From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki

Review team[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Nothing done

Seeing how the QCG is dead, half of users in it haven't wrote a review since the merge, I think we should do a review team. I think this is a necessary idea to revive the review sub site. I think the reviews of this team should be featured on the homepage similar to what brickset does. But I don't know some things: should it only include admins or be treated like the news reporter group, should there be creative freedom or a guideline. Anyway I think if the site works together I'm sure we can get over a hundred reviews within a year. Also small sets take short time to review and we allow reviews for collectible minifigures and pollybags so everyone can join without hassle or bankruptcy. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

  • Support as nominator. Soupperson1 Jeepers!Runninh Gang.jpg
  • Support the idea. --LK901 22:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Meh - I don't mind the idea of putting more reviews out there, and making them more noticed and stuff, but a group of special people who have reviews automatically placed on the homepage may not be the way - especially since our main page works fundamentally differently to Bricksets. Surely, just have it so if we have a new good review, we tweet it or something. CJC95 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean put it in news like: 41100 Heartlake Private Jet reviewed! And then pipelink to the review or do a new reviews section on the homepage. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  1. Oppose - what's the point in having a team when noon even does reviews? Just seems an extra user group for people to feel special but not actually do anything to me. NovaHawk 02:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


  • Since we have this years DTCs: , the set of the month should be the featured review unless no one has the set, but I'm sure there's a set which reflects that moth that LEGO has made a set of.
    • The QCG isn't related to reviews? CJC95 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Nope, that's BP:RQM. But since the ratings extension doesn't even work in the reviews namespace, I don't see a point to it NovaHawk 03:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh good - I was gonna say, I don't remember being a review quality person :P CJC95 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
          • The ratings extension doesn't work in the reviews namespace? Do you want it to? ;) UltrasonicNXT (talk)
            • Yes please :D And the inventory space as well if you could- I thought you said there was some problem with it working in more than one namespace, so had to disable it before? NovaHawk 22:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
              • And the new Part: namespace as well if you could :P NovaHawk 06:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
                • Done. This actually should have already been happening (it did surprise me a little), just some localsettings statements were in the wrong order. (Hmm I think I rewrote that bit of the code after that so that's irrelevent) UltrasonicNXT (talk)

Categories on figure articles[edit source]

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

I use Disney wikia for one reason only, the categories! See them at the bottom of the page, categories such as "Spouses", "Females", "Heronies", "Pet owners", "Protaganists". I think categories such as these and more (species, figure type, hair colour, age group, eye colour, skin colour)could make us a really useful tool for people gathering information. Example

I don't think these categories are very encyclopedic and would be too much work and upkeep for not enough usefulness. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand the enclyopedic argument but what will we have to upkeep? All we have to do is add the categories when we're adding the minifigure file/creating the page. I don't understand how they would be useless either, if people want to know how many characters by LEGO have light nougat skin or how many female characters they are they could use us. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Strong oppose- those are "in-universe" categories, which is suitable for a Disney wiki, but to me, not for here. Apart from the background section, figures should be treated for what they are- plastic toys. @above: I don't really know about upkeep so much (although, with the release of every movie, there will probably be additions needed for most characters), but I do know it will cause arguments- eg, if the old SW canon was still intact, take Luke Skywalker's possible categories- "Alliance to Restore the Republic", "Jedi Order", "Alliance of Free Planets", "Bright Tree Village", "New Republic", "New Jedi Order", "Dark Empire", "Order of the Sith Lords", "Galactic Federation of Free Alliances", "Jedi Coalition", "Humans", "Tatooine", "Polis Massa", "Jedi trained by Yoda", "Jedi trained by Obi-Wan Kenobi", "Rogue Squadron", etc... the list would never stop, and there would be fights over whether to include him in the Sith Lords (or even original Jedi Order) category, whether the include him in the Polis Massa category, etc. Basically I think it would be a huge disruption and we wouldn't be getting anything useful out of it, sorry NovaHawk 23:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Questions for @Soupperson1::
    1. How do we define such categories? Do we create a master list?
    2. How do we deal with categories that could cause controversy? (any relating to sex, gender, race, etc.)
    3. What do we achieve by this?
    4. Does increasing it so every figure has 12 categories on reduce the use of the system as a way to find information?

On a note, in terms of use, a category like "minifigures released in 2012" including not just new minifigures but old ones as well would be more useful (although you could make them separate categories obviously) CJC95 (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose:
    Semi-agreed with George. Personally, I think such categories are very much encyclopaedic, however, they lack any real practicality for the site.LCF (talk!) 18:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Normally I would probably oppose right away, but I am reminded of BFN suggesting something similar as a way of us providing something which other LEGO reference sites don't. I think we would need strict guidelines, but I would be happy to entertain the idea. Berrybrick (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: With so many categories I actually believe this might hurt navigating through the wiki, plus agreeing with what NovaHawk and George said. Codyn329 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Scrap ratings?[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was change as per 4th last comment

This is just sad. We have someone who spent hours making this article, then putting it up for nomination. In the 15 days since it was created, after the nominator going around to about 10 people's talk pages who knows how many on chat, we've had:

  • One person voting in support, even though they haven't read it
  • One person going all the way to the nomination page just to say they "don't care"
  • In response to being asked to check the nom on chat, one QCG member (whose absolute minimum duties are to review FA/GA nominations) said "nah lol", "tl;dr".

I'm not "blaming anyone" in particular, this is just a sad reflection of the general lack of caring/enthusiasm that this wiki seems to love. There were a couple of articles I had lined up to get to at least c2 status (writing them offline since I have limited internet at the moment). After seeing this, I just can't be bothered. But, back to the topic- is there a point in even having ratings anymore? If there are only two people who seem to be bothered looking at noms like this, there's no way an FA's going to reach +5, even GA's reaching +3 seems unlikely. So why have them at all? NovaHawk 23:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care for the rating system, so I kind of want to, but I don't really want to get rid of FA...maybe we could just elect someone to select FAs. If people don't care enough to be democratic, then it wouldn't be so terrible to change it so they leave a nomination and discuss it with someone who is elected. it's not something I would usually suggest, but it's better than the bureaucracy we have now. I have some time to look at it now, so I will, but I realize that shouldn't really be compensation.... Berrybrick (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we should just do majority rules for two weeks unless there's a discussion. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
I've been meaning to vote, but I want to read it first, and I've yet to find time to read it without rushing it. (Then again, I'm not QCG :P) - Anyway, for the rating system in general, I'm sure I've advocated removing nearly all ratings many times - FA is enough, and even then, having fixed rates and special groups just seem like too much hassle. Berry's idea could work, although puts more pressure on that one person. Perhaps just a general majority? CJC95 (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
CJC might be on to something here. I always liked the rating system, but I don't think we have enough of a community here to use it. :( Ajraddatz (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything said above. Just some ideas for simplifying:
  • Have three ratings: FA, complete (currently C1 and C2) and nothing (currently C3/4/5. Nothing=no icon at the top of the page, and is the default rating. Saves you from having "unrated" at the top of every page).
  • Majority rules vote on FA's, but still keep the technical check in place- featuring content on the main page which has typos or whatever is a bad idea.
  • Leave c2 as is, but officially rename back to "complete". I know some above are saying get rid of everything except FA, but I still think complete is a good idea- the reason it was introduced in the first place was to let a reader know that the article is up to date and covers everything relevant about the topic
  • Scrap the QCG, and give the rights to change ratings to admins. With only two real ratings, and one of those ratings requiring a vote, I'm sure admins can handle this. No admins would be "obligated" to do QCG stuff, they'd just have the ability to do so (I'm sure one or two admins would do this stuff anyway).
? :S NovaHawk 03:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC) CJC95 (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Berrybrick (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'd like to keep ratings. They actually give me a reason to edit half the articles I come across, because frankly, I wouldn't give a damn otherwise. I see some class 4 or class 3 articles, I try to improve them. Without any ratings, I would just overlook them. Nothing tells me that they're almost incomplete articles. LCF (talk!) 18:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Countries[edit source]

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

I did a nationalities thing ages ago (that involved speculation) but here's a somewhat different idea. Country pages! Here's an example for Ireland, besides the stuff included on that page we could add a list of LEGO stores, sets based in that country. Thoughts? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

I like the LEGO stores and Irish culture section. I'm not too sure about the minifigures and real people, but maybe. Berrybrick (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, personally I'm not really seeing how this benefits the site- seeing a list of LEGO Stores by country is as easy as going to Category:LEGO Stores by location (eg, Category:LEGO Stores in the United States). As for minifigures by country, that goes into the "two degrees of separation" for me- nationality -> character -> minifigure, when notes and info like that in my mind should pertain directly to the minifigure, not the character that the minifigure is based on. NovaHawk 06:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I think people (particularly children) would like to see country pages.They could be like look; Aurora, Harry Potter and The Queen in Cars ect. are british! Ooh the detective and royal guard where based off British culture! I never knew 41060 Aurora's Royal Bedroom, (insert every Harry Potter set), Big Ben Ect. we're set in Britian!. Even if they googled what LEGO characters are Irish we'd come up. The Scooby Doo wikia, Disney wikia and even Brickset have country pages and the pages are supposedly popular. I don't see how if we had country pages would hurt the site, they'd be as popular if not more then our voice actor pages. It will be something we'll have but brikia won't, even if we get one user out of the pages it'll make a difference. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
This would definitely be different, and is not something that I might have supported a long time ago. However... I think Soup kind of won me over on this one. These pages give us the opportunity to create some genuinely interesting content, and I can see a lot of people reading it out of curiosity, perhaps even sharing it or referencing it on other sites ("Brickipedia Article Showcases Scottish Prejudice by The LEGO Group" or something). I'd kind of see it as similar to List of references to LEGO in media. Instead of appealing to those who are curious of how the media references LEGO, though, this one would appeal to people who are curious how LEGO treats their nationality/country. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Personally I think this is more effort than it is worth. There are many country pages that would never get edited because nobody would ever know that there's content worth editing on them. Outside of first world and your home countries, I can't imagine anyone editing articles for a random other country, because I doubt anyone in this community stays in-touch with LEGO-related culture and activities in other countries. And when I say "other countries" I don't mean USA, UK, Germany, etc. I mean ones that you don't hear a ton of news coming out of but there is still a LEGO culture there. Brasil, Peru, Chile, Poland, Thailand, Malaysia, etc. Basically I just imagine this would end up being rather biased to first world countries that we already bias towards, and any culture and activities in other countries would be overlooked and neglected in our articles. --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Poland is first world :P Honestly there's not much point creating the majority of third world countries because LEGO isn't sold in most of them and there's nothing based off them, when was the last time you saw any minifigure based off a third world country. As for the rest of the articles USA and UK will usually be the only articles that will need an upkeeping as there they have the most sets/figures based off them. It honestly won't require too much effort doing the rest as LEGO haven't been global until recent years, except from Adventures. If people are bias then we do what we always do to bias people. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
USA and UK will not usually be the only ones that need upkeep. LEGO has had a global market for FAR longer than you have been alive. Germany has a larger market for LEGO than the UK does, so there's one example. If you think those are LEGO's only strong markets, take a look here. That's just registered AFOL user groups. Then you take into account AFOLs only account for 5% of LEGO's market audience, and you've got even more global audience. I don't even know what you mean by "except from Adventures" and I don't know what you mean by "If people are bias then we do what we always do to bias people". --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Eh I know there's a global market, but how often do see minifigures based off Irish, Italian, Dutch, Finish, Canadian, or Korean culture? Or a store opening in any country besides US or UK? A store opening is rare and collectible minifigures, Adventures, PQ are the only themes really to deal with culture, so we won't need to upkeep the pages often. We ban bias people :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
There's far more to LEGO culture than minifigures.... --ToaMeiko (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. For one part, it would be a new interesting concept and would also help differentiate us from Wikia. But of course, there's not enough information for us to put in a page for every country. --Knight

Then we don't give every country a page :P Honestly it's not like there's many (if any) Jamican, Mali ect. readers or LEGO buyers in general Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
[citation needed] --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


Have country pages
Do not have
  1. Per what I said above basically- I can't see it being useful. Plus, I get the feeling we'll get hit by a lot of conjecture. NovaHawk 00:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. ToaMeiko (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Not opposed per say, but what are the chances that this leads to more than one page being half created? :P CJC95 (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Category structure for inventories[edit source]

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

Because stuff is annoying me in Category:Star Wars minifigures (essentially every minifigure is listed twice- eg, Darth Vader is followed by Inventory:Darth Vader), I thought I'd propose a category structure for inventories, where inventories are separate from categories for other things which aren't inventories. Here's the proposed structure:

  • Category:Inventories
    • "Category:Set inventories" (note the lowercase "I", currently at Category:Set Inventories)
      • "Category:Star Wars set inventories"
      • "Category:Marvel set inventories", etc.
    • "Category:Minifigure inventories"
      • "Category:Star Wars minifigure inventories"
      • "Category:Marvel minifigure inventories", etc.
    • "Category:Combiner model inventories" (currently at Category:Combiner inventories)
      • "Category:BIONICLE combiner model inventories", etc.

