Brickipedia:Manual of Style/updates 1

This page serves as an archive for former votes and discussions about additions to the Manual of Style that were conducted at Forum:MOS proposals.

Sets

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

Should contain:

Set header template (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Set infobox (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources (if needed) (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
4. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 22:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I would add links to Peeron etc. as sources for basic information (number of pieces, minifigs, release year, does it exist at all)--LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories for theme, set number, year released (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

At least one image of set, where available (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 06:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. --Coupon11 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Just note that some don't have an image.
4. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

---

For sets which have been released twice, but under different names and/or numbers (please vote for only one below):

Have one article for each release (+6)

Support

1. It's too confusing to have an article called 1272/1282 Turbo Racer/Blue Racer. Some of these sets are also released in different themes and years (6100 Aquashark Dart and 1095 Super Sub), which makes the info in the infobox even more confusing. I would just add a small note that the respective set is similar/identical to another one and link to the other article.--LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC) - I used to hate it when I saw that, hence why I split the Star Wars ones. I definitely support a article for each release
3. As long as there's a clear link that stands out to say that points to the article of the same set. I'll make a template for this if this proposal wins out. NovaHawk 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Using / as an "or" in titles is a bad idea. It would be a subpage of the first number. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 22:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
6. --Coupon11 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Have one article on the set, with title "<num1> <name1>/<num2><name2>" (±0)

Comments

• Maybe a title like "<Set name 1>/<Set name 2>" i.e.: 1272 Turbo Racer/1282 Blue Racer instead of 1272/1282 Turbo Racer/Blue Racer in rare cases. --LegOtaku 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion added NovaHawk 09:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

US Dollar (US $) (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. kingcjc 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. --Coupon11 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
4. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Euro (€) (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. kingcjc 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. --Coupon11 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
4. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

UK Pound (£) (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. kingcjc 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
4. --Coupon11 00:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian Dollar (AU $) (+2)

Support

1. NovaHawk 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2. kingcjc 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
3. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 14:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Coupon11 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotation Template

• Hi, I was wondering what people thought about the new template, {{quoteLEGO.com}}, being added to the Manual of Style for sets in the quotation from LEGO section. NovaHawk 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Make {{quoteLEGO.com}} a part of the MOS (+3)

1. NovaHawk 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
2. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 05:32, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
3. --User:Coupon11/sig 22:09, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Minifigures

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it, however, feel free to add any other minifigure suggestions

Should contain:

Minifigure infobox (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Description (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Appearances Section (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Minifigure theme category (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Template displaying all minifigures in theme (eg {{SWfigs}}) (where applicable) (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 08:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. kingcjc 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

At least one image of figure, where available (+4)

Support

1. NovaHawk 06:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. LegOtaku (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. --Coupon11 11:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. kingcjc 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Quotation Template

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

Please use {{Archive}} instead.

• Hi, I was wondering what people thought about the new template, {{quoteLEGO.com}}, being added to the Manual of Style for sets in the quotation from LEGO section. NovaHawk 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Make {{quoteLEGO.com}} a part of the MOS (+3)

1. NovaHawk 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
2. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 05:32, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
3. --User:Coupon11/sig 22:09, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Voting will end September 22, 2009. NovaHawk 02:51, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Position of LEGO Shop description/naming and order of sections in general

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. I think the LEGO Shop description should be positioned at the end, just above "See also" and "External links". Right now the box is just like a roadblock that cuts off the "Notes" section below. Also, some articles have a section called "Background", which is actually just a lead section and does not provide any "background information". Other articles have lead sections that are captioned with "Description". The lead section shouldn't have any caption at all. --User:LegOtaku/sig 13:42, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Video game appearances

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. For minifigures which appear in both solid LEGO form and in a video game, I propose we have the standard ==Appearances== and list LEGO appearances as normal, then underneath have a ===Video Game Appearances=== or something along those lines and list the video games under this subheading. Also, for the above case, should we list the video game appearances in the infobox? I can think of three alternatives for this- yes, no, or add a separate "video game appearances" field. I don't really mind either way but I think we should establish what to do for consistency. NovaHawk 00:58, January 16, 2010 (UTC) I'm okay with that. But how about removing the appearances list from the infoboxes, it makes them sometimes longer than the rest of the article. Also, the information can be presented with more detail in the article itself. --User:LegOtaku/sig 06:28, February 15, 2010 (UTC) It sounds like a good idea to me- there has to be an "appearances" section anyway, so it's just duplicate information. And there is room for more detail in the appearances section than in the infobox. But, how are we going to remove the appearances sections? I mean we can take the field out of the infobox, which will result in the appearances information not being shown, but the content will still be there :S NovaHawk 06:43, February 15, 2010 (UTC) I could change it to trigger a hidden maintenance category in addition to not showing the content. --User:LegOtaku/sig 07:01, February 15, 2010 (UTC) So is everyone ok with this? Can it be added to the MOS? NovaHawk 01:17, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Order of sections and section headings for set articles

Lead section

Short paragraph that describes the basic infos of the set like release year, theme, rough overview of the content etc. Information about the sets release. It's common practice on most wikis that such a lead section does not have a section heading.

