could file a github ticket for that. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC) OK thanks, I'll do that as soon as I remember my password :D NovaHawk That is often the tricky part... Ajraddatz (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Got there in the end :D github:314 NovaHawk 09:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

TV episode transcripts

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) For copyright matters, I'm not an expert. But if we don't think about that, it would depend if people would actually care to watch the episodes and make a transcript. Obviously we'd need to see if we could legally do it, though. --Knight It doesn't seem like something we should be worrying about. - Bug (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Well having one of them up for deletion already and the possibility that others are infringing upon copyrighted material sounds like something we shouldn't ignore... --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC) I meant that we shouldn't be worrying about hosting transcripts. - Bug (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Oh ok. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Delete, I was worried about copyright violations myself. An external links seems best. NovaHawk 05:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Yeah, per Nova. I'm not actually sure what the laws about transcripts are, but from what I've seen, you probably shouldn't be hosting them unless you have express permission from the creator/copyright holder. -Cligra Alright, so does anyone know a reliable source that hosts them already that could be an external link? :P --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC) A Google search brings up a website called livedash.ark.com. I don't know anything about them, though, and I am not going to volunteer to research them. Berrybrick (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC) That's a neat site. Here's the first episode's transcript. It looks decently accurate. Should we use them? --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Sure. CJC95 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC) So, ok to close as do not allow on-site but allow external links? NovaHawk 03:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Part pages for those with a lot of Element IDs

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was do For Design IDs which have a billion associated Element IDs (take the minifigure torso for example), the current convention is to simply make parts pages based on Element ID, for example Part:6039702 refers to one very specific minifigure torso instead of all of them. I'd like to propose we change it so that in cases like this, pages are named "Part:Design ID/Element ID", so they'd be subpages of "Part:Design ID". Then the Design ID page would have the part infobox which would contain Design ID, part name, a single display image and the years in production. Under that would be a list of all the created Element ID pages (using {{Special:Prefixindex/Part:{{PAGENAME}}/}}). And the Element ID pages would look the same as normal Design ID pages. As I'm typing this, I'm remembering that the naming convention I'm suggesting was originally shot down when the problem was first encountered all those years ago, so feel free to shoot it down again :P (@Meiko- I know I said we wouldn't need subpages for the part namespace because I couldn't think of a possible reason for needing them... that was until I just thought of this :D) NovaHawk 01:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC) This makes sense. I'll enable subpages for the Part namespace now. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Done. http://git.io/V9kutg --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Yes! Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Note- Will close in 1 day if there are no more responses. NovaHawk 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Parts

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) I'd rather keep both as supercategories (Category:Parts containing just the autocats in Category:Parts by year, Category:Parts by Design ID, and a few of the other ones like Category:Printed Parts, same sort of thing goes for templates. I don't think any pages should go in these cats though NovaHawk 21:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Okay. I could have my bot remove Category:Parts from articles. Lemme know if that's cool with you. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I'm fine with that :) NovaHawk 21:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Note- Will close in 1 day if there are no more responses. NovaHawk 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Part names, part 2

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was do Was talking about this with Meiko before, would it be worth adding the official part name to the title of a part? For example, Part:20251 would become "Part:20251 (MASK 9, 2015)"? The reason being that it could help with searching, and just readability in general- getting hit by a stack of numbers might be daunting for some people, if there's a description next to it, it might help. For those that don't have official names that we know of, we can just leave with Part:number. NovaHawk 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC) +1 this idea. For the record, "Part:12345" would still redirect to "Part:12345 (AWESOME PIECE)" so there wouldn't be any issues with redlinks. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC) I like this, though a lot of parts abbreviate "Assembly" as "ASS.," so...yeah. :P Berrybrick (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC) We could probably go about not using abbreviations (or the all caps) because we're all humans (most of us) reading the wiki so we don't need things in 10 characters or less to read them. :P --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Note- Will close in 1 day if there are no more responses. NovaHawk 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Split OT Star Wars theme

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: Classic sounds stupid Smaller lists, so easier to sort through Keeps up with the current convention, and having three movies grouped into one theme while all the others are on their own seems wrong 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): 7146 TIE Fighter 2853590 Chrome Stormtrooper 4547551 Darth Vader In addition to this, 10188 Death Star is intentionally designed to be part Episode IV, part Episode VI. However, it could be listed as a part of two subthemes, it shouldn't be too big a deal. Either way, let me know what you think. NovaHawk 08:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Oh, and either way, can we make the set categories into subthemes instead of just "Star Wars sets"? NovaHawk 08:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC) I, personally, prefer the idea of the sets being separated by "Prequel," "Original," and "Sequel," ((or, simply "Bad," "Good," and "To early to tell.")) but having them denoted by movie rather than trilogy seems like a good idea. As for the subject of a set fitting into multiple movies, I'd put them in whatever movie they appeared first in; So a TIE Fighter and The Death Star would go in "Star Wars" while podracers would go in "Episode I: The rise of an annoyance." BrikkyyTalk 10:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Support the idea. As far as ambiguous movie appearance, just list all applicable subthemes I guess. [[Star Wars]]{{si}}[[Episode 4]]<br />[[Episode 5]] wouldn't be bad in my opinion. I don't have an opinion on the categorization. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC) I'm fairly sure you meant to link to Classic Star Wars, not Classic.. ;) - Bug (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC) :P Fixed NovaHawk 03:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Note- Will close in 1 day if there are no more responses. NovaHawk 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Allow anonymous forum posting

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) Cool. CJC95 (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC) It was definitely related to spam. I remember deleting hundreds of posts a day because of spambots. While I would like anonymous posting, I don't want to waste all that time again deleting every individual spam post NovaHawk 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Yeah we were getting hit pretty badly from spam. Perhaps I should try writing a Captcha solution into WikiForum, a few other people have requested that. UltrasonicNXT (talk) If we could get a functional CAPTCHA as part of it then I'd love to see anon posting enabled. But it is too much of a hassle otherwise, unfortunately. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC) I don't see why we need to do this, can't the reader just make an account? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Maybe they don't want to make an account just to say one thing? Same reason anonymous contributing exists as an option on the billions of other MediaWiki wikis out there. --ToaMeiko (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC) CAPTCHAs now implemented, so anon posting enabled. UltrasonicNXT (talk)

Adding link to Brickipedia News:Reports on main page/Brickipedia News:Home

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 Huh. It was there originally. I must have forgotten to add it the second time around (after the Return from the Great Crash) NovaHawk 09:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Whoops forgot my "as nom" vote :P BrikkyyTalk 09:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Me like, why not!? We could add it in our reports, if that was what you suggested too! :-P ~~ Sibo the First (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Keep link "hidden" Comments Are we seriously voting on something so obvious? talk about a leading oppose title... CJC95 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Demoracacy! Berrybrick (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC) 1. I only opened it to a vote because... Protocol :P ... I'll close it now. 2. Well, I wanted to be creative :) BrikkyyTalk 14:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Ok, I've added the links to the pages. If anything goes wrong blame me :P BrikkyyTalk 14:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Sections

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) Changing skins didn't fix it either. Berrybrick (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Thought this might have just been me. Emptying the cache does nothing either NovaHawk 21:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Yeah just found this. Been doing lots of updates to comments recently, so I'll have a look ASAP (tommorrow morning). UltrasonicNXT (talk) Patch submitted gerrit:186586 UltrasonicNXT (talk) Oh yeah, forgot to mention this- apparently I am NBP, because it says "You" next to all his comments, yet I can vote on my own, was that a part of the same problem or something different? NovaHawk 11:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Wait, I'm LK as well, I'm guessing I'm everyone but me :P Maybe a "!" slipped in somewhere it shouldn't be? :S NovaHawk 11:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Hmm this needs investigation. UltrasonicNXT (talk) I'm also experiencing both of these problems. - Bug (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Same problem.. Comments are not appearing for me at all.... --LK901 20:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC) The first one appears for me, not the other ones :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Yup, fix for these is coming soon. UltrasonicNXT (talk) Fixed. You may need to post a new comment on pages to clear the cache (though I think I've gone round and done this on them all) UltrasonicNXT (talk) All seems to be working fine to me :) NovaHawk 11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Admins unable to alter news reporter rights?

