Forum:MoS Proposals

Forums: Index →

Consensus track

→ MoS Proposals

This forum is for suggesting minor alterations to the Manual of Style. Any suggested major changes should have their own forum.

An archive of former votes/discussions about proposals that were added to the MOS can be found here.

Proposals

Add your suggestions below.

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was the collapsible appearances modification is currently being worked on Removal of "Appearances" field in Template:Minifigure Please see above discussion "Video game appearances" Remove the field NightblazeSaber 23:38, February 23, 2010 (UTC) Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 12:49, February 24, 2010 (UTC) Makes it unnecessarily long. --LegOtaku (talk • contr) 11:00, March 2, 2010 (UTC) I have to say, pretty unneccesary, a section below the background information is all that is really needed. -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 15:23, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Keep the field I guess that this vote could be considered neutral, but I kind of find it useful. Captain Rex 08:55, February 28, 2010 (UTC) Change it to showhide... --Lcawte 16:23, March 1, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Lcawte. Ajraddatz Talk 19:14, March 2, 2010 (UTC) Per Rex --Clone Commander Fox 20:19, March 27, 2010 (UTC) How would you know what they appeared in unless an appearances section below? GG 360 10:54, April 24, 2010 (UTC) It is part of the info, and it's easier to see up in the infobox. How about one which can be hidden or shown with a button? BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) 14:16, April 28, 2010 (UTC) Construction Worker Do you need help? 20:35, May 4, 2010 (UTC) Per Lc/Ajr/BF2 Kingcjc 14:00, May 22, 2010 (UTC) Have a collapsible Appearances section Since it is obvious that we will keep the appearances section in the template, I'd say we use a collapsed appearances section. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 11:36, April 24, 2010 (UTC) Its take love over gold, and mind over matter to do what you do that you must Kingcjc 21:28, May 4, 2010 (UTC) --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 10:56, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Brickmacktalkcontribs 02:32, May 12, 2010 (UTC) Leave it as it is now Comments Is everyone ok with giving this vote 2 weeks to run, unless there's an overwhelming majority in favor of one option? NightblazeSaber 23:38, February 23, 2010 (UTC) I support this idea, best example for a bad-looking infobox, because of too many appearances, is the minifigure Harry Potter. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 12:49, February 24, 2010 (UTC) Is showhide that you can click a button and make the list appear or disappear? If so so I would vote to keep the field if it was that. P.S. Isn't that something like collapsable? Jag 19:12, March 2, 2010 (UTC) Yes, a hidable section is a collapsed section. Good idea, but if it is included in the article, we don't need it in the template. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 16:32, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Maybe we should determine if this is even possible first before we vote on it? I don't know if it would be an easy thing to do NightblazeSaber 03:20, May 5, 2010 (UTC) Well, we're voting on it to have one. If it is supported, it can be implemented. If it doesn't work with the collapsible thing, we can leave it as it is, until somebody has an idea, how to do that. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 12:17, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Looks like there shouldn't be a huge problem with getting this working. I'm working on a new userpage partly because I felt like trying this out, and I haven't come across any problems with the way I've implemented it yet. NightblazeSaber 03:10, May 12, 2010 (UTC) Good news. And it seems nobody has anything against the collapsible section. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 10:37, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

We've never stated whether the spelling here should be in a UK or US form (eg "colour" or "color"). From what I can see, US users are probably our biggest userbase. I'm not sure what version of English the Danish use when they use it, but I think it might be the UK one if we want to go with using the version of English that the "home of LEGO" uses. At any rate, I think we should formally establish which version of English should be used here so we don't have inconsistencies everywhere.
Following on from this is the first subtheme of Harry Potter. The US uses "Sorcerer's Stone", but everywhere else uses "Philosopher's". So, should we either:

1. Use "Sorcerer's"
2. Use "Philosopher's"
3. Use both (eg "Philosopher's / Sorcerer's")

I know that the Harry Potter Wiki uses Philosopher's Stone, but this is also probably due to the fact that they use UK spelling.
So, any thoughts/comments/opinions on any of this? NightblazeSaber 05:51, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should have an informal poll set up just to get an idea of what spelling most people use. I thought the same for international prices, see what most people use and then use those currencies. Jag 06:04, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