Description

Detailed description of the sets content and functions.

Background

Text that describes the background/context of the featured model in its respective fictional universe (keep it short and simple)

Notes

Additional information about rare pieces (pieces that appear in just one or two sets), pieces that make their first or last appearance in this set or other peculiarities.

LEGO.com description (don't know if there could be a better section heading)

(since the citation box looks like a "roadblock" it shouldn't come after the actual description because it's to obtrusive)

See also

Links to related articles on Brickipedia, e.g. sets with a similar subject, appearance etc. or articles that describe a related subject with a broader scope or present an overview of related sets. (Not links to the parent theme or a simple list of sets of the same theme)

Sources/References

reftags from the articles

External links

At the end of the article

--User:LegOtaku/sig 18:13, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Comments/Suggestions

• Looks ok to me- I would probably prefer the have LEGO's description before the Notes, but as you said the template when it's beside the infobox doesn't work well, so I'm happy with the ordering how it is NovaHawk 22:49, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
• I like it. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 02:06, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

• • So, can I just add this to the MoS, or should we hold a proper vote for this? --User:LegOtaku/sig 11:16, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it would be ok to move it now- we've got a +3 vote at the moment which is usually enough for such things, and has been open for comments/votes for a while now NovaHawk 22:30, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was To leave "Minifigures" field empty in set infobox when there are no minifigures in the set Having "None" / "0" in the set infobox or not We all have the problem that it isn't defined if we should type "None", "0" or don't type it into the |Minifigures= section of the Set infobox. There are themes, like Technic or Bionicle, which don't have any minifigures. Other themes, like Batman, have specific sets, that don't include minifigures, see 7784. Having the section left out may mean there are no minifigs, or that is it unknown if there are any. So I thought we should have to clarify this. Include information about it into the Set Infobox, and if yes, "None" or "0"? User:Samdo994/sig2 18:02, March 6, 2010 (UTC) I would vote for not having it, and if there are no figures included, the remove the Minifigures field from the infobox as it was inserted so noone puts things in there. It just looks untidy to me having a "None" or a "0" in there, and isn't necessary to me. In my opinion, something that doesn't have minifigures should have a minifigures field, like a minifigure that doesn't have variations doesn't have anything in its variations field. If we did have this though, I would prefer "None" to "0". NovaHawk 23:41, March 6, 2010 (UTC) So, will we do a vote on it? User:Samdo994/sig2 12:50, March 10, 2010 (UTC) Vote Have "None" or "0" in set infobox (please indicate whether you would like to see a "None" or a "0") Leave the field empty in the infobox It just seems irrelevant to me to have a 0 or none in there, especially for TECHNIC and other similar sets where there obviously aren't going to be minifigures NovaHawk 05:51, March 11, 2010 (UTC) Per Nighthawk leader --Lcawte 08:38, March 27, 2010 (UTC) Ajraddatz Talk 03:18, April 25, 2010 (UTC) Comments I am neutral. User:Samdo994/sig2 15:16, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Image placement

I noticed that the images are sometimes put all over the place. Mostly they end up on the right side of the articles and due to the long infobox on short articles this means they actually end up below the box far away from the text (8399 K-9 Bot). Also, sometimes people put the (slanted) box art into the infobox, sometimes the promo pic (with white bg). I think we should establish a policy for this.

I propose to use box art (or the instructions cover) for the infobox and to put other pics (especially the ones with white background) into the text, in a place where they look like an actual part of the article (10199 Winter Toy Shop) and not like something that was almost forgotten. I really hate it when I see a single pic, most not even resized, ("an hq pic of the set") at the bottom of a page XD .--User:LegOtaku/sig 06:28, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

• Third point down under "Set articles" states that the box images are to be used for the infobox when there is a box image available (it was already voted on twice with the same result). As for the placement of other images, I totally agree with you- they do look like they're all over the place. The main problem (at least the main problem I have with them) is that if you put the image to the right, it usually goes under the infobox and doesn't look right, and if you put it to the left, if there are any titles or bullet points, it looks wrong there (eg bullet points actually go on top of the image). And I also agree- the captions for some images could really do with some cleaning up :) NovaHawk 06:43, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • There's no problem with placing images on the left if {{clear|left}} is put before the next section heading. --User:LegOtaku/sig 06:58, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Minifigure Gallery Update