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was fixed Just noticed this- shouldn't admins be able to give/remove news reporter rights? I'm pretty sure bureacrats could, and it was decided that admin+'crat should merged, so... NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Fixed. UltrasonicNXT (talk)

Blocking from Chat

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) I'm guessing it's related to #Admins unable to alter news reporter rights? NovaHawk 23:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I guess so. BrickfilmNut (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Fixed. UltrasonicNXT (talk)

YouTube channel

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 As I stated on your blog, I'm not really in favor. If someone wants to do it, fine. But, I'm not volunteering :P --LK901 22:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC) -*cough*I hope people take this seriously this time *cough*- (Sibo2808) I have some experience with YTube now, and what I've found out to do for attention is to post news ... Sibo2808 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Per LK. It's definitely a good idea, but not one I have the skills or desire to really run. We do have a YT somewhere, but I don't think it has had any videos since before the first launch. Berrybrick (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I think I've stated before (if I haven't I've said it here now) that I'd be happy to do it for us, I'd just need someone to add my channel to the page BrikkyyTalk 22:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Who currently has access? CJC95 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC) BFN might. I think he made the trailer. Otherwise, I'd ask Meiko. Berrybrick (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Me and only me right now. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC) I'd rather avoid giving anyone else access to the account right now, one because it's on a personal Google account of mine, and two because I don't want too little accountability for what's posted, e.g. I'd like to be able to keep track of who's posting what before we go giving too many people access (more to have to keep track of and entrust with it). Whoever runs it to start (probably me since it's my account right now and until I manage to change it to not be associated with me) can just upload other people's things they send via email or whatever. Before we go uploading random stuff I'd also like to ensure we have some quality standards and guidelines, e.g. I'd like to avoid poorly made videos with someone's cell phone that they can't hold still while they film it). I'd like to make sure anyone who's contributing content to the YouTube channel has the adequate resources to put together a halfway decent video. I'm not saying we need to invest in a studio like BrickNerd and The Brick Show, but anyone filming things for our channel should have decent lighting and filming equipment and have basic editing software and skills at least. I'd also like to make sure, since we'll probably have multiple people from various places contributing to it, that there's decent consistency among videos. For example I don't want a video that one person adds to have superb lighting and filmography and then have someone else's video be too dark, washed out, with bad sound and all. Without consistency I don't see our channel doing well, because any subscribers/viewers won't know what to expect from us. If we really want to be serious about this, I wouldn't like to rush into it without this kind of planning and more. I myself haven't stumbled much into videography even though I'm a professional photographer. I only have basic understandings of film equipment and editing currently, and I don't know what kinds of knowledge anyone else has on this technical end of a YouTube channel. I have personal friends (not involved in the LEGO community at all) through my work as a photographer who have better experience with this that if we want to be serious about, I could ask them for help. The only problem is they're in the same town as me, not in every town all of you are in, so they'd only be able to help me in any videos I do. This is my biggest concern about starting this channel is that very few of us are near each other, so it could be hard to coordinate any of this technical work between all of our YouTube contributors. If we had more disposable income I'd be willing to use it to get equipment for various YouTube contributors for our site, but unfortunately we don't have those kinds of resources currently. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC) :P your 17 and a professional photographer?! Anyway couldn't we just make a new account and you can keep your own email's account. I've edited YouTube videos before and it's not hard to find materials for news videos like Windows Movie Maker. I assume it's not hard to give guidelines for videos and just change the password if the person doesn't follow them. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Yeah, I'm a professional automotive photographer (my portfolio). :) I can just set it up to not have anything associating the existing account to me. I should have been more clean— it's on a personal email account of mine, but it's not an email account that I use, so it's not a big deal. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC) So why the speech xP I don't think Instagram makes you a professional photographer, but nice pictures anyway :) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 The fact that I make the vast majority of my income from photography and get hired for photography jobs makes me a professional. I linked to my Instagram because I figured it was easiest for you to browse. You can also find me on 500px or just look at my website. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Next time link your website :P I thought you just ment having an Instagram made you a photographer Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Firstly, if it's connected to your personal account we can always create a new account, under a different easier name such as "Brickipedia" rather than "Brickimedia Association." Then to avoid any confusion, you can give access to users via the add manager link I pointed out. Finally, I completely agree about quality standards. Lighting is a big issue, you don't want a video review to have a yellow glow to it :/ . I personally have a pretty good setup with my Nikon that can even support a green screen (though I haven't used it much, my channel only has 2 LEGO related videos and they were right before I got my setup, I've just been too lazy to upload anything), but other people might not. As for that final thing, we start off by giving only a few users access who have proven that they meet quality standards and who can coordinate the videos. BrikkyyTalk 01:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC) I don't think we can have video reviews as we all have different accents, and set ups (including lighting, background, pitch ext.]] which may be distracting for the viewer and become a turn off. I think we should try and focus on writing reviews as we need more, rather then diving into video set reviews which every Tom, Dick, and Harry seems to be doing. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 I'd like to avoid making any new accounts. Anyone who already subscribes to one account will get confused, and there is already a YouTube account called "Brickipedia" that I don't have access to and don't know who does. Making a third channel will make things more difficult for everyone. All I'd have to do is change the password to the email account and rename the channel... that's no big task. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Well, when the general consensus among users is in favor of this channel we should definitely look into it. BrikkyyTalk 00:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Indicators

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: <indicator> tags. What these are is essentially the things we have that we position in the top corner of articles using CSS like the ratings. The indicator tag integrates these into the skin so the CSS hacks aren't necessary, which as a result makes it compatible on all skins that have various layouts. I'd like to convert our templates to use indicator tags soon. It's an easy conversion. All it requires is to make a template like {{Rating}} and have a rating tag inside an indicator tag. Then when you transclude {{Rating}}, the rating tag will be implemented as an indicator. Indicator tags have not yet been implemented in our current version of the Refreshed skin however, but they are implemented in the upcoming Refreshed 3.0 update that will be deployed soon. I'll be posting an announcement soon before the new skin is depoloyed, but when it is, I'd like us to be ready to take advantage of the new features. This is mainly just an announcement to you all since I didn't see it fit for a blog post. :) You can read more about them here. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC) That's a good feature to have, I didn't see it when I was going through the changes :) However, as far as I'm aware, we don't have any templates which actually need that anymore- everything's done through the ratings extension (<rating/>) so... (and stupid question- just tried using indicator, and it didn't work- I'm guessing it isn't enabled yet?) NovaHawk 00:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC) DeepSea and Refreshed 2.* don't support it. Rating tags aren't automatically placed in the upper corner though. That's something that's being done on a per-skin basis with JavaScript and CSS. Doing <indicator><rating /></indicator> in {{Rating}} and then transcluding {{Rating}} (almost like how we used to :P) will include the rating tag as an indicator and will automatically be placed wherever each skin defines indicators to be, without the need for CSS/JS hacks that won't work as soon as a skin changes its layout or we add a new skin. :) If you look at Refreshed 3.0 you'll see the page status indicator is automatically placed up in the corner with just the indicator tag and no CSS since all the placement is determined by the skin itself (so Vector, Monobook, etc will all have it in the appropriate location, no custom CSS needed for each skin). You can line a bunch of indicators up and they'll all be in the correct location without you having to put in a bunch of position:absolute; CSS coordinates. :) Plus if we reform how ratings/content improvement are done like how CJC and I were talking about in chat today, we'll be able to put icons like "stub", "featured", etc up there similar to how such tags may appear on Wikipedia. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Stupid me, just fixed a mistake. These aren't added in 1.24, they're added in 1.25. So we'll have some time before we have to worry about using them. My bad! --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC) We need to come up with a solution so ratings are still shown on DeepSea etc. Not tricky at all, but needs to be done. (Probably just this template just including one of the new thingys plus an old style rating, then the new one can be set to display:none in skin css for the old skins, and the old one can be set to display:none in skin css for the new skins.) UltrasonicNXT (talk) We can make DeepSea support it. Nobody's really maintaining DeepSea's code anymore but it only requires an addition of one line of code to support indicators. That's not hard to just throw in there as soon as we update to 1.25. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Okay, if it's that easy. UltrasonicNXT (talk)

Changing access levels of Special:Nuke

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was change After recent events, I think it would be a good idea to change Special:Nuke so only functionaries have this right. I can't see us ever needing nuke on a regular basis- the most pages I've ever seen created by a spambot is three, other than that, I don't think we even delete many pages these days NovaHawk 23:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Certainly. Functionaries, or Board/steward/staff. --LK901 10:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC) For some reason I didn't see this until now - but yes, make it functionary. CJC95 (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Closing in 1 day if there are no new comments. NovaHawk 04:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Scrap QCG and give the rights to admins