British Spelling should be used, the English Language is from Britian, and J.K Rowling, is also from England. --Lcawte 07:22, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well, here, I believe that British spelling be used here. However, I would like to see US spellings used around the rest of the wiki. (But that's just me, and hey, I'm from the US :D)

Captain Rex

04:01, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

• I think that US spelling is better. But that's just me, I'm from the US.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  14:15, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

• Which ever is used more commonly. GG 360 23:30, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Well, my vote goes for British spelling since the EU (which includes Denmark, the home of LEGO) uses British spelling (source), and it makes spelling consistent with spelling in the Harry Potter theme. NightblazeSaber 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
  

So, overall to date, we have 2 votes for British spelling (Lcawte and myself) and 2 for American spelling (Cpatain Rex and BobaFett2). Any other votes on this? We really should have some sort of decision on this sometime to stadardize it... And this wasn't mentioned before, but whatever the outcome of this, the "spelling rule" will only apply to the mainspace- for forums, talk pages, user blogs, user pages, etc, feel free to use whatever spelling you want there NightblazeSaber 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

I vote Brit Kingcjc 22:28, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

A bit late here but per Boba. -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 22:33, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

• UK sounds better since it's what LEGO uses and this IS a LEGO wiki. Agent Charge: No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:21, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

• I'll have to disagree with most of you. If the majority of the users are from the US, then it should be US spelling. Construction Worker Do you need help? 19:12, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you, CW, if most of the users are from the US, we should have US spelling. But are they? Jag 19:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Article name source

I noticed this at now two articles, that Brickset and Peeron use two different names (7699/7699 and 7745/7745). I think we should choose the name of Peeron first, their names seem to be more correct. But what do you think? And should it be added to the MoS? Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 17:30, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

• Before we vote/decide on anything, everyone should read this. Construction Worker Do you need help? 20:10, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Object: Brickset is updated from Bricklink, the world's largest online LEGO market. In addition, peeron has been lagging behind, and I'd say that Brickset is better for newer ones, while Peeron is better for older ones.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  14:14, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

• • So use Brickset's name first? Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 10:37, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • Personally I always go to Brickset for names, but I'm not sure how accurate they are, especially for the older themes. NightblazeSaber 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • I know I'm late, but I'm with Brickset for names. Construction Worker Do you need help? 19:15, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

"Gallery"

Why not adding Gallery to the Set Manual of Style and to the Minifigure Manual of Style? It should be placed under the LEGO.com Description and above the See also section. The Minifigure Articles section also has to be in the same form as the Set Articles section. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 10:54, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know... when the scrollable box is ever sorted out (I've been looking at it a bit Samdo, going to get serious about it soon :D) it would be great for having images of minifigure variants, but making it compulsory for every set and minifigure I'm not really sure about. It might encourage articles to be all text, and then a gallery at the end, and seeing a huge amount of text with nothing to break it up with can kind of discourage users from reading it. I think we should have images throughout the article, and maybe if there are images left over, then put a gallery in if needed, but that's just what I think :S NightblazeSaber 02:02, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Currently we don't have much text in articles. If there would be more text we could add some pictures in the article and some in the gallery, either the same or additional ones, yes. And the scroll template ( :D ) will be put on the MoS once/if it is finished. For this I only mean additional images of the set/minifigure, not the minifigures that appear in the set itself. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 17:26, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

• I think that it's a good idea for the sets, but not for the minifigures.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  14:12, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

• I like the articles that have a nice big gallery of good quality images Kingcjc 21:30, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I only mean to have a normal <gallery></gallery> thing if possible as requirement for the CAs, GAs and FAs, to put it into the Manual of Style. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 10:37, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

LEGO.com or LEGO's?