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to implement the template We have what looks to be a functioning horizontal scrolling template for minifigures up and running here. An example of it in action for the minifigures in the 10188 Death Star is up here. Just wanted to know what everyone thought about it, if it should be added to the MOS for set articles (where the template would be used to display the minifigs in the sets), and if there are any suggestions for improvements/modifications. NovaHawk 12:15, April 27, 2010 (UTC) Support Really helpful template. Btw, by clicking the No Image available image, you get redirected to the upload page. User:Samdo994/sig2 12:58, April 28, 2010 (UTC) SupportI guess soUser:BobaFett2/sig2 14:22, April 28, 2010 (UTC) Support - I like this idea :) Ajraddatz Talk 15:46, May 1, 2010 (UTC) Support - Guess I should have put this vote in earlier NovaHawk 12:48, May 3, 2010 (UTC) Support - It's a little hard to follow, sice you have to keep scrolling and scrolling and scrolling and scrolling and etc. etc., but I guess it's ok. Construction Worker Do you need help? 20:33, May 4, 2010 (UTC) Support - There's a sign on the wall, But she wants to be sure, 'Cause you know sometimes words have , Two meanings ---- Kingcjc 21:33, May 4, 2010 (UTC) Comments Sooo... How many votes do we need to get this through? :D User:Samdo994/sig2 10:40, May 2, 2010 (UTC) I don't know... maybe give it a week from the time the "take a look at MOS proposals" message came up in the sitenotice? ie until May 7. And if there's no opposition at that time, put it through? NovaHawk 04:57, May 3, 2010 (UTC) But nobody votes on this. That's what is getting me mad. User:Samdo994/sig2 11:43, May 3, 2010 (UTC) It's May 7 now, put it through? I'd suggest at first adding it to the FAs, then to the GAs, then to the CAs and then to the usual articles. User:Samdo994/sig2 16:03, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

MoS for years

The following is a suggested outline by Samdo994 for how year pages should be formatting and what content they should contain:

Year Articles

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to implement the proposal Year articles should contain: The Template:Year A list of events which happened in that year A list of themes and subthemes that were introduced or discontinued in that year A wikitable with the sets released of that year. The products are listed via the wikitable. Inside the table there should be informations about the set number, the set name, the piececount, the amount of minifigures included and the month release date. Appropriate categories Recommended Order of sections and section headings This will happen/has happened in <year>: Events happened in that year. Themes introduced or discontinued in <year>: List of themes that were introduced or discontinued in that year. Sets introduced in <year>: List of the sets released in that year. Support NovaHawk 00:48, May 15, 2010 (UTC) User:CaptainJag/sig1 03:29, May 15, 2010 (UTC) Including the price in the wikitable. User:Samdo994/sig2 12:18, May 15, 2010 (UTC) --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 15:55, May 17, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Comments Price should probably be disucussed as well- should we have US$ only, the four prices we use in the MoS, or no price column at all? NovaHawk 00:13, May 16, 2010 (UTC) I'd say only the US $ price, the other prices can be looked up on the set's page. User:Samdo994/sig2 11:56, May 16, 2010 (UTC) A week passed, implement it? User:Samdo994/sig2 13:35, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Videogame/movie parts/accessories This is another minor rule that I think should be set up, but still: I think it shouldn't be allowed to create an article about parts/accessories that only appear in videogames. That's the most minor reason to create an article, in my opinion. That's like creating several articles for trees that appeared in videogames. Movies should be included too. So I think it should be listed under the section "Parts": "Articles should not be created on parts and/or accessories, that only appeared in videogames or movies." Or something similar. What do think about that? User:Samdo994/sig2 20:21, May 31, 2010 (UTC) AgreedUser:BobaFett2/sig2 13:13, June 8, 2010 (UTC) Suport NovaHawk 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Infobox In the theme infobox, many people are putting the theme then a line break then the subtheme. I find this redundant and nominate that a rule against it is put in the MOS.User:BobaFett2/sig2 00:34, May 7, 2010 (UTC) I think the line break is okay, but there should be then a bit more indent, like THEME<break>indent as : SUBTHEME. But I don't know how to add indent after a line break... User:Samdo994/sig2 16:02, May 7, 2010 (UTC) I'm saying to make it not like that. Also, the indent is bad too in my opinion. I think that there shouldn't be a need to even have the theme before the subtheme because the theme is already stated.User:BobaFett2/sig2 23:16, May 7, 2010 (UTC) My vote's with Samdo's suggestion. And you can do: theme :subtheme for the indent. NovaHawk 08:41, May 8, 2010 (UTC) Please no it's so ugly.User:BobaFett2/sig2 12:07, May 8, 2010 (UTC) Boba, that's your opinion, so we're not tossing the idea because one person thinks it's ugly (that isn't even a reason to oppose). Construction Worker Do you need help? 22:17, May 8, 2010 (UTC) I think the indent is okay. User:Samdo994/sig2 10:37, May 13, 2010 (UTC) I'd be happy with the indent, but could we switch the ordering around? Alot of the subthemes are getting their own colors for the infobox, and having them the other way round would enable the subthemes colors to work (I think..) --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 15:58, May 17, 2010 (UTC) I can understand Boba, since there is quite a lot of space between the lines with the themes, when using the indent... User:Samdo994/sig2 14:35, May 20, 2010 (UTC) Ok, well, how about we make a template containing a line break and four spaces (ie < b r / > & n b s p ; & n b s p ; & n b s p ; & n b s p ; ) which indents it a little bit, but not as much? An example of the code in use can currently be seen at Darth Maul. Just a suggestion NovaHawk 01:00, June 10, 2010 (UTC) That look perfect, but there's still one thing: if someone whould like to have another indent under the second one, it would be the same line as above, when using the template. Any idea how to solve that? The template could be called {{Smallindent}} or {{si}}. User:Samdo994/sig2 18:05, June 16, 2010 (UTC) I guess I could try something with that, not sure how to do it, but I'll see if anything comes up. But is everyone ok if a template is created which does this and add it to the MOS? NovaHawk 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was To use UK English in articles Spelling We've never stated whether the spelling here should be in a UK or US form (eg "colour" or "color"). From what I can see, US users are probably our biggest userbase. I'm not sure what version of English the Danish use when they use it, but I think it might be the UK one if we want to go with using the version of English that the "home of LEGO" uses. At any rate, I think we should formally establish which version of English should be used here so we don't have inconsistencies everywhere. Following on from this is the first subtheme of Harry Potter. The US uses "Sorcerer's Stone", but everywhere else uses "Philosopher's". So, should we either: Use "Sorcerer's" Use "Philosopher's" Use both (eg "Philosopher's / Sorcerer's") I know that the Harry Potter Wiki uses Philosopher's Stone, but this is also probably due to the fact that they use UK spelling. So, any thoughts/comments/opinions on any of this? NovaHawk 05:51, March 11, 2010 (UTC) Maybe we should have an informal poll set up just to get an idea of what spelling most people use. I thought the same for international prices, see what most people use and then use those currencies. User:CaptainJag/sig1 06:04, March 11, 2010 (UTC) British Spelling should be used, the English Language is from Britian, and J.K Rowling, is also from England. --Lcawte 07:22, March 12, 2010 (UTC) Well, here, I believe that British spelling be used here. However, I would like to see US spellings used around the rest of the wiki. (But that's just me, and hey, I'm from the US :D) User:Cpatain Rex/sig 04:01, March 16, 2010 (UTC) I think that US spelling is better. But that's just me, I'm from the US.User:BobaFett2/sig2 14:15, April 28, 2010 (UTC) Which ever is used more commonly. GG 360 23:30, May 5, 2010 (UTC) Well, my vote goes for British spelling since the EU (which includes Denmark, the home of LEGO) uses British spelling (source), and it makes spelling consistent with spelling in the Harry Potter theme. NovaHawk 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC) So, overall to date, we have 2 votes for British spelling (Lcawte and myself) and 2 for American spelling (Cpatain Rex and BobaFett2). Any other votes on this? We really should have some sort of decision on this sometime to stadardize it... And this wasn't mentioned before, but whatever the outcome of this, the "spelling rule" will only apply to the mainspace- for forums, talk pages, user blogs, user pages, etc, feel free to use whatever spelling you want there NovaHawk 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC) I vote Brit Kingcjc 22:28, July 31, 2010 (UTC) A bit late here but per Boba. -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 22:33, July 31, 2010 (UTC) UK sounds better since it's what LEGO uses and this IS a LEGO wiki. Agent Charge: No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:21, August 9, 2010 (UTC) I'll have to disagree with most of you. If the majority of the users are from the US, then it should be US spelling. Construction Worker Do you need help? 19:12, August 13, 2010 (UTC) I do agree with you, CW, if most of the users are from the US, we should have US spelling. But are they? User:Captain Jag/sig1 19:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC) Whats the decision here? ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 20:55, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Well, it's 4 all... so there is no decision yet. I really think we need a result soon though... NovaHawk 01:08, August 26, 2010 (UTC) I vote British Gladiatoring 06:18, August 26, 2010 (UTC) I vote american.User:BobaFett2/sig2 14:00, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Boba your vote was already cast and counted Gladiatoring 14:04, August 26, 2010 (UTC) I vote british because that's what it was called throughout the majority of the world. We rae not an American-exclusive wiki. GG 360 14:08, August 26, 2010 (UTC) I count that 6-4 to British. ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 20:23, August 27, 2010 (UTC) I vote British... now it's 7-4 to British. User:Captain Jag/sig 21:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC) Finally, a consensus! Ok to give this until 0:00 Sunday UTC to run (approx. 24 hours)? It has been open for over 5 months... NovaHawk 00:13, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Minifigure Gallery Follow-Up

• Well, I've implemented the template at {{MinifigureGallery}}, but there are probably a couple of things that should be clarified before we start putting it all over the place.

