Difference between revisions of "Brickipedia:Forum"

Revision as of 21:36, 30 May 2015

Welcome to Brickipedia's forum. This is the place to propose and discuss any amendments to the Manual of Style or suggest new policies. To make a new proposal, please make a new section at the bottom of the page. Please see the archives for past discussions - 2014, 2015.

For recent updates to the site and any policy changes, please see Brickipedia:Site updates.

Also, don't forget to check Forum:Index for a number of unresolved forums.

Colours

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! <3}

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)

Vote

Use only official names in articles

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! <3}

Allow unofficial names in articles (but still link to official names)

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)
ToaMeiko (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

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)
  - But why can't we do both. Depending on whoever writes it or whatever flows better. If you are describing the part, you want to use official more likely, otherwise, you may want to use unofficial. CJC95 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    - Because readers may be confused if one page says cool yellow, one says lemon, one says buttercup, one says pale yellow ect.Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Review team

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! <3}

Support as nominator. Soupperson1 ^Jeepers!
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! <3}

Notes

Since we have this years DTCs: http://en.brickimedia.org/wiki/Brickipedia_News:2015_Gift_with_Purchases_and_DTCs_revealed , 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)

People pages, part 2

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

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! <3}
- 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)

- - Why did everyone sign up off the QCG then :P But people won't know what isn't news and what is. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

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? Brikkyy Talk 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! <3}
  - 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)
    - lol BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:01, 22 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)

Vote

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

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! <3}

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)

CJC95 (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep old system

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! <3}

Comments

People Pages: the people page section to end all people page sections

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

Section 1: Who to have articles on

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

Certified Master Builders

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

Support

NovaHawk 06:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
--LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a list (but not individual pages)
Oppose

I don't think they're involved enough in the LEGO group Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}
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)

Comments

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)
- Yeah Professionals, sorry, I think I was editing a LEGO Movie article while I was writing this NovaHawk 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  - Ah okay. I made a LEGO Certified Professional page. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:13, 24 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

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

Support
Have a list (but not individual pages)

NovaHawk 23:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Berrybrick (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
--LK901 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

We don't need a page on Meiko. CJC95 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

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)

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 http://lan.lego.com 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)

Well, knowing this, I'd definitely revoke my vote, not sure about everyone else (or if they already knew that when they were voting) NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Writers/Illustrators

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

Support

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)

Per my comment --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Have a list (but not individual pages)
Oppose
Have pages for those who write original, throw all others on a list

CJC95 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

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

For people who write songs for LEGO productions.

Support

NovaHawk 12:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
ToaMeiko (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Have a list (but not individual pages)
Oppose
Comments

Singers/Musicians

For people who perform songs for LEGO productions.

Support

NovaHawk 12:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
ToaMeiko (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
CJC95 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Have a list (but not individual pages)
Oppose
Comments

LEGO Community Team

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.

Support

ToaMeiko (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
NovaHawk 23:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Berrybrick (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Have a list (but not individual pages)
Oppose
Comments

Neutral don't really see a need for them, would prefer a list, but not fully against having articles Brikkyy Talk 21:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
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?

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

Ordering of items in {{ListOfWorks}}

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)

Looking for some technical help...

We're getting hit with a new breed of spambot- instead of making pages, they're editing their own social profile. Problem with this is deleting a social profile userpage doesn't really delete it, you can still see it even after it's been redlinked- take User:AileenV60wanzxi for example. Any ideas how to solve this? (@admins- if you could check suspicious bluelinked names in the user creation log and block them if they're spambots, that'd be great) NovaHawk 23:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is essentially related to the concept of social profiles; the original developers of the social tools thought of social profiles more like traditional user profiles (on a forum, for example) instead of traditional wiki pages, and as a result of this, social profiles are treated differently, and thus they're not world-editable the way this page (or most other pages) are.
There's no definitive "right" answer on how to solve the issue, but we can definitely mitigate it:

Setting effective thresholds. Instead of allowing all users to edit their social profile right away, we could require them to make N edits to the wiki('s content pages) or to have X friends or have made Y comments, etc.
For cleaning up the damage which has already been done, a group (probably the sysop group) should be given the editothersprofiles user right, which allows them to access Special:EditProfile. This special page is essentially like Special:UpdateProfile, but it allows to edit an arbitrary user's social profile instead of your own. There might be some privacy constraints to this, since this tool allows to view users' e-mail addresses.

tl,dr: Some anti-spam measures are already available, but policy discussion/community consensus is likely needed on what to enable. Suggestions for new anti-spam measure are always more than welcome. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