I noticed on quite a lot pages that the header for the {{QuoteLEGO.com}} is called "LEGO's Description". On other pages it is called "LEGO.com Description". Shall we call it LEGO's, LEGO.com or anything else? Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 15:00, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter, since they both mean the same thing. A LEGO.com Description is technically LEGO's Description, so I guess it's whatever the person who adds that thinks. Construction Worker Do you need help? 16:38, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

• As I said wherever this originally came up, I personally use LEGO's as the description may not be from just LEGO.com- it could be from a magazine, book or somewhere else. Guess it doesn't really matter too much though. NightblazeSaber 04:54, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we should have a fixed header name for this, so it can fit better into the MoS. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 11:44, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • I always use LEGO.com, it seems more neutral. Ajraddatz _Talk 13:30, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I couldn't find a word explaining it, "professional" sounds good. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 19:49, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
• So what your saying is, LEGO.com is "professional"? This is a wiki, not a business. LEGO's is just as "proffessional" as LEGO.com. Plus, how is it neutral? LEGO's is more general, especially with what NHL said. Construction Worker Do you need help? 20:30, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • LEGO's because it sound like they said it.--Agent Chase: :Agents in Action! 20:35, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok, now that's just stupid (no offense). Everyone says LEGO's. =P Construction Worker Do you need help? 20:37, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • False, I never say LEGO as plural.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  20:48, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

• • • Sorry! I did not read it first. XD Sorry for the mix up.--Agent Chase: :Agents in Action! 20:54, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • I like using LEGO's if it's like they said it, but I do not like using LEGO's when refering to lots of LEGO Sets.--Agent Chase: :Agents in Action! 21:03, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
        • That's ok Chase. =P Construction Worker Do you need help? 10:25, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Is there any other possibility? Like... "LEGO Description" or something... Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 11:45, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

How about "Official Description"? NightblazeSaber 04:23, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Nighthawk's idae sond good... -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 11:25, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

What about "Official LEGO Description"? That way we know its from LEGO (although, it is said in the template too...) Is that too long? Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 14:04, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think "LEGO's" is best. That's how the company describes it, and the users already know that this wiki is the official LEGO encyclopedia. Just my opinion, though. -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 18:51, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Vote on it? Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 10:37, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Proper Use of the LEGO Trademark on a Web Site

If the LEGO trademark is used at all, it should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example, say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGO BRICKS". Never say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGOs" http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=fairplay regardless of what the company wishes people would use, the term LEGO's is often used by the Lego group themselves although in most if not all cases its used in material directed towards the American market, where as the European and Australasian markets typically if not always use LEGO for the singular and plural. My opinion is that LEGO's is a grammatical error. In response to NHL regarding "in case it's not from the website" then the source should be cited , for example Lego Magazine Description not LEGO'S Magazine DescriptionGladiatoring 10:06, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

Note- if a user has indicated that they like a particular name from comments above but has not made a vote below, their name has been added here with a * next to the name. If you are the user, feel free to remove your name from here, change it to another option, or to remove the * next to your name to indicate you have officially voted. This was done only to attempt to save time on voting, and these votes may not count if decided that they should not be used.

LEGO's Description

# Per above- just to cover it in case it's not from the website NightblazeSaber 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

1. Agent Chase *
2. Nerfblasterpro *

# Per Nighthawk. Jag 08:22, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

1. Construction Worker Do you need help? 19:16, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

LEGO.com Description

1. Ajraddatz *
2. Gladiatoring
3. Samdo994
4. Mariofighter3

Official Description

1. Changed vote due to what Gladiatoring has said above. When I added "LEGO's Description" before, I always just thought of LEGO as referring to The LEGO Company, not the toy itself, but it looks like this could be misinterpreted. NightblazeSaber 09:16, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
2. Kingcjc 22:29, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
3. Per Nighthawk. Jag 19:24, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Minifigure Gallery Follow-Up

• Well, I've implemented the template at {{MinifigureGallery}}, but there are probably a couple of things that should be clarified before we start putting it all over the place.

