Open main menu

BIONICLEsector01 β

BIONICLEsector01 talk:Articles for Creation

BIONICLE Facebook Page

Page will be made.

This wiki should probably have some way of referencing the happenings of the Bionicle Facebook page, which often releases images and videos that are either exclusive or are not released on another source until later and hosts events such as contests. Bionicle websites have articles so it should seem logical that the facebook page should as well. Even if a page is not made, there should be some way of referencing events that unfold on the facebook page as well as images, videos, and other content. This could mean a nav template or a category of some form. Post your thoughts.

Someone wanna get cracking on a sandbox for this? --Angel Bob (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2016 (CET)
Would someone make a sandbox? -- SurelNuva (Talk) 13:06, 14 February 2017 (CET)

Addition of Fansite

Given that we have BZPower on here, I feel it only right to put Mask of Destiny on as well, and perhaps even The Toa's Hideout. However, Mask of Destiny actually has a good reason, as it is actually the longest running BIONICLE fansite with a forum on the web.


Add fansite articles

  1. -- Intelligence4 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2017 (CET) A thorough documentation of fansites isn't a bad idea IMO.
  2. Master Inika (Talk) 06:47, 1 February 2017 (CET)
  3. --WOLKsite (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2017 (CET)
  4. Planetperson 19:27, 28 June 2017 (CET)
  5. ~OnionShark 12:15, 1 July 2017 (CET)
  6. ~ Zumoro Rahkshi - Mouth-speak {Helpings} 04:10, 20 September 2017 (CET)
  7. ~~ Azani (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2017 (CET) Solid idea; though they don't need pages of their own, there are a few other than MoD that may merit mention as well.

Don't add fansite articles


Don't forget to sign your proposals, y'all. also, can we assume that, unless stated otherwise during the duration of the discussion, a proposal counts as a vote? meaning that if 6 people put their username under the yes section but one of them is the proposal writer, then there are in fact only 5 people who are voting yes. (avoiding the proposer's vote double counting.)Intelligence4 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2017 (CET)

If we're doing so, a fellow who has the authority to do so should make sure to edit the clause on the policy page that explicitly prefers linking to other forum, with the exception of BZPower. Since the TTV MBs now incorporate our only consistent way of reaching Greg, such a change is long overdue by this point in time. Additionally, I don't really consider The Toa's Hideout to be especially notable; perhaps it could be added to an "other sites" page? Azani (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2017 (CET)

BioMedia Project

As it is a fairly extensive collection of Bionicle Generation 1 media, it seems like a page for BioMedia Project might be a worthwhile addition. To be honest, I'm not sure about some of their content, such as full scans of the various G1 comics-I'm not an expert but it seems like a copyright question-but what do y'all think?--Wiriamu (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2016 (CET)

Page will be made.


The only problem with copyright would be the scans of Glatorian Comics 3-7, as those were never published for free online. --OnionShark 21:19, 6 January 2017 (CET)

I'm pretty sure they were somewhere for free, considering I've read them and didn't have a comic subscription at the time they were published. I don't think it's an issue. Intelligence4 (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2017 (CET)
Maybe you read scans on brickshelf? Do you think you could find the place where you read them so we can be sure that no copyright issues will come up?
--OnionShark 23:05, 10 January 2017 (CET)
The scans could be found on BrickShelf some years ago (I don't know they're still there). I remember for I tried to translate the comic, but the scans were kind of awful ones, nearly unreadable, so I couldn't xd... By the way, they were on Brickshelf. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 23:14, 10 January 2017 (CET)
another point to make, we're not posting the content ourselves, but simply linking to another site that does, so i don't think it's an issue.
also, we have links to all the comics on here somewhere anyway, so... Intelligence4 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2017 (CET)
Ok, I guess this technically wont get us into trouble. (BTW, GC3-7 are not linked )
--OnionShark 17:27, 11 January 2017 (CET)
Eh, the original saga's comics were not released on the, but we have links for them. And comics 3-5 were released 8 years ago, the last two were released 7 years ago, I don't think there would be copyright issue, if the BioMedia Project is still active. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 17:34, 11 January 2017 (CET)