- To 1 I'm gonna enable this now with a very lot edit threshold (I'll say 5 edits) just to stop any more spambots in the next short while. If we want a different value, go for it, I'll just do this for the mo. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
  - I can't edit my profile at the moment. I think I have made over five edits. :P Berrybrick (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I somehow missed this discussion, thanks for the responses :) I've set up a vote below NovaHawk 22:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Question: So, surely we need to give someone the permission to delete profiles to stop any profile abuse? In that, surely there is nothing to stop me writing in my profile various obscenities or fanfics involving Berry and Nova. CJC95 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Since we actually have had admins who have fished for real names and emails or used analytic tools to track people down (well, I'm thinking of one in particular) I'm kind of uncomfortable with this, but probably not more so than your fanfics.... Berrybrick (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Then give it to functionary, since we already have the power to track people down... (my point being is, if anyone can write stuff in there and no one can currently remove it) CJC95 (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  - I see your point. Functionary would work for me, but I still think that there should be some sort of threshold in that case, so that it isn't on three people to check and delete these things. Berrybrick (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    - Well, clearly the edit threshold will be in place, so spam should go down, and so only when someone reports something really bad would any be needed to be deleted. This shouldn't be something that is needed to be used daily or weekly. CJC95 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Question: If the right to edit other users profiles allows the user group to see email addresses, can other users' email addresses be changed through the edit profile menu? Looking at this as a possible solution to users being locked out of their accounts (github:306) and who don't have an associated email address to send a password recovery email to. --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, although email addresses changed this way will be marked as unconfirmed. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  - But even as unconfirmed, are they able to receive password resets? --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Vote

Set edit threshold

~~# Seems the best way to deal with it- it would be very unlikely that spambots would make five edits before they were blocked NovaHawk 22:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)~~

UltrasonicNXT (talk)
Berrybrick (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
NBP3.0 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Soupperson1 ^Jeepers!
I guess this would be best. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Ajraddatz (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Give extra permissions to admins to delete profiles

Note- this does mean that administrators would potentially have the ability to see anyone's email address if they abused this right.

Do both

Because 5 edits is too high, and any lower will result in spambots being able to create SP pages. --LK901 21:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
We could lower the 5 if you like UltrasonicNXT (talk)
3, then? --LK901 21:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
How is 3 better than 5? :P Berrybrick (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Some intense negotiations going on above me. -NBP3.0 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how doing both makes it better if you think 5 is too high? NovaHawk 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe it was a mistake.. CJC95 (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
is. I'm not moving it to the above section, because other people have commented. --LK901 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Not giving admins this right is counterintuitive. It means that a spambot could post their spam, provided they'd somehow find a way past the edit count barrier (spambot authors are annoyingly clever people, as history has — unfortunately — shown), and we wouldn't have an easy way to remove it. Sure, we have a dedicated group for people with God-like access to the wikis, but really, sysadmins shouldn't be the ones to clean up ordinary spam or whatnot.
Furthermore, ignoring spambots, consider the case of a disgruntled user (while rare, it's nevertheless a theoretical possibility): someone decides to post offensive things, or maybe even private info, etc. about another user or users of Brickipedia on their profile. An admin should be able to remove this kind of information without sysadmin intervention.
Finally: if you can't trust your admins with a trivial thing such as an e-mail address, then I'd say you have a lot bigger problems than just this particular case. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
^ Now you mention it, I don't see why it would be a problem doing this. And having the ability to remove any non-spambot vandalism from the socialprofile would be useful. NovaHawk 23:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't partically see a need for this, but if we must solve this problem 3 months later :P CJC95 (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Do neither

TV variants

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)

Vote

Add

Lots of work has gone into these, and I actually look at them from time to time... --LK901 20:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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! <3}
Per CJC. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
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)

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! <3}
Yeah they don't need their own gallery, they can just be put in other places in the article. UltrasonicNXT (talk)
Per above. -NBP3.0 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
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! <3}

Comments

Obviously this vote would apply to "movie variants" too (I forgot about those) NovaHawk 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

More TV stuff

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

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

Sometimes I see italics, eg The Corridor of Elders, other times I see visible quotation marks "The Corridor of Elders".

Use italics

Other sites seem to use this and it stands out more. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Use quotation marks

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)
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)
Per BFN. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Per BFN. Its like how song titles are in quotations, but albums in italics. CJC95 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Using proper English makes the most sense to me. Berrybrick (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

NovaHawk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

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

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?

