Forum:Customs and Reviews/Part 1

Forums - Customs and Reviews/Part 1

This page is waiting to be archived by an administrator. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Please see Forum:Possible move if you haven't already. I know I've been in favour of a move from the beginning, but this has been in the back of my mind for a while, basically ever since I heard Wikia was planning to release a forum extension (and sorry if this should just be an entry in the other forum, but I thought it was getting a bit long and this would make it much longer). What are we really going to gain from a move? One of the big reasons why I was pushing for a move was so we could have a forum, but I find we may be able to have one on Wikia after all. Here's a proposal on what we could do whilst staying on Wikia (please note- this hasn't been 100% thought out). We form some sort of "superwiki". We keep Bricki the same- as a wiki for articles only, but we somehow integrate our other partner wikis with it, ie the customs wiki and reviews wiki. For example, we could make a button on set articles labelled "reviews", and that takes you to the respective page on the reviews wiki. If we have separate wikis, we can have separate user rights on each wiki, with those more interested in reviews or customs keeping track of those areas, and at the same time, each wiki retains a clear focus. Some of those optional extensions can be enabled on some wikis but not others, basically have them set up to cater for the type of content on that wiki. If/when the forum extension comes out, we start a separate wiki just for the forum, but have it a part of this "superwiki" and don't enable the forum extension here. That way, this wiki stays focused on the information side, and also the RC here doesn't get clogged up by the millions of forum entries. I'm not sure how the user rights would work with this extension, but if it's only admins that can edit/delete posts, then we can give admin rights on the forum wiki and they'd basically just be forum moderators. Basically, while I do still have serious concerns about Wikia with them removing features and replacing them with other things, and judging by several comments made in the survey we're running, people are fed up with the amount of advertising they have to put up with on here (especially the anonymous readers/contributors), I'm not sure whether it's worth it for us to move. I am a bit worried if the move will work, how long it will take to finally get the site up and running, will we get the funding we need, and if the new wiki will be maintained- let's face it- there aren't a huge number of people on here who know what they're doing with servers and setting up Mediawiki and PHP stuff- do we really have the technical expertise to do this, and would it really be so bad to stay here? I'm not saying I'm completely in favour of staying here, but I'm not set on a move either anymore, basically at the moment I'm neutral. NightblazeSaber 01:10, October 25, 2011 (UTC) You do have some very good points. We would still have adverts on the new wiki, and we do get a lot of traffic from Wikia. The technical point is also a good one, wikia's lot are proffesionals, we really just do it as a hobby (sorry for any generalisations.) I can see our planned move as one of those things that sounds really good, but never really happens, much as we would love it to. - nxt As NXT said, you make some very good points. But I would still like to move, as Wikia barely functions on my computer, and has a habit of freezing it. (although Monobook is, so far not doing anything untoward) But, that is just my personal opinion, and so if we eventually decide it would be better for us to stay, I'll be perfectly happy too. -Cligra Join the redlink war! I am not a huge editor here, but many know who I am. I agree with the move, but hopefully you have not joined the AWA. They are back and they are trying to make a lot of wikis move. And I agree with Cligra, Wikia freezes 24/7 every time I am on. And you would have better support if you moved to an independent. The ANT Farm Wiki is currently making the process of moving, and others, they are trying to get out of here before the new updates swoop in. Evanf (Talk) Network? Agreed with your points. Are you suggesting something like this? - Kingcjc 10:00, October 25, 2011 (UTC) To expand, some sort of wiki network (BrickiNetwork?) which would consist of, say, our friend wikis (not LSW, but say Customs, Reviews, LU, MLN or whatever), and share a forum on a wiki like, say legoforum.wikia.com or wherever? - Kingcjc 13:29, October 25, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I guess something like that. However, it would need to be much more than just a link to other wikis on the main page or wherever- we already have that, and the Custom and Reviews wiki have basically no users. I think we need to somehow integrate them more closely with Bricki, but at the same time keep them separate (as I suggested for the reviews wiki, have a reviews button in the same sort of area as the "talk" button on set articles, I have no idea what to do for the customs wiki though). And just to clarify- the proposed "forum" wiki I was talking about was just for discussing rumours/future sets, set availability it certain countries, and all that kind of LEGO-related stuff. But some sort of central co-ordination forum would be good too. NightblazeSaber 23:59, October 25, 2011 (UTC) Also MLN I have no problem with, but weren't we at one point thinking of removing the LU Wiki from our "don't put info here, put it on the wiki that specialises in it" policy? NightblazeSaber 23:59, October 25, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, but no one here knows anything about LU so it got nowhere xD - Kingcjc 09:08, October 26, 2011 (UTC) I can add a reviews button next to the talk button easily (starts working on one). I'll get you an example quickly. :) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 17:01, October 26, 2011 (UTC) Right I've made it. It can be found here. An example of it in use on an article can be seen here. :) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 17:39, October 26, 2011 (UTC) Looks ok to me in the Wikia skin, I'll do a Monobook equivalent if this does go ahead NightblazeSaber 21:55, October 26, 2011 (UTC)z I like it, though it would be great if we could incorporate the rating template into it somehow... and maybe even the setheader. There's a lot going on at the top of the page as it is. ajr 22:02, October 26, 2011 (UTC) *shudder* NightblazeSaber 01:52, October 27, 2011 (UTC) I like the positioning (personnaly, I would've gone right next to the "talk", but yours works better), but i find it to bright and garish. Can we go something a bit more fitting? Example here. - nxt I'd be okay with that as long as its size was changed to that of the rating, it looks strange having one bigger. --Berrybrick (Talk) 20:21, November 8, 2011 (UTC) Great idea, but it can be realistically included on Brickipedia Per the topic, I think that we could reasonably start this idea but on Brickipedia itself. We can have different namespaces for customs and reviews, and