Forum:Two things

Forums: Index →

Administration

→ Two things

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Notoriety content passed, Don't use Bricklink codes unless they are the same as official ones Notoriety FB keeps going on about this in chat and how we need one and...stuff. So, I'd say the way our notoriety works de facto: The following things are deemed notable to have their own pages. Any product released by LEGO. In certain circumstances, some items may be grouped onto one page for convenience, similarity or ease of access All LEGO minifigures released in physical form. All LEGO parts. All playable characters in video games. Any characters in video games, films and other media who play a role deemed important or noteworthy. Since noteworthiness is subjective, if there is a supported argument in favour of a character's notability then it can be kept, and should not be deleted per this policy. Any product based on a or the LEGO license, which is officially approved by LEGO. Any people or companies who have a notable associated with LEGO. Any places based on the LEGO-brand. Any other items considered important or noteworthy. Comments By the "certain circumstances", I am referring to things such as books released in both hardback and paperback, sets re-released in different boxes, whole seasons of LEGO Wear and other lists like that. (Though the first two points work only if they are the same or have no set number). - Kingcjc 09:11, September 25, 2011 (UTC) An example of the third from bottom would be books published by DK or Ladybird; or clothing made by whoever. - Kingcjc 09:11, September 25, 2011 (UTC) Support above, and for below, definitely don't think we should be copying Bricklink's system. NightblazeSaber 22:56, September 25, 2011 (UTC) The subpoint of point 5 wasn't present when I voted, so just clarifying- support everything except that point. NightblazeSaber 05:25, September 27, 2011 (UTC) So what would be a good alternative to it? Ultimately, we will be in a situation involving a case like that, and we should deside the outcome of it beforehand rather than arguing over interpritation of policy then. ajr 18:09, September 27, 2011 (UTC) Support above surely this is in the MoS already? And we no link, we pedia. so, per NHL. -NBP 12:50, September 26, 2011 (UTC) Support. Seems reasonable for now. FB100Z • talk • contribs 19:08, September 26, 2011 (UTC) Support above and below. Shouldn't the third one from the end be association, not associated? Jag 00:07, September 27, 2011 (UTC) Support above, neutral about below. Above is a great idea though. ajr 04:41, September 27, 2011 (UTC) Seems sensible. - nxt Close? - Kingcjc 17:19, October 3, 2011 (UTC) I'd say close. Jag 00:34, October 4, 2011 (UTC) Using Bricklink prefixes Bricklink is a brilliant resource, however, since they work as a database system, they have to assign everything a code to organize it. When an item has no code, they make it up. An example is Bbflh7 Christmas in Fabuland. That stands for Board book Fabuland h7 or something like that, and isn't an "actual" item number. Similarly Sphinx-1 is not really an item number. So, shall we stop using them? (Plus they probably are quite confusing for those searching who don't know the book is called "Bbf1h7".) Note: Exception - we agreed at some point to use MMMB for Monthly Mini Model Builds to keep them organized. Or something. - Kingcjc 09:11, September 25, 2011 (UTC) Support - Sounds reasonable. FB100Z • talk • contribs 04:39, September 27, 2011 (UTC) <me no good on bricklink :( > - nxt

List of content using Bricklink IDs

• All pages starting with "McD".
• Many of the "KC" prefixes I believe are assigned by Bricklink (I'm not 100% sure what ones. Certainly some KC sets exist, as Brickset also has them, however, the rest seem like they are database fillers, e.g. KC01, KC49) . (As are KCP, KCF and KCD)
• The KL and things like that are from the Ameet website and Bricklink has a few.
• Things like fablb

• So if you are bored and see any, move them to whatever... - Kingcjc 15:43, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
  • I have mixed views on using the information provided by Bricklink. I mean, they're more updated than sources such as Peeron, but they use their own numbering/labeling system.
    

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 15:53, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

• • • This isn't on using their information (that is fine), just stuff that uses their numbering system. - Kingcjc 15:56, October 11, 2011 (UTC)