Forum:A Mascot?

Forums - A Mascot?

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

See:Forum:Making a Mascot, Part 1:The Vote

Another one of my bizarre ideas but I think this could be useful. :P A mascot would give us :

Something that is ours, most of our stuff is just moved from WIKIA this could be a nice change.
Iconicness if it was cool/cute enough it could become iconic and give us more users. Also we could give our mascot away in giveaways.
Bring our community closer together if we design, name a mascot together I think it would bring us all closer.
Not many have one we could start a trend :P of are lesat look more original. Also bricki wikia doesn't have one, makes us more different.
Merchandise obviously this is far out, but brickset makes merchandise so why can't we? And if the logo is cute enough mabey shoppers of the site be like ooh what's this and checks are site. Merchandise also gives us advertisement and money! :P

This all being said this is a very serious deal we'd have to choose what it is, concept art it, name it, final design and then copyright it. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Got it:

In all seriousness, I highly doubt we could use a mascot unless we had a live event (and even then I'm not sure how it would serve a purpose). Good originality idea but just not practical. -NBP3.0 (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)s

This is just a message to say I've seen this but have no opinion. (But it's great to see you coming up with all the ideas for the site Soup :) ) NovaHawk 12:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :P We could use the mascot in all sorts of places e.g. Beside/behind the brickipedia logo, when were doing news blogs when we're doing contests, and at the bottom of the side bar ect. The 2x4 brick however isn't ours, we need something that's our own! :P We could also use the mascot as our logo? Even if we go with this idea and it dosnt work we could allways undo it :P Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

Darn edit conflicts :P We could use it for "cards" from brickimedia e.g. Happy Halloween from brickipedia and dress it up. Or just throw it at the top and say happy Halloween with the mascot. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

I like this idea. Not sure what it should be though. :P Berrybrick (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be some cute but cool animal that LEGO wouldn't make, e.g. Blue Penguin and it could have a brick collar! :3 Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

I honestly don't see the need for this. I can't think of any other wikis that have mascots (so if I know any that do, obviously they aren't memorable enough), and nearly every other LEGO fan site I can think of doesn't have one either, sans BZPower and BrickNerd, both of which are sites very different from ours. --ToaMeiko (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the point it would make us original! :P And we can make our mascot memorable. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

I think our name is what makes our site memorable. To anyone, even those who hardly use the site, Brickipedia is the LEGO encyclopedia. That's more important than some "mascot" image to me. --ToaMeiko (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how adding a mascot takes away from that image. Also there's two brickipedias now we need some separating. Brickimedia is the lego enclyopedia with the cool (e.g) cat. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

People all over Eurobricks still refer to Brickia when they say Brickipedia. I think I have only seen the contrary from someone who isn't a user here once. Berrybrick (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The easiest solution would be to get Brickia to rename their wiki... --ToaMeiko (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I love that idea so much, but I doubt we would be able to convince them. I still don't think Matau will even let us delete our old customs and reviews. Berrybrick (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea to an extent. It has the potential to, at very least, be fun, and it would have uses. It could serve to personify the community for either humorous effect or to give a face to community-wide announcements and stuff. And it's more interesting than just a logo or something like that. Per Meiko's reasoning, I don't think this is going to make us very iconic or anything, but hey, it couldn't hurt. That being said, I don't think we would need to display a mascot too prominently. Just in cases where the touch could be needed. As for what the mascot would be, I think something zany like an animal is best reserved for Customs. I think just a minifigure of an editor (in the more "traditional" meaning of the word) or something would serve our purposes. BrickfilmNut (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want a "traditional" minifigure, why don't we use the first minifigure, a policeman? Brikkyy Talk

I meant traditional to refer to the word "editor", in the sense that he'd maybe carry a pen or something and not necessarily be just a guy at a laptop. :P That being said, the policeman idea is kind of neat, but would it make us look too, like... old? BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've done a ton of research on mascots and if can't be a minifigure. The minifigure would be a "human" and mascots that are humans are unrelatable. E.g. If the editor was a girl in pink you'd all object. :P The sites allready a male promonite one, we don't need a male minifigure to scream the message. It's not inviting to girls or even males who don't look like it. E.g. Parents might be like eh why does that minifigure have a beard you can't go on that site johnny!, and kids might be like why is that minifigure a blond why can't it be ginger like me? Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

I, representing the ignorant majority, fail to see that this would cause any issue. Don't know how a male minifigure is "screaming the message", if we fail to have an androgynous minifigure possible, a male minifigure best represents the predominantly male community here (and the lack of female editors is no fault of our own.) Also, Nintendo's mascot is a human being that's fat, Italian, and sports a moustache, but how does that put off potential buyers? As far as I can tell, it doesn't. ----Jay 22:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Mario isn't Nintendo's sole mascot. Link and Samus also come to mind, but they would still be counterpoints. I'm not even sure if you could call them mascots, or if they are just iconic parts of the company's roster. Anyway, the process that Soup described is subconscious and even if Nintendo is fine, we might be more effective if our mascot isn't fat and hairy. I doubt that anybody thinks that an androgynous minifigure is a good idea (if such a thing even exists; the closest thing is probably when they give cheekbones to women, or fail to give a female hair) and either they will want something more like what BFN or Brikky suggested, or something entirely different. Berrybrick (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"If the editor was a girl in pink you'd all object." For the record, Soup, I wouldn't object so long as I felt it represented editing. Heck, it'd be fun. :P BrickfilmNut (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes males are the mijority, but I don't want to be reminded "LEGO and this site is for boys" whenever I go on this site. Also minifigures are overdone and kinda borning and we could be easily copied. Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