those namespaces could have different skin backgrounds and even different navigation. In regards to the rc, it is possible to remove edits to namespaces from it, meaning that we could have seperate recent changes for the wiki, the reviews and the custom sections. I don't like the idea of having a group of five or so wikis, each with their own admins, different processes for deletion, etc - imo it would be best to have consistancy, and this would make consistancy and also help Brickipedia to grow. ajr 18:15, October 26, 2011 (UTC) btw, don't lay off us skin devs D: FB100Z • talk • contribs 22:00, October 26, 2011 (UTC) Sounds good... if we can do all that :D Jag 23:16, October 26, 2011 (UTC) Ok, well first of all I hated the idea but I've thought about it a lot, and I'm convinced. As long as: The main page is still primarily focussed on the wiki. Sure, have a bit of info on the others, but I really think our primary purpose should still be what it currently is. This doesn't mean we can't have like "sub-main pages", like a main page for the customs section and reviews section. Different skin backgrounds for customs and reviews namespaces sounds great, and would really help to distinguish where you are. If we do do this, I strongly think that this should happen, maybe use the current green skin on the reviews wiki, and a red skin to match with the current customs wiki. No idea how to actually do this though. Separate RC's really can be done. I know how to exclude one namespace (example), but I don't know how to do two :S Admins aren't expected to be on the lookout on all of these sub-wikis. Personally I have 0 interest in customs, and I know I won't be patrolling the RC of something I don't even remotely care about. There isn't any "bleed-through" between namespaces. Eg, no info about a custom Clone Trooper gets placed on the main wiki's page. Sure, a link in the navbar to a Custom:Clone Trooper page or whatever would be fine, but no actual page content or images get put in the page. Category structure- I don't think there should be any overlapping in categories. eg, Luke Skywalker and Custom:Darth Caedus shouldn't both be in Category:Star Wars Minifigures. There are a lot of people who have no interest in customs, a lot who only really care about customs, and a lot with an interest in both. But, I think they would all want to be able to easily distinguish what's official and what's not. Ratings- if there are going to be classes in the other namespaces, again I think they should be different, or at least be in different categories. For the reviews wiki, I would suggest just having "featured review" and all the rest (and those that need to be deleted) You say there shouldn't be different processes for deletion, but won't the customs and reviews namespaces have to have some sort of different policy? Eg, for the reviews wiki, reviews will have to comply with some sort of "minimum standard" and the customs might haev notability issues which wouldn't appear in the normal wiki. I think they're going to need their own individual MoSs, as their content will be very different. NightblazeSaber 01:51, October 27, 2011 (UTC) Brickipedia would be flooded with a bunch of bad articles if we allowed custom sets. --LEGOCityManiac11 10:11, November 4, 2011 (UTC) To answer your points, Main page can be focussed on the wiki, though separate "portal" pages for reviews and customs would be nice. The different skins for each namespaces is actually one of the easier parts of this, since it can be done pretty easily via css. Separate RCs can indeed be done, see this example of two namespaces being filtered. Admins aren't expected to lookout for these (though I'm sure many will be glad to, including me). I suppose we might get to the point of people requesting adminship specifically for using the tools in the customs/reviews areas. We can easily avoid blending, though we'll all need to make sure that we prevent it. Category structure can, and should be different. We'll have a supercategory for all customs and all reviews I guess, and then subcategories for various things. Ratings will be different (and tbh I don't think that we need as many levels, maybe just "good" and "featured" for reviews and customs) We could have separate AfS pages for customs and reviews I guess, and that makes sense. We will need to develop a MoS for reviews and customs. gtg, will fill in more later. Filled in more. I do think that sets should have a link to their review page, though, like SKP demonstrates above. ajr 02:52, October 27, 2011 (UTC) Sounds good (I'm guessing you're Ajr in disguise) NightblazeSaber 02:30, October 27, 2011 (UTC) But admins will still have admin power on all those subwikis, so if they see some vandalism, they can still revert it. And I think there should be different processes for deletion. The review wiki's "Project" namespace could be "Brickipedia Reviews"? And the "Project" namespace for custom be "Brickipedia Customs"? Jag 02:35, October 27, 2011 (UTC) ^When I read that after writing it, it sounded really strange to me too... :D Jag 02:36, October 27, 2011 (UTC) ...well, yea, it's the same wiki so of course the admins will still have access to those namespaces. ajr 02:52, October 27, 2011 (UTC) Thinking about it, maybe it would be better to have at least the admin noms all in one place- otherwise you might get surprised by a new admin who was nominated and voted through on customs... Jag 03:26, October 27, 2011 (UTC) That was the plan all along, it makes no sense to have three RfA processes. ajr 13:15, October 27, 2011 (UTC) Question- Would Wikia remove the old reviews/custom wikis for us? Jag 03:15, October 27, 2011 (UTC) I think they'd allow those wikis to turn into redirects to here, but I'm not sure. NightblazeSaber 03:38, October 27, 2011 (UTC) Yes, they will redirect those sites here, not that they're active anyways. ajr 13:15, October 27, 2011 (UTC) Getting the ball rolling So, how are we going to do this? I can request that review and customs namespaces be enabled, and move over the content from customs. The reviews are different, though, and I'd like to see a better system of reviews than the reviews wiki. Something easier to use, maybe using semantic mw. Anyways, please share ideas. ajr 00:18, November 4, 2011 (UTC) Customs merge sounds good to me- but- I really think we should decide if we're going to actually go through with this- only a few people have responded, with not all of them supporting the idea, and people are still talking about a move. Then, if it is decided to stay here and do this, I think we should get the background CSS done first. I've tinted the wiki backgrounds red for the cutsoms wiki (banner, tile), and we can just take the reviews wiki images for the reviews namespace. Also, after we take the customs wiki info, wouldn't we also need to request that the old wiki is redirected to here, and would we need to have Lcawte (the founder and only active admin) ok it somewhere? Don't really know what your problem with the reviews wiki review system is, but I'm open to hearing alternatives. NightblazeSaber 01:28, November 4, 2011 (UTC) Imma advertise the heck out of this to get more