No, the original comics were released for free on the website. So, the page got six votes for yes, it will be made, right? --OnionShark 17:40, 11 January 2017 (CET)

Before we create the page we would need a Sandbox section, to see how it'll look like, I think. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 17:43, 11 January 2017 (CET)
It's exciting that this project has been voted in, as I have hoped to do something similar for some time, but I would warn that the Lego Company still retains full rights to these comics, and can at any time deem this project unallowed. Here is a link to the Lego Companies info on using copyrighted material, [1].--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2017 (CET)
Actually, having read the paragraph regarding the scanning of copyrighted material, it sounds as though the Lego group would not oppose what the BioMedia Project is doing as long as they make it clear that the content belongs to Lego (although arguably, the site hasn't made this particularly explicit). There is also a slight chance I'm misinterpreting this particular paragraph. --Snaptor (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Move all fan-created canon stories from "Saga Guides/[title] by [author]" to "[title]"

The current title format for fan-written stories (such as Saga Guides/Decadence by Dorek) is a bit strange. They're grouped under Saga Guides, but they're not saga guides, they're short stories. Stories by Greg follow the "[title]" format, so why should it be different for fan-written canon stories? -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2017 (CET)

Names will be changed to "[title] by [author]"

Comments on fan created stories

Given that these are fan created stories, i think we should still note the author - i.e. [title by author] instead of simply [title]. if we removed saga guide from their title, would we also have to remove them from the saga guides' navigation box? if so, where would we put them? i know i only found those stories back in the day through those saga guides links, so i don't think we should make them harder for readers to find.

Another thing to consider, even though they're fan created, they're still official canon, right?

Aaaand one last thing on a bit of a tangent, were the images at the top of those story pages arbitrarily chosen, or were they specifically created for those pages, or what? Intelligence4 (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2017 (CET)

1) We could add them to the online story navigation box, all the official serials and short stories are there. 2) They were written for contests in which the winning stories would become canon, so yes. 3) The banners were chosen from pre-existing images, but I'm pretty sure the original versions didn't have them. Does anyone know why they were added? ~OnionShark 10:22, 6 May 2017 (CET)

Also, I noticed that among the Saga Guides are Birth of a Dark Hunter and The Crossing, should we change their titles too? They could go in the guides nav because BoaDH was in the Encyclopedia and TC was in the Glatorian mini books. ~OnionShark 14:18, 6 May 2017 (CET)

Can there be an option added for changing them to "Title by Author"? I feel like we should keep the authors' names even if we drop the cumbersome "Saga Guides," not because they're less canon, but just to acknowledge them as contest winners. --Master Inika (Talk) 01:43, 7 June 2017 (CET)

done. i think we should leave them in the same navigation place they are now, i.e. in the saga guides navigation box. Intelligence4 (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2017 (CET)
I agree, just because there's not really anywhere else to put them. --Master Inika (Talk) 05:33, 11 June 2017 (CET)
since this has 8 votes, isn't it decided now? Intelligence4 (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2017 (CET)


Given that it's got it's own Saga Guide, a timeline page seems appropriate. Granted, a lot of the dating in Bionicle G2...if not all of king of fuzzy, but I think we could get a general outline.--Wiriamu (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2017 (CET)

Create Timeline/Okoto

  1. Okoto :< -- Dorek Talk External Image 21:22, 30 August 2017 (CET)
  2. Why not? I think there's more than enough lore there. —Planetperson 07:02, 3 September 2017 (CET)

Don't create Timeline/Okoto

  1. I just don't think there's just enough info in G2's story to merit a timeline - or a saga guide. Everything we need is covered in the History section of Okoto. --Angel Bob (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2017 (CET)
  2. I tend to agree with what Bob said. G2 didn't really live very long, thankfully. Intelligence4 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2017 (CET)
  3. Thought I wish there was enough G2 lore to justify this, there isn't. --Master Inika (Talk) 01:43, 7 June 2017 (CET)
  4. There's really not that much story. --WOLKsite (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2017 (CET)
  5. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2017 (CET)
  6. SurelNuva (Talk) 07:21, 3 September 2017 (CET)
  7. The reason G1 needed a timeline was because the story was communicated in so many different forms. G2 had only three (The webisodes, the books, and tJtO), so I don't see how a timeline would really say anything we don't already know. Snaptor (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2017 (CET)