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to name the template "MinifigureGallery" Name The template is currently named "MinifigureGallery", but that can be changed. Feel free to support/oppose/suggest alternatives here. Support Name sounds good. User:Samdo994/sig2 10:54, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to use "Minifigures Included" Title above the template Should the heading be "Included Minifigures", "Minifigures Included", "Minifigures", or some other option? Vote/suggest alternatives here. I support "Minifigures included". User:Samdo994/sig2 10:54, May 9, 2010 (UTC) SameUser:BobaFett2/sig2 20:35, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Placement

Where should the template be placed in the article?

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Placement above the Official Description section For set articles: My vote would be for under the {{QuoteLEGO.com}} section and above the "See also" section as listed on BP:MOS NovaHawk 01:07, May 9, 2010 (UTC) I don't know if it should be above or under the Notes section, but I'd say not under the LEGO.com/LEGO's Description, rather above it. User:Samdo994/sig2 10:54, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Support --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 15:56, May 17, 2010 (UTC) I also support this proposal. User:Ajraddatz/sig 18:05, June 16, 2010 (UTC) For minifigure articles: I'd go for near the bottom so it doesn't mess up infoboxes, below "Appearances" but above any minifigure navigational template like {{SWfigs}}. NovaHawk 11:00, June 19, 2010 (UTC) Any other opinions? NovaHawk 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to implement the template in this way as well Other possible implementation I was thinking that maybe this template could be used to showcase all of the minifigure's variants in a minifigure article, eg for Luke Skywalker, have images for "Luke Skywalker (Jedi)", "Luke Skywalker (Tatooine)", etc. Thoughts/comments? NovaHawk 01:07, May 9, 2010 (UTC) If there is the same minifigure in another appearance, like Han Solo in normal clothes and Storm Trooper outfit, both should be shown. But if a minifigure has got two faces on a head, I'd say don't put in two images, one with the first face and one with the second face on the back. User:Samdo994/sig2 10:54, May 9, 2010 (UTC) No changes here for quite a while. Implement it? User:Samdo994/sig2 12:47, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was added to {{External info}} "Buy this set at" since there are some == Buy this set == sections appearing in some articles, I thought it would be a good MoS proposal. If there is a link to the LEGOshop@home page existing, add it to the external links, as * Buy this set at [URL LEGOshop.com. When LEGO removed the product, the link may also be removed. An example is at 7670 Hailfire Droid and Spider Droid. OR we could create a link in the Template:Set (like a bar or something like that) with the link to the page. User:Samdo994/sig1 17:28, July 6, 2010 (UTC) I'm ok with it on external links, but I'm not really sure if it would go well in the infobox. There's already a link to the shop page on {{QuoteLEGO.com}}, but I guess another link couldn't hurt. And having it in external info could be set up in a way to categorize the page into Category:LEGO Shop automatically too. NovaHawk 06:05, July 7, 2010 (UTC) I like NHL's idea.. lets go with that! --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 16:07, July 7, 2010 (UTC) So, is everyone opposed to adding this to external info? NovaHawk 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC) Nope. And I think we should remove the current LEGOshop category per bot and then add it per bot again if there is a link in the Template:QuoteLEGO.com or in the External Links. User:Samdo994/sig1 09:22, July 20, 2010 (UTC) support bot add idea thing Kingcjc 22:31, July 31, 2010 (UTC) Support adding this. User:Captain Jag/sig1 05:55, August 5, 2010 (UTC) I think it should also link to bricklink.User:BobaFett2/sig2 23:51, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was the collapsible appearances modification implemented Removal of "Appearances" field in Template:Minifigure Please see above discussion "Video game appearances" Remove the field NovaHawk 23:38, February 23, 2010 (UTC) User:Samdo994/sig2 12:49, February 24, 2010 (UTC) Makes it unnecessarily long. --User:LegOtaku/sig 11:00, March 2, 2010 (UTC) I have to say, pretty unneccesary, a section below the background information is all that is really needed. -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 15:23, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Keep the field I guess that this vote could be considered neutral, but I kind of find it useful. User:Cpatain Rex/sig 08:55, February 28, 2010 (UTC) Change it to showhide... --Lcawte 16:23, March 1, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Lcawte. Ajraddatz Talk 19:14, March 2, 2010 (UTC) Per Rex --Clone Commander Fox 20:19, March 27, 2010 (UTC) How would you know what they appeared in unless an appearances section below? GG 360 10:54, April 24, 2010 (UTC) It is part of the info, and it's easier to see up in the infobox. How about one which can be hidden or shown with a button?User:BobaFett2/sig2 14:16, April 28, 2010 (UTC) Construction Worker Do you need help? 20:35, May 4, 2010 (UTC) Per Lc/Ajr/BF2 Kingcjc 14:00, May 22, 2010 (UTC) Have a collapsible Appearances section Since it is obvious that we will keep the appearances section in the template, I'd say we use a collapsed appearances section. User:Samdo994/sig2 11:36, April 24, 2010 (UTC) Its take love over gold, and mind over matter to do what you do that you must Kingcjc 21:28, May 4, 2010 (UTC) --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 10:56, May 9, 2010 (UTC) User:Mackmoron11/sig 02:32, May 12, 2010 (UTC) Leave it as it is now Comments Is everyone ok with giving this vote 2 weeks to run, unless there's an overwhelming majority in favor of one option? NovaHawk 23:38, February 23, 2010 (UTC) I support this idea, best example for a bad-looking infobox, because of too many appearances, is the minifigure Harry Potter. User:Samdo994/sig2 12:49, February 24, 2010 (UTC) Is showhide that you can click a button and make the list appear or disappear? If so so I would vote to keep the field if it was that. P.S. Isn't that something like collapsable? User:CaptainJag/sig1 19:12, March 2, 2010 (UTC) Yes, a hidable section is a collapsed section. Good idea, but if it is included in the article, we don't need it in the template. User:Samdo994/sig2 16:32, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Maybe we should determine if this is even possible first before we vote on it? I don't know if it would be an easy thing to do NovaHawk 03:20, May 5, 2010 (UTC) Well, we're voting on it to have one. If it is supported, it can be implemented. If it doesn't work with the collapsible thing, we can leave it as it is, until somebody has an idea, how to do that. User:Samdo994/sig2 12:17, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Looks like there shouldn't be a huge problem with getting this working. I'm working on a new userpage partly because I felt like trying this out, and I haven't come across any problems with the way I've implemented it yet. NovaHawk 03:10, May 12, 2010 (UTC) Good news. And it seems nobody has anything against the collapsible section. User:Samdo994/sig2 10:37, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Article name source