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to name the template "MinifigureGallery" Name The template is currently named "MinifigureGallery", but that can be changed. Feel free to support/oppose/suggest alternatives here. Support Name sounds good. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 10:54, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to use "Minifigures Included" Title above the template Should the heading be "Included Minifigures", "Minifigures Included", "Minifigures", or some other option? Vote/suggest alternatives here. I support "Minifigures included". Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 10:54, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Same BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) 20:35, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Placement

Where should the template be placed in the article?

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Placement above the Official Description section For set articles: My vote would be for under the {{QuoteLEGO.com}} section and above the "See also" section as listed on BP:MOS NightblazeSaber 01:07, May 9, 2010 (UTC) I don't know if it should be above or under the Notes section, but I'd say not under the LEGO.com/LEGO's Description, rather above it. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 10:54, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Support --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 15:56, May 17, 2010 (UTC) I also support this proposal. ajr 18:05, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

For minifigure articles:

• I'd go for near the bottom so it doesn't mess up infoboxes, below "Appearances" but above any minifigure navigational template like {{SWfigs}}. NightblazeSaber 11:00, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Any other opinions? NightblazeSaber 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

---

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was to implement the template in this way as well Other possible implementation I was thinking that maybe this template could be used to showcase all of the minifigure's variants in a minifigure article, eg for Luke Skywalker, have images for "Luke Skywalker (Jedi)", "Luke Skywalker (Tatooine)", etc. Thoughts/comments? NightblazeSaber 01:07, May 9, 2010 (UTC) If there is the same minifigure in another appearance, like Han Solo in normal clothes and Storm Trooper outfit, both should be shown. But if a minifigure has got two faces on a head, I'd say don't put in two images, one with the first face and one with the second face on the back. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 10:54, May 9, 2010 (UTC) No changes here for quite a while. Implement it? Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 12:47, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Bricklink

I was thinking that since this is an encyclopedia, we should link to everything about the set. I use bricklink as an image source and to find parts and set images, and think that a link should be in the external links section or in a buy this set section. Users have argued against it, saying that it is free advertising. I disagree, and think that we should also link to bricklink. BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  14:03, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say for parts okay, but for nothing else, as it is more a market as a reference page... Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 20:36, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have gotten over 1000 pics from there (boxes, sets, and set features) BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  20:37, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

True, the page seems to be more of an eBay of LEGO more than anything. Sure, I can see it being a good resource for images, but the parts count is inconsistent with ours (since they don't include minifigures as parts), and we don't want someone seeing that and changing all the piececounts all over again, and the content of the set isn't really consistent with what we're going for. I would oppose, but defintiely source them for any images uploaded here from there of course. NightblazeSaber 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a good source, but not be added into the external info. We wouldn't want to be "advertising" by mistake, but maybe sourcing for older sets. -Nerfblasterpro: I PRESS SMASH BUTTON! 17:27, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Agree with NBP. Also, value packs. BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  17:29, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say it shouldn't be sourced unless there's no listing of a set on the usual site. NightblazeSaber 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Prices

Hello. I would like to propose that if multiple prices exist in an infobox, that they be changed from US $45.00 / CA $400,000 to US $45.00<br/>CA $400,000. Any comments? Ajraddatz _Talk 13:04, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I think it sounds like an okey idea, but I think I would need to see it on a fairly fully filled out infobox before I support it.. --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 14:49, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think this would make the infobox unnecessarily longer, and since we have already got the appearances, themes and minifigures with a break, I'd say no, for now. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 19:23, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

It looks so much more prettyful though. Ajraddatz _Talk 14:48, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, at present, I think I'd have to oppose. NightblazeSaber 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to one page to see what you think. In my opinion, it make the infobox look more professional. That is just my opinion, though. ajr 14:42, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, still not a big fan of it, but I don't know why, and I can see arguments for having it like this. The only reason I can say against it is it does make the infobox a lot longer. NightblazeSaber 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Parts

On part articles, there is a discrepancy in format. For the appearances, I put the number of that part in that color in the set behind it, others put it in front. An example can be seen at Part 2436. Which way is correct? BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  13:13, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