Y'all are silly. Dekar's page is a mess when we have to incorporate all of the Hydraxon material, plus it obfuscates searchability when somebody clicks on a link about a Matoran and gets this dude. I know it's a unique situation and all that, which is why it calls for a unique approach. Call it what you want (Hydraxon (Duplicate), whatever) but the information as such is so much better organized when it's on a separate page.

(Re)create Dekar-Hydraxon

  1. -- Dorek Talk External Image 21:28, 30 August 2017 (CET)
  2. I actually agree, though I'd be for renaming the current Dekar page to Dekar-Hydraxon/whatever and fixing it. --Vartemp Talk 18:28, 1 September 2017 (CET)

Don't create Dekar-Hydraxon

  1. ~ Wolk (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2017 (CET)
  2. Absolutely not. If we separate Dekar and Dekar-Hydraxon (Dekar/Hydraxon) we should separate Takanuva and Takua in that way. Unnecessary. The merging of the pages was a long debate and a good decision on the AfD. — SurelNuva (Talk) 08:00, 31 August 2017 (CET)
  3. Nah --Angel Bob (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2017 (CET)
  4. --Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2017 (CET)
  5. No, per the reasons in our discussion on the AfD. Intelligence4 (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2017 (CET)
  6. I agree, it doesn't make much sense to separate Dekar/Hydraxon into two articles if you don't do the same for Takua and Takanuva. I think the way it is now is very sensible. —Planetperson 01:19, 5 September 2017 (CET)

Comments on Dekar-Hydraxon

Name is not super important (whatever people think is better for searching) although I'm still personally partial to Dekar-Hydraxon. -- Dorek Talk External Image 21:28, 30 August 2017 (CET)

It's still the same character. No other being has two pages, and I honestly see no reason for Dekar to have two pages either. ~ Wolk (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2017 (CET)
Takanuva isn't a comparison, literally the only similarity is the confusion in the renaming. For all intents and purposes, Dekar-Hydraxon is a separate being; he's a completely reworked version of Dekar in the incidental form of a pre-existing entity. Doing this wouldn't mean we'd create a separate page for every individual form, but this is a pretty unique scenario.
If people want an analogy, how about the Fohrok? All they are, are replicas. Might as well merge them with the Bohrok page, no? -- Dorek Talk External Image 21:52, 31 August 2017 (CET)
The duplicate Hydraxon is still Dekar however. The memories aren't erased, more or less just blocked and buried away. As far as I can see, it's the same entity, no more of a special case than Takua, who has actually lost his memories twice. ~ Wolk (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2017 (CET)
I think it's good the way it is because you get the entire history of the character on his page, however it might be nice to specify the difference of Dekar-Hydraxon on the info box thing (sorry don't know the technical term), that simply says "Hydraxon" by default when you land on the page.--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2017 (CET)
We could probably do that. We've changed every instance of "Dekar-Hydraxon" on the wiki to "Hydraxon's replica" or "duplicate", so that's the terminology I'd recommend we put on the infobox, if we do change it. --Angel Bob (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2017 (CET)
I've changed the infobox's name to Hydraxon's Replica. — SurelNuva (Talk) 20:02, 1 September 2017 (CET)
Just a stray thought... If the pages stay merged, would it be possible to vary the default infobox tab (Matoran vs. replica) based on whether the user arrived via a link directly to Dekar or a via a redirect from Dekar-Hydraxon? That might help address the searchability concerns. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2017 (CET)
For we have changed every Dekar-Hydraxon link (except the links from the user-pages) to Dekar#Hydraxon it's hard to find anything what use the old redirect. — SurelNuva (Talk) 21:17, 1 September 2017 (CET)
Well, the idea may still be valid, if the infobox template can perceive whether the user arrived at the page via Dekar or Dekar#Hydraxon and vary its default tab accordingly. I'm not sure whether the URL is a parameter that can be used for conditionals in the infobox template, but I may try to mess with it. Maybe Morris or Meiko or someone would know more? --Volitak Boxor (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2017 (CET)
It's far easier than you thought. We just need 2 infoboxes on the page. One on the top with dekar, and one down with Hydraxon. I know it works, because I tried to make infoboxes to every masks on the Other Kanohi page, and it worked. — SurelNuva (Talk) 21:56, 1 September 2017 (CET)