  • Every inventory has only one category- "<theme> set/minifigure/combiner model inventories"
  • Every one of the third-level categories goes into two categories- for example "Star Wars minifigure inventories" goes into "Minifigure inventories" (as indicated) and "Category:Star Wars minifigures".
  • Every one of the second-level categories goes into two categories- for example "Set inventories" goes into "Inventories" (as indicated) and "Category:Sets"

? Basically it's pretty much the same as what we seem to have except for the inventories are grouped by a theme category of their own instead of using categories which have traditionally been used for mainspace articles NovaHawk 11:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I like this idea. Can we add a category for polybags too? It would go like "Category:Polybag inventories" and then "Category:<theme> polybag inventories". We could also apply the same category tree to reviews. Codyn329 (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Good idea! I did wonder if there was a better way to deal with that, but forgot to bring it up. -King of Nynrah (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Mabye this idea will get people writing inventories again! Thank you Nova for always coming up with great ideas! Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Sounds good. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference photos[edit source]

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

Do we want/need to add reference photos on are articles? So far only the minecraft figures have them. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

  • I like the idea personally, but only if the image contains both the model/minifigure/whatever and the thing it's based on in the same picture. For example, for one of those Minecraft comparison pics, I thought one of them was actually LEGO, but it turned out it was an actual Minecraft person, so it's kinda misleading. Also, I'm not sure how we'd handle pages like Anakin Skywalker- we wouldn't want a gallery of 30 comparison pics (one for each variant) :S But I think it would be useful as well for future sets/minifigs that we don't have any images of, like sticking this in a gallery at the bottom of 75099 so people can see what the set will be based on, and also just for the sake of having an image on the page NovaHawk 02:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I always like seeing what a model (or figure) is based on. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
  • Yes. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Nova, but also, people should be careful of which images they choose. There can be some pretty frightening and gory stuff for some characters (Carnage comes to mind). Oh, and if characters like Luke or Batman are going to have 30 comparison shots, make a gallery subpage and have that as a heading, maybe? Just include shots of the figures in the same frame or side-by-side. Berrybrick (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We had a discussion about that a while back. I don't know if it ever happens, but yes. :P Berrybrick (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This would be quite useful, especially for future sets/minifigures, as Nova pointed out. Unlike Nova, I don't think it needs to be limited to images containing both the reference and the LEGO version, though. Not only would this basically eliminate the benefit for future sets/characters, but image descriptions should be clear enough to eliminate confusion. Gorey references are just common sense to avoid. For large numbers of references, a separate gallery/page like Soup suggested sounds good. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Has this not recieved enough yeses to be approved? Soupperson1 Jeepers!Runninh Gang.jpg

Colours[edit source]

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

I think we need to vote on this: Do we use LEGO's colour name e.g. Bright Purple, the scientific colour name Barbie pink, the name lego characters refer it as raspberry or just what people refer it as "pink" Unsigned comment by Soupperson1 (talk • contribs).

The official name, but in instances of commonly used terms for the colour there may be a redirect (e.g. "light bley" to "medium stone grey"). In instances where there may be multiple colors referred to by the same name, such as "blue", there should be a disambiguation page. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Official name (thought it would be a no-brainer). Redirects and disambigs wouldn't hurt though of course NovaHawk 01:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually ment referring to colours on pages, I need to explain things better :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

  • Oh, right :P I tend to use what's most readable (but link to the official name), but a set policy on this would be a good idea NovaHawk 12:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah I was gonna say, there's something somewhere about colour pages being named the official LEGO names or whatever. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
  • I think it'd be fine to just say pink, grey, green etc on the page but link to their official LEGO names in the words. -King of Nynrah (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Use only official names in articles
  1. If we link why not? I know most of the official colour names it didn't take long to learn them either. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Allow unofficial names in articles (but still link to official names)
  1. To me, it just makes things easier to read. Maybe not for me, but for other people who haven't spent hours rearranging templates for LEGO colours NovaHawk 04:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    And by this, I don't mean replace it with a fan-based term that casual readers may not understand or think is a typo (like "bley"), I mean replace it with something everyone will understand (like "tan" instead of "Brick-Yellow") NovaHawk 04:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. ToaMeiko (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. CJC95 (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not really sure how I want to vote on this... Even "common" names such as "purple" could be confusing to a reader, especially with the numerous amounts of purple shades there are. Same thing for green, blue, and basically every other color... --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Why must we pick one? Or why can't we say "green" and link to "deep purple aqua green" or whatever these things are called? CJC95 (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what the second option means :P NovaHawk 23:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Third option? Kind of similar to two, but what about the writer uses either the official name (cool yellow) or a simple denom referring to it as a shade of a basic color (pale/light yellow, maybe even just yellow in some cases) but not something "flowery" (buttercup, lemon, etc.). Just leave it up to the writer whether the official or simple name is used. Make sure to link, and that should reduce confusion, I think, though with official names like Light Pink and Light Purple or Medium Lavender and Lavender it isn't ever going to go away entirely. Berrybrick (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I kinda like the direction you're headed with that idea... However, if I could derive your idea, I'd suggest to only allow the unofficial name if you've already listed the official name earlier in the paragraph, and if you refer to it again in the paragraph, it would be okay to refer to the "parent" color category. For example, if you're talking about a Flame Yellowish Orange part of a set, it'd be cool to refer to it later on in the same paragraph as just "orange". But I'd only really want to allow this under the circumstance that the official color name has already been used, because otherwise "orange" is vague and confusing. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't know...that might be confusing in itself, but I'm probably just overthinking it. :P I'd be okay with that idea. Berrybrick (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

People Pages: the people page section to end all people page sections[edit source]

Please note- this discussion is closed, and will be written up and archived within 24 hours of 10:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC). The rest of the discussion can be found at Brickipedia:Featured_Forum/old.

  • We've had a few forums on this already, but nothing's getting decided. So I'll set up a forum with straight votes, and go through them step by step.

Section 1: Who to have articles on[edit source]

The first thing is- what articles on real-life people should we have on the wiki? Feel free to add other sections for other types of people if you can think of any NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Certified Master Builders[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was allow
  1. NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. --LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Have a list (but not individual pages)
  1. I don't think they're involved enough in the LEGO group Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    Readers would be interested in this sort of thing, though, wouldn't they? Also, I don't see how they'd be less involved than voice actors. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Their whole lives revolve around working for LEGO, how much more involved can you get? :P NovaHawk 23:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If people want to make pages, I guess they could go ahead, but I think a list might be more suitable. Berrybrick (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Is this talking about Master Builders, or LEGO Certified Professionals? They're two very different things. "Certified Master Builder" isn't a title I'm familiar with. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Closing as passed if there are no more votes in 1 day. Otherwise this will never get resolved. NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Members of the LEGO Ambassador Program[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was do not have
Have a list (but not individual pages)

# NovaHawk 23:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. Berrybrick (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. --LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. It's an official LEGO program, so having at least a single article that lists members of the program could be useful. LCF (talk!) 22:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. We don't need a page on Meiko. CJC95 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. I highly oppose this change as it's more work than necessary for no benefit. A LEGO ambassador is not a part of the LEGO Group and thus is not significant to Brickipedia's project scope. The list of LEGO Ambassadors changes yearly and in some cases more frequently than that, therefore it's highly unlikely we'll ever have an up to date, also given the fact that no up to date list is available to anyone except for LEGO's CEE team and the list of members on which the list will change come 2016. Brickwiki at one point attempted to compile lists and as you can see that's nowhere near up to date and was often incomplete. What this would mean would be that I would have to go and manually copy and paste each ambassador's name (some of which use their real name, some have names on LAN such as "iainy73", so there would hardly be any consistency or sense in such list), put them all in a wiki formatted list or table, and update that every time an ambassador changes, which on its own is a ridiculously unreasonable task to complete since some ambassadors never even post in LAN and don't introduce themselves. Honestly there is no point in including such a list. I've tried to get a page on the Ambassador Program/Ambassador Network created for a while since that actually does pertain to our project scope as it's a part of the LEGO Group, but a list of members, many of whom have no significance to the LEGO Group at all, is just unnecessary. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. NovaHawk 11:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Latenightguy (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. The only page we need on a meiko is the singer meiko, okay maybe not. But Meiko is the one who should know about this stuff so I'm siding with him. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  6. Too hard to keep up with Codyn329 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe as a list would be useful. I don't know about doing individual pages though. Berrybrick (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Added a new "have a list" section to each vote NovaHawk 23:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • General note- closed all those with unanimous support. NovaHawk 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Closing in 1 day as make a list (I think 75% is safe) NovaHawk 04:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please note- this section was originally archived, then Meiko came along and explained how it worked. If noone wants to change their votes, that's fine, just thought it should be brought up again due to the new info. NovaHawk 11:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Writers/Illustrators[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was those contracted to write original stories only

Including writers/artists of comic books, novels, reference material (visual dictionaries), etc.


# NovaHawk 23:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Have only those contracted to write original stories

(see ToaMeiko's comment below for what this section means)

  1. Per my comment --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Berrybrick (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Latenightguy (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  5. Codyn329 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Have pages for those who write original, throw all others on a list
  1. CJC95 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. The more potentially useful/wanted information, the better. LCF (talk!) 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Maybe with a bullet-point list of their contributions underneath? Or not, don't mind either way really NovaHawk 03:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    So basically a combination of option 1 and 3? I could go along with that I suppose. Certainly voting for option 1 though, that's a must. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    I assumed the list would include their contributions somehow, or else what would be the point of it? CJC95 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. As per Novahawk and CJC, include why they're relevant in the list part. Stormbringer Empire791
Have a list (but not individual pages)
  • Forgot about this one NovaHawk 23:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of them are just random authors that work for Scholastic to write a book that's the exact same story as the LEGO theme's TV series or something (especially Ninjago, Hero Factory, Chima, and other themes' books). I don't think we need pages for people like that. But for people writers like Greg Farshtey and illustrators like Stuart Sayger, yes. So basically only if the individual was contracted by the LEGO Group, not by Scholastic or DK or whatever. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Added a section. NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Composers[edit source]

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

For people who write songs for LEGO productions.

  1. NovaHawk 12:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. ToaMeiko (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Berrybrick (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Latenightguy (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. I guess? Songwriting credits can get long though - (at least) 6 people are credited for writing "Everything Is Awesome" for example. Unsigned comment by CJC95 (talk • contribs).
  6. Sure Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Have a list (but not individual pages)
  1. I think that it would be optimal to have a list, as while they make great contributions toward productions, there's not really enough to say about them. Maybe an in-between choice like for the illustrators would be good.LCF (talk!) 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Codyn329 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Singers/Musicians[edit source]

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

For people who perform songs for LEGO productions.

  1. NovaHawk 12:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. ToaMeiko (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. CJC95 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Have a list (but not individual pages)

LEGO Community Team[edit source]

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

While they aren't a part of LEGO's management and don't contribute directly to the products, LEGO's community team (also known as CEE) is arguably the most important department of the LEGO for its fans. CEE is responsible for the LEGO Ambassador Network, fan event support, convention support, LUG support, and interacting with in-person and online LEGO User Groups (such as Brickipedia). Should we have articles for regional community team leaders?

  • Keith Seversen - Community Team Manager (retiring as of 30 April 2015)
  • Kevin Hinkle - North and South America
  • Kim Thomsen - Western Europe and Online
  • Jan Beyer - Eastern Europe, Asia, Oceania (to become LEGO House Community leader in 2016)

Then there are some other parts of the community team that aren't part of CEE, such as Peter Espersen, who heads ReBrick and any other co-creation projects run by TLG, Tim Courtney, who is head of LEGO Ideas, etc.

  1. ToaMeiko (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. NovaHawk 23:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Berrybrick (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Have a list (but not individual pages)
  1. Neutral don't really see a need for them, would prefer a list, but not fully against having articles

BrikkyyTalk 21:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. A list could be fine, but there's more than enough content for them to have full articles. For example, you can see the article I just wrote on Kevin Hinkle (which I only used a few sources for, so there's still information to be added). --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Section 3: Anything else?[edit source]

For anything else not covered in the MoS or what characters to have.