You mean the amaount of a piece in a set? I guess behind should be okay... Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 15:08, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral. But did we agree to group appearances by color? I can see how it would be good, but it also has the potential for sets to be listed a lot of times, and I'm not sure if that's a great thing to have, but I don't have a better alternative. NightblazeSaber 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well I think we should group parts by color below the infobox because it would be useful to see, and list how many of the part after the set it's in. BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  12:21, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Minifigure count/names in Template:Set

First thing, I was wondering if we should only state the number of minifigures in the Template:Set, instead of adding the linked names. That was the info box wouldn't get too big, unknown names are not added and we can still add the linked names to the == Description == part. Any opinions? Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 15:08, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be OKay. BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  16:38, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

I would have to oppose this. I don't see what's wrong with a couple of extra lines for a lot more detail NightblazeSaber 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

It's not like there's anything wrong with detail. If the minifigure has a name, keep it (example if I wanna know if Darth Vader appeared in a certain set and it doesn't have a picture, i'm not gonna know because it'll say "1" in minifigure count). GG 360 12:10, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Description or Details?

Second thing, I thought of changing the header == Description == of set and theme pages to == Details ==. That sounds much better and we could solve the problem regarding using "LEGO's" or "LEGO.com Description". We would use "Description" there instead. What do you think of that? Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 15:08, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Description, please. BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  16:37, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral NightblazeSaber 00:35, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Changed my mind- having two headings containing "Description" is pretty repetitive, I'd be happier seeing it as Details or something else like this. NightblazeSaber 09:16, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Details sounds better, but that just my opinion Agent Charge: No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:31, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Year Price

• This was never really resolved. What price(s) should we use in the "Price" column for year article tables? From the previous year discussion, we have one vote for US$ only (Samdo994), and one neutral vote (me). Any other opinions? NightblazeSaber 01:16, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Why US only? I think we should have all prices because US only makes this wiki more centric to US then other parts of the world. US is not the main market, and thus we should use multiple to provide a broad perspective.—Unsigned comment by BobaFett2 (talk • contribs).

Because visitors can still click on the link to the see exact prices. Since quite alot in this wiki is American, I thought of only adding US $. And we can still make several other LEGO wikis in other languages, with the respective prices. Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 15:31, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

And why are some users adding the Canadian Dollars (CA $) to articles (see 2010 and other articles)?? I thought we had voted only for US $, €, £ and Australian Dollars? Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 15:38, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Because this is an Encyclopedia, users like Ajraddatz and GG360 who live in Canada would add those prices to articles because we want to explain everything possible. It should be allowed for all. I added Netherlands prices well, because I found them in a catalog.

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  16:57, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Umm no, actually only those four prices should be used per the MOS. Canadian prices were listed in some 2010 sets, because at the time Canadian prices were all we had, and as the MoS says (should say :/ I'm sure that it was voted on, I'll look it up later) if the price is not known in any of the four currencies, currencies that the price is known in may be listed. However, when the price is known in any of the four currencies, the other prices should be removed. NightblazeSaber 23:21, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Okay!

BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  12:35, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean the CA $ should be removed from 2010? Samdo994 talk Contribs [[Special:Editcount/Samdo994|Special:Editcount/Samdo994 edits]] 13:53, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yes NightblazeSaber 11:49, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Erm, why? ajr 18:03, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Since if there is an other price available we'll take that one instead of the CA $.  Samdo994 talk contribs  16:50, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Erm, why? We are trying to be a complete LEGO encyclopedia here, right? ajr 17:24, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Because we can't add every price in the world to this wiki. No offense, I like Canada. :)  Samdo994 talk contribs  13:05, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

"Buy this set at"

since there are some == Buy this set == sections appearing in some articles, I thought it would be a good MoS proposal. If there is a link to the LEGOshop@home page existing, add it to the external links, as * Buy this set at [URL LEGOshop.com. When LEGO removed the product, the link may also be removed. An example is at 7670 Hailfire Droid and Spider Droid.