Takanuva is different because he had the same personality, and was the same person. he just became a toa, like the toa metru, and renamed himself. the fohrok are also different because those have a very different origin. i think the double infobox idea isn't a bad one, but i like volitak boxor's idea of varying the default infobox tab based on link origin better, if that's possible. Intelligence4 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2017 (CET)

As for searchability, the Hydraxon page already has a banner at the top with a link to the Dekar page. That seems good enough to me. —Planetperson 01:24, 5 September 2017 (CET)

The current changes that Surel Nuva made seem very good to me, but it does sort of bother me that the Hydraxon info box title isn't apparently pertaining to Dekar now that it has been changed to Hydraxon's duplicate. Also if we could change the default tab that is displayed depending on which link you arrived from, that does seem better, but again, I do think the way it is now is just fine.--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2017 (CET)

Vartemp actually brings up a really good point; the page itself should be called Hydraxon (Duplicate) or whatever, instead of Dekar, since that is his most current form and the current name the form is going by. That nails a lot of the frustration I have with searchability; spoilers aside, the fact that you click a link that says "Dekar" and get info on a being called "Hydraxon" bugs me a lot.

Putting a separate infobox further down is also a very curious idea that I didn't know we were capable of =P. It's something wikipedia does on occasion, but it's always been a thing I've avoided personally; that said, it does kinda work here. If that's how the page is with just the name Dekar, I suppose it could be okay. Or we pull a Takanuva, consolidate everything, and change the page name. -- Dorek Talk External Image 02:07, 5 September 2017 (CET)

why don't we just name the page dekar-hydraxon? that's the most accurate name for him now. Intelligence4 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2017 (CET)

Re: the infobox changing depending on what link you come from, that's not possible currently, and I'm not immediately sure if it would be possible. It'd be cool though. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2017 (CET)

Yeah, I second moving the page name back to Dekar-Hydraxon. It is simply the clearest way to describe him.--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2017 (CET)

I don't want to see this page split into two pages again, but I'll concede that the name could be changed. Might I actually suggest Dekar/Hydraxon, with a slash rather than a hyphen, like we used to do for Takua/Takanuva? It makes more sense to my eyes. --Angel Bob (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2017 (CET)

Slashes had a bit of a problem in that it's generally how we use subpages (although I don't think it's technically an issue software-wise). I'm open to Hydraxon (Duplicate) but my preference is still Dekar-Hydraxon =P.

That said, we sort of have two paths here; one is keeping the name Dekar outright and having the page structured as is (with two infobox templates) the other is changing the name to Dekar-Hydraxon (OR WHATEVER) and then merging the templates back. The former is unorthodox, but obvious it's an unusual circumstance so I can't say I dislike it. The other is a little more standard, we just need to agree on a name =P. I've started a new conversation on Talk:Dekar, but I'll leave this up so people can see everything until a consensus is reached.

(I still think a separate page is the best organizationally but whatever man). -- Dorek Talk External Image 00:39, 11 September 2017 (CET)

I feel that the best solution would actually be to have one page for Dekar and one page for Hydraxon and his duplicate. After all, the duplicate was certainly more Hydraxon than Dekar, and I personally find it confusing to navigate to the "Hydraxon" page before remembering "Oh, that's right, most of the stuff we know about Hydraxon actually isn't on his page, but on a page for his duplicate." Snaptor (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2017 (CET)