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 Support Support Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 The more I think about it, the more it makes sense NovaHawk 01:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Why not? --LK901 17:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC) (changed opinion after more thought on the matter) I guess. -NBP3.0 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose Oppose all members are admins already. I don't really see how scrapping it would change the process. BrikkyyTalk 13:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Because every admin would be part, so you could ask any admin to rate a page. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 I don't think this is the solution we are looking for. I don't see how it will fix the system. Berrybrick (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Because doing this would allow any admin to change the ratings, when they are not required to read and understand the MOS to the word, to be an admin. --LK901 13:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC) It's to fix the system currently,until we change the system to a different one there's no point in ignoring the current issue(No one is rating pages) this would give more people rights and make it easier for users to ask someone if they want a page rated. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 It won't make it easier to ask. It will just mean that there are more people to ask, but even then there is no reason to think that the admins who are given the powers will be rating pages when the ones which have them already don't. Besides, they will just be thrust with the ability without knowing what they are supposed to be doing, which is why the system itself needs to be reformed. Berrybrick (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Comments Changed the formatting, because it didn't really make sense going 1. Support, 2. Oppose, 3. Support, hope that's ok :) NovaHawk 01:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks, I was going to do that myself but I had to put up this quickly as lunch was calling :P I then forgot about it and was pleasantly surprised to see the change. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 I don't trust myself to rate articles to others' satisfaction, but other than that, I'm indifferent, so I might not vote on this one. BrickfilmNut (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC) While I support any move that kills the QCG, I am not endorsing this as it would be akin to me endorsing the rating system itself, and would lead to people expecting me to do ratings. CJC95 (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC) This idea will be kept (presumably) if the rating system changes. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Then I will let my full opinions on the matter be known if that happens. CJC95 (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Then convince people to vote on changing the system :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 The best way to do that would be to just ignore the old forum and start it again here. CJC95 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC) On another note if this is successful I suggest scrapping the review thing and making all admins part of that as well. This would mean all admin's reviews would be FRs, if an admin chose to write one Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Making a review featured just because an admin wrote it is silly. CJC95 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Obviously if it's a pollybag no :P But if it's a reasonable size set why not? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Because you aren't required to have a good grasp of the written word to be an admin. CJC95 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Closing in 1 day if there is no more discussion (closing as unsuccessful- 3/3=no consensus so not good enough to pass) NovaHawk 04:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Change to Refreshed skin colour

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was changed Following on from this, now that we have Refreshed 3.0, I thought I'd bring it up now so that if it was to change, it'd change at around the same time as the new skin, to save us from having two major changes. Should we stick to the dark blue scheme, or go to a lighter, more Deep Sea coloured theme? NovaHawk 04:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Keep dark Switch to light Not really bothered that much, but a very slightly lighter themem would be nice. --LK901 11:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Not the shade shown at the right, but I really don't like the dark blue we have now. It makes the background look like some sort of abyss. Berrybrick (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Yes pls Ajraddatz (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Even though I don't use Refreshed, it would be better. ~~ Regards, Sibo the First (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Definitely. This was bugging me for a while, and I brought it up before, but I wasn't sure if I was the odd one out. BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 I would get back to refreshed if this becomes true --SchtickVirtus (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Comments Like before, I'm not too worried either way. Unless I switch to the new Refreshed, which I might. But then if I prefer the light scheme, I can just use my custom CSS :P NovaHawk 04:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I could adjust to a lighter skin but not that light. In that screenshot the background is nearly as bright as the content (and grabs attention more than the content due to the color) which is the opposite of how it should be. A readers eyes should naturally see the content first, not the background (or in Wikia's case, ads :P). --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Agreed. CJC95 (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Would it be possible for us to choose different colours for our skin based on the colour palette? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 If you mean set your personal skin differently, then that is possibly through your personal css. To use ones from the colour palette you would need their html colour code. CJC95 (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Wait we can change the color based on preference? How?! :P I want to know, I think the wiki would look good in a light green :) BrikkyyTalk 12:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC) You need to create User:Brikkyy13/Refreshed.css and add the css to that. I can't remember the exact code of the top of my head, but if I have time later I'll find it (providing no one else comes and tells you) CJC95 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I should do that too :o :-P ~~ Regards, Sibo the First (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC) User:NovaHawk/refreshed.css, and change the colours to whatever you want NovaHawk 10:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Neutral BrikkyyTalk 12:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC) ^ Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Added it in, at 3/4 the strength of what was shown on the example image (since people were saying it was too bright). Let me know if it's ok. NovaHawk 03:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Animals

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 Personally I don't think it's necessary. Maybe in a separate section than "Minifigures Included", but I think it could be better-saved for the set's inventory. I'm willing to hear what others think about this though. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I'm always confused by what to do too, I was wondering if we should have a separate infobox field? :S Same goes for things like Skeletons, and creatures (like Dragons, Rancors, Wampas, Thestrals, etc). NovaHawk 01:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC) I'd support having a separate field in the infobox, and a separate MinifigGallery template. -Cligra I second Cligra's idea, mabey it could be called other characters included and we can put build-able characters such as Uni-Kitty, animals and the other characters hawk suggested Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 I'm indifferent about the separate infobox field. Normally if an animal figure is included, it's either not important as minifigures to most readers or already a prominent portion of the set in a way that the image gives it away. On the other hand, it couldn't hurt. As for a separate minifigure gallery, it sounds like a good idea. I think that we shouldn't be too strict about things like Skeletons or Battle Droids, though, and just include them with the minifigures. basically, if the figure is something you'd find within the minifigure lineup on the set's box, include it in the Minifigure Gallery. BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I'm going to go ahead and set this up in 3 days if there are no more comments. As far as the MoS goes, I'd like to propose that the other gallery goes under a subheading of "Minifigures included", called "Other figures". Also, please note when doing this, you'll need to add an extra parameter to MinifigureGallery |smw=no, otherwise it will mess with the review infobox. NovaHawk 09:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

More reviews things

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Add three suggested things Just some more ideas to try and get reviews going: Changing the infobox to look more like Template:Part/new- the review infobox at the moment is very large, and you have to scroll on some screens to even see that there are reviews. A rating section between the infobox and reviews- basically, a vote box where people rate the set out of 5 stars (like in infoboxes on Customs) Probably the most controversial- a comments box underneath the reviews. I don't think reviews is getting a whole lot of activity because people don't want to write novels. If there's a comments box, people can write mini-reviews, and since it doesn't seem like Answers will ever get off the ground, people can ask questions about the set in this area as well. Anyways, that's about all I've come up with in the last month or so to try and fix reviews NovaHawk 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC) 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) Yeah, I meant a "master comments" section on the reviewpage underneath all of the reviews NovaHawk 00:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC) All sounds good to me. Berrybrick (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC) I like the first idea but I think the info box is so large, because we don't have any reviews. :P We should probably change it anyway for the select sets that have reviews. The second mightn't work as we'd have trolls who be like 1, 1!! MWHAHA or younger uneducated users who would be like:GIRLS SET EW!!!-1/BOYS SET EW!!! - 1. I like the third but I think we should have a review team where select users write reviews. Users who want to write 'novels' can simply join the team :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Those troll comments would be easy to delete. One thing that I think would be nice is before a person can post a mini-review, they have to say that they own the set. I'm not sure how easy (and non-intrusively) that could be done though. Berrybrick (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I don't think we can remove votes. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Admins can. :P Berrybrick (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I think Soup means that they'll vote 1 star purely to be idiots, not make a spammy comment (I can't see this being a massive issue, if we get enough people voting, it should only have a small impact on the average) NovaHawk 08:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I don't think we have enough users at the instant, I know 38 is a reasonable number but if you think everyone's going to vote they're not. If you link anything site related in chat everyone's like D: I say we have 15 users who are willing to vote, but we'd all have to vote on all the sets to look professional but most of our users buy less than 50 sets a year (do not include me in this xP) so it be hard to get an honest opinion on some sets. Also we'd probably need a guideline to vote on. E.G. The Disney Princess sets aren't remotely accurate but they have useful pieces but I don't think children (readers we need) care about those factors. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Somehow I read "votes" as "comments" (or maybe it did say that and it was changed :P ). I don't see what buying less than 50 sets a year really has to do with anything. 40 still seems like a lot to me, as does 30 or 25 or 15. And though you might think that the Disney Princess sets are bad (which I'm not arguing, they kind of are :P ) doesn't mean that everyone thinks they are bad. That's kind of the point of a poll, to gauge the popular opinion. People are probably more likely to do something if it involves pressing just a button, as opposed to reading a wall of text. I see your point about troll votes, so we don't need to implement that if we really want to play it safe, but I'd kind of like to get the comment thing as soon as possible if there are no problems there. When I write a review, I kind of feel like I do need to write a novel, so I end up with very little quantity. The only big issue I see with the mini-reviews, myself, is that if we use comment tags (which I assume we would) they couldn't be edited. Berrybrick (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC) But why would you vote on a set you don't own? Then you don't know if it's good or not as you haven't bought it :/ What I mean is out of our 38 users 10 will vote, we probally have 200 different sets between us, that's 400 pages with not votes. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 It's fine to have an opinion on something you don't own. It might not be the most educated opinion, but it's fine to ask. We won't be using the data for research, just to make the namespace more interactive. Or, at least, that was my takeaway. Berrybrick (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC) ^ That's what I was after- people like clicking little star boxes, so it might keep them around longer. If the results are skewed- who really cares? :P Besides, the ratings on Customs seem to be pretty fair the vast majority of the time, so it shouldn't be too bad here NovaHawk 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC) new infobox? NovaHawk 00:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Due to overwhelming response, I've gone ahead and added the new infobox. NovaHawk 11:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Closing in 3 days, and will add the other two things if there are no further responses. NovaHawk 09:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Forum Results

