Forums - Categories
This page is waiting to be archived by an administrator. Please do not edit the contents of this page.

The following will be confusing as I haven't gone through and read it to make sure it makes sense. So bare with me:

Categories should be easy to navigate and ideally work well. I propose a revamp of some categories, based around this sort of category tree below:

  • Browse
    • Brickipedia
      • Maintenance
      • Users
      • Forums
      • Templates
      • and so on
    • LEGO
      • Sets
        • Set by reference number
        • Sets by type
        • Sets by theme
      • Minifigures
        • Minifigures by theme
        • Minifigures by year
        • Viedo game only minifigures
      • Themes
      • Parts
    • Images
      • Images by theme
      • The other image categories we have, such as user files
    • Years
    • Upcoming

Now, obviously this diagram is not complete, still a WIP, and makes no sense to most of you, so I'll bullet point my thoughts:

  • Our categories are messy.
  • Categories shouldn't be messy.
  • I want to basicly start at the top and work through, eliminating and messing around with our categories.
  • Ensure our categories are consistent and aren't misused
  • Make it easier to find stuff.

So I propose the following:

Do not place sets straight into year and theme categories.

We currently put minifigures and stuff into "<theme> minifigures" and "Minifigures introduced in <year>" - Why not do the same for sets? It makes the categories tidier, separates sets from other general articles such as sub-themes or what not, and also allows more in depth. - E.g., 2011 books, Star Wars merchandise. This would also help separate actual sets from other crap.

Rename some categories

Mainly, turn "Parts introduced in <year>" to "<year> parts". It makes it easier to use/add and goes along with my proposal to change sets to "<year> sets" and "<theme> sets".

Okay, I'll give an example.

To Ninjago! Well, Category:Ninjago. Go look at it. It is a mix of sets, lists, articles, merchandise, clothes and books. Surely, it would be better to seperate this up to aide navigation. Creating categories Ninjago sets, Ninjago books, Ninjago merchandise and Ninjago clothing (well, those last two could be merged) would allow the main category to just be the main lists (and some online games). Also, separate categories for books by theme would unclutter the book category.

Basicly, this would be a lot of work and would probably take up to the next Christmas to be done. But, it would really sort this place out, because since 2007, our category policy hasn't really existed. Any good database needs a good organization on categories.

(And if you haven't read this, at least just comment agreeing, because I only wrote this all out because I figured doing this without informing would be too big a change to do, but if no one responds, I'll go ahead)

~ CJC 17:25, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

I actually understood everything you said- you must be doing something wrong. :P Anyhow, support; I've been thinking along similar lines for a while now. -Cligra Join the redlink war!

  • Lol, I figured no one would as I was just sort of writing ideas as they came to me :P ~ CJC 17:51, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • I support. I've been waiting to do something like this myself. --Czech 21:34, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
Parts introduced in <year> --> <year> parts... do you also mean Minifigures introduced in <year> --> <year> minfigures? Jag 21:47, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Keep it consistent. ~ CJC 21:51, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks great, and, yeah, a lot of these ideas probably would be good to implement for larger themes like Ninjago. --BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:52, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't completely read all of this, but support for now, will read it better when I have more time. @"We currently put minifigures and stuff into "<theme> minifigures" and "Minifigures introduced in <year>" - Why not do the same for sets?" (We did, then Ajr randomly changed it one day :P Or maybe it wasn't Ajr, it was someone though) NightblazeSaber 22:11, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • I read this a few days ago, but if you want me to support, sure. Stormbringer Empire791 (talk) 22:16, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
    • Impossible for you to have read this a few days ago, I only created it a few hours ago :P ~ CJC 22:24, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I like the idea.

Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 22:47, December 23, 2012 (UTC) ~ CJC 12:53, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

  • Support: Hopefully this will make Brickipedia more tidier and easier to navigate through.

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Welcome to Click a Brick! 14:29, December 24, 2012 (UTC)


Is everyone fine with moving "Themes introduced in 2012" to "2012 themes"? The wording may imply that things like Star Wars should also be in it, is my slight worry. ~ CJC 13:40, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

Also, Category:Star Wars Images to Category:Star Wars images? I don't see the need to capitalize. ~ CJC 13:51, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

SupportI think this is a good idea, I remember once I wanted to see which Minifigs (Star Wars)'were introduced in one specific year cause some info on here was wrong and I wanted to confirm, but there was no such list, I had to look at individual figures separate, or had to go to sets and determine that way. Arranging by year will be good! It'll also help people determine how rare certain figures or sets are compared to other sets and figures so for people like me who buy and sell, can help me with pricing etc :)

The question about moving "Themes introduced in 2012" to "2012 themes" is fine with me! Can you explain what the second part of the question means though. What do you mean you'd be worried Star Wars would be included? Are we not going to include Star Wars sets and figures in this rearrangement process? Or do you mean you're afraid the Star Wars sets would be combined with other sets.. Cause in that case I agree with you there.. I think the "2012 themes" should also be arrange by the LEGO themes. Have all Star Wars then all Harry Potter, etc and not have one giant list with Star Wars, Harry Potter, AND Ninjago intermixed. I feel doing one list per year with every type of set intermixed would just be harder to navigate for people who are interested in only one theme, like me :) VadersTraders (talk) 03:36, December 25, 2012 (UTC)VadersTraders

