FANDOM

 
34,668 Pages

This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums
Forums: Index
Administration Archive
Brickipedia policy

This page is for proposing new site-wide policies and subsequent discussions. Before making a proposal, please take a look at the existing policies first (Category:Brickipedia policy). Suggestions for additions to the Manual of Style should be made here.

New proposals

Image policy

At Forum:File Names it was proposed to make more descriptive names for uploaded images mandatory. In addition to this, we should also codify the other decisions we made about images. (Forum:Confidential Images etc.)

The following points should be discussed
  • When new images are uploaded they should be given unambigious, descriptive names, i.e. (Set No.)-(Photo for this set number) or (set no. - name of the set) etc.
  • New images should be put in an appropriate category for easier organization. (Propose a category scheme for this in the comments section)
  • It is forbidden to upload any images that are labelled as "confidential".

Comments

  • I like this policy, and I agree, all new images should be in the new format, then the patrollers and admins can work thier way through them. I dont think any of the existing bot frameworks I have avalible are smart enough to do this task, although a bot coded in PHP, may be able to do so. I'll keep my eyes open for something. --Lcawte 09:12, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • Just checked, its possible but it takes alot of manual work. I would have to find image pairs, aka Origanal and new image name... a pain. --Lcawte 10:23, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
      • Ajr had the two bots start changing set images from <Theme> to <Theme Images>... So should we go with that? --Lcawte 11:00, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
        • It's a good idea. Construction Worker Do you need help? 11:19, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
          • I totally support this idea, though not sure what we could do. I just upload them as ex. 10198-1.jpg. I think that would be best, so that confusion doesn't arouse. -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON!Maverick 13:32, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes! It sounds great!--Agent Chase: Agents-Logo:Agents in Action! 16:53, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
              • It all sounds good to me. We should probably decide officially on whether the images that the Toy Fair images are allowed, even though the box art has the confidential logo behind it. Unofficially, we've allowed the Toy Fair images (because it's a public event, so it's hardly "confidential" anymore, and the model's right in front of the boxes anyway. And with the files names, set number-photo number sounds good to me, the name could be too long. NightblazeSaber 01:55, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

{undent} I was thinking, maybe we should go with File:<setnumber>-<example:1>-boxart.jpg or whatever, for the sets that have other sets using the same number? --Lcawte 15:28, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

I like this suggestion too, but what about uploading images with a box in the background, that carries that watermark? Like various pictures of Toy Fairs, where the Boxes are labelled with a watermark. Samdo994 talk Contribs 26,533 edits 15:39, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
In addition to the new image categories, we could also have all of the file names have, say, <set number>-<set name>.png? In the case of parts <part number> <part name>.png? I think that we should also /try/ to have all of the images in .png format, it just makes it easier and there are less compatability issues! Ajraddatz Talk 15:46, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
This was something I was going so start working on, as PNG's do tend to keep their quality better. But PNG shouldnt be one huge rush, and should probally done via a editing program... --Lcawte 20:13, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Having <set number>-<set name>.png would make them a lot longer. Not sure whether this is a problem or not. But should it be the whole name? Jag 18:59, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't do.. --Lcawte 09:50, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Brickipedia's primary subject is the documentation of LEGO's official sets and themes as well as related information about history, building styles, the company itself or related events. Thus, unoffial sets, MOCs, custom minifigures or produts from other LEGO-compatible toy manufacturers don't belong here. They have their place at the LEGO Custom Wiki.

