Forum:Pages related to the fan community

Forums - Pages related to the fan community

This page is waiting to be archived by an administrator. Please do not edit the contents of this page. I think something that would be great for us to add, most-likely in its own namespace, but could still work in the mainspace, would be fan-related articles; articles on things like fan conventions (BrickFair, BrickCon), LEGO stores, LEGOLANDs, LEGO-hosted events (KidsFests), etc. It would basically be like how Wikivoyage articles are done. I think it may serve useful to some inquiring fans, so it would be beneficial to the fan community and us. --ToaMeiko (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2013 (EDT) My brother also suggested that things like different MOCing trends like "Vic Vipers" would be good things to include. --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2013 (EDT) Seems like a good idea to me; all except for MOCing trends. I don't really think that's necessary. (And what are Vic Vipers?) Jeyo (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2013 (EDT) I think MOCing trends would be good, especially in cases like what you just said, since you didn't know what Vic Vipers were, you'd be able to look them up on Bricki. :) http://www.brothers-brick.com/tag/vic-viper/ Other MOCing trends like Cube Dudes and stuff would also be ideal things to have information about. --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2013 (EDT) I think it'd be great to have a namespace for fan conventions, etc. But we already have pages on LEGO storres/LANDs, any official events :S As for MOC trends, personally I think that'd be more suitable as a namespace on the Customs wiki. And all this is said on the condition that none of this ever leaks into the mainspace of course, and it's made very clear on the unofficial pages that they are unofficial events or whatever. NovaHawk 19:36, 13 October 2013 (EDT) Per Meiko entirely. MOCing terminology, fan conventions, all of that; it's all LEGO-related, it is useful information, and it works in encyclopedia form. Also, Nova, I think that it works better on the en wiki; the Customs wiki isn't for people looking for information, but rather just MOCs. BrickfilmNut (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2013 (EDT) I think including at least the fan conventions is a very good idea and could lead to some unique insights (right now there really isn't an appropriate venue for sharing information about what makes each event unique). I don't know why this discussion seems to have died out, but I think it's a very good idea and should be put in place. I'd also love to see Brickipedia become a resource for links to photos and news coverage from past years of events (I'd be willing to contribute my own archives on this topic). This could also be a good venue for sharing information (such as game rules and seminar presentations) between events. Danny316p (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Note: As someone who has spent many hours on LEGOLAND articles, I can tell you we already have them. CJC95 (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2013 (EDT) I know, I've edited tons of them, but those are the kinds of things that would fall under this kind of category that the forum is suggesting. :) --ToaMeiko (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2013 (EDT) Official theme parks in the same namespace as unofficial MOCing techniques? Can't say I'm a fan of that personally :S NovaHawk 19:07, 15 October 2013 (EDT) No, I mean like the Wikivoyage-like informative pages, as in less encyclopedia, more info guide-like. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2013 (EDT) (goes and looks up Wikivoyage). Ah, ok. So you mean still keep the mainspace articles as is, but just having a another page which is more like a review of the theme park? And after looking at Wikivoyage, it looks to me like it'd be better to have something like this on a separate wiki entirely, but I'm not opposing it to be a namespace- the most obvious problem with having it on a separate wiki would be getting people editing there, another mainspace is more convenient. Maybe if it does grow big though we could consider another wiki down the track? Also, would video game walkthroughs be suited for this new namespace? NovaHawk 02:52, 16 October 2013 (EDT) Not another wiki, no. Maybe a "Guide" namespace for things about MOCing and about the parks. As for game walkthroughs, that'd probably be better main space, as in "LEGO Marvel Super Heroes/Walkthrough/Level 1" or whatever. --ToaMeiko (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2013 (EDT) Bumping NovaHawk 02:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Not too sure either way myself. MOCing trends are gonna come and go, and be quite opionated - I can't see them being very well suited to an encylopaedia. Same for video game walkthroughs, I'm sure they can stick to youtube or whatever... I guess they can't do any harm if they're well away from the mainspace in another namespace though UltrasonicNXT (talk) Support information on things like events and of the ilk. CJC95 (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Set up a vote below just to try and move things along NovaHawk 13:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Vote Events and conventions Allow in mainspace There's no reason not to. If an event has notability, it shouldn't have to be stuffed in another mainspace. As you can tell, all of our custom namespaces are basically a death warrant to content that's supposed to be in them, e.g. "Magazine" and "Review" namespaces. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Per Meiko CJC95 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC) I'm absolutely for this. In the interest of not letting this get out of hand, I'd recommend copying BZPower's rules for relevance. These rules aren't public to nonmembers, but they limit discussion in their Events/Conventions forum to: Any event LEGO is officially running (such as Kids Fest or a LEGO Store event) Any event LEGO is supporting (such as a fan convention) Any event LEGO is attending (such as San Diego Comic Con) This seems like good criteria to prevent every small LUG show from having a page. The only exception I'd make is for historical information - say, a page about a BrickFest event in a year before LEGO offered event support, or information about NWBrickCon in years when it was more of a show than a convention. Danny316p (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Another reason to use Brickimedia over another site, so why not? -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Per Meiko. Berrybrick (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) BrickfilmNut (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Allow in separate namespace Would definitely hate to see offical and non-official content to be mixed in together, but I wouldn't mind us seeing this kind of content on the wiki provided it's separate NovaHawk 13:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC) I agree with NovaFlare. It just wouldn't work in Mainspace. --LK901 21:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Oppose Comments MOCing trends Allow in mainspace Major trends are something that would be useful to refer to, although a clear notability rule seems like a must. There are too many tropes and subthemes that can be documented and people could try to add pages on "trends" that no one else participates in. Danny316p (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Styles of building, especially those you can see in official sets, should have articles (and some already do actually). --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC) I think it should go under the mainspace, so long as it's set up almost like a "Theme", with one main page called "Building Trends" or something, and then each page belonging to that category, with appropriate styling and perhaps even an infobox. BrickfilmNut (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC) How is Vic Viper for an example of one so far? --ToaMeiko (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Pretty good, except maybe there should be a template at the top or something to set it apart from other articles. Kind of like our non-physical minifigure one. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Allow in separate namespace Oppose Isn't this the kind of thing Books was set up for? Seems entirely opinion based too... I don't know, I just don't like the idea for this wiki personally. 13:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Would have supported this prior to Brickibooks, but if Brickibooks comes back at any point, it would be better-suited to their scope. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Anything but mainspace to be honest, wouldn't mind it in Customs or Brickibooks (if it ever returns) but not really what a "LEGO Encyclopedia" should be writing about. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC) I don't think it is really useful. Who is going to rad this stuff? Also, we will end up with piles of three sentence pages which no one reads, and no one edits.... --LK901 21:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) People who don't know about certain significant MOCing trends would read them. For example, way back when I first proposed this I said we could have pages for significant MOCing trends like Vic Vipers. The immediate next reply was "What are Vic Vipers?" If we had a page for them, they'd be able to find out. If you think that this MOCing trend isn't significant, you're wrong. Many LEGO set designers followed this trend at its peak and you'll see characteristics of Vic Vipers in several sets. What I've described just now is more than a 3 sentence page that wouldn't have anything to edit. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Comments LEGOLAND Wikivoyage Allow in mainspace Allow in separate namespace # Maybe but I don't have time to set this whole thing up yet. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Oppose LEGOLAND Parks already have (under-updated) pages that could hold this information. As the most over-the-top LEGOLAND groupie (perhaps ever), I'm all too aware that there's a lack of interest in this topic. Danny316p (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Per CJC, though I feel more strongly about it. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Nice job sensing my opposition before I posted it NBP - Per Danny really. Note the only two pages that have information are Miniland (Windsor) (which the events section is already out of date) and DUPLO Land (The whole future section stopped being "future" information about 1 and a half years ago). Other than that, we had a couple of people edit a couple of pages a little once, and that is it. There isn't enough demand for it to work. CJC95 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Per Danny --ToaMeiko (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Comments Neutral. Basically because I just can't see us ever getting good brickivoyage article made, we only just have the mainspace articles made, and that's mainly been done by only one person NovaHawk 13:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC) LUGs Allow in mainspace I don't expect us to have articles on every LUG, but if we make articles for notable LUGs, they may as well be in the mainspace. We should determine what our notability requirements should be however. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Allow in separate namespace Just an idea I had when typing this, I could see it working in the same namespace as events (oppose it going in the mainspace) NovaHawk 13:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Works for me, but definitely seperate. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Oppose As far as I'm aware, there is no notability factor we can have here. CJC95 (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Comments I don't think we need articles on LUGs actually. If we do make articles for LUGs, we'll have to have some sort of notability criteria, because we can't afford to keep pages up to date for every small nobody LUG. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC) What ToaMeiko said is absolutely right - there are many LUGs out there that are only a few people, most of which area also in another LUG. There's also an issue with LTCs (train clubs) - there are groups the phase in and out of existence when people feel like displaying under a particular banner. They can go for years having no meetings, no organization, and no online communication, but they claim to exist whenever a LUG wants to do a show. Danny316p (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC) This is a tricky one. Maybe have a single page with just a list of LUGS? -Cligra That'd be a huge list that would be impossible to keep up to date. It'd be better to just have a page explaining what a LUG is. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Bumping this forum up to give it some attention, how should we proceed from these results? It's been about 2 months and we should decide how to go about these. -NBP3.0 (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Pfft, doing stuff? That's not how we operate. -Cligra ^ So true. But, yeah close this. --LK901 20:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)