people involved. Also, as this is a major change, I think that a referendum involving all users/as many visitors as possible would be a good thing, see Brickipedia:Customs_and_Reviews_Referendum. ajr 01:37, November 4, 2011 (UTC) Can we vote yet? :P And what about the vote for the move? It'd be a bit weird if when voting finally opens for both of them, we decide on both expanding here and moving NightblazeSaber 01:40, November 4, 2011 (UTC) Move has died down, and tbh I just don't have time to revive it. I think that we should just trash that idea, for now anyways. We could start the vote right away, I guess, that would work. The concept of it is the main thing to be voting on. ajr 01:45, November 4, 2011 (UTC) AJR has offered us on Lego Universe Wiki to move to a blue host with you. I am wondering, does that mean being hosted on the same URL, or two separate? PatchM142 (talk) 10:36, 11/4/2011 As it is, we are thinking about staying due to Wikia accommodating our needs and them not closing this wiki after us. All of this will be on the same URL. If we and LUWiki move some day, LUWiki will be separate. ajr 13:32, November 4, 2011 (UTC) Heck, you are right. I have like, tons and tons of customs--NETGEAR sucks 00:51, November 5, 2011 (UTC) About customs articles- can we stipulate that a photo of the MOC must be uploaded? Otherwise it's just pure fanon/wishlists, and I don't think we need that here. NightblazeSaber 02:03, November 5, 2011 (UTC) Well, we really should make a new forum to organise the notability policy for customs... Jag 03:17, November 5, 2011 (UTC) About reviews, would it be possible to have multiple MoSs/styles or rate a review based on the content and how it's organized, because I'd think that we'd probably use Brickreview's style, but I'm not so fond of it and prefer Eurobricks style. So basically, I wouldn't want a review of mine to have a low rating even though it has all the necessary content and good organization, but doesn't comply with an MoS I don't like. You could probably say that it's the same as with articles here, but I view that as constiancy, whereas when I write a review, I don't want it to blend in with all the others and be shunned for not doing as such. --Berrybrick (Talk) 20:29, November 8, 2011 (UTC) A MoS for reviews? Perhaps provide a layout that could be used, but I don't see how a MoS would work. Also, rating reviews sounds peculiar. (As in, you are reviewing reviews). - - Lest we forget - CJC 18:16, November 9, 2011 (UTC) An MoS would be telling you exactly how to organize your review (i.e. Introduction section, then build section, the minifigure section, then value for $ section etc.), I'd want to do it the way I want to do it :p, so if the MoS isn't how I want it, I'd feel, er, restricted. --Berrybrick (Talk) 20:12, November 9, 2011 (UTC) Exactly. A review is something you write to show how you feel, not something that needs to follow a specific formula.. - - Lest we forget - CJC 20:58, November 9, 2011 (UTC) That's why I'd say that if reviews were to be rated, it should be on content, not an MoS. Maybe a suggestion on what to include, but not a whole MoS. --Berrybrick (Talk) 21:05, November 9, 2011 (UTC) I'd say we'd have "normal" and "featured" reviews, that's all. Jag 00:27, November 10, 2011 (UTC) I think that the ACG, Admins, or some other new group should be able to rate a review, maybe with a system like with ratins like bronze review, silver review, gold review, and have it based on content and organization. --Berrybrick (Talk) 00:34, November 10, 2011 (UTC) I think straight featured and non-featured would work well at first, and if we did get a lot of people doing reviews, then maybe we could expand the system a bit with the gold/silver/bronze. Just as long as it isn't as complex as the article rating system. NightblazeSaber 01:27, November 10, 2011 (UTC) About a MoS for reviews- I think we should have one even if it's just very basic. We have to have some policy so we can speedy delete bad-quality reviews. NightblazeSaber 01:29, November 10, 2011 (UTC) I'm fine with that, I just don't want something that I'll feel will restrict me. And could we have a section break for discussing an MoS, my computer is slow. --Berrybrick (Talk) 01:34, November 10, 2011 (UTC) I'll get to work with some ideas I have in the morning. --Berrybrick (Talk) 01:39, November 10, 2011 (UTC) Started drafting an MoS of sorts here, anyone feel free to move it to a forum if it's more appropriate. NightblazeSaber 08:46, November 10, 2011 (UTC) With the reviews- what will the reviews cover? Are we just allowing sets, or will there also be reviews on individual minifigures and themes as well? NightblazeSaber 03:27, November 11, 2011 (UTC) I'd say only minifigures if they are sold seperatley and themes/subthemes only if the reviewer owns all of the theme/subtheme's sets, otherwise it wouldn't really be complte. --Berrybrick (Talk) 14:14, November 11, 2011 (UTC) I honestly don't know where to put this, but I'm not a fan of the whole "custom" thing. The reviews idea, I find really cool, it sounds interesting to try that one out. --CollectableMinifig4Scientist 21:00, November 15, 2011 (UTC) Multiple Reviews Would we be able to have multiple reviews of the same set? --Berrybrick (Talk) 01:39, November 19, 2011 (UTC) Of course. We do need to decide how that's going to work... I personally think we should have subpages with the articles name, like Review:Elf/Berrybrick and Review:Elf/Captain Jag. We do need to decide what's going to be on the main page though - maybe Review:Elf could redirect to Elf? Or maybe it could have snippets of the reviews and links to the reviews? Jag 02:00, November 19, 2011 (UTC) Jag 02:00, November 19, 2011 (UTC) what about Review:Elf leading to a disambig. page where it couls have links to the oher reviews and mayvbe a small image of a star or something for featured reviews? PS: sorry about any spelling errors, this section is too long for my computer. --Berrybrick (Talk) 02:06, November 19, 2011 (UTC) Isn't that what Review:Elf is now? And I created a new section for this, hope it works. Oh, and get a Mac. Jag 02:11, November 19, 2011 (UTC) Pretty much, but I think it needs some tweaking, but it probably just needs links to actual reviews :P. --Berrybrick (Talk) 02:14, November 19, 2011 (UTC) (random place to put a new entry- took me ages to find where this was in the forum :D) How about on Review:Elf, having some sort of text, then listing the reviews by using Special:Prefixindex? Eg, {{Special:Prefixindex/Review:Elf/}} will produce: Elf/Captain Jag Elf/Klagoer Elf/Mr. Minifigure ? NightblazeSaber 03:16, November 19, 2011 (UTC) That looks like it will work, but I'd still like it if we could have a little image next to featured reviews, for convenience. --Berrybrick (Talk) 03:34, November 19, 2011 (UTC) Stories LEGO Stories Wiki? Jag 01:37, November 5, 2011 (UTC) To be merged here? Oppose- I just think that it's straying a bit too far from actual LEGO. Sure, if someone uploads a custom MOC and the page is valid, then I think a short fictional background would be ok, but this is just... I really don't know how to put it into words, sorry. NightblazeSaber 02:03, November 5, 2011 (UTC) It is with Customs on my todo list to take to the BrickPost when we get it back up... well, customs was supposed to be, as lead admin there, nobody listened either way... --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 16:09, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Answers? Just had a look over at the answers wiki, and it seems to be solely used by IPs. Is there anything there that can be done over there that can't be done here if we had an answers namespace and it was set up like a list of forums? I'm just thinking here, not sure about the idea, guess I'd be neutral on this. NightblazeSaber 21:57, November 7, 2011 (UTC) Not sure it would work here. The way answers is set up is not like a normal wiki is it? :S - - Lest we forget - CJC 18:14, November 9, 2011 (UTC) Nah, wouldn't really work. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Fair enough :) @cjc- yeah, it is set up differently, guess I just don't really like the setup for answers wiki. Skin issues aside- if you put any text in the article, it marks it as "answered", even though that may not necessarily be the case- the text may be either the user wanting to leave more in-depth details, or the asker is not satisfied with the answer and wants another explanation. Just thought a straight forum-like page with a couple of templates here would do the things that answers wikis can't. As I said though, I'm really not too worried about what happens here though. NightblazeSaber 01:27, November 10, 2011 (UTC) We could make a StackExchange clone...it's a really nice wiki/Q&A/forum software, with an effective rep system that gradually grants rights without being bureaucratic. However, I really think that we don't need a LEGO Q&A site; it can be realistically included in a forum on Brickipedia. FB100Z • talk • contribs 06:12, November 10, 2011 (UTC) Skin I've just finished building a "reviews" skin. It works by searching the page's title for "Review", so any page with "Review" in the title will have it. Obviously this is mainly just "Review:" namespace pages, but any page with a title containing "Review:" or "Review " may also have it. - nxt 19:50, November 10, 2011 (UTC) NXT you fantastic user! There are a few minor errors with some colours but they can all be fixed with ease. :) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 21:38, November 10, 2011 (UTC) Great job (as usual) :) The only problem I can see is if we for whatever reason need a page starting with review but not intended for the reviews namespace, but I can't see that happening any time soon. Of course, if the namespace does get switched on, it could just be switched to the namespace's id if such a problem does occur. NightblazeSaber 22:39, November 10, 2011 (UTC) For those that care: Code has been Monobooked. (and to any who haven't seen it- NXT's page where you can see the changes NightblazeSaber 22:51, November 10, 2011 (UTC) As has the custom namespace (are we going with Custom: or Customs: ?) NightblazeSaber 23:03, November 10, 2011 (UTC) How does it look on Mononbook? "?skin=monobook" no longer seems to work. I reckon Custom:. I'm going to start building it. I'm sure I saw someone say red... - nxt I've done it, but my tinted bricks background isn't working. It loses some resolution when I process it. Could one of you have a go? - nxt I'd say Custom: Jag 18:54, November 11, 2011 (UTC) Looks good (better in Monobook than in Wikia, in fact)- the buttons are still blue in Wikia. Jag 18:55, November 11, 2011 (UTC) @ NXT: seems to be working fine to me, is it working now? Also, changed a couple of things with the Wikia skin- the reviews skin seemed to have a red gradient, and the custom skin had some green borders. Also they had red/green text on a red/green background, changed the text to white like the normal blue skin has it. @Jag- changed the buttons- any better? I couldn't figure out how to change the blue in the chat module though :S NightblazeSaber 20:28, November 11, 2011 (UTC) (undent) We have a problem: 10200_Custom_Car_Garage, 5550 Custom Rally Van, and 8208 Custom Cruiser. Jag 21:04, November 11, 2011 (UTC) Yep, also any forum that has "review" and/or "custom" in their title. When we get the namespaces assigned, there should be a way to fix it by grabbing the namespace id. NightblazeSaber 21:22, November 11, 2011 (UTC) I just noticed that problem. :/ SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 21:26, November 11, 2011 (UTC) Main pages Main pages of sorts for reviews and customs have been created. Feel free to suggest any content, etc to be added. Also, the number of reviews/custom articles doesn't work, and I don't know how to get it to- when the namespaces are enabled, I would use the PAGESINNS magic word, but that's disabled. NightblazeSaber 22:30, November 11, 2011 (UTC) Cut out the official friends, other languages, on this day, and did you know. And customer sounds like it's a shop- maybe MOCreator? Jag 22:34, November 11, 2011 (UTC) Or maybe even Customizer... Jag 22:35, November 11, 2011 (UTC) Hehe yeah, I didn't know what to call it :P Feel free to rename it to whatever you think is best. Cut the other stuff out- the main reason why I left all that there was because I was worried about the pages being too short- guess they don't look too bad without them :S NightblazeSaber 22:41, November 11, 2011 (UTC) Are we going to have the "Project" pages for customs/reviews in the Brickipedia namespace? See BP:COTM. Jag 22:53, November 11, 2011 (UTC) I see we're making use of the Div CSS code from my talk page. Yey! :D This is going to be fantastic when we're finished! :) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 22:54, November 11, 2011 (UTC) Actually I just copied all the code from the main page ;) NightblazeSaber 23:05, November 11, 2011 (UTC) New random section This is a wiki- can other people edit others reviews/customs? Jag 23:04, November 11, 2011 (UTC) I would say no to reviews, customs I don't know- the MOCs aren't going to be exclusively made by users here are they? I thought it would be including some of the more noteworthy MOCs and atributing them to the artist. NightblazeSaber 23:06, November 11, 2011 (UTC) Hmm... but all disputes should be settled by the creator (of the MOC, not of the page) Jag 23:08, November 11, 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure about that-there are a lot of noteworthy MOCs out there, after all. -Cligra Join the redlink war! What I meant is that if there is a disagreement about the MOC (the storyline, for example) then the creator is correct. But if someone here (say, me) creates a MOC, then can other people change my description? Jag 23:19, November 11, 2011 (UTC) What if we have it so that nobody else could edit the page, make sure that the creator is aware, and if they would like, we could open it up for others to edit. I'm not sure if that would work, I'm not good at all of this tech stuff...