Regardless of exactly what we call it, I feel as though we need a single page for all the obscure merchandising items Bionicle had during it's run, such as the Toa Mahri Dart Shooter or the Sponge Morbuzakh or even the Soft Foam Takadox Mask and Twin Knives, which clearly aren't important enough to deserve pages of their own but could probably be compiled onto a single page. The only issue I can see with this is that some of these are very difficult to find reliable citations for that extend beyond photographs (Otherwise surely there would be some mention of the wearable glow-in-the-dark Piraka teeth on the wiki) --Snaptor (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2017 (CET)

Create Merchandise

  1. --Snaptor (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  2. Oh ye, this is needed. --~ Wolk (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  3. You're a genius! --Angel Bob (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  4. Good idea. —Planetperson 05:06, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  5. Merch tends to be out of my interest zone, but I'm totally down if somebody else does it! -- Dorek Talk External Image 21:32, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  6. It'll be an interesting one. — SurelNuva (Talk) 21:48, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  7. Intelligence4 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2017 (CET)
  8. ~ Zumoro Rahkshi - Mouth-speak {Helpings} 07:35, 28 September 2017 (CET)

Don't create Merchandise

Comments on merchandise

I think this will be a good page to have - but i think we have to be very careful in drawing the line between regular sets and stuff and all the ancillary merchandise that was available. Intelligence4 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2017 (CET)

I found a TTV topic that has a huge list of this sort of thing. It obviously wouldn't qualify as an actual source, but it could certainly help as a sort of "checklist" to see exactly what sort of things we're looking for. Are we allowed to link to TTV here? (Also, on a more amusing note, I'm not sure I've seen something gather eight votes this quickly in ages, I was expecting this to be controversial. =P) Snaptor (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2017 (CET)

I just realized this only technically counts as seven votes, oops. Snaptor (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2017 (CET)
MY VOTE COUNTS FOR EVERYTHING -- Dorek Talk External Image 03:39, 29 September 2017 (CET)


Following Snaptor's idea, I think we should also have a comprehensive page for the various collectibles, including the wide-release collectibles like the Kanohi, krana, etc., as well as the more exclusive ones such as the TNGM, TOK, VMKK, MEK, platinum Avohkii, etc. Since collectibles have always been a fairly significant aspect of BIONICLE fandom, it's weird not to mention them on this wiki. —Planetperson 05:12, 25 September 2017 (CET)

Create Collectibles

  1. I'd like to see a sandbox, but tentatively, yes. --Angel Bob (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  2. I have noticed information on certain collectables is a bit lacking, so this could help to flesh out exactly where some of them were actually distributed. Snaptor (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  3. I think it'd make sense to be in the Set namespace (so Set:Collectibles), but one way or another, this would definitely be a good page to have. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  4. -- Dorek Talk External Image 21:26, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  5. I never understood why don't we already have a page like this. — SurelNuva (Talk) 21:47, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  6. --~ Wolk (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2017 (CET)
  7. --Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2017 (CET)

Don't Create Collectibles

  1. Intelligence4 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2017 (CET)

Comments on Collectibles

I've thought for a while that a collectibles section would be a good complement to the set database, but I obviously haven't taken the initiative to do anything more than think about it. I think the Kanoka page (with the addition of images) may serve as a good starting point; it's useful to understand which sets each collectible could be found in. These checklists made by Ektris may also come in handy.

With the large number of collectibles, it would probably make sense to split this up into subpages (e.g. Set:Collectibles/Kanohi, Set:Collectibles/Krana, etc.). The Kanohi page will still be a beast to organize; I'm not sure whether to try a grid-based system (like Kanohi#Known_Kanohi with added detail), or if it would be better to have some really tall tables, with all the mask photos/details arranged in columns. I have an idea for a new template that could be pretty neat that I may try to mock up in Excel, but I don't know if I'd be able to implement it within the wiki in any reasonable amount of time.