OR we could create a link in the Template:Set (like a bar or something like that) with the link to the page.  Samdo994 talk contribs  17:28, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

• I'm ok with it on external links, but I'm not really sure if it would go well in the infobox. There's already a link to the shop page on {{QuoteLEGO.com}}, but I guess another link couldn't hurt. And having it in external info could be set up in a way to categorize the page into Category:LEGO Shop automatically too. NightblazeSaber 06:05, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
• I like NHL's idea.. lets go with that! --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 16:07, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
• So, is everyone opposed to adding this to external info? NightblazeSaber 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
• Nope. And I think we should remove the current LEGOshop category per bot and then add it per bot again if there is a link in the Template:QuoteLEGO.com or in the External Links.  Samdo994 talk contribs  09:22, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

support bot add idea thing Kingcjc 22:31, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support adding this. Jag 05:55, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate minifigures in sets

In some set articles and theme articles when we list sets, there are duplicate minifigures in the set. Basically, I was wondering how we should represent this. The ones I've seen around are (using Stormtrooper as an example):

• Stormtrooper (Four)
• Stormtrooper (Four)
• Stormtrooper (4)
• Stormtrooper (4)
• Stormtrooper x4

Just think we need some consistency here NightblazeSaber 02:16, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

You've forgot

• Stormtrooper 4x
• Stormtrooper (4x)
• Stormtrooper (x4)

:P I'd go with Stormtrooper (4x) or Stormtrooper (4).  Samdo994 talk contribs  13:04, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -Mariofighter3: Brickfliming now in session! 13:20, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably go with the (Four), but not really that worried which way it goes, as long as it's standardized. NightblazeSaber 06:52, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Stormtrooper (X4) sounds better, but thats only my opinion Agent Charge: No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:35, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Appearances/variants/years in set infoboxes with video games/movies

Chewbacca
Theme:	Star Wars
Variations:	Reddish brown brown
Accessories:	Large old gun Bowcaster
Years:	2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 Video games 2006
Appearances
3342 Star Wars #3 4504 Millenium Falcon 6212 X-Wing Fighter Video games LEGO Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy

Should we have video game/movie appearances listed in infoboxes? Some alternatives I can think of are:

• No
• Yes (my brain was really working for those two :D)
• Only when the minifigure has appeared in video games/movies only (ie when its tagged with something like {{nonLEGOminifigure}})
• Yes, but have headings for video games/movies, such as in the example on the side

Personally I'd just vote for "no", as the appearances are already listed at the bottom of the article anyway. Any opinions/other alternatives? NightblazeSaber 02:16, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say #3, it looks cool. Jag 19:03, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Number 2# I say it's distraction. Agent Charge: No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:18, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

I propose to list everything in the appearances list of the Template:Minifigure (including videogame appearances), but without the headings and number of appearances next to it. That can be included in the == Appearances == section. So I choose Number #2.  Samdo994 talk contribs  09:25, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Variants listed with Appearances

Following on with the infobox theme, should variants be listed next to the appearance, and should it be in the infobox, or just at the bottom appearance. What I'm talking about is for example on R2-D2#Appearances with all the (New design), (Original design), etc.

• My vote's for bottom appearances section only (could get pretty crowded in infobox) NightblazeSaber 02:16, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Better have detailed stuff in == Appearances == as in the Template.  Samdo994 talk contribs  17:08, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Sets not made of bricks

Many LEGO "sets" are t-shirts, books, etc... I have noticed that they include the toyline in the infobox (Template:set). In articles about sets from "brick" themes (eg: System, TECHNIC, DUPLO, etc...) they do not have that in the infobox often. With many TECHNIC and DUPLO sets it makes sense since they have no supertheme or subtheme but I think we should not include the Toyline in the Set template unless there is no supertheme or subtheme. This would mean that for example, instead of having Fireman's Axe as a [[Toys___]]<br />[[City]]<br />[[Fire]], it would just be [[City]]<br />[[Fire]]. BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  00:11, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

• I think the non system Lego products should just have System removed from the header and replaced with what type of product they are for example ; in the set header LEGO and Furniture or LEGO and Play Wear & Weaponry and City and the info box to reflect this also but with out the LEGO. Gladiatoring 04:35, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • In my opinion we should keep the "Toys" link or replace it with something similar, but not just write "System", since it is not System, so per above.  Samdo994 talk contribs  11:37, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

@Glad: I'm certain that they do so I do that whenever I see otherwise.—Unsigned comment by BobaFett2 (talk • contribs).