--Berrybrick (Talk) 01:30, November 12, 2011 (UTC) That sounds good-I think the abusefilter could do that, although I'm equally bad at tech stuff. -Cligra Join the redlink war! And will we be wanting custom themes, or just sets? Jag 02:38, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Both, methinks. -Cligra Join the redlink war! So... So, is this all up and running now? -Cligra Join the redlink war! It seems so, but I think we're still debating MoSs--Berrybrick (Talk) 01:51, November 14, 2011 (UTC) So, we should wait a bit before posting any new articles? -Cligra Join the redlink war! No, the custom/review namespaces have not yet been enabled. Jag 02:36, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Unresolved issues Just trying to bring everything together, the length of this forum is making things a bit confusing NightblazeSaber 03:40, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Scope of Reviews What should reviews cover? Sets and/or minifigures and/or themes? I would say sets only. NightblazeSaber 03:40, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Sets only. ajr 04:03, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Sets only. Jag 04:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Per everyone, I guess. -Cligra Join the redlink war! I'd say sets unless minifigures are sold seperately, like Comic-Con Exclusive Green Lantern Giveaway and such. I wouldn't oppose theme/subtheme reviews, but only if the reviewer owns every set from that theme/subtheme. --Berrybrick (Talk) 19:54, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Products/Sets only, which includes things like each individual Collectible Minifigure as someone may want to write a review for the Zombie minifigure. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 10:13, November 16, 2011 (UTC) Done. Sets/products only. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Scope of Customs What should customs cover? Sets and/or minifigures and/or themes? I think sets and minifigures only, but I don't really mind. As long as the custom themes have more than one set/minifigure to them. NightblazeSaber 03:40, November 14, 2011 (UTC) I'd say all. Jag 04:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC) All. -Cligra Join the redlink war! All, as long as custom themes/minifigures have multiple pages (like NHL said). --Berrybrick (Talk) 20:00, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Per NHL. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 10:14, November 16, 2011 (UTC) Done.  Sets, minifigures, and themes. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Categories Allow only Category:Reviews and Category:Customs, or allow others? I think it would be ok to have things like Category:Star Wars (Customs) or something, as long as it isn't affiliated in any way with Category:Star Wars. NightblazeSaber 03:40, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Well, if we're going to have custom themes, will they have their own categories, won't they? Jag 04:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Categories for positive and negative reviews? -Cligra Join the redlink war! Mainspace "Main page" issues Links: The Review Main page, The Custom Main page. (If you're wondering why they're called that and not something like Review:Main page, it's because the namespace has to be empty until it gets switched on) The bit in the headers say at the moment "0 reviews"/"0 custom articles". But the 0 is literally a 0, not some magic word. The magic word PAGESINNS can be used to determine the number of pages in a specified namespace, but that isn't enabled on Wikia. So, does anyone know of a workaround where we can get this working? NightblazeSaber 03:40, November 14, 2011 (UTC) We can use pagesincategory, though that would mean that all reviews and customs need to be in a supercategory as well as subcategories. ajr 04:02, November 14, 2011 (UTC) I guess so. (And yes I know, I told you :D) Jag 04:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC) (I know you know :D Just thought I'd better say why in case someone thinks of moving it back) NightblazeSaber 05:20, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Done. Resolved. We can use pagesincategory. Jag 06:03, November 14, 2011 (UTC) I thought we said we din't want supercategories? Could we ask Wikia? - nxt "Project" Pages Are we just going to have it in the Brickipedia: namespace? I thought we could have Brickipedia:Customs and Brickipedia:Reviews, and then all other "administration" pages would be subpages of that. Like, Brickipedia:Custom/AFS or Brickipedia:Reviews/Featured_Review_Nominations. Jag 04:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC) That sounds like a good idea to me. I think it would all have to be in the "Brickipedia" namespace since it is all project stuff, and I like the idea of it all being under a subpage. NightblazeSaber 05:18, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Sounds good, though I'd still like a centralized page for deletion requests (or perhaps have custom and review deletion requests as a subpage of AfS). ajr 05:35, November 14, 2011 (UTC) "Not been enabled"? I've heard various people say this, but why? I've made Review:Test, and Custom:Test, and these work fine. Am I missing something? - nxt People have said this, well, becuase it hasn't been enabled. I could make a page called Some:Page, but that doesn't mean the "Some" namespace has been enabled. You can see what namespace you're in easily on Monobook, but I can't find a way on the Wikia skin, but basically it says what namespace you're in on the left-most tab, and the Review:anything still comes up with "article" (ie mainspace), meaning it's not enabled. If you go to the RC (in either skin), you can click on the "namespace" dropdown menu to see a list of our current namespaces (a lot of them are semantic things noone here uses/understands). Anyway, so would an emailconfirmed admin please request these to be enabled alredy (I thought Ajr already did after this, but apparently not :D) NightblazeSaber 00:21, November 15, 2011 (UTC) Done. ajr 00:23, November 15, 2011 (UTC) Thanks :) Any idea how long it takes for it to get approved/take effect? NightblazeSaber 00:25, November 15, 2011 (UTC) Hopefully a day. ajr 00:31, November 15, 2011 (UTC) I thought it might be that. Do you know what difference them being enabled makes? - nxt 18:48, November 15, 2011 (UTC) They're enabled now :) NightblazeSaber 22:06, November 15, 2011 (UTC) Namspace id's (just need to put these somewhere to change the css a bit, and set up other RC's)- Review: 118, Review talk: 119, Custom: 116, Custom talk: 117. NightblazeSaber 22:14, November 15, 2011 (UTC) I've added the ns ids. I started adding the code for talk pages, but I'm having some funny cache/data dump problem. - nxt Custom Lego Wiki? Perhaps we could just form another wiki dedicated to custom sets? User:Dataman1[Save the ubisoft wiki!] 14:52, November 15, 2011 (UTC) We tried that, it didn't work out too well. ajr 14:56, November 15, 2011 (UTC) Yep. That didn't work out well at all. -Cligra Join the redlink war! It would of gone well but Lcawte is a lazy/busy (season dependant) butt. --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 20:11, November 23, 2011 (UTC) I don't really think it was a lack of trying- in the beginning you were advertising it like crazy at one point, as well as notices about it being everywhere as well. NightblazeSaber 22:33, November 23, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, we tried for a long time, I just got lazy at a very crucial stage and stuff started falling apart... --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 10:07, November 26, 2011 (UTC) Next Step Okay, so the namespaces have been enabled. So far, it looks like this is the agreed-upon decisions: Reviews: Products/Sets only, which includes things like each individual Collectable Minifigure. Customs: Sets/Minifigures. Themes if needed, and if there are more than one set in the custom theme. Other users cannot edit other users reviews or customs. Agreed on that? I think we should go ahead and let people create them. We can start up featured MOC/COTM/ROTM/featured review later. Are there any opposes to going ahead and beginning? Jag 22:04, November 18, 2011 (UTC) I support that we start right away. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait. What exactly is happening? Are we using Review: or User review? Custom: or User custom:? How will the review system work? I never received any clear information on how this all will work... FB100Z • talk • contribs 03:10, November 19, 2011 (UTC) I do think we should clarify the setup of the reviews before we officially start them, but I wouldn't be opposed to people starting to write now, and we can fix it up later. I like the reviews wiki setup, or FB100Z's setup shown here, although if we are going to have subpages for each review, I feel that it would be better for the reviews list to come up automatically. I think this could be done using Javascript by targeting content inside the a tag for all the td's in tables with the ids of "mw-prefixindex-list-table", then have a loop which gets the content in the td's a's and does {{Review:<content inside first td a>}}<br/>{{Review:<content inside second td a>}}...{{Review:<content inside last td a>}}. However I really don't have the time right now to get this working, and may not have that time for a while. I can do Javascript, but I'm just slow at it, and takes me a while to get it working. NightblazeSaber 06:00, November 19, 2011 (UTC) I've made an example at Review:Elf. Jag 06:39, November 19, 2011 (UTC) I like FB100Z's review design. Would it be OK adding a section to the template for a score out of five, with starts for each point? ajr 15:52, November 19, 2011 (UTC) I'd agree to that --Berrybrick (Talk) 16:00, November 19, 2011 (UTC) Template:Reviewstars Jag 01:15, November 21, 2011 (UTC) JavaScript should never, ever, ever be used to alter or add content. Always have content set on the server side, especially if it's a legal notice. HTML = content, CSS = appearance, JS = behavior. FB100Z • talk • contribs 22:24, November 21, 2011 (UTC) Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd go with whatever works and doesn't affect any other namespaces, not what the professionals recommend NightblazeSaber 22:44, November 21, 2011 (UTC) If you don't listen to what the professionals recommend, legions of dead web developers will come back to haunt you. In addition, JS could easily open up some rather nasty security vulnerabilities — for example, I found a potential for a persistent XSS attack in the USERNAME code, although it would be difficult to exploit it in practice. FB100Z • talk • contribs 05:47, November 22, 2011 (UTC) I've found out how to do this using Semantic Mediawiki. May take some time to do it, there are still a couple of things I need to work out, but it can definitely be done. NightblazeSaber 05:53, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Cancel that. Can't find a data type that will hold anything- there doesn't appear to be a datatype that will allow for any sort of string to be used... NightblazeSaber 06:24, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Cancel the cancel. Found a way around it. NightblazeSaber 06:58, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Ok, see Review:7964_Republic_Frigate. It grabs the minifigures field straight from 7964_Republic_Frigate. A bit more work required of course, but most of it works now :) NightblazeSaber 08:34, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Very close to finishing, but really got to go. sorry- will be completely done in 24 hrs or so though. NightblazeSaber 08:46, November 24, 2011 (UTC) I just floated it to the right, and made it a tad thinner. I thought this fitted better with our current infoboxes. If you have another reason for it being like it was, feel free to revert it. - nxt Em, half the infobox on the left has been cut off. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 18:48, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, the idea was to have it like the reviews wiki- we don't really need any other text there do we? The infobox alone can just give the essential info, and then if they want more, there's nothing stopping them from just going to the corresponding wiki page- hopefully very soon, it'll only be one click away (or there is a link to it in the infobox). But if people are set on text.... well I don't know how that's going to work- I really hate the onlyincludes which are in the LEGO Batman Video Game- it looks terrible having random onlyincludes spread throughout the actual content of the page, and if it was between that and having no content on the reviews page, I'd choose to have no content. Also, the infobox isn't finished- it will also very soon take the shop description and minifigure gallery data semantically and put it in there as well. NightblazeSaber 22:16, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Minifigure Gallery and shop description now added- example with reviews below (hope you don't mind me stealing your review SKP :D). Gallery only goes up to 8 becuase I don't feel like doing all 60 at once, will bring that up to 16 now since I see Mr. Minifigure's done a Minifigures Series 4 review :) Also- if shop description and gallery don't show up, it's because it takes time for these things to get updated, you can re-save corresponding article with no changes if you want the new stuff to come up. All the other semantic stuff should be showing up now though. NightblazeSaber 00:40, November 25, 2011 (UTC) What way are we going to use to allow easy creation of reviews? If this isn't user-friendly then nobody is going to use it... ajr 00:50, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Hmm... If only something like [[Review:{{PAGENAME}}/{{USERNAME}}|Submit a review]] would work... (USERNAME breaks it if you put [[]]'s around it) NightblazeSaber 01:24, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Icons I cooked up a batch of cute little star icons for use in review pages. The template {{stars}} supports 4, 5, or 10 stars, default 5. {{stars|2}}: 2 / 5 {{stars|2½}}: 2½ / 5 In the review system, I suggest that we provide stars and allow for their use, but we shouldn't force any particular unified rating system. Different users have different ways of bringing a point across. FB100Z • talk • contribs 05:47, November 22, 2011 (UTC) At the same time, though, uniformity would be good for this, so that people can get a