Ordering of items in {{ListOfWorks}}[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was chronologically
  • How should the works be ordered? By type, name or year of first release? NovaHawk 00:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Year of release could be good. It'd make it easier to follow a person's work over time, especially for senior set designers who have worked at the LEGO Group for many years. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Chronologically. CJC95 (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

People pages, part 2[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Nothing
  • 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)
  • OK, going to take a shot at some sort of formalised policy:
    • People whose only contribution to LEGO is that they voice a minifigure based on themselves as a real-life person should have a minifigure article only (for example Conan O'Brien, Jim Lee and Shaquille O'Neal).
    • People who have voiced both themselves as a minifigure and as another character should have both a person page and a minifigure page, with the title of the minifigure page taking precedence over the person page (for example, John Smith would be a page about the minifigure, while John Smith (person) would be a page about the person). For example, Adam West (person) and Adam West, as Adam West also voiced the Gray Ghost.
    • People who have made multiple contributions to LEGO as themselves and have voiced a minifigure based on their likeness will be assessed on a case by case basis (for example, James May).
? :S NovaHawk 11:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, surely its simpler in terms of policy and things just to have both Shaq (person) and Shaq (minifigure). CJC95 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

News reporter rights[edit source]

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

Following in the aftermath of some drama that I was unaware of (until I searched through the past revisions of this page), I would like to suggest that we remove the news reporters group and allow autoconfirmed users or registered users to submit news articles. Admins, or maybe the current NR members would then approve it for quality, truth, news worthiness, etc. Admins (and NR if we kept the group), would be able to instantly publish an article. I'm not sure if it is possible to do this via current extensions/core functionality, or whether we would have to develop/install something. --LK901 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reposting this. Yes, this is exactly what I proposed yesterday. Brickipedia is "the LEGO wiki that anyone can edit". News is part of that, so anyone should be able to contribute to news without going through a request process for rights that shouldn't be necessary. Anyone is able to contribute to mainspace, reviews, etc, so the same should be for news. If someone's news article isn't the best quality, other members can help them improve it. That's what a wiki is about-- collaboration. --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Then we should let everyone ban & kick too because of spam and such. Actually, Yay, let's remove every single user right! ~~ Sibo the First (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Unlike reporting news or writing an article, kicking and banning isn't contributing to the site. It is moderating the site. Berrybrick (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It was kinda a joke you know :-P ~~ Sibo the First (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In terms of practicality, this can be done as follows:
    • It wouldn't enter the rss feed until approved by someone. Hence not on the main page, nor an rss reader or any twitters that take our rss, until someone approves it.
    • Also note that this would not mean any old news article could end up on the Twitter either, since any news posted there is done manually by someone with access (currently myself, Meiko, Berry and probably Lcawte).
  • In terms of usefulness of this:
    • People who find news can report it.
    • Anyone who can write in English can write something.
  • In terms of why this won't lead to spam or bad articles:
    • It won't enter the feed until its approved - so it will only be found by those in RC until then, basically.
    • If an article is good but needs editing to fit style, it can be done by an admin/news group person before it enters the feed, so we get more good content (similar to how newspaper reports would be edited before publication).
    • Rubbish/content that isn't news/duplicate stories/spam can be deleted.
  • Basically, this is no different to me and Berry reading Nexus's stories yesterday and editing them and then publishing. CJC95 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think this will work as people were once gun ho about ratings and now look where we are. Also people will make reports on MOCS/fan ficus ect. We need a MoS for news before we do this Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    • No one was ever that excited about ratings.
    • Then they won't get published on the RSS or Twitter. They would be deleted.
    • No we don't - we never needed one for news reporters, so why would we need one now? I'd trust the same people who write reports now to judge whether something is good or not. CJC95 (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh. It seems I must have misunderstood before- from the way the original post read, I thought there was going to be a lengthy approval process for each article. I'm totally fine with what CJC's saying. If it's just a quick yes/no from a news reporter like how it's a quick yes/no from a QCG member for the lower tier ratings, then that sounds ok to me. How would the protection for the namespace work though? It shouldn't be autoconfirmed, as it would mean anyone could post articles that go straight out to RSS feeds, but it shoudn't be sysop either? Or just keep it news group protected and have it so the submissions for news articles can be posted in the Brickipedia: namespace? NovaHawk 21:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The idea would be that the article would exist in the news space, but wouldn't go to the RSS until its been approved. So anyone can post in the namespace, but that doesn't automatically mean it will go to the RSS feed, it will wait until its been approved by a reporter. So, if say someone posted spam there, it wouldn't go to the RSS or main page. It can just be deleted. CJC95 (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
      • If that was to happen, it's going to be a real pain to code... NovaHawk 01:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the terms of "the LEGO wiki anyone can edit," I do not believe "special" articles are covered in that. News is not Ninjago, you can't have anybody writing it. Yes if this idea gets through there will be the approval, but really think about it, who would really use it other than the current news reporters? Isn't the approval process you're suggesting exactly the same as Brickipedia News:Reports? Reports is never used, so why would a process essentially identical to that be used too?

BrikkyyTalk 22:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I didn't even know that Reporters existed until you used it briefly, to be honest. I don't see it linked to here, on any individual articles, or on the main page, which is where I would look to find it. Berrybrick (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (By "Reporters" I meant Brickipedia News: Reports. I obviously knew what reporters are. :P ) Berrybrick (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • All people ever used that page for was to post a link to a news story, and then one of us had to write it. That is not the point of the proposed system. CJC95 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The only thing is that I don't see why anonymous users can't contribute news articles. Is it because we are worried about spambots? Something similar to what is described here could probably implemented, right? Anyway, I support this idea (as I did yesterday, I just didn't understand that one part and wanted it clarified :P ). Berrybrick (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Brikkyy. Also, I don't see why changing everything would improve this site: We are in a community where people have (also had) their places in a community. Like News Reporters. They are our journalists. A Rollbacker/Admin could be seen as our police, or representatives. I'm just saying that if such change would be set in action, it wouldn't get us forward. Most people see the news themselves. Then they won't bother sharing it. Unless they have NR. :-P ~~ Sibo the First (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Food for thought: All opposition has given reasons why this might not work. Are there any concerns about why it might actually be damaging? Berrybrick (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • We tweet out stupid reports like:New Kai/Emma fan fiction is out! :P Or you know a moc news report that isn't dedicated to this site Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
      • You are presumably suggesting that Me or Berry would decide to tweet that out? Because, you know, if we wanted to do that we could now... CJC95 (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Honestly, CJC's system sounds practical, and it'd be nice for people who actually care about news to write it instead of forcing people who don't care about it to write the reports because they're the only ones that can. I imagine the ones written by those who actually care would be more comprehensive. And there's no good opposition I've seen to this idea. Worst case, if we try it and a totally unexpected problem arises, we just revert back to the old system. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
          • We need a support/oppose section. Should I go ahead? --LK901 10:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Added a vote below so we can finally resolve this and get rid of some clutter :P NovaHawk 04:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


With the "new system" being that anyone can write news reports, but it is up to the news reporter group to decide whether to publish the reports to our news stream.

Adopt new system
  1. On the condition that the news reporters are still the only ones able to edit the Brickipedia News: namespace, and reports are written in a separate namespace (like on "Brickipedia:News reports" or something), then when approved they're copied to the new namespace. Otherwise a whole new system with the SMW stuff is going to have to be set up so our RSS/external feeds aren't spammed (it's currently safe because one of the conditions for a news report to be published is that it's in the news namespace). And, as the person who'd probably get stuck with working on this, I'm saying now that I am not wasting my time working on trying to develop a new safeguard that can be trusted to protect the feeds 100% of the time. NovaHawk 04:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand how your adopting a new system if you want everything the same. :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
I don't? All I'm saying is that the page that anyone can write the reports on shouldn't be in the News namespace. NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. CJC95 (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep old system
  1. I find the current system fine, and even if we change it who else is going to write news reports? We don't have an abundance of users let alone editors let alone people who will write news reports. The only issue we had with the system is when Nexus applied, but that was because of little site activity. I think it will be a large amount of hassle to change the system when we could you know edit, make a custom or a review. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

More TV stuff[edit source]

  • We've never really discussed formatting the "TV appearances" section for minifigure articles, so there's nothing set in the MoS- added some sections below, feel free to add anything else. NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

How episodes should appear in text[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was quotation marks
Use italics
  1. Other sites seem to use this and it stands out more. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Use quotation marks
  1. I've been doing italics simply for consistency with other pages, but I believe the correct format is quote marks, and I've noticed a few people doing it this way too. NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. The correct format is indeed quotation marks. Italics are reserved for the larger works, like the name of the show. Therefore, for matters of correctness and distinction, I say use quotation marks. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Per BFN. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Per BFN. Its like how song titles are in quotations, but albums in italics. CJC95 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Using proper English makes the most sense to me. Berrybrick (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. If we make this a part of the MoS, should we also begin to use DISPLAYTITLE to format the title of the page the same way? We already have {{italic title}}, it's just not widely used. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    I guess we may as well.BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    ^ NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    Wait, I'd be ok with italics if that was the way, but the quotation marks in a title is a bit unecessary isn't it? NovaHawk 05:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Episode title links[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Don't use italics in the PAGENAME
  • Running on from the vote above, how should the title of the episodes actually look/what should they be?
Name the article with quotation marks

ie, name the pages themselves "The Corridor of Elders", etc (with the quotation marks)

Use DISPLAYTITLE to add quotation marks

ie, so the title of the page appears to be "The Corridor of Elders", but the page name is actually The Corridor of Elders

Don't use quotation marks when referring to the episode that the article is about
  1. NovaHawk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Feel free to add other alternatives NovaHawk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Are we talking about in titles of pages or in the text of the article itself? CJC95 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ordering of appearances[edit source]

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

Should the episodes be ordered alphabetically or chronologically?

  1. Makes more sense NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  3. Yep. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Obvs. CJC95 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Indented appearances[edit source]

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

Some pages just list the episodes, some do an indented format. For example:

Have indented appearances (TV series and episodes only)
Have indented appearances (TV series, season and episodes)
  1. I have to say that this looks the clearest and most organized. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Per BfN. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. I could go with either this or the above option. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not have indented appearances

Tags[edit source]

There are some tags that seem to be used occasionally, which ones should we allow? I've taken a few from Wookieepedia as well which could be relevant here.

Cameo[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
Don't allow
  1. Mainly because it's being widely used here, and being used incorrectly- a minor background appearance does not equal a cameo. But even if it is actually cameo, who cares? If they appear, they appear. NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Per Nova. Though a very weak oppose. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. If it's a cameo, it's still an appearance. I don't see why that matters. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. Put it in notes. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    Why? If they're under the appearances, the reader knows they appeared. What defines a cameo? --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned only[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.
  1. Makes sense- if someone's mentioned in an episode but doesn't appear, it still makes sense to me to make a note of it NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, makes sense. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Works for me. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. CJC95 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't allow
  • What about indirect mentions of a character? Like not mentioning by name but implying it or vaguely referring to the character? --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd say that so long as their reference quite clearly only pertains to one character, and it is obvious which character that is, then it should be included. BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Should we have a separate "Indirect mention only" one? (Wookieepedia does). I just didn't think LEGO series were subtle enough for us to need one :P NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Appears in flashback(s)[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was have (Template:Fb created)
  1. Could be helpful for some things, eg, without the tag, people might skip to the appearances section for the Elemental Master of Fire, think he actually appears in Spellbound, then be disappointed to learn it's just a flashback. (ok, I doubt anyone would actually be disappointed, but you get the idea) NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Nova, worrying about what other people think about when reading something wrong is my thing. :( BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Lol, per above I guess. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't allow

Appears as a ghost or a spirit[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Don't allow
  1. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  2. Often important to plot. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Berrybrick (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't allow
  1. I feel like them appearing as a ghost or a spirit is only a fact necessary in the synopsis of the episode or in the character's biography section, not something needed in appearances. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. I didn't vote on this before, but looking at this again, per Meiko. BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Can't see a huge point personally. NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. What about characters that are just..ghosts.. CJC95 (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • So, is this vote for the appearacne episode thingy to say put "appears as a ghost" after the episode that they appear as a ghost in? CJC95 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's be like
  • "Spellbound" (appears as a ghost or spirit)
NovaHawk 07:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Indirect mention only[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Allow
  1. NovaHawk 23:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. CJC95 (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't allow

Season pages[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was We should not have season pages

Not directly related, but should we have season pages? I know some sites have pages on individual seasons, eg "Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu: Season Four"

  1. I guess it would allow us to give overviews for things much more easily- try explaining the Ninjago series without making the page extremely long. This may just split things up into more mangeable chunks. NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't have
  1. They all fit on the one page and no one will edit the older season pages. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  2. I wouldn't be writing it, so oppose to lessen unnecessary workload. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd only think this should be done if someone actually wants to write enough where they would begin to require their own pages, so I'm not going to vote on this one. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think "I don't want to write it" means we should "not have them" - I don't see why we should specifically add something to the manual of style saying "don't write pages on this" at all really. CJC95 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, I've got to say it's got to be one of the most ridiculous reasons for a vote I've heard on here (and it's not because I'm supporting, I don't really feel too strongly either way on this one). Not bothering to do any work is one thing. Actively opposing things just so noone else has any work to do is another. NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe do seasons as a category? Only problem is it's sometimes vague as to what makes a season. Like Ninjago, which just counts up in episode and is at #40 or something now. And I don't think there's ever been an official word as to what was season one of Ninjago (the 4 minisodes or the Serpentine story arc). I think I remember different "official sources" contradicting each other as to what season is what. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Um, nope, seasons are now all perfectly defined- the DVDs have "Season One" or whatever on the box ;) On the disc I have that has the pilot episodes, it just says "pilot episodes" or something like that (I can't find the DVD). It definitely doesn't have season 1 anywhere on it. NovaHawk 04:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Further minifigure things[edit source]

The TV variants gallery kicked this off, I thought I'd go further and get this all ironed out at once. NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A "Video game variants" subheading for "Gallery of variants"[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was allow
  • It's widely used, but not actually in the MoS
  1. NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Of course. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. ToaMeiko (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't allow