I probably don't have time to put a sandbox together on my own, but I'd like to try to help out if someone else starts one. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2017 (CET)

I've been against this in the past for a few reasons, but I think it would be interesting to try especially now that we have the set database. Part of it is that it's so expansive and branches off into a bunch of different tangents... but at the same time I'm not really sure how I feel about sub-pages. Another is that there tends to be a lot of unofficial terms/fan jargon that accompany collectibles so it's hard to keep a lid on that. But I'd like to give it a shot.
If we can get show/hide working (is that working?) it would make organizing a lot easier. I'll see about that. -- Dorek Talk External Image 21:31, 25 September 2017 (CET)
Edit: sandbox -- Dorek Talk External Image 22:28, 25 September 2017 (CET)
I made a rough Excel mock-up of the new template idea I had; I uploaded it to Google Docs, and you can download it with this link: [2] (the preview is bad, but the downloaded version should work). In theory, I think this could be implemented on the wiki as a modification of the template used to display tabs for different forms on character infoboxes, but I don't know if that would be more trouble than it's worth to actually code.
I think it would probably be a good idea to document post-2003 Kanohi, even though they aren't particularly unique. However, that raises the question of whether to break things down by set or by mold (i.e. should Idris's blue Great Ruru go under 2004 or 2007?). But we can cross that bridge later. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2017 (CET)
Interesting, but it might take up a lot of room... or maybe I'm not understanding the template exactly. I'll try a standard configuration before experimenting first. -- Dorek Talk External Image 01:10, 26 September 2017 (CET)
My mock-up only had four masks, since I threw it together pretty quickly, but my thought was that the final template would have dozens of mask images arranged in a grid on the left half (for instance, all the Kanohi released in 2001). When you clicked on a mask's picture, its details would appear in the right half. This way, we could have specific notes and set numbers for every color of every mask. In my mind, the two currently possible arrangements (without any new templates) would be either a table with hundreds of rows (one per mask/color combination), or a grid similar to Masks of Power#Masks with details listed under each mask. Both of those options would take up a lot of space, which is why I was thinking about a new template.
I saw your sandbox, and while I think it would work well if we only wanted to list set numbers/notes on a per-shape basis, it may not work as well if we want to list different notes or different set numbers for different colors of the same mask shape. For instance, we'll probably want different notes for gray Hau, chrome Hau, infected Hau, solid gold Hau, etc.; I think it would be better to have each set of notes correlated to the individual image of each mask, as opposed to a bunch of Hau notes all in one place. I may try something soon. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2017 (CET)

Oh, I see where you're going. I love the idea, but lord knows how we'd go about executing it. I think a show/hide feature is easier with a general explanation at the top of each category, but I'll see what else we can do. -- Dorek Talk External Image 04:00, 26 September 2017 (CET)

The collectibles topic on BZPower is a good reference for rare collectibles: [3].

So, we have lots of ideas of how to organize this thing. Personally, I don't think a big matrix for every possible combination of mask shape and color makes much sense, or even looks very good -- it's too sparse and not very space-efficient. It does make sense to put things in a table when they are part of a series -- the original Kanohi, the gold and silver Kanohi, the krana, the Kanoka, etc.

I propose we start with the simplest and clearest possible solution: list all collectibles in chronological order of release, and show things in a table when they are part of a series.

In my mind, these are the main points that cause uncertainty:

  1. What's the best way to display collectibles that are clearly part of a series, such as the original Kanohi, krana, etc.? Many of the collectible masks were included in sets or other merchandise (like the blue Pakari) and should include notes stating as such -- where do we show that information?
  2. What do we do with masks and disks that were not really available through collectible packs, but just came standard with certain sets? Examples: the McToran masks, the Metru Nui Matoran masks, the Vahki Kanoka, the Rahaga Rhotuka, the various colors of Zamor, etc. Do we mention them? Where?
  3. What do we do with the Toa Metru Masks, Toa Mahri masks, and other masks that clearly fit into the mask system, but were never part of a collectible pack series and just came as standard parts of sets? Do they really count as "collectibles"?
  4. What do we do with faux masks like the Toa Hordika heads and the Mistika Makuta heads? Are they worth mentioning just because they are called masks in the story?
  5. What do we do with rare, one-off collectibles like the Vahi, copper masks, TNGM, MEK, 14k gold Hau, silver Krana-Kal, etc.?