general overview of what people think easily. Thanks so much for making that btw :) ajr 05:55, November 22, 2011 (UTC) Looking good, but as Ajr said, I really think we should have a fixed score. Also, putting "|link=" in the images would be better to me, that way noone's going to go to a useless image of a star if they accidentally click on it (well, not useless, but I doubt anyone would want to go there). NightblazeSaber 06:01, November 22, 2011 (UTC) Linking to a page explaining the star rating system might be good. ajr 06:03, November 22, 2011 (UTC) For now, I'll just have them not link to anything. FB100Z • talk • contribs 06:06, November 22, 2011 (UTC) We need to explain what 3/5 means? I think even a 4 year old can figure that out ;) NightblazeSaber 06:07, November 22, 2011 (UTC) Listen up, kids. This is a star. Say it with me. Staaarrr. Good! FB100Z • talk • contribs 06:13, November 22, 2011 (UTC) haha XD we definitely need that in a policy page :) NightblazeSaber 06:23, November 22, 2011 (UTC) Hey, I thought it was a good idea at the time. And that's why I should be in bed at 11, not on Brickipedia >.> ajr 14:31, November 22, 2011 (UTC) Welcome to the club, sir. FB100Z • talk • contribs 19:41, November 22, 2011 (UTC) I did this first... {{Reviewstars}}. Jag 01:49, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Review profiles All sites that have reviews I've seen have had some form of profile page for the reviewer, usually showing basic information, number of reviews/list of reviews they've done. Basically I'm wondering if we can copy over and use Template:Profile from the reviews wiki (example of filled out profile)- to me it looks good but isn't intrusive, and gives a quick reference as to who's writing the reviews- what age group a person's in and how experienced a user is with writing reviews are all factors that someone may want to consider when people read reviews- I know from Brickset's recent survey, they had many people saying wanting to read reviews only from adults, and they've now got a bit on the side saying whether a user's an AFOL or a TFOL. Even if it's just an "opt-in" thing, I think it's a good idea. Only thing is, the automatic "number of reviews" won't work here, becuase on the reviews wiki, there were categories for each reviewer, and wherever the profile was used, it added the hidden user review category to the page. Maybe Special:Whatlinkshere may be able to used to get the number, I somehow doubt it, but I'll look into it when I can. NightblazeSaber 06:23, November 22, 2011 (UTC) Yah, but only if I can have a play around with it! :D - nxt The spirit of anonymity that surrounds wikis in general is something that should be left alone. We should judge reviewers by their reviews, not what age group they're in, just as we should judge editors by their edits. FB100Z • talk • contribs 19:44, November 22, 2011 (UTC) Definitely NXT- work your magic :P And most of the fields would of course be optional as they are on the reviews wiki- noone has to supply any personal information- for example my profile over there uses only the compulsory fields. NightblazeSaber 21:18, November 22, 2011 (UTC) Don't use? Basically- why? I really think we should get some reviews/customs out there so we can have some content to stick on the main pages for next month. And I don't think it would hurt to have the content there and then fix it up later once all the issues have been ironed out. NightblazeSaber 22:34, November 23, 2011 (UTC) I wrote a review a couple hours ago and then saw the banner at the top of this forum, so I copied it into a word document and deleted the page. Point: I could provide some content. --Berrybrick (Talk) 22:36, November 23, 2011 (UTC) My bad...................fail >.> Go ahead and add it back in, I did stoopid :P FB100Z • talk • contribs 01:52, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Nav bar I've made this- basically I'm just wondering if we can stick this at the top of the reviews and customs main pages, and maybe the wiki main page. I'm not set on the appearance of it or anything, but I think something that says "hey guys! we also have these other areas too!" would be a good idea, at least to get the other two namespaces started. NightblazeSaber 22:33, November 23, 2011 (UTC) I'm FB100Z and I approve this message. While we're at it, can we have "Wiki" changed to "Encyclopedia" or "Reference?" Reviews and customs are wiki too. FB100Z • talk • contribs 01:30, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Good point- changed to encyclopedia. NightblazeSaber 01:35, November 24, 2011 (UTC) I love your idea so much that I redid it. I have no objection to us using NHL's instead, however. FB100Z • talk • contribs 01:50, November 24, 2011 (UTC) I think I like FB's one better, no offense to yours though NHL. How about sticking it in the sitenotice - although that's just for Monobook... Jag 01:55, November 24, 2011 (UTC) (indent fixed) The site notice is for site notices :P FB100Z • talk • contribs 01:58, November 24, 2011 (UTC) I can't even see NHL's. It's just for Monobook, right? --Berrybrick (Talk) 01:59, November 24, 2011 (UTC) You need Safari/Firefox/Chrome to see gradients, that might be why. And not having IE compatability is probably a bad idea. Definitely no objections to using the other one- the effect I was going for didn't really turn out anyway, I wanted the fade bits closer together. Just wondering about the order- should the wiki section be in the middle to give it a bit more emphasis, since it's still the main focus of the site? NightblazeSaber 02:03, November 24, 2011 (UTC) I put it to the left for exactly the same reason, but you're probably right :/ By the way, thanks for fixing my failage >.> FB100Z • talk • contribs 02:07, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Great idea NHL, but I like FB's one. :) Anyway, I've fixed up the mainpage so that there isn't a massive space above the Tribar for the advertisement. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 16:51, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Yep, when I fixed up the webkit code on FB's, I saw that it was exactly what I was going for when I made mine :) NightblazeSaber 22:16, November 24, 2011 (UTC) MOC talk pages So, shall we use the talk pages of customs for discussion of the MOC, since article comments don't really seem feasible? -Cligra Join the redlink war! Yes that sounds like a good idea.Clone gunner commander jedi talk I might do some research into whether we can apply a feature to a namespace. In this case, adding article comments to the Customs namespace. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 17:07, November 24, 2011 (UTC) You could just ask Sannse? - CJC 18:51, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Forum I'm wondering, should we set up individual forums for customs and reviews? This one's getting awfully long. (I tried to post this earlier, but it was reverted.) 75.0.185.175 20:48, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Meh. We don't really need it. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Sorry, I meant sub-forums, so we have the encyclopedia, reviews, and customs forums separated. 