Appearances sections[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Allow a separate subheading for appearances in books. For other merchandise, inconclusive
  • We currently have "Appearances" with a "Video game appearances" subheading, and that's it. What about other stuff, eg, keychains, clocks, etc? And how do we handle books? Should they have a section if they appear in a picture only? If so, what do we do for minifigures that are included in a book- should that book go in the "book appearances" along with the other books where they only appear as a picture? NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And that basically summarises the attitude I've grown to know and love on this site lately :/ Back in the old days, CJC and I totally should have gone "there's over 9000 set pages we don't have articles on, we're too far behind, let's not bother", instead of, you know, editing. Anyway, back on topic, we do have existing book articles, so... NovaHawk 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think a bigger problem is that not too many people here are going to be reading every single LEGO book for young readers, whereas for creating things like set pages, all you really need is the image, set number, and year from another site and you're good. :P BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The books will be licensed, or else we wouldn't be including them. @Nova - as far as I can tell, half the things on this page boil down to "good idea but cba." CJC95 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keychains and whatnot should be considered sets as far as appearances are concerned if it's an official LEGO product. As for books, definitely. Of course we won't be up to date on that for a very long time, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start adding content on that front. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the reason why some articles have kept keychains separate are that, keychain minifigures aren't the same as normal minifigures- they've got some big metal chain strapped to their head and the pieces don't usually separate NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Remaining MoSs to sort out[edit source]

  • Please discuss in headings below, or add headings for any other types. But if anyone says "we're too far behind on this type of article, let's not bother at all"- I will look for you, I will find you, and I will slap you in the face :P NovaHawk 22:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Part articles[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Appears to have been done already. See BP:MOS
  • History section on parts that have any sort of history, Trivia section for interesting information about it, section about prototype or development of piece. What else? --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't really think that the usual cadre of descriptions, backgrounds, and such ought to be required...appearances, external links, and the table though, those are important. Berrybrick (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we should only include backgrounds for parts with some interesting background worth writing about. I don't know how that could be written into the MOS. Every random part however, no background should need to be written. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe a section about "notable uses" of a part (in sets)? --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think apperances are needed nothing else Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • I still think descriptions are pretty important, since an image won't do all parts justice, especially the more interesting parts. And of course appearances are a good idea. Background seems unnecessary unless parts have a distinctive and interesting history. Same with trivia and prototype/development. I don't think we're missing any much-needed sections; anything above is all I'd ever search for when looking up a part. :P BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Inventory articles[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Appears to have been done already. See BP:MOS
  • How would an MOS even work for these? They're basically just a table. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe some suggestions on what to use the note box for, where to get part numbers, and what to do in the event that they are unavailable? Berrybrick (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I guess that's good to state somewhere. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The above sounds good. I... uh... don't really know what else to say. :P BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was done

Book articles

  • Synopsis section is the only thing I think would be required by the MOS... and then ISBN and stuff in the infobox. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Off topic-ish:I think it's impossible to catch up with all the books, I'd per fair if they were kept away from figure articles. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    • *NovaHawk slaps Soupperson1 in the face
  • I'll just take a shot at this, basically what Meiko said is the most important part though:
    • Set header template
    • Book infobox
    • Lead section
    • Synopsis (where relevant- eg, reference books like visual dictionaries wouldn't have a synopsis)
    • List of appearances
    • Minifigures included (again, only where relevant, when a physical minifigure is included in the set)
    • Notes
    • Nav template
NovaHawk 22:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

LEGOLAND articles[edit source]

LEGOLAND ride articles[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Nothing really decided, the consensus seems to be just ignore them and let us have that one page we already have.
  • We're too far behind, what's the point. Only one loser made articles on these anyway. CJC95 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should even bother with these... --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • we're too far behind on this type of article, let's not bother at all Berrybrick (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • *slap* *slap* *slap* If only I had three hands so I could hit you all at once :D
  • Nova didn't like my reason so I'll give a better one. I think that we don't need to cover every ride ever at any LEGOLAND park. For any significant, historic, or otherwise notable ride, it could be written about on the page for the LEGOLAND park. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • it's worth noting that I started merging them into the "area" pages. By start I mean I did one and then stopped because no one cared, but you know. See the two-three year out-of-date DUPLO Land or whatever it was called for an example. CJC95 (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think these are some what important though and they'd be enjoyed by readers. Even if we simply just created the page and not edit it just in case someone who likes amusement parks stumbles and crosses it. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • Basically, just do it like I started doing it many years ago. Solved. Can be closed. CJC95 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Soup, I think we should do these, provided anybody still cares enough about LEGOLAND to write them (I wouldn't exactly be included in that category). That said, not every article needs to be comprehensive. A brief description of the ride should probably be included, maybe a bit of history if available/known, but so long as readers know which park it's in, if it's still around, what theme it represents, and what the ride is like, that should be fine. I can't imagine any articles needing to be bigger than, say, a normal unlicensed minifigure's. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was done

Company articles

  • We don't have enough Company articles currently I don't think. The topics that could be covered in the Companies category are so broad, I don't know what should be required by an MOS. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Just an idea:
    • A {{company}} infobox
    • A lead section
    • Background (brief history of the company, what they do/make)
      • Work with LEGO (subheading of background. Does not apply to the article on The LEGO Group. Because that would be weird. Please feel free to come up with a better name for this heading)
    • References/Sources/External links
NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Closing as done if there are no more responses in a day or two NovaHawk 03:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Song articles[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was A format in theory exists. The pages to apply it to and the template required appears not to.
  • Hi. Maybe "Everything is Awesome!!!" or even "Weekend Whip" deserve their own articles, but otherwise, I'm content with this approach now. Berrybrick (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • We should maybe have pages for Cryoshell songs too. And if we do the Weekend Whip, the other songs by The Fold would be good to have too. And "Unleash The Power" (for Chima) by Finley. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, if we do "Everything is Awesome!!!" or "Weekend Whip", then the Cryoshell and Chima songs should have pages too. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Lyrics, Composer and Artist? I can make the friends songs pages. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • @Berrybrick: I think there was a forum about making song articles, at least for ones created for LEGO productions. I'm not completely sure though, I'll dig through the old forums sometime later. @Soup- I'm pretty sure with lyrics, we'd run into copyright issues- I know Wookieepedia removed lyrics from their song pages because of something related to this NovaHawk 22:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decided to make a format for song articles, because why not right?
    A {{song}} infobox (could look something like this)
    Lead section about it
    'Appearances section
    Lyrics section - (Lyrics Wiki on Wikia does this kind of stuff, and so does MetroLyrics like Soup said, maybe we can do it too?)
    Sources section

Codyn329 (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • That looks good. Maybe a bit of information should discuss briefly what media it appears in and when. Kind of like a "Background" section, saying something like "'Everything is Awesome' appears in The LEGO Movie as Emmet is at work" or something. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I like that idea so I added it above --Codyn329 (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Video game articles[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Add to the MoS
  • Here's a suggestion for the format and requirements:
A {{video game}} infobox (current parameters don't need to be changed)
A lead section about it
Characters section - A list of characters, and on each list item should describe the character. It goes before the story section so it's easier to understand what's happening
Story section - This section is for what happens throughout the game, from beginning to end.
Gameplay section - Stuff about the controls, and mechanics
Game development section - For any info on the behind-the-scenes kind of stuff or how it progressed, it would go under here.
Gallery section - For related images and screenshots
References section - The sources used go here

Codyn329 (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, I like it. LCF (talk!) 02:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Per Nigma/LCF BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I like this idea, but would the characters section include relevant story characters or all playable characters? Also, would it be a text based list, or a table? I'd prefer the former, since we have had issues with the latter recently. Berrybrick (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like it better if it included all playable characters (we could have a major characters and minor characters sub-section) since it's more informative, but if that's not doable then just the major characters. For the second part, it would be a text-based list. If we want to include an image we can do something like [[File:Character-img.png|right]] Codyn329 (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm just thinking that the mega-rosters that recent games have might be too long before we get to the real bulk of the article. I actually started doing something similar to your proposal here with the intention of replacing the table on LEGO Batman 3 (which never happened) and you can see how long that is, even while it is incomplete. We could include the big players on the page, and then have a "For all playable characters, see xxxx" bit under the heading. Berrybrick (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I see why you said that now that I look at it. If we were going to have that format like that for every page then it would be more of a guide; that's enough to move that stuff to a Video Game Wiki (but that's for a meta forum). I suggest then just the important characters with a short bio. I also suggest having no levels or locations sections (again, more for a LEGO Video Game Wiki) --Codyn329 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

App articles[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Add to MoS
  • An app infobox with the same parameters as {{video game}} infobox
  • Lead section about it
  • If it's a game app then include..
    Characters section
    Story section
    Gameplay section
  • description section
  • Gallery section - for screenshots and images related
  • References section

Codyn329 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Online game articles[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Treat as Video games
  • I say these should have the same format as the given suggestion above in "Video game articles" - However, there might not be need for a "game development" section since these aren't /usually/ as seriously developed as the video games on platforms not on the PC. A few exceptions could include Junkbot and My LEGO Network but I can't think of anything else. Codyn329 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the only things that might be needed that wouldn't appear on a video game's article is a link to the game. Otherwise it's just the video game article minus whatever's inapplicable for an individual game. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Clothes[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Falls under set MoS
  • Description. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • Do we really need a separate manual of style for this? Because if so, I'm making one for hats. CJC95 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd say they should be treated the same as a regular set, except without a section for Minifigures. Codyn329 (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Cody/CJC BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Rating forum[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Don't move that forum page here

Can that be moved here? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

  • Strong oppose. I completely see what NXT was talking about now with a single forum being too long and disorganised. This will make it even longer and more disorganised. NovaHawk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't see how this is that unorganized. It's especially easier to find what I haven't replied to, and also makes it easier to see which forums were posted in chronological order. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to oppose per Nova. I could imagine it working in a way that isn't too unorganized (keeping it all in one section at the bottom of a page, with each article in question having a sub-section there), but it'd still be very long for a single forum, and I don't see a significant enough benefit. I'd be open for a sort of trial run if everyone else wanted to, though. BrickfilmNut (talk)

Licensed Canon[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was We probably don't need to worry about this.

I think we need some idea of what to edit/what not to.

Disney Princess

Are the sequels/Aladdin spin off tv series canon? Ish. There not made by Disney Animation themselves, there made by Disney Toon studios. I'm going to say we shouldn't add them as the sets don't incorporate them. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

While it may come as a surprise that I'm not a Disney Princess expert, I'd still say that, canon or not, it'd be best only to reference the TV series canon if there's something particular in the set directly referencing one such series. Otherwise, the movies are much more well known and what everyone would be expecting to read about. For example, for the Sleeping Beauty set, if the scene also appeared in one of the TV series (I'm doubting it, but this is just an example), it'd be best to only include the movie to simplify things. However, if the rabbit which was clearly not in the movie at that point played an important role in the respective TV series, it might be better to add such information to the end of the Background, rather than putting it under Notes or another section. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The rabbit was a tan hare in the movie whom she danced with. The owl was the main animal friend though :P The only thing the shows off the sequels is Cinderella's castle as in Cinderella it's the king's castle (but I think that's because the designers put like 5% effort into the sets) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg


The sets are based of the original series and I hope your enjoying the backgrounds I'm writing. Anyway lighthouse keeper is a villain from Scooby-Doo Where Are You? not the original series. Do we add this series to the canon (that would explain the gangs tendencies to paint their vehicles)? If so there's several issues like the gang's age, Velma's fears, when Scooby was adopted. Oh I think the Swamp Monster is an original character developed for the sets. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

I'm only going to reply to this one, but I think the same is true for the Princesses and Simpsons. No theme's "canon" is probably more confusing than Super Heroes, mostly because there isn't really one. Per BP:NOT only include what is relevant to the characters and sets that the article is about, even if it contradicts something from another canon. That might not be a problem if you are vague enough though (just try not to be too vague :P). Berrybrick (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
For Super Heroes the new 52 rebooted things so that should help. Your advice still doesn't answer what we should do about the what's new Scooby-Doo scenario. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
I'm still yet to see an official source stating that these are in fact based around the original series... NovaHawk 23:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
At Toyfair they used artwork based on the original series. The characters designs besides the lighthouse set monsters match the original too. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
The reboot actually doesn't help because plenty of minifigure designs and parts of sets clearly aren't based on it, not to mention the video games. I was just making a point to include what is relevant to the characters. :P Berrybrick (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Simpsons

Do we only talk about the episodes shown in the sets? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Only include things related to sets - you can talk about Ralph giving Lisa the "I choo-choo-choose you" card, because that has been made into LEGO, but no need to include him failing English (because that's unpossible). CJC95 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Brick Like Me canon? If so we need to create pages for figures who only appeared there. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Hahaha, Simpsons canon. Ha. Anyway, why should canonicity matter, because its LEGO anyway... CJC95 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikisimpsons doesn't count it as canon. CJC95 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

General Comments

Does it matter? Just do stuff based off the sets. Yes, if we are to go by Wikisimpsons there is canon, but we aren't going to have a synopsis of every thing Bart does in all 600-odd episodes are we? No. See my Ralph example in the section above. The same applies to Scooby-Doo and to Princess. Explain what is in LEGO, link away to somewhere else for the rest. CJC95 (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Redesign[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was I believe done? It's hard to say since no updates have been added and my memory doesn't go that far back.