Inventories

Since we obviously agreed to have set inventories as a new namespace (see Forum:Set Reviews on Brickipedia), we need to have a Manual of Style for that too.

I suggest to have it formatted like this:

• Part 161384 {{Colorbox|Blue}} {{Colorbox|Red}} (2x)
• Part 168295 {{Colorbox|Yellow}} {{Colorbox|Blue}} (1x)
• Part 190435 {{Colorbox|Green}} (12x)
• ect.

I could imagine to have it put into a table too, with the columns "Design ID", "Color" and "Amount". Additionally to this proposal, we need to think if Inventories can be labelled "FA / GA / CA", or just leave them as they are, without any ratings.  Samdo994 talk contribs  16:05, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have met difficulties regading the Color boxes, so I had to display them like this.  Samdo994 talk contribs  16:10, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should have a nicer way of displaying these.. since it'll be a pretty dull page just one long list.. maybe a wikitable with columns for Image, Colour (colourbox), Part name/id thing and quantity, but maybe rearranged.. and have that lot at 50% of the page so we can do two lots? I cant be bothered to make an example at this point, because I'm baking.. I might make one if no one else gets what I'm saying.. --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 17:33, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Lcawte: Like on this page? Jag 19:18, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of colorboxes, they automatically align to the left (it was needed like that for the part infobox I think), for example, the colorbox code that appears at the beginning of the line is placed just after here

. Also, starting something with a star * or indent : and probably a number # will mess up the whole page (mainly the sidebar- I don't know why- I just found that out). NightblazeSaber 23:46, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, this will require Semantic MediaWiki to be enabled (specifically for the tabs). Don't worry about that, it will also have a number of other benefits, such as the ability to edit a page via form. ajr 23:57, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

That isnt a benefit for our existing pages :| Also, its not needed for the tabs, learn to use javascript fr00b. --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 09:41, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

How about this version:

Image	Design ID	Color	Quantity	Notes
	Part 161384	Red	3
	Part 168295	Lightblue	6	One extra
	Part 190435	Green	12

 Samdo994 talk contribs  14:12, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, we'd need to have all the images at the same height, otherwise it looks ugly :P ajr 14:15, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah lose the pictures and the notes. It looks too complicated. Just have it like before. GG 360 13:17, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I like it. BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  13:16, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I like the table. Kingcjc 15:44, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I like it too, although I agree that the height will need to be consistent. maybe make some sort of template, such as "imageh", where you put in just the name of the image like with the infoboxes and the rest is done automatically? (code: [[File:{{{1}}}|x40px]]. For those who don't know, the "x px" fixes the height of the image). Also with the images, won't we have to make sure only one image is used per design ID? Eg if we have two different images of the one part, we'd have to make sure only one of them are used for inventories. Also, what about making the Design ID, Color and Quantity columns sortable (shown below)?NightblazeSaber 00:54, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Image	Design ID	Color	Quantity	Notes
	Part 161384	Red	3
	Part 168295	Lightblue	6	One extra
	Part 190435	Green	12