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? Something along the lines of "We just concluded a vote on whether or not Brickimedia should change its name to "Splarp". The result was an overwhelming "yes". To see the archived topic, click here." -Cligra I'd prefer "Splerp" to "Splarp". CJC95 (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Well your in the underwhelming minority Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 I'd rather not personally. The sitenotice to me should be used for something relevant to everyone, whereas policy changes a usually just for regulars. I wouldn't mind seeing a page like "Brickipedia:Recent policy changes" or something though NovaHawk 22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC) I think a message about the outcome could be left on everyone who commented in the fourm if we can't do Nova's idea Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 I would not be opposed to installing MassMessage here. Works great on Wikimedia. --ToaMeiko (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC) @NovaHawk: Also there is MediaWiki:Anonnotice which can be used to provide a different message to anonymous contributors. That would make MediaWiki:Sitenotice applicable for logged in users only. Either way, should I install MassMessage? I can see if being useful. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC) I agree with Nova on the sitenotice, though it's still important that everyone knows when and why policy changes are going into effect. Perhaps we should look into the extension mentioned above. As someone that doesn't frequent the forums on Brickipedia, it'd be useful for me. Surely it would be the same for plenty of others. - Bug (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Just a note- I've started Brickipedia:Site updates anyway- I'm not saying this is the way to solve this, it's just there partly to help with the issue. (It's also partly so when someone does something that's against policy, I don't say "it's against policy", and while I'm typing it I start to wonder if I'm just making it up, then spend hours digging through old forums. If the results are all in the one place, it's easier to check) NovaHawk 11:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC) I'm a little late on this topic (as well as a lot of other ones here), but I'd support either Meiko's or Nova's solutions. BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

People Pages

• 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

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

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Support NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 No-brainer. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC) --LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Have a list (but not individual pages) Oppose Comments

Creators of LEGO Ideas projects which are made into real sets

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Support Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Seems like there'd be enough interest for this. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Definetly --LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Have a list (but not individual pages) Oppose Comments

Voice actors for LEGO films/video games/web thingies

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Support NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 ...I'd say for main characters, character's we'd have pages for. If it's like a super-short cameo or something, maybe pass. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC) ^ "Super-short cameos" don't usually have exclusive voice actors though, unless they are notable for some other reason. I'd be surprised if we ever become an exhaustive source for this that that becomes a problem anyway. :P Berrybrick (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Have a list (but not individual pages) Oppose They are not really that involved in TLG. --LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Comments Closing in 1 day as done (I think 80% is safe) NovaHawk 04:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

People actually in LEGO movies

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Support OK, I think this is just Will Ferrel and that kid at the moment, but anyway... NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Have a list (but not individual pages) Oppose Comments @Oppose: But these articles would be about the actors, not the characters. I can't see a reason to support voice actors but not this. :P Berrybrick (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I think he is referring to the characters? :P IDK Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Uh, no? This is a forum about real-world people. There would be an article for "Finn" the character, and an article for whoever played him. NovaHawk 22:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Changed to support, sorry for misunderstanding. I'm thick :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Haha, no it's my bad, I finally just understood what you meant. It could totally have been read like that :P NovaHawk 10:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

People involved in making LEGO video games, films etc

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. TV/film directors/producers, etc, game directors (Arthur Parsons), etc Support NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC) --LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Have a list (but not individual pages) Oppose Comments

People involved in the running of the LEGO Group

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Ole Kirk Christiansen, etc Support NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Definitely not. Berrybrick (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC) --LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Have a list (but not individual pages) Oppose Comments

Section 2: A MoS

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 Support For obvious reasons NovaHawk 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose Comments Biography Support NovaHawk 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose Comments I'd suggest adding a note to keep it fairly career-related, we don't need to hear about how some actor went through 4 divorces, etc. That's what Wikipedia's for :P And not extremely long either. Okay. Berrybrick (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Work with LEGO Proposed as subheading of "Biography" Support If someone can come up with a better name, go ahead and replace it :P NovaHawk 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) That heading works fine, I think, since it has to encompass designers, master builders, actors...quite a broad range. Berrybrick (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose Comments List of works A template similar to {{ThemeTable}}- photo and name of thing on the left, area for any notes on the right. Can include minifigures based on a person's likeness, if it's a direct thing. Eg, if it's decided to have voice actors, we could have a page on Liam Neeson for Bad Cop/Good Cop, but the template shouldn't include an entry for Ra's Al Ghul, because there are no Batman Begins Ra's Al Ghuls. Likewise for Cobie Smulders/Wonder Woman/Maria Hill. But, say, an entry for Owen and Star-Lord would be acceptable for Chris Pratt (valid page because he voiced Emmet). Support Again, feel free to replace this header with a better name. NovaHawk 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose Comments I'm supporting anyway, but a bit confused. Bad Cop/Good Cop would go on that table for Neeson but Wonder Woman and Emmet wouldn't for Smulders and Pratt? Berrybrick (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Sorry :P No- all I'm saying is a minifigure has to be directly based on their likeness for it to go in a table. The Maria Hill and Ra's Al Ghuls we have in LEGO aren't based on the MCU or The Dark Knight trilogy, so they're not based on Smulders' or Neeson's likenesses. But the Star-Lord we have is based on the MCU (where he's played by Chris Pratt) so it could go in the Chris Pratt article. Wonder Woman and Emmet would both go in the respective articles because they voiced them. NovaHawk 01:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Interview with Brickipedia A link to a transcript of an interview (I'm guessing it'd link to PAGENAME/Interview). Suggested by Meiko in the original forum, who seemed to think we could actually get some interviews. Obivously not a compulsory section, only for any that we actually interview. Support NovaHawk 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) (It might be nice if we could get one before everything is implemented, otherwise it might seem a bit pretentious that this is in the MoS :P) Berrybrick (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Yeah, maybe add it in, but comment it out until we get an interview? :P NovaHawk 01:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose Comments References/Sources/External links Separate sections, but I couldn't be bothered listing a section for each since they're basically the same. To be used when necessary (not compulsory). External links could include a Wikipedia link (if a page on the person exists) and an IMDB link (if page exists)? Support NovaHawk 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Who needs sources Berrybrick (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose Comments Navbox Navbox for all the people, broken up into sections for each profession Support NovaHawk 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Oppose Comments Category structure I'm suggesting one category- a category for their type of work, eg, Category:Voice actors, Category:Set designers, etc. Category:People would then be a supercategory. NovaHawk 00:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Okay. Berrybrick (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Changes to infobox Can we remove the "gender" parameter? It's useless- we can tell that by the person's name and/or photo. NovaHawk 00:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC) If you want. Berrybrick (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Note- closing this whole people section on February 5 if there is no more discussion. NovaHawk 03:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reviews of multiple sets