A lot of the templates currently in use feel out of place in the new skins (Refreshed and DeepSea). Also, currently there isn't a dedicated tab system for minifig, etc. infoboxes, which means that pages like Obi-Wan Kenobi can only fit one form in the infobox. With those things in mind, I whipped up an infobox concept you can see here. Borders, rounded corners, and the like were removed to fit in with the new aesthetic, and tabs were implemented using Tabber. If there are over four forms to display, the infobox has a "more" tab that jumps down to the page's "gallery of variants" section. Just like the current infoboxes, it's compatible with the theme system (assuming I did everything correctly :P) and it uses media queries to expand when the window is small. The demo uses Lato (the font used in Refreshed) for the header, but that could easily be changed for DeepSea with skin-specific CSS. Yes, no, maybe so? Thoughts and suggestions welcomed. -- MtMNC (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Support implementing this redesign. Brickia has begun using tabs for their minifigure infoboxes, and wikis such as BS01 and even the defunct Ninjago Wiki have/had tabbed infoboxes and they were always a nice feature. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Berrybrick (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
If wikia has them I'd prefair if we stayed as different as possible from them, we don't want to look the same as them. If they don't we should do it before them. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
So you want to stay different from Brickia even when they're doing something arguably better than us? If they have more functionality and ease-of-use in their infoboxes than us, should we not be trying to keep up with them? And it's not like Brickia was the first wiki with this idea (they more or less got it from Homestuck Wiki), since BS01, Ninjago Wiki, etc have all had these tabbed infoboxes to show different variants of a minifigure off. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there better or worse. :P There better in the sense that it shows more images but the extra text distracts/annoys me. So it's a win loose situation in my case. Anyway addressing the wikia thing I don't want it to look like we're copying brikia whenever they do something that's successful. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
@tabs- we do have this kind of thing in place for set articles (example), I was staying away from minifigures on purpose because I'm trying to figure out a way to get the images from the {{minifigureGallery}} automatically so we don't have to update pages all the time with the same data in two places on the page (it didn't work when we had to update the appearances in both the infobox and the separate section which was partly why that was removed) NovaHawk 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we should give it a try on minifigures though, at least for some of them, where the infobox can show off the most recent few variants without the user having to scroll down to the variants and find the most recent ones. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Fully support this Codyn329 (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of it at it at first, but the more I look at it, the more I like it. There are a couple of things I'm still not big on, but that might just be me:
I'd prefer to keep the 300 pixel width. It gives you a slightly better look at the images (more important for sets than minifigures), and there's a lot of content (at least on my screen) going over two lines when it used to be on one, and it looks much nicer on the one line.
Similar to the previous point, but I think the text is too big. I like the bigger text for the title, but find the larger text for the information unecessary, making things run over more lines than it needs to, and also makes the infobox much longer. May just be me, I just prefer my infoboxes as compact as possible (so as long as they don't look too constricted).
Not a fan of how the tabbers go over three lines, and it doesn't really seem too obvious to me that they're clickable and meant to change the infobox image like the set infobox does. I do like the idea of only having a couple of images and doing a skip link to the gallery though.
Anyway, just my opinions, looking good overall though. And great to see the media queries in there :) NovaHawk 00:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Adressing the text thing could it be possible to make it a slideshow? (Though that could be more annoying?) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
That would be like the most annoying option possible (no wait, that would be having animated GIFs) :P NovaHawk 10:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The tab design is very nice, but not sure why you've gone with narrower and bigger text - this will make infoboxes much longer, meaning they're less likely to fit on your screen without scrolling needed, and also make those annoying big white gaps that happen on smaller pages when the infobox pushes the first heading down much bigger. (Also, I was going to say the lack of outline is nice, but then I realised we have some infoboxes with a white background that need an outline (Architecture, Creator, etc), so this needs to be carefully done, though it looks like you've put the darkened main colour on the outside which should work) UltrasonicNXT (talk)
(Nope, the inner colour has been lightened, just tried it with Super Heroes (which has a white background) NovaHawk 10:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC))
Oh I see, this needs addressing then UltrasonicNXT (talk)
I think that this sort of tab system is a good idea. It might be a good idea to have a "current variant" tab too or something, to align with our current policy of featuring the most recent variant in the infobox. Other than that, though, I like it. BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd say current variant should be the first/default tab either way. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I support implementing this, it looks like a great idea. LCF (talk!) 23:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the width to 300px and made the font smaller as suggested. Does anyone have ideas on how to deal with the white background issue? I'd rather not use a border since it's not consistent with the design. -- MtMNC (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We could replace the white with an off-white instead. --ToaMeiko (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I support that idea. Perhaps #eee? Codyn329 (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
#f4f4f4 would be better in my opinion. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Codyn329 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sticker sheets[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was For our purposes, part numbers => part

Are sticker sheets like Part:60031 legitimate parts? I think Bricklink is the only place where they are considered such, and that they don't have official part numbers. I may be wrong though. If that's the case though, should we begin deleting any sticker sheet pages? --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I generally favour the inclusion of more content, but idk how important sticker sheets are. If they don't have real part numbers, scrap 'em. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Per Ajr, though I don't think we need to scrap them all if they don't have any part numbers. I'd say that if they don't have part numbers, we move them over to someplace like [[7994 LEGO City Harbor/Sticker Sheet]] or [[Sticker Sheet:7994 LEGO City Harbor]] so that we don't lose the content. BrickfilmNut (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
But what content is there to lose? I think the most content any sticker sheet has is an image and "this is the sticker sheet from set xxxx". That's hardly worth keeping I don't think. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
What content is there to lose? About as much content as there is for any other parts page? :S NovaHawk 08:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I should've kept that letter that came with a replacement sticker sheet I got years ago, it might have settled whether they have numbers or not... I don't see why we need to delete them, I was thinking of a similar scheme to BFN, with the sheet being tied to the set. I'd prefer it to be in the part namespace, maybe Part:Sticker sheet/<setname>, but a separate namespace could work too NovaHawk 23:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Per Nova on what there is to lose. It's not impossible that somebody would want to see the sticker sheet for a set they have/had, to see if they're missing a sticker or something. And it's not like they're using much space. Page naming in the way Nova suggested is something I'd be fine with. BrickfilmNut (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
When I ordered some replacement parts for a ninjago set I had to order the sticker sheet as well. The sticker sheet does have an actual part number.

BrikkyyTalk 01:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Some sticker sheets have numbers on the sides of them, they tend to start with 8 :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
I agree with keeping them per reasons above. If it has a part number, it's a part. I do like BFN's idea as a good compromise though. -NBP3.0 (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • They have part numbers. CJC95 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

BOTM rules/setup[edit source]

  • These rules are out of date, mainly because we discussed removing the oppose section a few years back and did so, but forgot to update the rules. May as well reexamine everything now. Please note- any changes will not come into effect until June. Because it's the last day of April, and it will probably take 3 weeks or so for anyone to figure out that this is here. Feel free to add any other votes or sections for the votes. NovaHawk 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Have an oppose section?[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Have a minimum threshold (yet to be determined)

Should we have one?

No, but set a minimum threshold
  1. For an example of why I'd like to see this- somone was nominated, then that month, they go and do something bad, and the people who have voted are inactive for the rest of the month, so that person who's abused their rights or whatever then becomes BoTM. Another example- noone's nommed for the month, so a couple of minutes before the end of the month- someone nominates someone random. With that +1 vote, they become BoTM. I just wouldn't mind seeing, say, at least three people supporting for the nom to be eligible for BoTM. NovaHawk 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. I don't see the above scenarios too likely (well, not the first, maybe the second) but it's okay to be a little proactive I think. Berrybrick (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. If I'm understanding correctly, a threshold is a limit(?); I say yes. Codyn329 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. A threshold of 3 would be good. Or 5. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

BrikkyyTalk 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. We never really have had, or should have, only one support or two for a user anyway. BrickfilmNut (talk)
No, but require nominations to be in before the 15th (halfway through) of the month
  1. The reason I made this heading is that it serves a similar purpose as the minimum threshold, but I don't believe there'd be any reason to be nominating a candidate to be Brickipedian of the Month for a month they haven't been active in for close to the whole month. If they only start contributing near the end of a month, that'd good, but I don't think they really deserve BOTM for that month. If they continue to be active, they can be nominated for the next month. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm probably going to vote for the threshold one; one could have reasons for nominating a user after the fifteenth or whatever even if they weren't active the whole month; that is something that'd really play a greater factor in voting anyway. Then there's the fact they could go inactive for the second half of the month instead of the first, as well as the unlikely scenario that one person is nominated, does something bad or goes inactive, but he's the only one nominated for that month and nobody new can be nominated to replace him. None of these are serious concerns of mine in the least, which is why I'm not opposing, but maybe others will have some opinions based on this. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Allow supporting votes for more than one nominee?[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Draw. As such, the current rule (One vote only) remains in place.
  1. Person with the most supports wins. I doubt there would be a tie; other wikis that have used this haven't had that problem. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. I don't see why everyone would vote for everyone. CJC95 (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Even with Nova's concern, there's bound to be at least one voter who doesn't vote for everyone, meaning there will be a difference in votes. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. Per Meiko and Ajr. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. --Approved By Bimple. 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. Because in most cases, everyone will vote for everyone and it'll just be a tie every month (in the months that we have more than one nominee) NovaHawk 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Berrybrick (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Codyn329 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

BrikkyyTalk 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. Per Nova Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Allow self-nominations?[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Continue to ban self-nominations
  1. NovaHawk 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Berrybrick (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Codyn329 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. Kinda takes away the whole point of it being some sort of reward for good work. This isn't extra technical abilities we are dealing with here. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

BrikkyyTalk 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. ToaMeiko (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Easy oppose. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. --Approved By Bimple. 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Allow self-votes?[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Continue to ban self-voting
  1. NovaHawk 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Berrybrick (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Codyn329 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

BrikkyyTalk 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. ToaMeiko (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Another easy oppose. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. --Approved By Bimple. 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • Meh, who cares. It won't change anything. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If anything, someone supporting themselves would make me not vote for them :P CJC95 (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Style of vote[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was The winner is whoever has the most votes at the end of a month. The votes are reset monthly. (No change)
Straight vote

Whoever has the most votes at the end of the month wins, and votes are reset monthly (current format)

  1. NovaHawk 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Berrybrick (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Codyn329 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. I like this, but wouldn't be opposed to the queue idea

BrikkyyTalk 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) (Additionally, the word "queue" is essentially a "q" with 4 silent letters after it :P)

  1. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Once a user has a certain amount of supporters they're added to a queue of BoTMs (like the FA system)

  1. I like this! Ajraddatz (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. ^^ Think of all the noble users of the past, back when we had more than 1 editor a month, who missed out. I mean, I can't off the top of my head, but back in the day, BoTM was like an actual contest and we usually had more than one nomination a month and I guess what I'm saying is if you get 7 votes, but someone else gets 8, it shouldn't mean you don't get recognised. Or just Per ajr, because the preceding sentence probably made no sense. CJC95 (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. ToaMeiko (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. --Approved By Bimple. 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Poll-based system

See comments below

  • What about an anonymous poll-based system?

BrikkyyTalk 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

    • Like used in PTH? CJC95 (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      • If you mean a full bracket, no. What I mean is the nominator would just put a poll template with the user's name and "yes or no" votes.

BrikkyyTalk 12:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

        • Those sorts of polls are pretty easy to game, otherwise I'd say yes. If we had a more secure system then absolutely. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Per Ajr about the gaming thing, but also, I don't really see the point. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Change to minifigure naming conventions[edit source]

  • After some PNC votes over the last few months, it's become very clear that the current rules obviously aren't being followed, so I guess it's time to reassess the policy itself. Plus, there are some things not covered in there, such as naming conventions for unlicensed minifigures.

Where to get names from[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Use names from official LEGO sources (no change)
  • Option 1: Names of all minifigures should come only from official LEGO source material (such as set descriptions, boxes, etc).
  • Option 2: Names of licensed minifigures should be the most correct in-universe name, regardless of whether they have been named by LEGO (for example, Carlist Rieekan instead of General Rieekan)
  • Option 3: We should just make the names up (would apply more to unlicensed minifigures than licensed ones)
Option 1
  1. NovaHawk 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Option 1, but if there's a better name even if it isn't "official", use the better name. --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Per Meiko CJC95 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Definitely option 1, per Meiko in extreme, rare cases. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Option 2
Option 3
  • As usual, feel free to add extra options for any votes NovaHawk 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If more than one name has been given by LEGO[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was If more than one name has been happen, we should in most cases use the "more correct". (no change)
  • Option 1: Use the most commonly used name
  • Option 2: Use the more correct name (more correct being a person's actual name as opposed to a title, eg, Albus Dumbledore over Professor Dumbledore, for Star Wars an actual droid designation as opposed to a common nickname, etc)
Option 1
  1. Basically per Berry below in the "Comments" section. I understand Nova's argument and the appeal of having the more correct name, but we should primarily cater to LEGO fans, and a lot of LEGO fans are only going to know the more common name. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Option 2
  1. If it's a person's name, why not use their name? Using some nickname or title over their actual name makes zero sense to me. A name actually refers to the person regardless of what point in their life they are, a title or nickname doesn't. eg, Admiral Piett wasn't an Admiral his whole life, he was an Admiral for a year. However he was Firmus Piett his whole life. Plus, it takes care of another problem- for example, the most commonly used name for a certain minifigure is BARC Trooper, however, the recent character encyclopedia revealed that the trooper is in fact Commander Neyo. If you used the most common name in this case, it wouldn't be technically wrong, but it would be much more general than it should be. NovaHawk 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. I guess, but there may be cases to not use it. CJC95 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Use common sense and determine the best name to use. I'll vote for option 2, but whatever is better should be used, regardless of correctness or usage. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This vote obviously doesn't apply if either option 2 or 3 are voted through in the above vote. NovaHawk 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm kind of wary about this one. Firmus Piett may be his whole name, but I think that under "BP:NOT," the biography should, for the most part, only revolve around his career as an admiral, as that's what's relevant....I'm okay with Neyo, since that distinguishes the character from something generic, but as someone who only glances over Star Wars stuff, I never saw "Firmus Piett" used and that isn't what I would search for. Yeah, there are redirects, but unless what people are searching for is definitely erroneous (either on their part, like a common misspelling, or LEGO's), I would prefer to go with the most commonly used name as a title. And, personally, I probably would use a nickname for a droid over a designation if it is used more prominently. (So C-3PO > Threepio, but Chopper > whatever his designation is.) It's easier to remember. I guess that my thoughts shy away from any actual policy, but that's why I'm wary. Berrybrick (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If the name used by LEGO contradicts "in-universe" names for licensed minifigures[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Use correct "in-universe" name (no change)