  • Maybe add something about not having MLN pages if this is voted through too? NightblazeSaber 08:12, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
    • I would like to suggest (write place here?) that all vehicles/things that appear in one set and have no real notability otherwise (e.g. not in video games) should be added to its own little part of the set article. Kingcjc 15:39, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Subjects that warrant a new separate article

  • Every official LEGO set and possible rereleases under different numbers
  • Every official physical minifigure
  • Every official LEGO theme
  • Every official LEGO element
  • Recurring vehicles and items that appear in more than one set (not counting reissues of the same set)

Subjects that do not warrant a new separate article

  • Vehicles and items that appear in just one set (if they are not single LEGO elements)
  • Videogame-only characters or minifigures that are not notable (has to be specified)
  • Every unofficial set (MOCs) or custom minifigures as well as other fan-made subjects
  • Everything fan-made, unofficial, not made by LEGO


Comments? --LegOtaku (talk • contr) 10:44, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry- I only just found this- looks good to me. The only thing I'm worried about is the videogame-only minfiigures with notability- how are we going to choose whether it's notable or not? Deletion requests? NightblazeSaber 04:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • By videogame minifigures, do you mean the ones in the recent games (star wars, idny, batman) that are playable or contribute a lot to the story (ie appears in lots of cutscreens or just unplayable) deserve an article, but not ones that appear in the background of a cutscene for 2 seconds? Kingcjc 21:04, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, something like that. Maybe we should put up a vote in order to specify this in greater detail. --LegOtaku (talk • contr) 09:11, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
      • I dont suppose we could point people to wikis to do with the stuff thats not allowed here, like MOC's can go to Custom Lego Wiki.. Then if we were to ignore MLN pages, we could point them over there as well, --Lcawte 09:05, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
We are currently directing all of the MLN pages to MLN Wiki, except for the basics like My LEGO Network. We should have an article on MoCs here as well, which contains a link to the customs wiki. Ajraddatz Talk 15:42, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Additions to existing policies

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to use minifigure's name from official LEGO sites where it doesn't directly contradict the theme's name for the character, and to review any "borderline" cases

Naming policy

The following is a proposal for an addition to Brickipedia:Naming conventions.
  • I noticed yesterday that some Harry Potter pages were moved (eg "Professor Lupin" to Remus Lupin, etc), and was wondering if we should establish a naming policy, especially for themed minifigures so we know what names articles should be under. Four options I've come up with are to:
  1. Give the minfiigure's full name from the theme it was from, disregarding LEGO's name. This may seem ok, but could get a bit technical, and then there's the theme's timeline to consider. For example, Leia from Star Wars- if this policy was to go ahead, should we name her page Leia Amidala Skywalker, Leia Organa, Leia Organa Solo or Leia Solo?
  2. Give the minifigure's name from official LEGO sites such as shop.lego.com, where it doesn't directly contradict the theme's name for the character, in which case give it the theme's name. Examples where LEGO have got the name wrong are naming R2-Q5 R2-D5 in the 6211 Imperial Star Destroyer (although this was corrected in the 10188 Death Star) and naming Shadow Stormtrooper minifigures Shadowtroopers (which they clearly are not). If this was to go ahead, pages like "Remus Lupin" and "Crix Madine" would go to "Professor Lupin" and "General Madine", as they are stated by LEGO.
  3. Give LEGO's name, even if it is wrong. So Shadow Stormtrooper minifigures would be under a Shadowtrooper page, etc.
  4. Go through these borderline pages case by case

Another problem I've come across is the specific article of Galen Marek. He was listed by LEGO as "Vader's Apprentice", but the set was released before TFU came out, so it's likely that LEGO didn't know his name, which means we wouldn't know if they would have listed him as Galen Marek if the set came out after TFU. Just wondering what should be done here (which may imply that case by case would be a good option). Anyway, just wondering what everyone else thinks about this and if there are any other options out there NightblazeSaber 05:22, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

  • Just a small point here , Star Wars sets are sent for approval by Lego. It is highly unlikely that the Lego Group did not have the characters names. I think you should use the names Lego have given the characters and note the other names or real names if you like on the particular pages. Ohh and regarding getting the RD-Q5 name wrong , this was corrected on the second production run of set 6211 Imperial Star Destroyer. Gladiatoring 01:20, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • I kind of like 2, but 4 would also work.

    Captain Rex

    04:52, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
    • I would have to agree- I'm not a big fan of 1 or 3 NightblazeSaber 00:29, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
  • Any other comments, suggestions, votes, etc? NightblazeSaber 03:25, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
      • Uuuum, I don't...