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) I'm not sure about the "master page" for all of them, but they could be interconnected by separate review pages where it says something like "For a review of <set name> with <others> please see <here>" Berrybrick (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Because of switchtabs and the way reviewpages are set up, the only thing I can think of which would actually work would be to just pick one set to do it on, and redirect the other names to that page. NovaHawk 05:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Take a page, say Review:Mixel Season 1. Now, this will not play too nicely for that review page, but we can just pretend it doesn't exist. Now, for each set in season 1, on that page, put a little "this is reviewed as part of season 1 here". Ta dah. CJC95 (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Stupid question- is there a reason why they can't be reviewed separately? They are separate sets after all. As for a series of collectable minifigures- review the series page. NovaHawk 10:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Because the person reviewing them has written a piece that focuses on the way the sets interact as a series, and not just how good the individual sets are? Like how, writing an album review is very different to reviewing a song. CJC95 (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Like CJC said. It takes way too much time both to write and to read. Especially on things like Mixels, the sets are so tiny I cannot imagine people reading 9 different reviews for each individual set in a series, but they could more easily read 3 reviews (one for each tribe) or 1 review (for the whole wave). --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Not until there's a demand for it, I'm the only person who writes reviews remotely often and I don't think anyone has enough sets to do this idea anyway. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 User talk:ToaMeiko CJC95 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) I was going to make the same comment as CJC, so per him. -NBP3.0 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC) According to his brickset collection he dosnt have a wave of anything to review Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Because everyone must always have their Brickset collection up to date. CJC95 (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC) To look stylish (Im preety sure he does :P) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 I really don't keep it up to date well (and I do in fact have a complete wave of Mixels series 1). --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC) I'm in support of having this feature happen in any way. Myself, along with two other Mixel Wiki-based members have big reviews coming up that would greatly benefit from being able to do multiple sets reviewed at once. --ZootyCutie (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Mixel reviews aren't big reviews :P, as the sets are small. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 I know the sets are small...but having to repeat some of the same stuff over-and-over (like, say we reviewed the Max for that tribe, it would be the same thing on each review) on each separate review would just get redundant and inconvenient. Having them in one place would make it a lot easier and put-together. --ZootyCutie (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Ok, I think I might have worked out a way which doesn't mess up everything else, or cause us to create a reviewpage for every possible combination of sets ever. I've made a template, {{ReviewMultiple}}. All you have to do is make a review as normal on one of the sets being reviewed, and put this template at the top of the review (well, on the line below the one that says "please start your review below this line"). Then it'll show up on all the review pages of the sets being reviewed. For example, I made Review:Test1/NovaFlare, and the template had {{ReviewMultiple|Test1|Test2|Test3}}. As you can see, the review is showing up on Review:Test1, Review:Test2 and Review:Test3. So... let me know if this is an ok method for doing things or if there are any problems. NovaHawk 09:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Forgot to mention, the first parameter in the template (in the example, "Test1") must be the name of the set where the review is actually located (eg, Review:Test1/NovaFlare), otherwise it won't work NovaHawk 09:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC) That's a good way to do it. The only thing that still bothers me is the page name will look like it's a review of one set in the URL and when you want to search for it. --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC) If we search for 41000 a ton of different names come up for one set, you could just redirect the pages. The only thing we can't do is the URL Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Can we not have some "special" review pages, say Review:Mixels Season 1? And then use the above template? CJC95 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC) That's what I was thinking. Then have some special parameters in {{ReviewPage}} to specify that it contains multiple sets like the template Nova made. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Well, as for the title, I was thinking we could simply use DISPLAYTITLE in a noinclude tag, save us from creating a billion reviewpages, all of which won't have a working switchtab since it doesn't link to a corresponding set/inventory. NovaHawk 22:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC) I never like to consider DISPLAYTITLE a solution to anything. It's just confusing when it comes to linking to things, and works against us as far as SEO goes. When it comes to SEO, CJC's idea will work best. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Well, if we use the multiple review template so the multiple reviews show up on all of the individual set review pages but don't create a reviewpage for each combination of sets, that wouldn't cause any problems for switchtabs or SMW, and would mean we wouldn't need an infinite amount of reviewpages. The template would just need an extra parameter for the review title. NovaHawk 04:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Combined reviews I 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) Didn't I come up with one last time? CJC95 (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC) It's very simple: Say you're reviewing Tahu and Protrctor of Fire in the same review, you create REVIEW:BIONICLE FIRE SETS and redirect the individual review pages BrikkyyTalk 20:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Pretty sure that won't have SMW working properly though... That's more of what I was thinking though. If there were parameters to make SMW understand "REVIEW:BIONICLE FIRE SETS" as a review of set1 and set2, then it'd show up properly with {{ReviewPage}} on Review:set1 and Review:set2. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC) SMW does work as discussed. The problem is the naming of the combined reviews. NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) That is hardly a problem at all, no? CJC95 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC) If you don't mind having an infinite number of review pages. NovaHawk 04:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC) In what sense? It's as simple as having for series based things like Mixels "Mixels Series 1", for waves maybe "BIONICLE wave 1", or just have people put what sets in the title. I.e., "Review: 8049 + 5343". Compared to the will it work stuff, naming stuff should hardly be an issue. CJC95 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Ok, so what if someone decides to review only the Toa in the first Bionicle wave? It's not a complete wave. New page. Or someone decides to review only four of the Toa? New page. I'd have no issue with it if we didn't make review pages (they'd still show up on the respective set articles anyway), but all these pointless reviewpages we'd be making are just a waste of space. NovaHawk 22:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC) I'm confused. Surely you don't have a reviewpage for things like that. You just include them into each sets review page. CJC95 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Well yeah, if we're not making review pages, for those, I've got not problems with it. NovaHawk 06:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC) If there are no more votes/comments in 1 day, closing as done, with no reviewpages made for these multiple thingies. NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Animal}} infobox

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 Why do we have one? Scrap it (and use {{Minifigure}} instead Per Nova. It's a bit unnecessary to have two when they're so similar. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC) The minifigure template has all the fields an animal needs. NovaHawk 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Keep it # The minifigure template has all the fields an animal needs. NovaHawk 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Did you mean to put this under "Scrap it"? :P BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Shhhh :P NovaHawk 09:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC) I'll call PETA... Not giving animals their rights.... Seriously though, animals do deserve better treatment.... --LK901 21:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Comments If the minifigure infobox is used instead, that won't mean animals will be categorized as minifigures will it? --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Hmm... yes. Either I could add an extra parameter to the infobox which would give it a different category, or we could change all theme categories to the more generic "figures" (like how the year cats are now) NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Idk... I like having some way to distinguish between minifigures and not-minifigures. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Yeah me too, and that's not something that really happens right now. Personally I'd prefer to add |type=c (c for creature) and do extra autocats like that (it could go to "animals" or "creatures" depending on the theme, eg "Friends animals", "Star Wars creatures"). NovaHawk 04:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC) If there are no more votes/comments in 1 day, closing as done, with the parameter mentioned above added to the minifigure infobox. NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

BS01 and HS01

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 Haven't we tried this before? Could be mistaken though. BrikkyyTalk 14:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC) It's been offered to them before. It would benefit them too, however I don't know how they feel it could be a bad idea. I'll link them to this forum though. For the record though, here are the benefits: Right now their server is not equipped to handle both BS01 and HS01 running simultaneously, therefore HS01 is currently disabled. Right now they're paying more for their server than they should be, and they're getting insufficient performance from it and are unable to upgrade their PHP or MediaWiki version because of it. Allowing them to to use a newer MediaWiki version will allow them to take advantage of more MediaWiki extension capabilities, more skinning possibilities, more security, and better performance. If they wanted to be Brickimedia projects, it would hardly even be a noticeable change for them. Not even the domain would have to be changed. BS01 and HS01 are currently two separate MediaWiki installations on their server. Being here, it'd all be on one, making it easier to upgrade and they'd only have to upload images once and they'd be usable on all wikis. Two of their admins, MtMNC and me, have developed a lot for Brickimedia. We know our way around how it works and what options there are on it. This makes it a less difficult technical transition if BS01 and HS01 wanted to join. Now the only "downsides" I can see: Have to import their content. - This is super easy for us to do and would keep all the revision history and everything. Have to import their images. - They'd end up being imported to meta: as that's the central image repository, but would be easy to do as long as we're careful no existing images get overwritten by files with the same name from BS01. Have to import their users. - This may be harder to do. I honestly don't know about it. If it's easier to add their user database rows to our existing user database, then it's very easy. If not, worst case scenario have their current active users create new accounts here. We already had to do that when we moved off Wikia, and there's no huge downside about that. I'll link them to this and see what they think. Also this discussion would probably be better on meta: but oh well. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC) I thought about putting it on meta but no one reads that. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 lol they do when there's something to read. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC) 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

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was add I'd like to propose an "events" header to the LEGO Store MoS. To talk about events at the store. Obviously. Currently, events are to be listed under "description", but I tried it with an article that had an event, and it just didn't look right having opening dates and location in the same paragraph as an event. May just be me though NovaHawk 22:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Since I'm obviously talking to myself, closing in 1 day if there's no response (which means, closing in 1 day). NovaHawk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove all rights, and start again

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 userrights permission, if they don't already have it), and re-elect everyone. News reporter votes would have to be open to the community. Thoughts? --LK901 16:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC) I don't think we have enough users who stay active to reelect. If we reelect who will take old admin places? I think there's about 5 regular editors including me who aren't admins, but most of us aren't suitable for being so. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 When I say re-elect, I mean that users who were previously admins/patrollers could be elected again. Just, all the users who never edit, would have their rights stripped, even if they make one edit every three months. --LK901 17:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Hi, inactive admin here. What benefit would there be to this? We already remove people who are very inactive. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Per Ajr. I don't edit very much anymore during times of the year when there's not much LEGO news, but sometimes I'll still be online when there's a spambot or vandal nobody's gotten to yet, and I can delete the page/revert the edit/whatever before too many people have to see it. This just seems like a pointless thing to do. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Eh. I didn't see that all the really inactive admins (people who had only made one or two edits since the move, only editing every three months so as to keep admin), have been removed. Sorry about this :P --LK901 18:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Since there's like 5 people even doing anything these days, I don't really see a point NovaHawk It's more like 10 people :P still very low though. We need more users, anybody want to finally try that podcast idea? :P BrikkyyTalk 03:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC) I think he means 5 regular editors not like two days a week. How do we get people to come to the podcasts of we gave little users? Who'd show up?Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 I know a lot of us actually want to do it, it's the YouTube channel and management we're having issues with. This conversation should probably be in its own section if we want to continue it :P BrikkyyTalk 21:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 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) I was talking about people like GameGear360, Shadowwarrior etc. --LK901 17:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Their rights were removed due to inactivity a while ago [1] [2] --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC) It's every three months and I don't think admins are competing every 3 months to keep their rights. :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 I'm going to agree with Ajr on this one. Berrybrick (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC) To what end? CJC95 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Per Ajr, absolutely no reason. -NBP3.0 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Updated financial reports