The original one for this was that Shadow stormtroopers were always referred to as Shadow Troopers by LEGO, when in Star Wars they were completely different things. (That example no longer applies becuase a place was later found where they were officially referred to as Shadow stormtroopers, but you get the idea)}

Stick to LEGO's name nomatter what
  1. It works for some characters but characters in The Simpsons (and probally other themes) have ridiculous real names. I don't see why we can't just put the name at thr start like Professor Dumbeldore or Albus. Also the Scooby-Doo monsters have real identities, but from what we can see after unmasking them it dosnt reveal the identity its supposed to be. Sometimes LEGO designers don't execute the source material propally like adding a white rabbit in the sleeping beauty set. LEGO seems to have it's own canon, thus we should follow it. I think it's fine showing the characters real name somewhere in the article but it doesn't have to be it's page title. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
    Um..All Simpsons characters have correct in-universe names in sets. This isn't about their "full name". It doesn't mean renaming Selma to Selma Bouvier-Terwilliger-Hutz-McClure-Discothèque-Simpson-D'Amico. It just means if they named her "woman", we'd name it Selma. Same applies to Scooby-Doo. CJC95 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    Well that's not technically true (I'm guessing she is a woman right?) We still have Jedi Knight (The Old Republic) because he's never been confirmed as Kao Cen Darach. The vote for the names where LEGO have it right but not completely 100% in-universe accurate is the "where to get names from" vote. Calling her "man" on the other hand would directly contradict it though, so we'd go with Selma then NovaHawk 00:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. I'm going to agree with Soup here. LCF (talk!) 23:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Use a correct "in-universe" name
  1. I can't actually think of a situation where this rule still is actually relevant, but doesn't hurt to have a rule for it just in case. NovaHawk 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Assuming that this means a correct in-universe name and not the "most correct" in-universe name then this is the option I prefer. Berrybrick (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, in this case it's just any kind of name that's actually right NovaHawk 03:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. CJC95 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Unnamed unlicensed minifigures[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Put the year in brackets to differentiate titles

Use the name from the shop description or other official source. If it's a common name (like "Police officer"), group minifigures into pages by year and put the year in brackets in the name, like Police officer (2015).

  1. We already voted to split these by year, it's just the bit about how to name the article (with the year being in brackets). NovaHawk 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  3. I still kind of like the variant thing better, but okay. :P Berrybrick (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    Variant thing? NovaHawk 03:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    Distinguishing things like police officers by whether they are "special" (like forest or swamp) or not. I'm sure that there was some counterargument though (maybe all the years they weren't special), and this works too. Berrybrick (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Similar named unlicensed minifigures[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Separate figure => Separate page

What happens if we have a situation like one minifigure is named "girl" and one is named "child" (and they're from the same year)? Should they be on the same page, and if so, what name should they use?

Keep on separate pages
  1. Seems the easiest way to go about it. Plus, if you did it any other way, how would you decide where it stops? Eg, Adult (2015) could technically include pretty much every minifigure 2015 minifigure. NovaHawk 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Didn't vote for this last year but no one (including me) bothered to put it in action? :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  3. Per Nova. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Pick one of the names, and have both on the page
Pick a name that suits all cases (which may not be a name used by LEGO)

Mixels Wiki Template[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Allow if they return it.

Should we have one of those "Check out the "blank" article on the "blank" wiki" templates for the Mixels Wiki? --Approved By Bimple. 22:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be added to Template:Storyref. I don't see a reason not to. Perhaps if Mixels Wiki linked back to Brickipedia as well in external links that could be appreciated. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
From what I can understand, Mixels are a LEGO/Cartoon Network joint series, so all Mixels information about a particular character should be in their background section on their article. The external story links exist only so someone can read further about a character as we can't (or shouldn't) cover absolutely all information on them as per BP:NOT. Therefore, personally I can't see a need to have it as a external link for more information if all the information should be on our articles- it'd be like saying "read Luke Skywalker's bio on the Lego Star Wars Wiki", as opposed to pointing them to Wookieepedia. NovaHawk 02:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity do we not do this with Hero Factory/BIONICLE. I'm in favour of removing those links though. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Oh yeah :P We didn't used to have detailed character pages before, pages like Tahu used to be disambig pages. Then Berrybrick came along :D However, I thought Mixels backgrounds and story info would be really simple. But since I don't understand Mixels and I'm assuming things, I'll go neutral. NovaHawk 23:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd be OK with it if Mixels backlinked to us. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Per Ajr. And seeing how comprehensive the Mixels wiki was last time I visited, I'm sure that they'll have a lot of worthwhile info that will never end up in our "Background" sections. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Per Ajr NovaHawk 23:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Distinguishing LBR from LCS[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Allow articles. Be aware of the distinction however.

A topic on LAN recently came up where I heard of a subject new to me in the LEGO world: LEGO Certified Stores (LCS). Currently it's in our scope to include LBRs (LEGO Brand Retail stores), but LEGO Certified Stores are a bit different. LBR is officially owned and operated by the LEGO Group, whereas LCS is managed and operated by a third party under agreement with TLG. There are more details defining LEGO Certified Stores here. What should we do to adjust our inclusion policy to define this? Currently we use the vague identifier of "LEGO Store" all too often, but "LEGO Store" can mean any store that solely sells LEGO brand products. LBR is the official retail branch of the LEGO Group, whereas LCS is an unofficial (but officially recognized) store that only sells LEGO brand products. Should we include LCS in our scope, or should we better define our inclusion policy for LBR stores only? --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The LEGO Store finder has directed me to an LCS before (still never been there :P ) so I think it would be okay to make pages. Berrybrick (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why we shouldn't have articles for them. They are, after all, officially recognised. LCF (talk!) 23:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed Codyn329 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't even find a place listing all the stores- does such a place exist? Since there's an official agreement with TLG, I guess I don't see a problem having articles on them (although I can't see it happening), as long as we make it clear on each article that they're not owned by TLG, and they have their own separate categories, templates, etc, to stores owned by TLG. NovaHawk 02:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
For a list of all the official stores, it would be here Is that what you're talking about? Codyn329 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No official stores are easy, I mean these certified ones, sorry I wasn't clearer :) NovaHawk 05:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll ask on LAN if there's an organized list of LCSes available --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
From LEGO Ambassador Eric Daisuke Itoh:

This aint all list for global, but a list for ClickBrick and LEGO Store in Japan operated by several Franchise lisenced partners of LEGO Japan. since TLG doesnt update the Japanese website, the ClickBrick is the only source info we could get for new products in Japanese. several companies operate the stores, and some store doesnt get enough products such as Exclusives and limited supply by LEGO Japan.

So there's some for you, just in Japan. In the comments on LAN I also hear of one in the Philippines and in other locations. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been to Brickset for a while, but I'm sure they've had a few posts on when new ones were made in places like Bulgaria. CJC95 (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Deprecate emoticon proposals[edit source]

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

Long story short, most emote proposals are stupid and there's often people who don't like them (especially ones that vote to replace existing emotes). Emotes are pointless as it is, but voting to add even more useless ones is unnecessary and they stop getting used shortly after they pass anyways or completely lose any meaning they once had. I think BP:EP should be closed down for a while until we start doing something more constructive on this site besides making pointless 20-pixel images that do nothing for anyone here. Any potentially useful emoticons can still be added by using common sense, but I don't think we need a voting/nomination process anymore that will only get filled with a bunch of proposals that the admins don't even care enough about to close the proposals even after the vote is long past inactive. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, BP:EP isn't very productive. LCF (talk!) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I gladly support this idea. Codyn329 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should stop the useless creation/proposal of unnecessary emoticons. Latenightguy (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
If you don't like the emotes why can't you just oppose? :/ Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Sourcing specifics[edit source]

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

Its hard for me to conventionally source the game files, since 1) they aren't exactly accessible to most people (such as those who don't have the game, or haven't downloaded the things) and 2) they will change with updates. As a result, my recent edits are in violation of our sourcing rules. I am not currently sure how to remedy this. CJC95 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

And I plan on turning my ugly tables into fancy miniInfoboxes, so if anyone wants to help, please do. CJC95 (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought screenshots of the game count as sources? Codyn329 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
But stuff that is just mentioned in the files but not in the game at the moment? txt files mention that "Super Pony" is not in the game as "LEGO is being fussy" for example :P CJC95 (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Remove the see also section in articles[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was No result.

If the article in the see also section is relevant shouldn't it already be mentioned? And if so why do we need to mention it more then once? Soupperson1 Jeepers!Runninh Gang.jpg

'See Also' is typically used for things that aren't important enough to be mentioned elsewhere. For instance, mentioning the Squid Warrior in the Shark Warrior's article is unnecessary, yet the two are related. This means that the reader could be looking for both of the pages, so we include it in 'See Also' for ease of access. - Bug (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
But it's mentioned in the template at the end of the article. If the reader wants to view similar things its right there. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Fair enough, but the same can't be applied to Viktor Krum. - Bug (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Generally, if an article is really long, it is convenient to have a separate "See Also" section regardless of whether or not its contents are mentioned elsewhere in the article. Maybe I don't want to read a 10-item "Notes" section or eight-paragraph "Background" section, but still will be happy to have found out other articles with similar content. Same kind of goes for themes that have large templates; Atlantis's isn't very large, but something like Star Wars' is. Then there are cases like 1584 Knight's Challenge or Launch Command, where they wouldn't appear in a template or the article. Now, technically, we could change that and start mentioning these elsewhere, either in the first paragraph or in the "Notes", but this doesn't really seem to provide any advantage whatsoever. I dunno, as a reader of this site, I find the "See Also" section convenient and useful, and as an editor, I can't think of anything worth replacing it with. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know about removing it altogether, but I definitely don't think it should be used anywhere near as much as it is. Actually, BFN's example of the Knight's Challenge is the only case I can think of where I've seen a "see also" section actually being of some use (Shark Warrior/Squid Warrior don't need special mentions on pages- they're related because they're Atlants minifigs- use the template or the category. Viktor Krum- if Karkaroff is so important to Krum's article, his link can be worked into the background. If he isn't that important, then he doesn't need his own special section. Launch Command- use the related themes parameter in the infobox) NovaHawk 23:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
We could put the disambig template on the top of the 1584 pages? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • No. I like to see similar articles without having to read through templates or paragraphs. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
But we're an enclyopedia were supposed to be read :/ Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • Per Meiko. And just because we're an encyclopedia doesn't mean that people are going to want to read the entirety of a page that they open, or that we should "expect" them to read a certain way instead of accommodating the way they might actually use us. Maybe they'll just want to read a quick description or look at a gallery, for example, and skip all the "Background" info containing links to items that would usually be in a "See Also" section as well. There are a lot of times, actually, when personally browsing the wiki, that I'll be looking for a particular set/character/minifigure, so I'll open a page, just look at an infobox for an image, see if I got the right page, and then move on to the "See Also" section if I did not. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you have an example? And I'll counter/agree with Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • I like See Also. It makes me more interested to explore other pages in a quick and easier way. ~ If you dare to believe Sibo the First (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As long as its not abused, what is the issue? CJC95 (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It feels spammy to me, for example on 8930 Dekar there's a see also section. The articles in the see also section can easily be found if you just scroll down and look at the sets beside the set which is hilgihted in the template. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • Well, it depends why they are there. (I don't know bionicles) If they are just because they are bionicle sets, then file under abuse. CJC95 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Tense[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was None
Grammatically, it should be present tense, but everyone ignores me when I bring that up. :P Berrybrick (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Then how would chronology work? Even if the most recent thing is in present, surely the things before have to be past, or you'd have a weird multiverse where Darth Vader is simultaneously an annoying whiny slave, an annoying whiny apprentice, an annoying whiny married person, an annoying whiny expected parent, slaughtering children, burning in lava, flying a tie fighter, cutting off his kids hand and then betraying his boss. CJC95 (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Grammar doesn't always require the intuitive thing. Berrybrick (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Per CJC, the stuff's already happened, I don't get it. Eg, one interpretation of "A long time ago" is that all the movies etc are R2-D2 telling the Keeper of the Whills about the Skywalker's history 100 years after Episode VI (but that's a Legends event now anyway, so whether it is where this comes from is pointless to debate). Point is, the stuff that happened in the movies is ancient history. Even if it wasn't, at some point in time, everyone's dead and buried, may as well keep it consistently past tense to avoid ambiguity (just thought I'd end on that nice happy note :D) NovaHawk 00:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Because we are providing a summary and the rule is that summaries should be in present tense. That's pretty much all there is to it. I'm not making it up. It's not necessarily my opinion that this is the way things should be. (Personally, I think that the past tense just generally sounds better than present/future.) Either you follow the rule or you don't. This being an encyclopedia and not a postmodern novel, I'm inclined to think we should follow the rule. \_O_/ The reason is sort of arbitrarily sentimental, I'll admit, but it is still a standardization, the reason we have grammar. ([1][2]) Berrybrick (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The only rule I can find says past? NovaHawk 01:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh wait, you mean rule as in like rules from grammar people :P Well, for Star Wars stuff, as I said, it's all being told from the point of view of the past (being "a long time ago", so according to those rules it should still be past tense. That's Wookieepedia's excuse anyway). As for the rest, I guess it's meant to be present. Whether we do want to follow those rules should probably be discussed on a forum somewhere and not Phasma's talk page though :P NovaHawk 01:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Tried that. I got pretty much the same response initially and then no conversation. Berrybrick (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
(undent) That wikipedia examples are all like how we do things though: We say "Blah de blah is a set released in 1923", not "Blah de blah was a set released in 1923". It then suggests to use historical present for things like the background we are discussing here. E.g., Luke Skywalker is a Jedi who enjoys piloting. He destroyed the Death Star and lost a hand. (the bolds highlighting the tenses, as a comparison between hist.pres. and normal pres. CJC95 (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
From here, it read to me like anything that happens within the scope of the publication, it's present, eg, "Luke Skywalker is a Jedi who enjoys piloting. He destroys the Death Star and loses a hand. (the bolds highlighting the tenses, as a comparison between hist.pres. and normal pres". But in the same story you could say that "Luke's grandmother Shmi was born in 72 BBY", because in the story that mentioned that event had happened (Episode I novel), it didn't actually happen in the story, it had already happened. Just the way I read it though, I might be reading it wrong. If we do do it the way CJC mentioned above, we'd need to also clarify what counts as "dead" (so whether to use "is" or "was), which could get complicated too NovaHawk 12:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant what year his grandmother was born. :P Anyway the "story" part of Star Wars should be past everything else should be present, see CJCs example Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Sorry for taking so long to reply. :P Nova's interpretation is about what mine was. Berrybrick (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I don't see why we need to change anything - grammar in of itself isn't exactly a precise art, and its not like the rest of the site will be uniform in one grammar style either, because half will be written in American English and half in British Englishe.g.. Frankly, at this stage in the sites life, I'd rather have people write stuff even if it turns out to be Engrish. CJC95 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but you can't expect Americans to learn all the differences just to write in it because the MoS says so. If the policy was American English, I would still just write stuff as I've spent my whole life doing :P CJC95 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • True, of course, though I think that BP:UCS would protect people who don't follow the MOS, if you are implying that this would give grounds to undo useful edits because they don't match a stylistic precedent. As long as the MOS isn't enforced like an old testament law (which I don't think anyone is afraid of happening), but is just a set of guidelines, I don't think there is an issue with providing them. Berrybrick (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Addition to WIP rules[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was WIP should not be used on newly created articles (especially if those articles are on new topics). Reviews that are still "works in progress" should be deleted if there is no update within a month of the last edit.