        Captain Rex

        05:21, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
  • I dont really see the pages them selves as much of a problem, Image naming is a bit outta hand, if we put an image naming policy in place, I or my bot wouldnt mind doing it, I'll probally end up doing it... --User-Lcawte-Sigbrick2Lcawte 16:30, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  • If there are no other comments/votes by tomorrow, option 2 will go through as the approved naming policy, with option 4 being able to be used in particular cases. NightblazeSaber 22:26, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Since we are a LEGO wiki, we should use the official LEGO names. After all, these names are just designations for the respective minifigures and not the characters. --LegOtaku (talk • contr) 06:04, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
2/4 Kingcjc 16:55, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
It's looking like the current votes are at:
  • Option #1: 0
  • Option #2: 3
  • Option #3: 2
  • Option #4: 3
Are there any more comments/votes or should voting be closed soon? NightblazeSaber 00:07, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yep. Definitely not 1. I don't like 3 either. My fave is 2. GG 360Gamegear 12:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Final vote count:

Option #1: 0
Option #2: 4
Option #3: 2
Option #4: 3


Past proposals

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

Suggestions for "What Brickipedia is not"

Brickipedia is not another set database

Articles describing sets should contain more than just numbers about piece count or release year and need more detailed descriptions of a set's content and the included functions. Articles about themes should also be more than mere lists of its respective sets or minifigures.

  • People should know what they are buying, such as features and descriptions! I do agree with this! -Nerfblasterpro 22:47, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Brickipedia is not a collection of LEGO ads

Citing LEGO's official descriptions for the sake of completeness is okay, but the articles should also contain a more neutral description as well as background information.

  • Definetely true! This is a Lego Encyclopedia! -Nerfblasterpro 22:47, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Brickipedia is not Wookieepedia, Harry Potter Wiki etc.

If you are writing an article about a character minifigure or other things that appeared in movies, keep in mind that all of this should be limited to facts that are connected to the actual sets. The fact that Owen Lars is the uncle of Luke Skywalker may be relevant to this wiki. However, the fact that he was born by Aika Lars on the Core World Ator is not.

  • I must say that, though I do agree, people should know what their buying, out of minifigures' sakes. So that each minifigure should have a descriptive, yet not complicated, background. That's what I'm trying to do on the Star Wars characters. -Nerfblasterpro 22:47, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Your user page is not your primary contribution to this wiki

Your user page and any associated sub pages are meant to give some information about yourself, and to help organize your contributions to Brickipedia. For example, you may wish to include a list of the LEGO sets you own, list some articles you worked on that you're proud of, or mention the articles and projects you intend to work on. You might also want to give personal information like your user name on LEGO communities, your favorite LEGO themes, what languages you speak, or a link to your personal page on another site.

Your user page should not be thought of as a personal homepage. In particular, toying around with unrelated stuff, or putting up a "collection" of dozens of userboxes or images, is not particularly helpful to Brickipedia. Your user page should help you contribute to writing and editing articles for this project—it is not a substitute for improving the articles on this wiki.

Vote

Make the above text part of Brickipedia's policy?

Support
Oppose
Comments

On point one, It can be a little hard to add information other than the content's ect of small supplementary sets such as the hundreds released in System i Leg Accessories, where these sets only contained a few pieces of one or two types.Gladiatoring 13:02, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

True, but even just having a sentence such as "The <set name> was a <set theme> themed set released in <year>. It contained <piece count> pieces." is better than just having an infobox and nothing else, or just Name: <set name>, Pieces: <piece count>, etc which some articles have had in the past NightblazeSaber 23:01, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree in all points, but what can we do against point four? We can hardly warn somebody for editing his userpage too often... Samdo994 talk Contribs 26,533 edits19:12, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
    • True, but we need to have something in place to stop users creating millions of subpages, and if userpage editing does get out of hand, at least we'll have a policy to refer to if we do need to give a warning NightblazeSaber 23:01, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.