I mean, people may consider that as Star Wars sets were released in 2012, it should be in 2012 themes as well, despite the fact it was introduced in 1999, so would only be in 1999 themes. ~ CJC 23:12, December 25, 2012 (UTC)
For that reason, I oppose'. It is a very easy mistake to make, and if I was a new user that just happened to see that category some day, I would probably make it too.--BrickfilmNut (talk) 23:17, December 25, 2012 (UTC)
Support decapitalising, oppose first part because it doesn't really make sense. Star Wars isn't a 1999 theme, it's still going today, it is a theme introduced in 1999 though. To me, the way that's worded would only be suitable for themes which only ran for one year. NightblazeSaber 00:52, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

@CJC, I'm still having a little trouble following you there. Are you talking about listing "Star Wars" as an entire theme under 1999 because the theme was introduced in 1999? I get that, if that's what you mean, but what I thought we were talking about was making a listing of themes per year but then listing the specific sets released per theme per year. Like these new sets that are coming out in 2013, why would we want to put them under 1999 themes, they're themes that were released in 2012.. So I don't know if I'm getting what you guys are saying.. Sorry :( VadersTraders (talk) 02:00, December 27, 2012 (UTC)VadersTraders

He's saying that we currently have Star Wars in the "Themes introduced in 1999" category, but was considering changing the categories' names from things like "Themes introduced in..." to "... themes". However, as Star Wars has continued into 2012, he was worried that such a change of categories could lead to some accidentally adding Star Wars, for example, to the category meant for themes introduced in 2012 because of the ambiguous name of "2012 themes". Does this help? -- BrickfilmNut Productions!


Okay, currently every part ends up in Category:Parts. Can we not split them into things such as Minifigure accessories or minifigures heads or something. ~ CJC 13:28, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Another naming issue

Okay, I didn't realize this until I'd done every year up until 2000 :P - 2000 sets is currently used for the number range 2000 - 2999. Now, personally, I think it makes more sense for the year to be 2000 sets and for all ranges to be moved. Here is why - 2000 sets (or 1000 sets, etc..) does not imply that it contains everything in the range. I'd suggest maybe Category:1000 - 1999 or Category:1000 set range. (or, we just leave it as it is know, with the range at 2000 sets and the year at 2000 (year) sets). ~ CJC 18:13, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Makes sense. However, I think the name should be slightly different, or else we might have another problem similar to the one you suggested above ("2012 themes" vs. "Themes introduced in 2012"); the item number category could be confused with a year category. As such, I think each category should have the word "year" or "set number" in it to distinguish them. -- BrickfilmNut Productions!
    • As I've already made set categories for every year (and moved pages to every one up until 2000, I don't want to stick year in them xD - I would be fine with shoehorning set number or reference or something somewhere into them categories though, as I haven't moved them yet :P ~ CJC 18:25, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Sort of off-topic...

  • Since we're doing the "Category:xxxx sets" instead of just "Category:xxxxx", is it possible for a bot to go to all the pages in the set category, go to the corresponding review pages, and create those pages with {{ReviewPage}}? It'd make the reviews space a lot more user friendly NightblazeSaber 00:16, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
    Probably could be done using PyWiki (which I no longer have installed). If they don't see it soon, give Ajr or NXT a bell. ~ CJC 00:39, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
    I don't have pywiki installed either anymore. I would say that I might be able to get to it, but would probably be best to ask someone else. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:03, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
    • Is knowledge of Python/whatever actually required to run PyWiki? If not, I'd be willing to do it (it's actual capability that's the problem :P). -Cligra Join the redlink war!
      • Basically- I'd be happy to run something, but I don't actually have any idea how to do it. :P -Cligra Join the redlink war!
        • No, not really. You need to have Python 2.7 (not 3.2, which is the easier to use version in my view) and follow instructions really. I used to use some tutorial on a blog at wikia. ~ CJC 17:41, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, if either of us could find a good tutorial, I'd be happy to try. :) -Cligra Join the redlink war!
            • ~ CJC 18:16, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
              • If it saves you guys the effort, I do already have a bot running pywiki... - nxt
                • Assuming that it makes sense for me to do this, can I confirm NBS that basically, you want all unmade review pages made? If I go to an unmade review page (Review:Wooden Duck) I see the ReviewPage template, me and Jag implemented that a little while back. - nxt

Automaticly adding them via infoboxes

Whatever we decide, as many of the categories should be declared by the infobox as possible. Rather than giving the page Category:2012 sets (or whatever), just feed 2012 as the year into the infobox, and the infobox can add the categories. This saves a lot of bot work if we ever change them, and should make it easier, simpler in new pages. - nxt

  • Although that would involve declaring type again (I know we started doing that for the semantic stuff, but since the system changed, it isn't needed atm). Merchandise use template:set, so the field in the template would be needed and I guess most people won't fill it in.) In short, I'm basicly saying it would be a nice idea, but I'm not sure it will work as easy as suggested (Plus, I've spent a long time moving everything and have almost finished, I just need to move all the merchandise to their categories :P ) ~ CJC 15:34, December 29, 2012 (UTC)