I'd like to suggest an extra rule to usage of the WIPs: "Works in progress can only be carried out on articles which have been created for over one week". Basically, things like this- not cool. Recently announced/discovered items shouldn't have pages blocked off so only one person can edit them. The template's intended for if you're planning on doing a large overhaul to a page, not reserving your exclusive right to edit the page whenever you feel like it. NovaHawk 03:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

But there could be a "swarm" of people trying to edit the page. E.g. When I was editing the Scooby-Doo page, BFN edited it at the same time as well. And it's rather annoying when you write something and you can't use it as some person has just wrote it. I mean as long as the person edited the Captain America page is giving a constructive edit I don't think this is a problem. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
That's actually a good example of why I support this extra rule. :P In the case of Scooby Doo, information that readers may find useful/interesting had yet to be added, the person who put up the WIP was clearly offline, and it was a page that was likely to get quite a few views in that time (considering it's the main character of a famous property's newly-announced LEGO line). It doesn't mean that the person with the WIP doesn't get to replace it later with the content they worked on; it's just temporary, at least, for readers who come during that time.
With that being said, I can understand concerns about a "swarm" of people trying to edit a new page. In that case, what might be best is a short-term WIP page. Something that only lasts half an hour or something, during which one person can add the most important information in, but where other's aren't excluded from working on a page that could use more newly-announced information. BrickfilmNut (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • insert cynical comment about swarms of people editing here* CJC95 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (per CJC but...) Sure, I could go for an "inuse" template, like Wookieepedia has, just a short reservation time. I like the sound of a 30 minute window (and you can only use it once a day or something, so you can't just keep reserving it every 30 mins). NovaHawk 08:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

On a side note could WIP reviews be deleted after a month? It shouldn't take over a month to write a review and the ones in the WIP state (including mine) are taking up space and I doubt any will be finished soon Soupperson1 Jeepers!Runninh Gang.jpg

That actually seems like a pretty good idea. Just so long as the person deleting it leaves a quick message on the owner's page saying that they can request it be undeleted later provided they have more to add. BrickfilmNut (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Per BFN on both accounts. Berrybrick (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Navigation templates for books per theme[edit source]

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

So, I was just rewriting the whole BIONICLE section of Template:Booksnav, when I realized that all the BIONICLE books together in that section is about ten times (not exaggerating) as long as any other section. This got me thinking, why don't we have individual book templates for themes, for example Template:BIONICLEbooks or Template:Ninjagobooks? There are several "subthemes" of BIONICLE books that we could sort them by on the template so it isn't one continuous text wall, and I'm sure it's the same for other story-driven themes as well. Oh and also, Booksnav is extremely outdated in regards to almost every theme listed on it, so I'm sure that BIONICLE isn't the only theme bound to take up a lot more space when you add all the books released for other themes since. -King of Nynrah (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Wow... we only have one books nav template? Yeah, they should definitely be split by theme NovaHawk 00:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Nova. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Its a shame no one makes book articles but your template idea may make it easier for editors to see what books have to be made. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Adding in some more social tools[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was ?
  • As per the comments here, do you want to give awards and gifts another try? Additionally, what would everyone think of adding the QuizGame extension? NovaHawk 11:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I donated a Protector of Ice to the site last December we could use that for the giveaway. I dont think social tools will make people edit though, remember that quiz contest where we gave half our budget to people who didn't even edit that month :P Even when people like you make your guessing blogs it may distract people from editing. That's not saying adding social features would be a bad thing, I just don't see it as a way to get users. Soupperson1 Jeepers!Runninh Gang.jpg
  • I don't know about awards/gifts. It might not hurt to try, but I don't know what would make them more successful this time around. QuizGame might be fun. Berrybrick (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I dunno exactly how the awards and gifts things work so I don't honestly care right now. The QuizGame seems pretty cool, though. It'd be as harmless as polls, really. Another thing I'd like to see, as I've mentioned before, is a better blogs system that suggests more blogs in the side or shows the currently popular blogs there instead, depending on what we want. I'd also say an automatic userpage like this would also be good to help blogs get better. I'd also like to see the RTRC page become more prominent with the site. Rather than having to get the code to use it, it should be open for everyone. (It's definitely better for newbies.) I'd also like to see some function in it that shows the images that were added and deleted in a page from the edit. I've already said this crap before, so sorry if I seem like a broken record. --Knight
  • I'd also like to see comments and content of comments being shown as an option in RTRC. --Knight
  • RTRC is not developed by us, it's developed by Wikimedia user Krinkle, and thus won't cater to specific extensions not relevant to Wikimedia. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it possible for us to edit the code for our needs? --Knight
  • I'm not sure what RTRC is, but I'm pretty sure its source code isn't set in stone, and thus we are at least technically able to edit it. Whether we have the resources (i.e. developers & time, etc.) for that is another matter, though. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • RTRC page? Not sure what you mean about the images bit either- like a diff thing but just for images? NovaHawk 01:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I mean like making images visible that were added in an edit to be shown on the page, like Special:WikiActivity. --Knight

Everyone probably knows my obvious bias as far as social tools go, so I'll refrain from commenting on the actual discussion, but I invite everyone to test out the social tools on the Social Tools Development Wiki, hosted on Wikimedia's Labs infrastructure. Please leave me a message (here or on my user talk page) with your Social Tools Development Wiki user name and desired user rights and I'll happily grant 'em to you so that you can test out social tools' administrative functions etc. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

YouTube channel revisited[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Once again, its a nice idea but not one we are to pursue currently. We'll probably discuss it again in a month or two.

So, does anybody want to revisit the idea of a YouTube channel? BrikkyyTalk 12:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • It's not that there isn't a demand, it's that either A) nobody knows what to do with it or B) nobody trusts anybody to do it. Personally, without having actually watched any of the videos, I kind of like the idea of BZPower's Meet the Staff, but I'm not sure that would work for us and I have pretty much no idea of what to do. Berrybrick (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Berry. Also, I've added a section below that would hopefully generate ideas. If it gets too messy/large, we can move it to another page later. BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It was never going to be just Nuttie. I think we should use users we trust and users who have creative ideas. --Knight
  • By run I mean manage it: upload videos ect. We can't let non admins do it simply if they delete a popular video we can't recover it, it will lose it views and original upload date. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Programs You'd Like to See Anywhere

For a list of videos you wish would exist (whether practical or not) in the LEGO community. For example, if you ever were looking for a YouTube channel that would post videos on MOCs using parts from just one set at a time, this would be where you'd put that.

If someone else has already given the answer, give it again, so we can assess its popularity. Please sign with your signature.

  • More analysis videos, somewhat similar to TTV's BIONICLE Autopsy videos. BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That MOC thing sounds cool Unsigned comment by Brikkyy13 (talk • contribs).
  • Yeah, it could be fan-submitted possibly? --Knight
  • I can't imagine getting too many fan submissions, but it would be cool if we did. :P BrickfilmNut (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, if anything, that is definitely what I'd like to see on our channel (As previously stated I'd be willing to participate). Clone gunner commander jedi talk 23:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't want to see video reviews. If we get reviews here its rare I can't imagine why we'd do video reviews as well and get less reviews here. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Programs You Could Contribute

For a list of videos/series that you think you could create or contribute to.

If someone else has already given the answer, give it again, so we can assess its popularity. Please sign with your signature.

  • Editing tutorials BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Very short 3D shorts (at least, very short for now) BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Video reviews BrikkyyTalk 21:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That cool MOC thing :P BrikkyyTalk 21:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A tutorial on how I make MS paint figs (though I kind of don't want to :P ) Berrybrick (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop motion animations. CGCJ 23:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Video reviews. CGCJ 23:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Building tips (if we're desperate) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Skills You Could Contribute

If someone else has already given the answer, give it again, so we can assess its popularity. Please sign with your signature.

  • 3D animation/rendering BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A degree of photo editing BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A degree of video editing BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Advanced photo editing and graphic design. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Audio mastering and engineering. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ability to use photoshop and flash BrikkyyTalk 21:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I know how to do some video editing. --Knight

Programs You Think Would Benefit Brickipedia

If someone else has already given the answer, give it again, so we can assess its popularity. Please sign with your signature.

  • Video reviews BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Editing tutorials BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pages advertising our content ("Top 10 Most Extensive Brickimedia Articles!" or something) BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Some sort of story-driven serial BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • ohmygosh that could be the perfect way to promote Stories. Berrybrick (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a reading of my comics? --Knight
  • I'm not sure if yours would be accessible to a wide audience (inside jokes, Brickipedia user characters, fairly obscure theme references), and knowing you, you'd probably want to take your time to ensure the quality of the comics, which could ruin any sort of release schedule. Still, it could still work regardless. BrickfilmNut (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, no. It's not really inside jokes. And it barely has any Brickipedia characters. All obscure references to themes are made clear and stuff. And for the schedules, I'm planning on finishing all in one book before releasing any so there's a schedule. --Knight
  • If we have someone only read an extract from a story, enough to get people interested, so they'll then have to head to Stories to find out what happen. That could work, right? Clone gunner commander jedi talk 13:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe if Bloxopedia turns out to be a thing we could have satirical videos that make fun of our other videos? --Knight
  • I'd rather make fun of other people's videos, like LEGO Haul videos (where the haul is like a polybag and a dirty 2x2 we found on the sidewalk). BrickfilmNut (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Lol, that'd be pretty funny. Especially if Clone did it. I'm pretty sure he currently has a really crappy Tiki Warrior figure he found on the street. (It's melted and everything.) --Knight
  • I'd be up for that! I still have the aforementioned Tiki Warrior figure and also a polybag set that is still complete with bag (Bilbo's kitchen), so I could do it :P But, be warned, if it is to be done, it wont make for good viewing. - CGCJ 22:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A brief(?) familiarization/explanation of the MoS Berrybrick (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Prehaps through song or LEGO references to make it memorable? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
      • Out of all the things on this forum page that will never happen, I think us writing a song explaining the Manual of Style and uploading it to Youtube is perhaps the most not ever happening. CJC95 (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Templates[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was There is a more recent discussion on this topic. Please use that.