Alphabetically
Chronologically

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

Indented appearances

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:

Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu
- Season 4
  - "Spellbound"
  - "The Corridor of Elders"

Have indented appearances (TV series and episodes only)
Have indented appearances (TV series, season and episodes)

I have to say that this looks the clearest and most organized. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Per BfN. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I could go with either this or the above option. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not have indented appearances
Comments

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"

Have

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)

- We'd still have a long page for the series. The season pages would just be summaries.Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Don't have

They all fit on the one page and no one will edit the older season pages. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}
I wouldn't be writing it, so oppose to lessen unnecessary workload. -NBP3.0 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
ToaMeiko (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

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

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"

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

Allow

NovaHawk 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course. BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
ToaMeiko (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't allow
Comments

Appearances sections

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)

Were too behind on books to catch up there's over 500 unlicensed books. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

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

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

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! <3}
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

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! <3}
- *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)

- - :P Between City, Chima, Ninjago, and Friends there's nearly 1000 books. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}
Closing as done if there are no more responses in a day or two NovaHawk 03:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

LEGOLAND articles

LEGOLAND ride articles

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! <3}
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

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! <3}
@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)
- But there's official lyric sites (e.g. metro lyrics) Im sure we can do the same, Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}
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

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

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
LEGO.com 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

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

Description. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}
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)

Feature GBC.com and Ideas on the main page

Why not? Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Support

Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Neutral

I'd rather see the main page redesigned first, then look at it. NovaHawk 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe feature Ideas somewhere near the bottom, but it's not really necessary. In refreshed, it's already in the sitenav dropdown. As for Stories, that's being merged into Customs and thus is redundant. --ToaMeiko (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Per Meiko. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Changed stories to GBC.com Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}
Why? CJC95 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Rating forum

Can that be moved here? Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

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)
  - The rating forum isn't relevant now it's too dated for people to comment. We need to have a fresh vote here, so everyone can see. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}
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)

Rating tags

Aside from a flash while the page loads, they aren't showing up, and at least one other person mentioned this problem to me. I think they are being covered by the page/discussion/edit/history/more banner. Knight says that he can still see them on DeepSea. Berrybrick (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, definitely no problems in Deep Sea NovaHawk 23:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Temporary bug in Refreshed 3.0. It's being positioned in the top right corner like it always has, just it's behind another white element in Refreshed 3.0. Can be fixed by disabling the script that repositions it, someone putting it a patch to Refreshed 3.0 for the time being, or waiting until we upgrade to MediaWiki 1.25 and page status indicators are implemented. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Berrybrick (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Licensed Canon

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! <3}

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! <3}

Scooby-Doo

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! <3}

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! <3}

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! <3}

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! <3}

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! <3}

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)

Refrence photos

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

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)

If a gallery is too big we make a new page for it. Would that not help? Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

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)

Infobox Redesign

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! <3}

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! <3}

@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! <3}

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)

Inventory categorisation

There are no guidelines on how inventories should be categorised. I've seen some with very minimal categorisation, and then I've seen ones using many categories found on mainspace pages (like "Themename minifigures", "Figures introduced in xxxx", etc). Does anyone have any ideas on what guidelines we should set for inventory articles? --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Sticker sheets

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. Brikkyy Talk 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! <3}

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

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?

Should we have one?

Yes
No, but set a minimum threshold

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)
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)
If I'm understanding correctly, a threshold is a limit(?); I say yes. Codyn329 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
A threshold of 3 would be good. Or 5. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Brikkyy Talk 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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

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)

No

CJC95 (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Comments

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?

Yes

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)
I don't see why everyone would vote for everyone. CJC95 (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
Per Meiko and Ajr. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
--Approved By Bimple. 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No

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)
Berrybrick (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Codyn329 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Brikkyy Talk 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Per Nova Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Comments

Allow self-nominations?

Yes
No

NovaHawk 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Berrybrick (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Codyn329 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
Brikkyy Talk 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
ToaMeiko (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Easy oppose. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
--Approved By Bimple. 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Comments

Allow self-votes?

Yes
No

NovaHawk 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Berrybrick (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Codyn329 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Brikkyy Talk 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
ToaMeiko (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Another easy oppose. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
--Approved By Bimple. 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Comments

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

Straight vote

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

NovaHawk 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Berrybrick (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Codyn329 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I like this, but wouldn't be opposed to the queue idea Brikkyy Talk 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) (Additionally, the word "queue" is essentially a "q" with 4 silent letters after it :P)
Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Queue

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

I like this! Ajraddatz (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
^^ 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)
ToaMeiko (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
--Approved By Bimple. 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Poll-based system

See comments below

Comments

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

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

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

NovaHawk 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
Per Meiko CJC95 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Definitely option 1, per Meiko in extreme, rare cases. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Option 2
Option 3
Comments

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

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

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

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)
I guess, but there may be cases to not use it. CJC95 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
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)

Comments

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

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

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! <3}
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)
I'm going to agree with Soup here. LCF ^(talk!) 23:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Use a correct "in-universe" name

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)
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)
CJC95 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Unnamed unlicensed minifigures

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).