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Use Brickset I noticed this at now two articles, that Brickset and Peeron use two different names (7699/7699 and 7745/7745). I think we should choose the name of Peeron first, their names seem to be more correct. But what do you think? And should it be added to the MoS? User:Samdo994/sig2 17:30, April 20, 2010 (UTC) Before we vote/decide on anything, everyone should read this. Construction Worker Do you need help? 20:10, April 21, 2010 (UTC) Object: Brickset is updated from Bricklink, the world's largest online LEGO market. In addition, peeron has been lagging behind, and I'd say that Brickset is better for newer ones, while Peeron is better for older ones.User:BobaFett2/sig2 14:14, April 28, 2010 (UTC) So use Brickset's name first? User:Samdo994/sig2 10:37, May 13, 2010 (UTC) Personally I always go to Brickset for names, but I'm not sure how accurate they are, especially for the older themes. NovaHawk 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC) I know I'm late, but I'm with Brickset for names. Construction Worker Do you need help? 19:15, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

"Gallery"

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Gallery added to Minifigure MoS Why not adding Gallery to the Set Manual of Style and to the Minifigure Manual of Style? It should be placed under the LEGO.com Description and above the See also section. The Minifigure Articles section also has to be in the same form as the Set Articles section. User:Samdo994/sig2 10:54, April 24, 2010 (UTC) I don't know... when the scrollable box is ever sorted out (I've been looking at it a bit Samdo, going to get serious about it soon :D) it would be great for having images of minifigure variants, but making it compulsory for every set and minifigure I'm not really sure about. It might encourage articles to be all text, and then a gallery at the end, and seeing a huge amount of text with nothing to break it up with can kind of discourage users from reading it. I think we should have images throughout the article, and maybe if there are images left over, then put a gallery in if needed, but that's just what I think :S NovaHawk 02:02, April 25, 2010 (UTC) Currently we don't have much text in articles. If there would be more text we could add some pictures in the article and some in the gallery, either the same or additional ones, yes. And the scroll template ( :D ) will be put on the MoS once/if it is finished. For this I only mean additional images of the set/minifigure, not the minifigures that appear in the set itself. User:Samdo994/sig2 17:26, April 25, 2010 (UTC) I think that it's a good idea for the sets, but not for the minifigures. User:BobaFett2/sig2 14:12, April 28, 2010 (UTC) I like the articles that have a nice big gallery of good quality images Kingcjc 21:30, May 4, 2010 (UTC) I only mean to have a normal <gallery></gallery> thing if possible as requirement for the CAs, GAs and FAs, to put it into the Manual of Style. User:Samdo994/sig2 10:37, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Variants listed with Appearances