Set templates

No one seems to be bothering to add these to pages. Is there anything we should change? Should we format all themes like Template:SWsets/2014? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

If there are enough sets to warrant it, yes. As for the reason why they aren't added:
  1. People don't know how
  2. People forget
  3. They aren't updated - I bet you that the 2015 Star Wars one isn't up to date, yet alone for 2016 or whatever. Typically someone (me or Nova or Berry) make it and update it to whenever we make it, and then it goes unchanged. Most probably are still on 2013 or something. CJC95 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    how much were you betting then? :P NovaHawk 01:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    You don't count. :P CJC95 (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Per CJC. Perhaps we can have a quarter-annual, week-long event where everybody is reminded to update such templates (I only say week-long in the unlikely event everyone's offline for a certain day, there's a server error, etc.) BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
How about Taco Tuesday on the first Tuesday of each month? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Minifigure templates

Template:Ninjagofigs does not have a non physical scetion, like every other theme. Which way should we choose? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

have one, I guess. CJC95 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I always thought the Ninjago template was kind of ugly. I'll take a look at redoing it. Berrybrick (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ninjago's is a little complicated in that there are just so many non-physical characters; I think an annotation might serve the purpose better in this case. BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I gutted a nav template of all the extended characters in my sandbox if that's a help to anyone. Feel free to edit it. Berrybrick (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Why are the Serpentine grouped with Team Chen? But looking at the ones left over, I think it would actually be better to do it like this and have the others in a non-physical section (or sections, like Template:HPfigs) NovaHawk 00:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Uh, because some of them also looked like Serpentine so I wasn't so sure. :P Another thing, I don't think that characters like the Bank Teller need their own page, so maybe we should add a few more entries to List of Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu Characters? Berrybrick (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm like the anti-you on this :D (I just think any character who has a name or is voiced by someone should have their own page :S) NovaHawk 23:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
(I just don't think that templates should be cluttered with characters like "Bank Teller" and "Old Lady no. 12" unless they absolutely have to) Berrybrick (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh I'd be happy to not have them in the template, maybe we could have a separate template for figures which just appear in the TV series NovaHawk 01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Or they could appear in a section of the template, T.V. only minifigures. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
That might work now that the template has been cleared up, but the show has been running for such a long time that it might not be so easy to find characters like Edna Walker, which people would actually care about, when they are drowned out by Bank Tellers and Rice Farmers. Berrybrick (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Images[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was This is a MediaWiki issue.

When you search for an image it only comes up the size that it is in the article, for example: if I google "Brickipedia Livi" [3] comes up as that's how big it is in the infobox while in reality [4] is the full image. Is there anything we can do to fix this? I don't think wikia has this problem. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

That's how MediaWiki handles thumbnails and how Google finds images in webpages. Wikia does have the same "problem". --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
No they don't [5] [6] both images appear in the minifigure galleries, as you can clearly see ours is tiny Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
I'm getting this too- most images at "livi brickipedia" have an average width of 250px- the size in an infobox. Other images are the sizes they're embedded in articles. Would it be be because our images are actually stored at meta? NovaHawk 00:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It's probably a case of Google being stupid. Some more discussion about this is in upstream ticket T54647. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

On a side note should we do a tutorial on how to upload an image? Most users don't know there's such thing as meta and can't find the page they're looking to add the file they upload to there so they give up. Also is there anything we can do to get people uploading more images [7] and [8] are the 3rd and 4th most active contributors, but haven't uploaded 50 files over the past three months. You can imagine the situation is much worse for the majority of users below them. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

This is a good idea. That would be the sort of editing tutorial which would be good for the YT channel, too. Berrybrick (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Books[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was None

We have little book pages and nearly no pages for characters who are exclusive to books. I know Friends, DC, Chima, Ninjago and City have books based upon them. Friends is the only theme I know which have characters exclusive to books as Ninjago, DC and Chima use characters from the sets and City has namless characters. My idea is we get users to buy Friends books they make pages for the characters (with pictures) and possibly summarize the books and maybe even write a review (even if it's short)? After they do this they tell us how much they spent on the books and we give them that much money out of the budget. E.g.:User 1 wants the mystery machine, so he buys:€35 worth of LEGO Friends books and we send him the set. This way we get more pages and the user gets a few books for free, which they could sell or whatever when their done. I think this might be a good idea, thoughts? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

Alternatively, don't libraries still do books? :P CJC95 (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting idea, neutral for now NovaHawk 23:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Colour code our admin's names[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was No result

On the home page of [9] it has the list of "staff" and it's color coded, should we colour code our admin's names? When people look at the list of Recent Changes, Leaderboard they can see the colors and they'd know who to ask. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

  • *Shrug*. If you like. CJC95 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (personally neutral, I can see good reasons for both sides of the argument) NovaHawk 02:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • if we do I only want it on change lists (Recent Changes, Contributions, History, etc) like BS01 does, not on every instance of an admin's user page link like so many Wikia wikis do. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Scrap the QCG[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Remove QCG, give change-rating/changeRating rights to sysop
  • Now that ratings are simply (none), Complete and Featured, I'd like to propose scrapping the QCG and merging the rights to admin. NovaHawk 06:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. FA's have to go through a vote, and I think admins should be able to tell the difference between a complete and incomplete article. NovaHawk 06:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Yup CJC95 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Berrybrick (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Global "unanimous rule" for voting[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was done
  • I'd like to propose a rule to be used on all forums and proposals- if a proposal has unanimous support after one week, it will be passed. This would override all other rules, such as requiring a +3 score for userbox proposals and infobox colour proposals, +5 score for FA proposals, etc. Any proposals on the forum that noone or only one other person comments on (if the comment is in support of the idea) would also pass. NovaHawk 10:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. As nominator. I don't see why things have to stay open forever or not pass just because other people can't be bothered to look at it. NovaHawk 10:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. No reason not to Codyn329 (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. There are rules on votes? I just close stuff :P CJC95 (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Berrybrick (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

2015 Online RLUG Activity Report[edit source]

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

Dear Online RLUG Ambasadors
The time has come for you to fill out the Online Activity Report similar to the report filled out by the physical RLUGs.

1. Select the online RLUG you represent
2. Select type of site /YouTube Channel, Blog, Forum, Database, Magazine)
3. Enter data depending on site type (subscribers, unique monthly views on average, active members, quantity of printed/downloaded magazines)
4. Social Media - do you have facebook, twitter, flickr or other connected to your site
5. Presence at AFOL events - please list the events you've represented your site at
6. Value creation and impact on global AFOL community - list 5 activities
7. How likely are you to recommend another online LUG to reach out for recognition?

Here are our results that I filled out:

--ToaMeiko (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(thumbs up) CJC95 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

TV variants[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was allow them
  • I've noticed a lot of minifigure pages (mainly Ninjago) are having a "gallery of TV [or film] variants" section added to the minifigure gallery area. Do we actually want these? If so, it should be added to the MoS NovaHawk 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


  1. Lots of work has gone into these, and I actually look at them from time to time... --LK901 20:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. I think Metal Chen is the only one that actually has a variant that is just visible for a second. Variants like the Ninja's pirate and cultist disguises they wear for 1/4th of their respective episodes. Besides, the gallery contains only noticeable differences (it's not like there's "ZX no should pads, no hood," "ZX no should pads, with hood," "ZX with should pads, no hood" etc.) I don't see where else the variants would go unless someone would care to write up descriptions for each variant and having them in the regular gallery would just clutter it up with images of the different variants. --Vector Prime (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. They'll just end up in the regular gallery, with less information (or, at the very least, decentralised information) - people write it so I'll assume people want to read it... CJC95 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. It fits with the page so why not? I assume readers want this sorta thing, if we're striving to be the best source of information, why not? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  5. Per CJC. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Yeah, people could be interested in seeing what kinds of variants appear in TV (or film) whether or not the same variant appeared in physical form. Especially with series like Ninjago and Chima. Hero Factory, Mixels, and Bionicle might be a bit harder to differentiate a variant. idk --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not add (or allow on pages)
  1. I don't see the point personally. Unlike video games and physical minifigures, there are no static fixed variants- the characters just change their clothes from time to time. I don't see why if a character wears some clothes or appears in some "different" way for less than a second (eg, metal Chen) that it should be specially featured. These can all just go in the regular old gallery with the other pictures. NovaHawk 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    In Friends they have worn the same clothes in multiple episodes that aren't they're regular variants. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  2. Yeah they don't need their own gallery, they can just be put in other places in the article. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
  3. Per above. -NBP3.0 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Berrybrick (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    Just thought I would say: Part of this seems to be a misunderstanding of what the word "variant" actually means. It is not going to refer to a person changing clothes, which is mostly why I'm opposing (though I do also agree with Nova). It just doesn't make sense in context. :P Berrybrick (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    So...what are we talking about? We need like an example or two or seven of pages that would be affected by not allowing it, and in what ways said pages would be affected. CJC95 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well, it's kind of objective. For me, the inclusion of "TV show variants," when that isn't really what they are, is unprofessional, embarrassing, and trivial. The latter is probably the most subjective, since people might actually be interested in seeing them, but I don't like the way that we handle variant galleries much at all. It was designed with only physical variants in mind, so it gets messy when video game and animations are factored. Plus, since these aren't collectable, it is strange to give things special attention when our primary purpose is, from my perspective, to inform people interested in collecting. They might be more unorganized in the gallery, but part of that might also be because our galleries are disorderly jumbles of images...a lot of things could probably do with some reform, but we can't do that very well because people are more interested in finding more things to add to a page than actually increase its quality.... Berrybrick (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    Then rename it from "tv variants gallery" to "tv images". Problem solved. The solution to the content not being in a correct format shouldn't be to remove said content. CJC95 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    Problem solved? It may address one of the points, but not all- as Berry said, these "variants" are trivial, and we're giving unnecessary special attention to pointless images NovaHawk 00:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    But we're a site that's about everything LEGO not just the sets. What's the big problem with including these? That they're not used more then once? They are :P It's not unprofessional if we describe the variant properly. People have enjoyed reading video game variants before so why not TV?Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  • Obviously this vote would apply to "movie variants" too (I forgot about those) NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As this policy won't change anything no matter what way it swings, can we just chalk it up as inconclusive? :P CJC95 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Template for pictures[edit source]

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

Since there's an out of universe template, and there's still a lot of pages with no files and/or broken file links I made this template:

Take my picture!
This article needs pictures and/or the broken file links to be fixed.

Should we use it? Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg

  • Sure, looks good NovaHawk 22:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd just suggest changing the wording to "broken file links fixed". Good though. Mini-doll templates are good. :P Berrybrick (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The picture is alright but I'd rather it fit our style like File:Toomanyredbricks.png and File:Mergeto.png with that CG LEGO piece look, but for a LEGO camera for this template. "Take my picture" also might want to be changed, similarly to how we recently changed "Too many red bricks" to "Too many red links". The subject line of a notice box needs to be clear and concise so people easily know what is needed for improvement, especially those who aren't familiar with all our templates and slang. Yes, it explains it below the subject line, but the first line still needs to get the meaning of the template across. A good title would be "This article needs images" or something. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • 1) There is a universe for our articles to be "out of"? Are we starting to cover sets from the multiverse or something? 2) That is a different type of template though - okay they are broadly similar, but a help template is different to an information template. CJC95 (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This template needs to be created. CJC95 (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. CJC95 (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Inventory category notice[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Added to administrative to-do

While [10] suggests that this change was implemented, I believe it hasn't been. So this is a notice that it still needs to be done. CJC95 (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

MoS update[edit source]

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

A general notice that the MoS needs to be updated with the changes listed at Brickipedia:Site updates, and also that I am assuming a lot of pages need updating based on the scrapping of the QCG and the change in rating systems. CJC95 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Yep, was planning on doing that a few hours ago but got interrupted. I probably won't get time now until Sunday/Monday probably NovaHawk 10:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Deprecate Emoticon Proposals[edit source]

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

This was voted through. As such, the page needs to be archived or deleted or updated to reflect this. I have added this to a forum as its a clear place for us all to see that it is a to do. CJC95 (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Done NovaHawk 07:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Renaissance of templates[edit source]

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was None

Well seeing as now we have:

You know the rules, this isn't a toy!
This article's background section contains parts written from an "out of universe" perspective.
According to Brickipedia's Manual of Style, background sections need to be written from an "in-universe" perspective.
Take my picture!
This article needs images.

I was thinking should all templates not be as child friendly as these? I much prefer these templates, to the somewhat boring older ones. I encourage you to suggest ideas, as I don't know much about non licensed themes that aren't Friends/Elves. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
Note: changed link to template in Soups message. CJC95 (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


Future figure

From template:future figure to

I haven't hatched yet!
This article or section contains information regarding scheduled, forthcoming or expected future minifigure(s).
The content may change as the release approaches and more information becomes available.


  1. As nominator. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg


  1. The current template gets straight to the point, sans the distractions from the comical phrases and images. LCF (talk!) 21:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
    We're a kids toy wiki, I think the other templates are to boring for a site about colorful bricks. This is to the point to, except you have to read an extra scentence :P Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3Friends girls.jpg
  2. Eh. It seems silly to me/ CJC95 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


Follow up on QCG demise[edit source]

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

As QCG has been disbanded, and admins have taken up rating abilities, admins need access to Special:ChangeRating. CJC95 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Done by Codyn here CJC95 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the QCG group be removed as well? (still shows in Special:ListGroupRights) NovaHawk 22:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
    • It should, but I considered it a less-pressing issue :P CJC95 (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Fixed in commit [11]. (check the commit summary for full description) Codynguyen1116 (talk) 01:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)