75.0.185.175 20:51, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I think that was already discussed on the forum revamp page, and I think we're going to do that, at least for reviews and customs, so if people only want to look at/not look at reviews or customs specific forums, they just go to that section. NightblazeSaber 22:16, November 24, 2011 (UTC) Bringing it Together (Again) All Nav bar Use it on reviews and cutsoms, use on main page as well as sub-main pages, or don't use it at all? Use on sub-main pages, or use on main page as well. NightblazeSaber 02:02, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Createplates We need to set up createplates for the other namespaces so {{set}} isn't getting put in the customs namespace. NightblazeSaber 23:05, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Done, except I'm having a minor coding problem with Mediawiki:Createplate-Review- it needs to show up with what text is stored in the template, but the noinclude tags are obviously being taken literally, and the category isn't being put in. I tried wrapping the noincludes in nowiki tags, but then the line just showed up as {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Review|<no wiki></no wiki>}} (spaces obviously not in the nowiki tags) NightblazeSaber 07:29, November 26, 2011 (UTC) Reviews Profiles Make compulsory for all reviewers, make it optional, or don't allow? Optional or compulsory- compulsory would be good for consistency NightblazeSaber 02:02, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Compulsory. ajr 02:22, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Compulsory per NHL. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 06:32, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Where would it go on the userpage? Jag 18:15, November 25, 2011 (UTC) I think the review profile is to go on each review themselves. Though making something for the userpage is a good idea. :) I'll try and whip something up. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 19:12, November 25, 2011 (UTC) I've been trying to get the review count working with semantic, which has been a huge fail so far, but if I get it working, it would also be extremely easy to show a list of pages the user has reviewed- might be good for a user's userpage. The profile itself needs to be stored at User:<username>/ReviewerProfile though. NightblazeSaber 23:05, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Easy creation of reviews How are we going to do it? Hey. We can use one of those forms. I'm gonna try and set one up. - nxt I thought of that, but then I realised I have to idea how to get a user's username without using the USERNAME template :S NightblazeSaber 23:05, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Cats I'd say that the reviews category should be just for the main pages, not the user subpages. That way, when someone clicks "Reviews" on the main reviews page, they just get a list of the reviewed sets. Jag 20:25, November 25, 2011 (UTC) There's a Category:Reviews and Category:Review pages. I don't know which one's meant for which though. But I do think a cat for the each review and a separate cat for each page holding all the reviews of a certain set are a good idea. If we do that, we could also have on the review main page- "x reviews on y sets" instead of "x review pages" NightblazeSaber 23:05, November 25, 2011 (UTC) If you look at it, you can see that I did try to do that, but it didn't seem to work for some reason... A separate cat for each page? You mean like Category:Elf for example? (i'm using elf as an example as it's only three letters to type) I don't think we need that- why not just "Reviews" for the main pages, and "Review pages" for the subpages? Jag 23:34, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, that's what I meant, sorry it wasn't well worded. And that looks like what you did would work, it's just there's no "review subpages" cat- it's just Reviews and Review pages. NightblazeSaber 23:38, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Ok, I'm making "Review pages" the category that holds all the set's reviews, and "Reviews" for the reviews themselves. If anyone wants to change that, feel free to discuss, just want to make the two categories clear. NightblazeSaber 00:10, November 26, 2011 (UTC) Wait, I think Reviews is meant for a superclass, and user reviews is for each review. changing to that. NightblazeSaber Customs Admins Do we have any admins who won't be disowning the customs namespace? I know I will be once it's set up, and there are a few others I know of who'll be staying away from it NightblazeSaber 23:13, November 25, 2011 (UTC) I'll be maintaining it. ajr 23:19, November 25, 2011 (UTC) I'll be keeping an eye on it as well. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Ok thanks, just wanted to make sure we would have some people there to keep track of it :) NightblazeSaber 23:23, November 25, 2011 (UTC) I'll monitor it but I probaly won't add anything. klagoername that user 23:36, November 25, 2011 (UTC) I'd keep an eye on it, but I'm not admin here... :/ --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 23:50, November 25, 2011 (UTC) I'll monitor it the best I can. --Berrybrick (Talk) 23:56, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Feel free to add anything else needed here. NightblazeSaber 02:02, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Standard for Customs Is there any way to introduce a basic standard for MOCs, so we don't get anymore creations like this? -Cligra Join the redlink war! What's wrong with that? If this proposed standard would destroy pages like that then I strongly oppose one. ajr 17:18, November 25, 2011 (UTC) I suppose you have a point, but pages like that make me feel sad inside... -Cligra Join the redlink war! What we do need is some sort of preload system so that these pages can be created at a certain standard. I'll play around with semantic mediawiki and see what I can do... ajr 17:35, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Sounds great! -Cligra Join the redlink war! Some Stuff Couple of points. The review page grabs the top bit of the page from the encyclopedia page, doesn't it? Can we get rid of the little box at the bottom "Facts about XXX" It's annoying, gets in the way, and it's info is in the infobox. Thanks, - nxt 1: yes 2: I don't get it- monobook- simple, it's as you'd expect get the div class/id, and use css to set it to display:none. Wikia skin- no idea. It's all wrapped in the "smwfact" class, but it refuses to hide. I'll keep trying and see if I can get it to work (sorry, I assumed that both skins would have exactly the same code for the semantic box, so I thought it was already hidden on Wikia) NightblazeSaber 22:56, November 25, 2011 (UTC) Featured Minifigures? I just noticed the page for featured MOCs which Cligra set up, and I was thinking, what about Featured, custom, minifigures? Or, even themes, but I don't think that that is such a good idea. --Berrybrick (Talk) 00:05, November 26, 2011 (UTC) Really, I think you should be able to nominate anything custom. I'll add that in. -Cligra Join the redlink war!