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) Whoever donated the 300$+ is very generous! (And rich). Thank you whoever you are! Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Ajr? --LK901 13:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure if they want to be publicly named... they'll see this though and can reveal it if desired :) Ajraddatz (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Awkwardly raises hand. (Also not at all rich). -NBP3.0 (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ALL HAIL NBP! :P BrikkyyTalk 23:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Your at least rich in heart ;) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Thanks guys. :P -NBP3.0 (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove chat edit notice

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) I have been plagued by these messages while editing quite extensively and agree that they are not very effective in their pursuit to persuade editing. --Latenightguy (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC) There really is no point at keeping it. I say delete. -NBP3.0 (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC) If we want users in chat to edit we can ask them too :P There's no need for this. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Special:Diff/966230 - Done --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Current themes

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) This heading is now too big to fit on my screen (Can't see anything below TECHNIC personally), so maybe it needs to be shortened. UltrasonicNXT (talk) Would a second heading work ok? (divide it into "Current themes" and "Current themes (2)"?) NovaHawk 10:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Sure as we're going to have to add in Dimensions anyway. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 A second heading would be a really unorganized way to do it. Better options could be to shrink the font size for that dropdown, or put in a patch to Refreshed that allows for scrolling (or maybe columns) in the header dropdowns that are longer than a user's screen. Currently it doesn't overflow in my screen though. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC) If we do change it can we use the official title pictures of the themes and put them there. I'm not sure if we have access to blank backgrounds of all the titles but I'm sure we can find them. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 That's not really do-able without some JS hacks probably (which would be really messy) because of the way the header works (MediaWiki:Refreshed-navigation). Plus text will load faster and display more consistently than a bunch of images. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Current themes A-M" and "Current themes N-Z" works for me. Scrolling something like that would just annoy me, though perhaps a two column list would work. UltrasonicNXT (talk) ^ A-M/N-Z sounds good to me- it doesn't seem unprofessional like (2), and I don't know if we'd want the text any smaller :S NovaHawk 23:38, 12 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

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 = ♥

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: SirComputer requested that we keep the visual identity of Stories intact. This is kind of vague, but something that we would like to honor, though, to be totally honest, I have no idea how to do that. We also want to use the opportunity to give Customs a makeover. There was a bit of debate, and then the forum just sort of died without any results. Whether we want to import stories upon request or just import them all at once. 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) Not all at once, guys. :P Kahuka just linked to [3] this on chat and I thought, if we are going to allow stories, why not fan art? Might as well add that option while we are (hopefully) transitioning to bigger and better things. Berrybrick (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC) +1 --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC) I'm definitely up for fan art, but I'd like to avoid things like poorly photoshopped video game covers. This would mean that policies defining art would have to be put into place. - Bug (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Do you think you would be able to come up with that? I'm not the person who is good at defining what constitutes art and what doesn't, but I could probably say something sounds reasonable. :P Berrybrick (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Sure. I could just stick something on that article requirements page once we've combined. - Bug (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC) I don't want to import every page on account of the majority being from authors that have never contributed to Brickimedia. It'd take mere minutes to transfer the work of our own authors (regardless of requests), which would keep the site organized and easier to maintain. - Bug (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I agree. --Knight I don't know if Sherman would be okay with this, but I don't have any strong feelings of my own going either way. Berrybrick (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Exactly why I didn't want to mention it prior to you bringing it up. - Bug (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Is Stories going to be on a different namespace? Like, the colors change in a similar fashion to Reviews here on En? I'd totally be on board with that, and it'd probably make it easier to maintain their style and stuff. Also, would it be possible for me to change how only Stories looks in my cache CSS whatever it is? --Knight Read Berry's second paragraph. - Bug (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC) And, while on the subject, I agree with him. - Bug (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I already read that, I just wanted to put more discussion on it. :P One suggestion I have to make it feel more organic is to have it have a lot of representation on the main page. As much as the MOCs. Like, it'd have Featured Story, WotM, etc. I dunno what we'd do with the MOC gallery, but we could do something. We could also have some colour-coding on the WotM and Featured Story to make it quick to realize they're different namespaces and to make them stand out. --Knight I'm not sure why you asked the question if you already knew that it was still up for debate, but I digress. Anyhow, I don't think the lack of representation is what makes it feel "inorganic." I do agree that it feels this way, however. Regardless, you won't have to worry about integration; Berry and I have already discussed the main page. - Bug (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Any other suggestions on how to make it feel more organic? --Knight Not at the moment (I'm trying to work on that) but what I basically meant was I don't want it to feel like two totally different sites when they are the same wiki. Berrybrick (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC) We could have something like Story: or Fiction: in front of the titles of any stories, but leave the background the same. - Bug (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Maybe we could make it do what you say, except make it so the background is technically separate in code, but looks the same. That way I can change it in my cache if I want or something. --Knight I don't know if that would be possible without putting unnecessary effort into things.. but I'm not the one that'd be setting up. - Bug (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Anyone know if it would be possible to make it so a page can only be edited by its author and any admins/moderators (preferably with the ability to add other authors)? People editing others' pages isn't really an issue at all, but I think people might appreciate the security if it's possible. Still coming up with other ideas (kinda) but thought I'd ask this. :b Berrybrick (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I've seen a few fanfic wikis that plaster a warning template on the top of their pages. This isn't foolproof, but I'm sure it'd give some authors peace of mind. Perhaps we could integrate something into the infoboxes..? - Bug (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Ideally there should just be a policy and a notice about that and the etiquette of it all. There is the ability to do this kind of thing and there are similar extensions already available (but for this particular implementation we'd have to write our own I believe). It's not something I'd advise doing because it does make things a little frustrating especially when a user (non-admin) wants to do some cleanup, fix a template, etc and doesn't have permission (BS01 Wiki has this kind of protection on user pages and it was always frustrating before I was an admin there). --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Hi Bricki, I'm back whilst my IDE saves. If it's easier for you, I'm happy for the visuals of LSW to be abandoned to get the content on, then if you want to you can give it it's own little skin. All I meant by keep the visual stuff was maybe the LSW colour and stuff, but the browny colour was never the best. Customs admins, see admin/Handing Stories Over for stuff that we never finished and should probably be done. I see you're getting plans together - brilliant! However, I'll leave you all to it, and good luck. -SirComputer (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks. I've been gone for a week and can't comment yet (the wiki keeps breaking for me and I have other things to do anyway) but I'm going to post here anyway as a nice little bump. :U Berrybrick (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Okay, I'm going to copy over what SirC said on the admin wiki because I think that it won't hurt for other people to see: See above link from 1999bug for comments on visuals by me - if it's better for you, you don't need to preserve it. The content is more important than the visuals. Well, that comment at the "above link" would be what is right above this. Info/Dev template needs to be rolled out - Info templates need a theme parameter corresponding to their theme category (so a bot could do this maybe) and Info/Dev should become Info, as that implements the theme parameter. Bit confusing, but you should see after a while. This is something to work on. Perhaps Customs' infoboxes could do with some retooling too, to get a separate visual identity from En. I'll probably regret suggesting that, because it is more overhaul stuff that won't get done, but any ideas? :P Adopt policies for other fan-made stuff - I saw a wish for fan art, and Awesomeknight wanted comic strips to be allowed. If we're merging into Customs we have a chance to evolve Stories into a general fan-made stuff wiki. Feel free to plan big - this is where dropping the visual identity will help you expand tons. Yeah, I probably should have been putting thought into policies. There was no reason to figure out the visual identity before doing that. Whoops. O\ Anyway, "a general fan-made stuff wiki" is pretty much what I would like to see Customs become. How do we do that though? I'm not sure how well suited a wiki layout is for that, but there has got to be a creative solution that isn't too difficult to use, right? Maybe? I think a wiki format would work fine. Like how there are categories and templates for "custom sets", "custom minifigures", etc, add "artwork", "comic", and "story", while keeping the same overall content organisation as Customs has now. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC) We'd also need to work on a number of new infobox types. Having several different forms will get confusing, so an omnibus would be nice to have, too. - Bug (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Finish anything you find we left incomplete. Anyone who knows their way around stories better than me find anything which felt unfinalized? Now would be a good time to speak up. :P Request for closure due to it not belonging here. CJC95 (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Changes to BP:GD

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) We're not sponsored by the LEGO Group. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC) If we're not sponsored, what would you call our LUG budget? BrikkyyTalk 11:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC) LUG Support. It changes nothing about our current disclaimer. --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Either way, maybe something should be mentioned about whatever you call the relationship we have with them, just so it's clear we're not hiding anything (I'm no good at wording that legal stuff though) NovaHawk 06:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) (Off-topic- Brikkyy: why were you even reading this? Who even looks at those little links at the bottom of the page? :D) NovaHawk 06:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC) (I was reading Meiko's message to that person who thought we were culprits of false advertising and followed the link :P) BrikkyyTalk 11:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC) (Permission to close both of your parentheses for you. Big pet peeve of mine. :P) -NBP3.0 (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC) There is nothing factually inaccurate about the disclaimer. CJC95 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for new main page