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to list variants next to appearances in "appearances" section only (and not in the infobox) Following on with the infobox theme, should variants be listed next to the appearance, and should it be in the infobox, or just at the bottom appearance. What I'm talking about is for example on R2-D2#Appearances with all the (New design), (Original design), etc. My vote's for bottom appearances section only (could get pretty crowded in infobox) NovaHawk 02:16, July 8, 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Better have detailed stuff in == Appearances == as in the Template. User:Samdo994/sig1 17:08, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Unvoted on sections

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Recently I've found that some commonly used sections have never offically been voted in to the MoS. From what I can see, this pertains to "Background" sections in sets and minifigures, and the "Notes" section in sets. I've set up a vote below for the sections, with some alternatives, feel free to add any other suggestions. Please note that the layout of pages included these headings and were voted in unopposed, but I don't think anyone really realized that the headings were never a part of the MoS at the time. NovaHawk 06:15, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Background (sets) Make it compulsory for all set articles to contain a Notes section Make a Background section compulsory where applicable (such as for most sets from licensed themes) NovaHawk 06:15, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Gladiatoring 06:28, August 24, 2010 (UTC) User:Captain Jag/sig 07:03, August 24, 2010 (UTC) User:Samdo994/sig1 12:31, August 24, 2010 (UTC) User:BobaFett2/sig2 12:35, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 20:27, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Agent Charge: No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 04:10, August 31, 2010 (UTC) Clone Commander Fox 14:00, September 5, 2010 (UTC) Allow a Background section, but as an optional heading only Do not allow a Background section Background (minifigures) Make it compulsory for all minifigure articles to contain a Notes section Make a Background section compulsory where applicable (such as for most minfigures from licensed themes) NovaHawk 06:15, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Gladiatoring 06:28, August 24, 2010 (UTC) User:Captain Jag/sig 07:03, August 24, 2010 (UTC) User:Samdo994/sig1 12:31, August 24, 2010 (UTC) User:BobaFett2/sig2 12:35, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 20:27, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Agent Charge: No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:37, September 3, 2010 (UTC) Allow a Background section, but as an optional heading only Do not allow a Background section Notes (sets) Make it compulsory for all set articles to contain a Notes section I don't see what's wrong with the system we use now. Makes the article nice and long. :D User:Samdo994/sig1 12:31, August 24, 2010 (UTC) -We've always been doing this. Why are we removing it?User:BobaFett2/sig2 12:35, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Allow a Notes section, but as an optional heading only NovaHawk 06:15, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Gladiatoring 06:28, August 24, 2010 (UTC) User:Captain Jag/sig 07:03, August 24, 2010 (UTC) --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 00:23, August 30, 2010 (UTC) Agent Charge: No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:36, September 3, 2010 (UTC) Do not allow a Notes section