It wouldn't be saying this site is for boys or girls if the minifigure had a gender. You are overthinking this, in my opinion. As I said before, it could be a gender ambiguous minifigure, if that would make you feel better or some crap. Like the Bob colored figure. --Knight

Bob isn't androgynous. He has no hairpiece, which is evocative of baldness, generally a masculine trait. I don't think that there is a truly androgynous minifigure, unless we go with a robot like BFN suggested. Berrybrick (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's as close as possible. And again, it doesn't have to be androgynous. Why would it matter? No one would be offended if it was female, no one would be offended if it was male (except for Soup). Having our mascot be one gender or another is not saying we prefer one gender on our site. (Also, right now this forum is just about how the mascot will be rather than if we should have one. Most people are supporting the idea of one, so I think we should make a contest.) --Knight

It isn't about being politically correct. It's about marketing. Soup isn't saying that she is offended, just that by making the mascot male, that would cause people to subconsciously associate this site with masculinity (yes, I laugh at that too). Though Jay is right that our community is male by a large majority (quantcast says that about 22% of our viewers are female) I don't want to add to that image and exclude them further. Berrybrick (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think having a male character excludes female users. Having a male character does not mean it's masculine. It would only be very masculine if we gave it a beard and muscles and a bunch of chicks. Male characters generally don't make women less interested in something, too. But again, I think it's best for us to have a contest on mascots than for us to discuss this. We already have agreed with having a mascot, so a contest is the best idea right now. --Knight

I'm really not interested in having this conversation about representation with you again, because it's the same idea. Mascots and icons do work when they are male, obviously, but I'm not one for marketing that way because a lot of the time it is done particularly to exclude girls. Cartoon Network used to cancel shows for having too large of a female following when they could be appealing to more boys. Are we doing that? Not purposefully, but it sends a message, and if we don't want to send that message, I don't see why we should. By masculinity, I mean predominantly male, and with minifigures, just a hair piece (or lack thereof) makes their gender clear when they are a human. Really, what came to mind when BFN brought up an editor was that Computer Nerd CMF. Not really manly, but clearly a man, and also nerdy. That might be what we are, but it might not be the image that we want to put out there. Kind of like if we decided our mascot should be an assassin with blood dripping off of his (or her?) sword because it is striking or something. That would send the message of us being violent. I want something iconic but not too telling (true or not), myself. Also, please stop trying to change the topic while we are having this discussion. :P It's a separate point, so it should go below.

Mascots have to be marketable and memrobable a minifigure of either gender is not-Soup

I agree with this mascot idea, and I think we've had a forum like this before, but whatever. Yeah, I like BFN's idea of an editor-like person. Also, this stuff with minorities and stuff doesn't matter that much. We can make it gender ambiguous, bald, and yellow, like most minifigures. And we don't even need to give it a name, we just need to give it a look. I think the best way we could handle this, if we do agree with the decision to make a mascot, is to have a contest for a mascot. Maybe we could have multiple mascots, even! One for En, Reviews, Customs, Stories, Ideas, etc. But for now, I think it's best to just decide whether we want one or not. The details are for later. --Knight

Bald isn't gender ambiguous. :P And it isn't anything about minorities, but more relatability. Anyway, I'd kind of like something a bit more unique than a minifigure, but if that's what other people want, so be it. \_O_/ Berrybrick (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree a minifigure is a bit overused, but the other options so far don't seem to appealing. Is there really an animal that represents LEGO wiki editing? Is a LEGO brick interesting enough? The next best thing I can think of is a brick-built figure or robot or something. BrickfilmNut (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What about a pen? Or a 1x1 brick with a face! :P Anything but a generic minifig- Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}

A caterpillar riding a donkey, but in actuality, the caterpillar is a dog in a costume. That sums up Brickipedia to me. CJC95 (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I always found giving inanimate objects like pens a personality a little creepy, so I'll let someone without this personal bias reply to that idea. 1x1 brick with a face seems a little limiting, as we can't give it poses, and then we run into all the "androgynous" stuff that forces me to read text pushed all the way to the right side of the page like above. I wasn't serious with my robot suggestion at first, but after seeing the Knight-Berry discussion above, maybe it could work? I mean, now that I think about it, Brickipedia does actually have editing "bots" that are very important to our wiki. BrickfilmNut (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Junkbot's brother, anyone? :P - Bug (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Before we find out what it is vote! See:Forum:Making a Mascot, Part 1:The Vote