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was update See User:NovaHawk/a. Basically, this page: Gets rid of the welcome that noone reads, and no other sites really have anything like that. Replaces the welcome with a simple navbar at the top of the page for the three main areas of the site- reviews, forums and current themes (a good starting point for mainspace article browsing) Adds a "recent forums" section- this would have to be edited manually at the moment, linking to topics related to more recent news. There is a way to get the most recent threads, however since anyone can create threads in some forums, it could be an easy way to put vandalism on the main page. Editing it manually is easy enough, and doesn't need to be changed often. One of the main things TLG stated when we joined the ambassador program was that our forums were underused, I figured this may partly be due to them not being mentioned anywhere on the main page. Has some layout changes, as you can see. Don't worry about the boxes not being the same length within the rows, that's easily fixed via JS, just like it's done on the main page currently, it can be added in. Anyway, let me know what you think. NovaHawk 09:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Looks great, I think. I'd love to have this style for the main page. I still think it'd be nice to have a "Welcome" section, even if it's shortened or moved somewhere less prominent. Perhaps it would be good to have a section for those who also want to start editing? A link to some guidelines/tips for starting out, the manual of style, etc. Still, great-looking main page! BrickfilmNut (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC) I like it. Berrybrick (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC) I like it but I have a few minor problems:If we are changing the home page could customs, ideas and GBC also be advertised at the top? There needs to be something to fill the empty space under the news. Also I don't like the white on white at the bottom besides those three things you've outdone yourself! Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 @BFN: Yeah, that's a good idea, if we had like a "beginner's guide" we could link to it somewhere, maybe from the navbar? @Soup: Personally I don't really see a point in advertising other sites- they're in the interwiki navbars at the top, and at the moment we're having enough problems getting users to view and edit this site, let alone going to other sites. If other people want it though, I can add it in of course. As I said, the gap will be filled in- all boxes in a row will be made to be the same length as each other if we choose to go ahead with this page. I just didn't want to spend ages coding that if we didn't want to use this page. And I agree about that colouring, it looks a bit weird, I'll change it now so that blue goes a bit further down NovaHawk 01:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC) It looks awesome, let's use it :) Ajraddatz (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Agreed with Soup, but otherwise looks great and I'd be ready to switch anytime. LCF (talk!) 04:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC) I love this new concept and glad that you stepped up to make a sketch since we've needed one for a while. :) I just have a few suggestions for it. The font-size for the heading and the content are too similar. There should be a big enough of size to differentiate between a heading and it's content. To fix this, I suggest: 1) making the heading bold 2) and making the header's font-size to at least 1.5em The "Official Friends" box is bigger than almost everything else, which (most likely) would result in traffic driven more towards those sites, instead of the places and articles in here. I feel like these would be the least important on the main page, so instead of being on the side, maybe it could at the very very bottom? The third one here, it's kinda of hard to explain, but it just feels like it's mainly just lists and lists and doesn't provide enough content as it should be giving.I don't really know how else we could approach it though. Codyn329 (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Good points Cody- I've tweaked the headings a bit- 1.5 seemed a little large to me, I went with 1.3 instead, if it's still a problem we can work something out. I forgot about that whole "restyling" thing- the font for the headings look very different to me because I have CSS for my Deep Sea skin that undoes all that :P Tried it in Refreshed where I don't have those things set, it seems to be ok. And now I look at it, those Official Friends logos are very in-your-face, I'll shrink them down when the page is added as the main page (I'll close the forum 1 week from start date, so soon). It's just using the official friends template, so I don't want to change the yet otherwise it messes with the look of the current main page. NovaHawk 08:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Addition to set MoS: Availability

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was add I'm proposing we add an additional section to the MoS, under a subheading of "Description"- called Availability. This section would only apply to certain sets, such as store exclusives, preorder bonuses, LEGO Shop giveaways, etc. That is, any set that's released everywhere as a normal set in every store wouldn't need the section. Here's two examples below (not factually correct, it's just an example): Availability This polybag is available with pre-orders of LEGO Marvel's Avengers in the following stores: Walmart Gamestop GAME EB Games Availability In addition to LEGO Stores and the official online LEGO Shop, this set is available in the following stores: Target Müller Tesco Kmart 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) Neat idea as always Nova. I hope no sets are exclusive to Tesco though :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Does indeed sound like a good idea. Just another thing readers might look for and/or find useful. Good thinking. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC) As long as we keep an eye out for abuse like: Tesco, Sainsburys, Toys R Us, Entertainer, Toymaster (except the Dingberry branch), Steve's Toys in Brighton, Amazon UK, 1245ToyStore on eBay. CJC95 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Well yeah, as I said, it wouldn't be applicable to sets released everywhere, the one listing the store would just be for store exclusives NovaHawk 13:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC) And as I said, we need to keep an eye out for people who will end up doing that (well, if we had more users at least :P) CJC95 (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Ah, ok, fair enough :) NovaHawk 01:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Sure. --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Weapons to Objects

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. Can we convert the weapon infobox to just an object infobox? Or maybe we want to have a separate one for category reasons. Or maybe we have a separate one, and I just failed to find it. :P Do we want the weapons infobox to have automatic categories? Berrybrick (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC) A rename seems good enough. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Yeah! It could work like the creature category too Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Sure, why not, it makes sense. However for the examples, I'm not sure why they aren't just part pages with a background added :S NovaHawk 23:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I'd say renaming it object seems fine. --Knight Are we good to just change the Weapon MoS to an "Object MoS"? I can't think of why the existing Weapon MoS won't work for other objects. Except the navtemplate section being changed to read "an appropriate navigation template". NovaHawk 07:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Yeah, of course. Can we change it now, or do we need more consensus on this sort of thing? BrickfilmNut (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC) For the purpose of this section, it looks good. :P Berrybrick (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking for some technical help...

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was do both options We're getting hit with a new breed of spambot- instead of making pages, they're editing their own social profile. Problem with this is deleting a social profile userpage doesn't really delete it, you can still see it even after it's been redlinked- take User:AileenV60wanzxi for example. Any ideas how to solve this? (@admins- if you could check suspicious bluelinked names in the user creation log and block them if they're spambots, that'd be great) NovaHawk 23:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC) 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. There's no definitive "right" answer on how to solve the issue, but we can definitely mitigate it: Setting effective thresholds. Instead of allowing all users to edit their social profile right away, we could require them to make N edits to the wiki('s content pages) or to have X friends or have made Y comments, etc. For cleaning up the damage which has already been done, a group (probably the sysop group) should be given the editothersprofiles user right, which allows them to access Special:EditProfile. This special page is essentially like Special:UpdateProfile, but it allows to edit an arbitrary user's social profile instead of your own. There might be some privacy constraints to this, since this tool allows to view users' e-mail addresses. 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) To 1 I'm gonna enable this now with a very lot edit threshold (I'll say 5 edits) just to stop any more spambots in the next short while. If we want a different value, go for it, I'll just do this for the mo. UltrasonicNXT (talk) I can't edit my profile at the moment. I think I have made over five edits. :P Berrybrick (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Oops, I somehow missed this discussion, thanks for the responses :) I've set up a vote below NovaHawk 22:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Question: So, surely we need to give someone the permission to delete profiles to stop any profile abuse? In that, surely there is nothing to stop me writing in my profile various obscenities or fanfics involving Berry and Nova. CJC95 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Since we actually have had admins who have fished for real names and emails or used analytic tools to track people down (well, I'm thinking of one in particular) I'm kind of uncomfortable with this, but probably not more so than your fanfics.... Berrybrick (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Then give it to functionary, since we already have the power to track people down... (my point being is, if anyone can write stuff in there and no one can currently remove it) CJC95 (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I see your point. Functionary would work for me, but I still think that there should be some sort of threshold in that case, so that it isn't on three people to check and delete these things. Berrybrick (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Well, clearly the edit threshold will be in place, so spam should go down, and so only when someone reports something really bad would any be needed to be deleted. This shouldn't be something that is needed to be used daily or weekly. CJC95 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Question: If the right to edit other users profiles allows the user group to see email addresses, can other users' email addresses be changed through the edit profile menu? Looking at this as a possible solution to users being locked out of their accounts (github:306) and who don't have an associated email address to send a password recovery email to. --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Yes, although email addresses changed this way will be marked as unconfirmed. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC) But even as unconfirmed, are they able to receive password resets? --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Vote Set edit threshold # Seems the best way to deal with it- it would be very unlikely that spambots would make five edits before they were blocked NovaHawk 22:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC) UltrasonicNXT (talk) Berrybrick (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC) NBP3.0 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Soupperson1 Jeepers! I guess this would be best. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Ajraddatz (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Give extra permissions to admins to delete profiles Note- this does mean that administrators would potentially have the ability to see anyone's email address if they abused this right. Do both Because 5 edits is too high, and any lower will result in spambots being able to create SP pages. --LK901 21:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC) We could lower the 5 if you like UltrasonicNXT (talk) 3, then? --LK901 21:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC) How is 3 better than 5? :P Berrybrick (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Some intense negotiations going on above me. -NBP3.0 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure how doing both makes it better if you think 5 is too high? NovaHawk 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC) I believe it was a mistake.. CJC95 (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC) is. I'm not moving it to the above section, because other people have commented. --LK901 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Not giving admins this right is counterintuitive. It means that a spambot could post their spam, provided they'd somehow find a way past the edit count barrier (spambot authors are annoyingly clever people, as history has — unfortunately — shown), and we wouldn't have an easy way to remove it. Sure, we have a dedicated group for people with God-like access to the wikis, but really, sysadmins shouldn't be the ones to clean up ordinary spam or whatnot. Furthermore, ignoring spambots, consider the case of a disgruntled user (while rare, it's nevertheless a theoretical possibility): someone decides to post offensive things, or maybe even private info, etc. about another user or users of Brickipedia on their profile. An admin should be able to remove this kind of information without sysadmin intervention. Finally: if you can't trust your admins with a trivial thing such as an e-mail address, then I'd say you have a lot bigger problems than just this particular case. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC) ^ Now you mention it, I don't see why it would be a problem doing this. And having the ability to remove any non-spambot vandalism from the socialprofile would be useful. NovaHawk 23:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC) I don't partically see a need for this, but if we must solve this problem 3 months later :P CJC95 (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Do neither

