Forum:Exciting ideas

Forums - Exciting ideas

This page is waiting to be archived by an administrator. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Anyone have any exciting ideas? Things that will make this wiki better than the other one? CJC95 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC) There was a "Magazine" namespace at the old wiki, and it's been added here too. I think we should use that to provide digital copies of as many LEGO magazines from as far back as we can manage. That'd be really helpful I think. --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Taco Tuesday, Communism, and special guest stars. Berrybrick (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC) I don't know about the Communism, I like the look of the bureaucracy of poptropica wikia. I could see myself as Vice-Executive-Chairman. CJC95 (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC) I saw that when you linked it in Wikia chat - I agree. It seems like a good system and could prove useful here [] Something to do with the LEGO Movie. A portal/main page style thing for it perhaps, collecting all news/reviews/sets/merchandise/interviews/cakes. CJC95 (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Reviving Improvement Drives could be good. We could introduce "WikiProjects" like enwiki has. Also we have WikiLove on this wiki now so there are barnstars galore, so we could give out barnstars to users who excel in a specific wikiproject. That could encourage some good growth and development to our encyclopedia content. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Not exactly an "exciting" idea, but an editing help board (board as in with forums, not a committee) would be more organized than our current system, where new users have to try and search for a user who is both active and possibly skilled in the area. :P Working more effectively in helping users edit could increase activity, I believe. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC) That's weird- I had a board set up there before in the community category, but it's gone, meaning either it got lost in the mediawiki upgrade which fixed the corrupted forums, or an admin deleted it :S I'll re-add it soon. NovaHawk 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC) I don't really have any ideas, and don't think I will until we get some content and users here. But I do think some of the features we've been talking about in regards to making reviews more social and involved (optional comments areas, like buttons, etc) are on the right track. Getting BrikiProjects going again sounds good, but I think we need to do more to get people involved with them, maybe with specialised awards with wikilove, I don't know. NovaHawk 00:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC) We make more future articles? E.g. C4 future. We give out prizes (points because their free) when someone makes a c4/c5 article higher. Because we have far too many c4s and people we edit better on lower rated articles. :) Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Supporting this -- because that would probably be my only motivation to work a long time on an article. --ErkelonJay (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC) We have WikiLove now, so barnstars can be given out for those kinds of things, or new barnstars could also be created for such things. --ToaMeiko (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Changing content on the main page - set/article of the week, or random good article, or something (From BFN?) good MoCs from other sites - get involved in things like Flickr and stuff Article comments - can't be as bad as they were in terms of quality at Wikia. Hopefully it would be good discussion or something. CJC95 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC) And if they aren't, I delete them! :P (No, I am NOT delete-happy) The MOCs thing... I dunno. It would be best off if Brickimedia users who are active on other sites could personally ask the makers if they can be here. Don't want people attacking us for not giving credit or asking permission. --{{SUBST::User:ErkelonJay/sig}} (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC) That was to be implied :) CJC95 (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Just to clarify, it wasn't just MOCs that I was thinking of. It was featured LEGO creations in general: MOCs, art, brickfilms, etc. Also, a sort of LEGO tabloid parody was suggested. I'm not sure how serious of a suggestion this was (probably not that serious), but I figured I should bring it up again in case anyone had unintentionally forgotten. BrickfilmNut (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC) It was suggested as a serious way to be non-serious, or a non-serious way to be serious. Berrybrick (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I thought it was a non-serious way to non-seriously be serious myself. CJC95 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Seriously? UltrasonicNXT (talk) Re:Projects I'm working on a new layout. Is there a way to automatically pull the ratings of articles from the page? So to generate a list of say all Ninjago articles with the rating next to them? CJC95 (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I don't believe there are any APIs for ratings yet (suggested in Brickimedia/brickimedia#140), but a special page would be really cool to develop for similar things (Special:SearchRatings or something), which could be refined by category or namespace and stuff. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC) There is a manual way. We used to have pages with loads of ratings on them, but the ratings were hardcoded in, so didn't update. You can now use <rating page="123 Blobby Man and Car" /> and you will (should) get the rating for that page. Not sure exactly what you're planning, will this do, or do you need something more advanced like Meiko suggests? UltrasonicNXT (talk) It would do the job, although being lazy, I was wanting to basically grab all pages out of say, "Category:Ninjago" and do that to it. Of course, a list of pages in a category can be easily generated and prefixed and postfixed, so that should do the job :) CJC95 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Don't worry, Semantic'ed it :) CJC95 (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Cool :) Can I see? One of the main ambitions when I built ARE was for these project pages UltrasonicNXT (talk) http://en.brickimedia.org/wiki/Brickipedia:Project_Ninjago/Ratings CJC95 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC) ah very nice. I need to wait for a few more of the articles to import first though... :) UltrasonicNXT (talk) Galleries Some galleries (particularly characters who appear in movies, TV shows, and recent video games) have pretty extensive galleries which come off as image walls and just don't look good to me. I've seen a few wikis fix this problem by including a subpage for galleries (For example: Lloyd Garmadon/Gallery). Maybe we could include two-three rows of images (preferably a good variety of them) on the parent page and then have a "See more images of {{PAGENAME}} here" line. Yay? Nay? Maybe? Berrybrick (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Berry, did my template I made earlier inspire you, or are we just both geniuses? (he says, having to get spell check to fix the spelling of the word "genius".) Currently it links to a page at Brickimedia (since that is where all images are), but obviously that can be changed and it can be made pretty and stuff. CJC95 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC) What template? :P Berrybrick (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Template:Images CJC95 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Support --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Support UltrasonicNXT (talk) Support, it'll be great to get rid of those annoying galleries. I'm just wondering where the template should go? Maybe in the appearances section? I'm also thinking it should be floated to the right NovaHawk 00:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Video game page overhauls I don't know if anyone's noticed, but our video game pages look bad. The content, in general is minimal, and it's basically a huge long unreadable table of characters. This is an idea for fixing the table problem- it seems more compact, you can see the information you want to see much easier, and (to me) looks better. Also, we can have links in sections which gives a description as to what the ability actually does (see the Slap example in Emmet's section on the linked to page). We also need to start doing subpages as suggested before- with one subpage for each level, detailing things such as the story in the level, the enemies, and default story characters, where all the minikits are located, etc. Also, as a note, I will be enforcing the sourcing policy much more agressively with future content, especially video games- unsourced content will be rolled back, people will be warned, and if they continue, blocked, I don't care who they are. The constant insertion of guesswork and assumptions makes us look bad on all the other sites, as evidenced time and time again, especially in relation to video games. Anyway, let me know what you think about the new layout ideas. NovaHawk 01:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC) nice. using CJC95 (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC) *clap* Berrybrick (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC) What about something like not putting small and grainy images into infoboxes and these new character boxes? Those look bad. :P Berrybrick (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Agreed. I'd rather not have an image :P CJC95 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I like this format, and would make it look better. claps for you, NF. --TheNightingale 09:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (example for what I'm talking about) Thanks for the feedback :) I've added in a link section to the template, so the image and title can both link to something relevant if needed. However, as I half-expected, things get messed up if you have too many (see example, or if everything looks ok, shrink your window down). I'll try and work on a fix for that later. NovaHawk 10:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Unexciting query Sources. When can they be removed? I.e., some pages from 2011 still link to whichever Eastern European site revealed them that year :P, or referencing the characters to appear in LEGO Batman 2. CJC95 (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Obviously this only applies to sources for "future information". Sources for story things and history obviously need to be kept forevers and evers. CJC95 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I'd say remove them when they have clear images on LEGO.com/Brickset/wherever and it is linked to in the product description/external links/whatever. And then with video games, just when we have images of the character that can be clearly put on the page. I know that we don't always get them (this comes to mind) but just leave/find a source in that case. Story/history/policy/business stuff stays. Berrybrick (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Review Hall of Fame It's pretty difficult to find users who deserve featured reviewer, especially one every month. I think that modifying the system to a Hall of Fame with a limit of one inductee a month would work better. It would at least be a bit less embarrassing to say "there were no reviewers inducted this month" than "there is no featured reviewer for this month." Same goes for customs, but I guess that we don't discuss those here anymore. :P Berrybrick (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Maybe, but I don't like the name 'Hall of Fame'. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC) I definitely like the sound of that, but per Meiko, an alternate name would probably be better, I can't think of one though NovaHawk 23:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Maybe "Featured Reviewers", and then list a few people with a fair share of reviews (and good ones), then some sort of "nominate" thing to add another good reviewer. --TheNightingale (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) That kind of defeats the point of changing it. :P Berrybrick (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Reviewer Spotlight" instead maybe? --ToaMeiko (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC) That sounds good to me. A lot better than "hall of fame". :P -LFY1547 22:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Faction/Species Pages I think this and the one below were suggestions from last time (if it is from this time, please delete). Currently, we don't allow it, eg Wolves. Personally, I'd like to see them able to be created, but basically as a disambigation page- a short background as a lead, then a list of the relevant things. That way, we can have in the background, "Darth Maul was a [[Zabrak]] Sith.......", instead of us having a big long pointless note like "Darth Maul is currently one of six minifigures to be based on a Zabrak, the others being Eeth Koth, Agen Kolar, Savage Opress, Sugi and an Old Republic era Jedi Knight." on every single minifigure which may be slightly different. NovaHawk 22:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC) So, due to an overwhelming response, I've set up List of Clone Troopers, because that list is really long, especially for something in an infobox on Clone Trooper. Will probably do more if there's no other responses. NovaHawk 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (Sorry, I didn't see this before) Sounds good. Berrybrick (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Per Berry. BrickfilmNut (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Per Berry -LFY1547 00:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC) How many do you think there should be in licensed faction/species before there's a list? I'm thinking 4? 3 seems too short for a page and doesn't seem too long for a note, eg, "The Jedi Consular is the third Mirialan to be made, the other two being Luminara Unduli and Barriss Offee", but 4 might be getting a bit up there, I don't know. I think unlicensed established factions (Serpentine, Chima animals, etc) should be ok nomatter the size though NovaHawk 00:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Just a note with Chima animals, sure you have the Lion and Raven Tribes the first year, but the second has had the villains under the banner of "Outland Tribes" and then spiders, scorpions, etc. are underlying denominations. I don't think that spiders & co. should have articles in that case. I'm not sure about the ice villains yet. And I assume that Mixel and BIONICLE tribes and species (respectively) would get articles? Also, with this policy would we want articles like "Iron Man Rogue Gallery"? Because I think it would allow them. Berrybrick (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I know nothing about Chima, so I can't comment. I don't know if this is similar, but I do think in terms of Ninjago, there should be pages for Serpentine subgroups like Venomari, etc. I'd be ok with BIONICLE tribes (but again, know nothing at all about Mixels so no comment). As for rogue galleries- aren't they just loose collections of people who don't like a particular hero, and usually from an out-of universe perspective? I'd be ok with established in-universe organisations like HYDRA, but I don't know about this :S NovaHawk 00:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Eh, I don't know about multiple pages for the Serpentine tribes. There wouldn't be a lot of unique information. As for the rogue galleries, to me it's basically the same thing. If you are going to allow pages to link all Mirilans together just because they are Mirilans, then a page linking all of so-and-so's villains together makes as much sense to me. I don't really like it either, but thought I would point it out so we can avoid a few deletion nominations and a couple forums in the future. :P Berrybrick (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Hm, old forum. I'm going to maybe try to create an infobox for factions sometime soon. I want to pretty up some BIONICLE pages. Berrybrick (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC) (At least for pages which are more than a list; I don't think the clone trooper page from above would need one.) Berrybrick (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Cutscene only VG/movie characters To me, anyone that can be clearly identified (which usually means is licensed) should have their own page. NovaHawk 22:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Sure CJC95 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Only if they can be clearly identified or are otherwise credited as being in the game. No speculation though (there was a lot on LEGO Marvel Super Heroes). --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC) If it's an existing character or credited as being in the game. Basically, I don't think we need an article on a Fisherman that appeared in the background in one of the Batman games. :P Berrybrick (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC) ^This. :P -LFY1547 00:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)