The image and note fields, whilst nice, don't seem that feasible to me. Notes on items (such as pieces being unique, or uniquely coloured, or newly-introduced, etc), don't crop up that much, so you're really only looking at one or two notes per set, and having a catch-all section in a paragraph at the end of the table would cover that. Images are a nice addition but the vast majority of pieces don't have the relevant image here, so it's possibly something to add in the future. For a wikitabled inventory, with sortable fields, there's Inventory:6833 Beacon Tracer, which I worked up earlier. The colour, description, part code and quantity fields can be sorted, and it's all deceptively simple to do. It's also very easy to add another field to it if the images become available, but look at it - the overwhelming majority of the pieces listed don't have pages here, let alone images, and none of those red-bricked pages are unique to the set as I made sure to create the page for its only unique piece. Sonny Burnett ^Talk 01:23, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I like the sortable table, I forgot how to cpde that... :P The planned template should have an other name, since it#s the height of the inventories, and not in general (maybe "Inventoryimage" or "InvImg" or "InvImgH"). Oh, and I think the Quantity section is a bit large for that small numbers, I think "Qty" (as peeron has) may be okay too.  Samdo994 talk contribs  09:32, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the template at all. It just looks like it was directly taken from Peeron. Aren't we supposed to have some liberty here? Just stick with the old one in previous versions. You may like it but I think if we are going to have this it would take a lot longer to lay out and copy and paste the template, pieces could get taken out, it would look like a mess. At least the old version tells you everything oyu need to know. GG 360 13:24, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

It's not out fault that Peeron uses one too and it looks like theirs. :P But listing them as usual causes them to look like a list, rather that giving more detailed information via a table. It looks more tidy.  Samdo994 talk contribs  18:00, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Per Samdo. Not having them in a table looks bad, and it's hard to find parts you may be looking for. Also InvImg sounds ok to me, as does changing to Quantity to Qty. NightblazeSaber 23:28, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Tense of articles

• We've never really discussed whether articles should be in current or past tense, eg, should it be "set xxx included xxx pieces" or "set xxx includes xxx pieces", "this minifigure was included in xxx" or "this minifigure is included in xxx". I don't really know which way it should be, although I tend to think that the present tense would be the best, because sets are still around even after they're released. With regards to future sets, I think it's pretty obvious it should still be "will include", etc though. And also, what should we do about descriptions of characters and stories from licensed themes? I'd vote for past tense there, since the wikis which are about the topic of the licensed themes (Wookieepedia, HP Wiki, etc) all use past tense. NightblazeSaber 04:38, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

• I think that we could have it that sets that are 2-4 years since they are released we should have Included but includes before that. Just a suggestion Agent Charge: No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:13, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

• I like a time frame idea, like recent releases contains, as they're more widely available and people may be looking to see whats in them, and then older contained. Kingcjc 08:21, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

• sets from 2010 should be written as present tense, 2009 and earlier past tense
  

set xxx consists of xx pieces, including xx minifigure
set xxx contents is xx pieces, including xx minifigure
set xxx contained xx pieces, including xx minifigure
set xxx consisted of pieces, including xx minifigure
while it is acceptable to use the wording of "included" in number of pieces, it does not fit grammatically if more info is added after as in the minifigure eg;
set xxx included xx pieces, containing xx minifigure I would explain further on the grammar rule applied here but I think you get the idea from the example Gladiatoring 08:55, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the past tense.  Samdo994 talk contribs  13:48, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

I think that present tense sounds better because old sets such as ones released in 1980 can still be purchased today, and words like "consisted" and "included" gives the idea that the set is unavailable anymore. Another issue is that if we go by Gladiatoring's suggestion with 2010 being present tense, come 2011, we would have to change all 2010 sets to past tense and the same for every year after that, whereas having it in present tense would eliminate that issue. Danjam 13:05, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

But we can't use present tense in an article that is to be released. How does this sound? "The Minifigures Series 3 is a Collectable Minifigures set that is released in 2011." :S  Samdo994 talk contribs  13:25, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I think we should use future tense for sets yet to be released. But, you make a point. Just like having to re-edit pages to make 2010 sets past tense in 2011, we would also have to change "will be released" to present tense, so either way we will have to re-edit pages, though going with the past tense option will double the amount. Danjam 13:44, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Glad.. ish.. if its currently on sale from LEGO, have it as present tense, if its not, past tense.. --Lewis Cawte (Talk - Contact) 07:20, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. A set still "includes" the same things it used to include as it is. BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  21:22, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, per Boba. Jag 18:39, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

It should always be present tense, because it's not like all of the sets were destroyed or something. Construction Worker Do you need help? 14:06, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Related discussions

• MOS/Building Instructions
• MOS/Categories
• MOS/External character links
• MOS/International Prices