Feature GBC.com and Ideas on the main page

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 Support Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Neutral I'd rather see the main page redesigned first, then look at it. NovaHawk 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Maybe feature Ideas somewhere near the bottom, but it's not really necessary. In refreshed, it's already in the sitenav dropdown. As for Stories, that's being merged into Customs and thus is redundant. --ToaMeiko (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Per Meiko. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC) Oppose Comments Changed stories to GBC.com Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Why? CJC95 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Inventory categorisation

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) I'd prefer separate categories personally. If I want to see a list of all sets or minifigures in a theme, I don't want to have every second item being an inventory. I don't see how "xxx inventories" and "xxx minifigure inventories" would hurt (eg, "Star Wars inventories", "Marvel minifigure inventories") NovaHawk 04:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Agreed with Nova. LCF (talk!) 05:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Me too. Those specific categories can be sub-categories of broader ones too, so it's no big deal. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC) That's agreeable. Would we want to make these kinds of categories added automatically like they are in the mainspace? If so how would we want to do that? Would now be a good time to begin discussing ways to overhaul inventories altogether? --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Out of universe

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) {{OOU}}? Feel free to change any of it around :) NovaHawk 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC) That was fast. :P Thanks! Berrybrick (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Clutter

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but this page is very long and annoying. So, let's reduce the clutter- this week, if you haven't voted on #Colours (the entry at the top of the page), please do so, even if you don't really care about it. Thanks! NovaHawk 23:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars The Force Awakens

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. Dear LUG Ambassadors Given the sensibility of the LEGO related products connected to the upcoming Star Wars movie it has been decided to treat all images and information as highly confidential and therefore business critical. This means that we would like you to help us contain leaking of these informations until the embargo date of Septemer 4th. Until then we need you to refrain from hosting images and information such as set number, set names and set pricing. I know the frustrations and concerns this will probably raise in the AFOL community and we would not ask if it wasn't of highest importance. I appreciate the cooperation and willingness to help us that you've already shown and hope that you will continue to do "what's right" so we can show our license partners that the AFOL community do care and want to continue being seen as a trusted friend and partner. If you have any questions or need elaboration, please go to this topic in the LEGO Ambassador Network and I will do my best to explain and reply as soon as possible. https://lan.lego.com/topics/1-topics/phase/2-topics/submissions/232 Thank you again for your kind understanding and help. Kim Ellekjær Thomsen 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'd be okay with removing them, but, personally I think that choice should go to Nova, the one who actually uploaded and cropped them all. :P Berrybrick (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC) It shouldn't be up to me :P Images can easily be restored anyway. NovaHawk 04:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Well, it'd be what's right, but... :c (Delete them.) --Knight *sigh* I'm pretty sure this was written because of the leaked 75104 instruction image and the leaked images of 75105 and 75102, back in the old days when TFA stuff was much more sensitive. But I've noticed EB's pulled the images, Brickset never uploaded them, so I guess they do count as confidential. I don't get why they care since everyone who wants the sets has seen them, but whatever, I've got the images so I'm ok with removing them if that's what's decided. If it's done, a note should go in the sitenotice so people know not to upload them (and so they know we're not behind on information, we're just being good people and following the rules). NovaHawk 04:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) It's less of something on LEGO's end and more as a precaution they're taking to keep the license. If Star Wars info is leaked because of a license partner (in this case LEGO), Star Wars would have reason to cut license agreements with that license partner. Star Wars is a strong license with LEGO, so damaging that agreement because of leaked information would not be good. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Meiko's right, our relationship with TLG is an important one. Jeopardizing this would be one of the worst things we could do. There shouldn't be any discussion; We like being an RLUG, and if we want to stay as one we need to comply with the guidelines, so this is what needs to be done to keep in line with the email: Rename all set pages to something such as "Star Wars 2015 set" (without redirects) Remove images, prices and piece counts from pages Delete minifigure pages I've done all I can do without admin rights. BrikkyyTalk 10:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Deleted the pages Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 We should be able to keep the picture on Rey's speeder as it was revealed by TLG themselves. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 The notice actually didn't say anything about minifigure pages...personally, I probably would have kept those, but again, I don't feel like it was my decision to make. I'm sure that they would rather we do that anyway. Berrybrick (talk) 15:24, 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: Dear LUG Ambassadors The previously announced embargo date September 4th still stands and therefore the sharing of LEGO Star Wars Force Awakens images is still seen as a leak and therefore we ask that you do not participate in the sharing of these images. Continuation to do so can jeopardize the recognized state of your LEGO User Groups and ultimately lead to us having to terminate our support for those of you who share and host the images. We are fully aware that the situation is less than optimal and everything we can do is being done to prevent this from happening in the future - but it is crucial to our relationsship with the license holder. Thank you for your understanding and for aiding us in containing these leaks as much as possible. Feel free to open a topic and discuss in the LAN if you feel this needs discussion beyond this announcement. Best regards Kim Ellekjær Thomsen 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) Found this. I'm not sure if there is anything else. I'm going to bed, but I'll take care of it in the morning if no one wants to do it before then. Berrybrick (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Blanked BrikkyyTalk 05:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Would BB-8 be safe? The only image is from an actual LEGO magazine (as far as I know).... He(?) and Rey were the only two things I can find, but someone more knowledgeable than me should probably perform another sweep. Berrybrick (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC) BB-8 is definitely safe- the first image is straight from an Australian magazine. Later, the same image was published in the French version, which confirmed that the parts behind BB-8 were 75099. So that item number shouldn't be supressed either. NovaHawk 00:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC) (Had it around the wrong way- the French catalogue was the first image, the Australian catalogue had 75099 above the parts for Rey's Speeder) NovaHawk 00:25, 20 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

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) Support As nom BrikkyyTalk 07:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Oppose MediaWiki is a lot of things, and while it can't (yet!) make a cup of coffee for you, it's pretty awesome. It is not, however, a content management system (CMS), even if it looks and feels like one. You don't really notice this until the topic of permissions (user rights) comes up. mw:Security issues with authorization extensions has some more about this, but bottom line is this: "patrollers are only able to delete pages that have triggered these filters" is not something that can be implemented, or at least implemented easily and without changes to MediaWiki core. The delete user right, which allows deleting pages, is largely an all-or-nothing user right: either the user has it and is thus able to delete pages, or then they don't have it and aren't able to delete pages. The only exception to this rule is the bigdelete user right, which is required to be able to delete pages which have more than $wgDeleteRevisionsLimit edits; I believe this was implemented to prevent rogue admins or hijacked admin accounts from being used to delete high-visibility pages with lots of edits, such as wikipedia:Barack Obama. Changing the requirements for adminship might be something we'd want to look into as a community — because often the ability to delete pages and the ability to block people from editing go hand in hand for a good reason. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Per Mr Phoenix, somewhere between technically difficult and technically impossible :P - Also, even if you could make it so patrollers could only delete pages which trigger filters x,y and z, surely you would just make it so the filter stopped the page being created? :P CJC95 (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Per CJC Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 ToaMeiko (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC) A lot of setup which may not even be possible, and we get very little or nothing out of it- an admin usually gets around to deleting spam pages fairly quickly, even if it is on the site for a couple of hours, big deal, it's one page. It's not like we're getting flooded with spam right now NovaHawk 23:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Comments I was unaware of the difficulty required to do something like the original suggestion, however addition of page deletion rights as explained above still might have its benefits. BrikkyyTalk 11:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC) I was under the impression that if the abuse filter was triggered, it would stop the page from being created. Berrybrick (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Maybe I've got it wrong and they don't trigger a filter. (I've probably got it wrong :P) BrikkyyTalk 13:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC) @Berrybrick: that is correct. --ToaMeiko (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)