Years formatting in infobox

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was use the comma Years: 2001, 2002 Years: 2001 2002 Years: 2001 2002 This is another thing which was only really ever informally discussed, and never formally voted on or added to the MoS- how should the years in the "Years:" fields in infoboxes be formatted? Alternatives are using the "*", using a <br/>/<br>, or using a comma ",". Examples on the side (just using template:user so the forum isn't put in any of the wrong cats). Use the Comma Takes up too much unecessary space otherwise NovaHawk 07:09, September 12, 2010 (UTC) Gladiatoring 07:37, September 12, 2010 (UTC) User:Samdo994/sig1 11:42, September 12, 2010 (UTC) #User:BobaFett2/sig2 23:39, September 26, 2010 (UTC) User:SKP4472/sig 16:21, September 27, 2010 (UTC) Use the * Use the line break (<br><br/>) In my opinion, I think its better. -Mariofighter3: Open your Heart! 00:33, September 27, 2010 (UTC) Looks cleanUser:BobaFett2/sig2 00:34, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was use the sortable table Inventories Since we obviously agreed to have set inventories as a new namespace (see Forum:Set Reviews on Brickipedia), we need to have a Manual of Style for that too. I suggest to have it formatted like this: Part:161384 {{Colourbox|Blue}} {{Colourbox|Red}} (2x) Part:168295 {{Colourbox|Yellow}} {{Colourbox|Blue}} (1x) Part:190435 {{Colourbox|Green}} (12x) ect. I could imagine to have it put into a table too, with the columns "Design ID", "Color" and "Amount". Additionally to this proposal, we need to think if Inventories can be labelled "FA / GA / CA", or just leave them as they are, without any ratings. User:Samdo994/sig1 16:05, July 28, 2010 (UTC) I have met difficulties regading the Color boxes, so I had to display them like this. User:Samdo994/sig1 16:10, July 28, 2010 (UTC) I think we should have a nicer way of displaying these.. since it'll be a pretty dull page just one long list.. maybe a wikitable with columns for Image, Colour (colourbox), Part name/id thing and quantity, but maybe rearranged.. and have that lot at 50% of the page so we can do two lots? I cant be bothered to make an example at this point, because I'm baking.. I might make one if no one else gets what I'm saying.. --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 17:33, July 28, 2010 (UTC) Lcawte: Like on this page? User:Captain Jag/sig1 19:18, July 28, 2010 (UTC) On the topic of colorboxes, they automatically align to the left (it was needed like that for the part infobox I think), for example, the colorbox code that appears at the beginning of the line is placed just after here . Also, starting something with a star * or indent : and probably a number # will mess up the whole page (mainly the sidebar- I don't know why- I just found that out). NovaHawk 23:46, July 28, 2010 (UTC) Just so you know, this will require Semantic MediaWiki to be enabled (specifically for the tabs). Don't worry about that, it will also have a number of other benefits, such as the ability to edit a page via form. User:Ajraddatz/sig 23:57, July 28, 2010 (UTC) That isnt a benefit for our existing pages :| Also, its not needed for the tabs, learn to use javascript fr00b. --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 09:41, August 4, 2010 (UTC) How about this version: Image Design ID Color Quantity Notes Part:161384 Red 3 Part:168295 Lightblue 6 One extra Part:190435 Green 12 User:Samdo994/sig1 14:12, July 30, 2010 (UTC) Hmm, we'd need to have all the images at the same height, otherwise it looks ugly :P User:Ajraddatz/sig 14:15, July 30, 2010 (UTC) Yeah lose the pictures and the notes. It looks too complicated. Just have it like before. GG 360 13:17, August 4, 2010 (UTC) I like it.User:BobaFett2/sig2 13:16, August 4, 2010 (UTC) I like the table. Kingcjc 15:44, August 4, 2010 (UTC) I like it too, although I agree that the height will need to be consistent. maybe make some sort of template, such as "imageh", where you put in just the name of the image like with the infoboxes and the rest is done automatically? (code: [[File:{{{1}}}|x40px]]. For those who don't know, the "x px" fixes the height of the image). Also with the images, won't we have to make sure only one image is used per design ID? Eg if we have two different images of the one part, we'd have to make sure only one of them are used for inventories. Also, what about making the Design ID, Color and Quantity columns sortable (shown below)?NovaHawk 00:54, August 5, 2010 (UTC) class="unsortable"!Image Design ID Color Quantity class="unsortable"!Notes Part:161384 Red 3 Part:168295 Lightblue 6 One extra Part:190435 Green 12 The image and note fields, whilst nice, don't seem that feasible to me. Notes on items (such as pieces being unique, or uniquely coloured, or newly-introduced, etc), don't crop up that much, so you're really only looking at one or two notes per set, and having a catch-all section in a paragraph at the end of the table would cover that. Images are a nice addition but the vast majority of pieces don't have the relevant image here, so it's possibly something to add in the future. For a wikitabled inventory, with sortable fields, there's Inventory:6833 Beacon Tracer, which I worked up earlier. The colour, description, part code and quantity fields can be sorted, and it's all deceptively simple to do. It's also very easy to add another field to it if the images become available, but look at it - the overwhelming majority of the pieces listed don't have pages here, let alone images, and none of those red-bricked pages are unique to the set as I made sure to create the page for its only unique piece. Sonny Burnett Talk 01:23, August 5, 2010 (UTC) I like the sortable table, I forgot how to cpde that... :P The planned template should have an other name, since it#s the height of the inventories, and not in general (maybe "Inventoryimage" or "InvImg" or "InvImgH"). Oh, and I think the Quantity section is a bit large for that small numbers, I think "Qty" (as peeron has) may be okay too. User:Samdo994/sig1 09:32, August 5, 2010 (UTC) I don't like the template at all. It just looks like it was directly taken from Peeron. Aren't we supposed to have some liberty here? Just stick with the old one in previous versions. You may like it but I think if we are going to have this it would take a lot longer to lay out and copy and paste the template, pieces could get taken out, it would look like a mess. At least the old version tells you everything oyu need to know. GG 360 13:24, August 5, 2010 (UTC) It's not out fault that Peeron uses one too and it looks like theirs. :P But listing them as usual causes them to look like a list, rather that giving more detailed information via a table. It looks more tidy. User:Samdo994/sig1 18:00, August 5, 2010 (UTC) Per Samdo. Not having them in a table looks bad, and it's hard to find parts you may be looking for. Also InvImg sounds ok to me, as does changing to Quantity to Qty. NovaHawk 23:28, August 5, 2010 (UTC) Voting Use a list Use a non-sortable table Use a sortable table NovaHawk 01:45, September 29, 2010 (UTC) User:Samdo994/sig1 11:48, October 7, 2010 (UTC) User:BobaFett2/sig2 00:02, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 16:39, October 8, 2010 (UTC) Comments