Support

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)
Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <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)

Oppose
Comments

Similar named unlicensed minifigures

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

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)
Didn't vote for this last year but no one (including me) bothered to put it in action? :P Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <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)
Comments

Mixels Wiki Template

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! <3}

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)

Distinguishing LBR from LCS

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 http://stores.lego.com/en-us/stores. 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. http://clickbrick.info/ http://clickbrick.info/shop/ 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)

Uploading files

Most of the time when I try and upload a file I can't as the "stream is exhausted", this has been happening for days now. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Does it give any more information? How large is the file you're trying to upload? --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you still encountering issues with file uploads? --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Deprecate emoticon proposals

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)

Removal of bot adminship

I've taken the liberty to go ahead and remove some bots' admin flags as they have been unused for extended periods of time. In Forum:Brickipedia: The reincarnation/User rights it was voted to remove rights from inactive users 2 months after their last contribution, and as these bots haven't done anything with their admin permissions in over two months, they may as well be removed. I've left their bot flag as they are still bot accounts, and when the time comes that they need admin permissions, they can be re-added through the appropriate processes. The affected bot accounts are:

--ToaMeiko (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 868: / Line 868: @@
 :Agreed, [[BP:EP]] isn't very productive. [[User:Edward Nigma|<font color="lime">LCF</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Edward Nigma|<font color="#6600FF">talk!</font>]])</sup> 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 :I gladly support this idea. [[User:Codyn329|Codyn329]] ([[User talk:Codyn329|talk]]) 21:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
+== Removal of bot adminship ==
+I've taken the liberty to go ahead and remove some bots' admin flags as they have been unused for extended periods of time. In [[Forum:Brickipedia: The reincarnation/User rights]] it was voted to remove rights from inactive users 2 months after their last contribution, and as these bots haven't done anything with their admin permissions in over two months, they may as well be removed. I've left their bot flag as they are still bot accounts, and when the time comes that they need admin permissions, they can be re-added through the appropriate processes. The affected bot accounts are:
+* [[User:LcawteBot]]
+* [[User:MeikoBot]]
+* [[User:NXTbot]]
+--[[User:ToaMeiko|ToaMeiko]] ([[User talk:ToaMeiko|talk]]) 21:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:21, 30 May 2015 (view source)

Revision as of 21:36, 30 May 2015 (view source)

Revision as of 21:36, 30 May 2015

Colours

Vote

Review team

Notes

People pages, part 2

News reporter rights

Vote

People Pages: the people page section to end all people page sections

Section 1: Who to have articles on

Certified Master Builders

Members of the LEGO Ambassador Program

Writers/Illustrators

Composers

Singers/Musicians

LEGO Community Team

Section 3: Anything else?

Ordering of items in {{ListOfWorks}}

Looking for some technical help...

Vote

Set edit threshold

Give extra permissions to admins to delete profiles

Do both

Do neither

TV variants

Vote

More TV stuff

How episodes should appear in text

Episode title links

Ordering of appearances

Indented appearances

Tags

Cameo

Mentioned only

Appears in flashback(s)

Appears as a ghost or a spirit

Season pages

Further minifigure things

A "Video game variants" subheading for "Gallery of variants"

Appearances sections

Remaining MoSs to sort out

Part articles

Inventory articles

Book articles

LEGOLAND articles

LEGOLAND ride articles

Company articles

Song articles

Video game articles

App articles

Online game articles

Clothes

Feature GBC.com and Ideas on the main page

Support

Neutral

Oppose

Comments

Rating forum

Rating tags

Licensed Canon

Disney Princess

Scooby-Doo

The Simpsons

General Comments

Refrence photos

Infobox Redesign

Inventory categorisation

Sticker sheets

BOTM rules/setup

Have an oppose section?

Allow supporting votes for more than one nominee?

Allow self-nominations?

Allow self-votes?

Style of vote

Change to minifigure naming conventions

Where to get names from

If more than one name has been given by LEGO

If the name used by LEGO contradicts "in-universe" names for licensed minifigures