My answers to the above would be:

  1. Put anything that's in a series in its own table. Allow space in each cell for brief notes. If a note is really long for some reason, use a footnote.
  2. Show them, but don't include them in the same table as the collectible series, and explain where they came from.
  3. Hardly worth mentioning. If we mention them at all, don't include them in the main flow of the page. Maybe list the variants for each shape in a separate section at the bottom of the page.
  4. Not worth mentioning.
  5. Give each of them its own blurb. These are probably the most interesting and important part of the page.

As a side-note, it would be really great if we could get nice, clean photographs of each of the collectible pieces. It would be really nice to do this for the kraata, since the way the colors are described online does not match up with what the toys actually look like.

Planetperson 13:48, 26 September 2017 (CET)

I sketched out my idea in a sandbox. —Planetperson 15:47, 26 September 2017 (CET)

I note you included the Toa Inika masks on your sandbox, even though they don't connect to heads the same way other Kanohi do. Wouldn't it be more consistent to remove them, as they're not "true" masks? --Angel Bob (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2017 (CET)
I figured that some people would insist on including them. I prefer to keep them out too. —Planetperson 20:03, 26 September 2017 (CET)
I'm really not for including stuff like misprints and mismolds (obvious exception being the Turaga/Gali masks from 2001). I'd really only like to include things that were designated AS collectibles to start with, otherwise we're just basically listing "masks and miscellanea" which dilutes the entire purpose.
It looks like we could theoretically do a click-based table, which would solve a lot of problems, but until we get that operational, I would say just plain tables and then section it up like it is on my sandbox. Kraata's gonna be the tricky one for sure. -- Dorek Talk External Image 19:57, 26 September 2017 (CET)
Would it make more sense to separate the page primarily by type instead of by year (i.e. all Kanohi together, then all Krana, etc., instead of all of 2001, then all of 2002, and so on)? For instance, I think it would be more convenient to have the gold and silver Mata Kanohi listed alongside their colored counterparts instead of separating them under 2001 and 2002 headers.
I see the point about wanting the page to focus on items that were actually collectible, but I still think it's important to record the information for the Metru/Inika/etc. masks. What do you all think about having an entirely separate page called something like "Non-collectible Masks" where we could document all the Kanohi released 2004 and later (since the last mask packs released in 2003)? If it's separate, we could even include information on things like the Hordika masks/2009 helmets if we wanted. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2017 (CET)
Isn't that just the Kanohi page? =P
Joking aside, if this is going to fall under the umbrella of being set-focused, a year division works best. We're not really making this as a checklist for people; there are plenty of other places that do that already. I and my vote are more interested in delving into the history of collectibles, and how to contextualize it with BIONICLE's overall product structure. We can give mention to other things (i.e. "2004 also featured redesigned Kanohi masks, but unlike previous years, these masks did not tie in to a collecting aspect and were not a part of the theme's play features") but the page needs to stay on track, otherwise it's a pointless addition.
Especially when you get to the helmets, you're basically saying that ANYTHING is a collectible if you try hard enough, and at what point are we acknowledging the aspect of sets THEMSELVES now being "collector's items"? Keep the focus narrowed to start, at least, and discussions can be made on how to expand later on. -- Dorek Talk External Image 01:48, 27 September 2017 (CET)
Okay, if you were thinking that this page would be written more from a historical point of view than a utilitarian one, then that makes sense. I was coming more from a build-a-better-checklist perspective. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2017 (CET)
I see where you're coming from with misprints and mismolds. I think the same thing applies to prototypes. It's hard to make a canonical list. We only know what people report finding, so it's a bit chaotic. Some people really get into collecting particularly famous kinds though, especially the pearl gold Kraahkan and the five-hole Kraahkan, so I could go either way.
No offense, but I hate click-to-show-info UIs. It's not printable, and I like to be able to see all the information at once. But maybe that's just me.
As for VB's question about grouping by type: I would say no. I think it does make sense to do it your way in a checklist, because it looks prettier. In this case, I think it's better to group by pack, for two reasons. 1) Grouping by type gives the impression that the gold/silver masks were released at the same time as the originals. I prefer to emphasize the chronological order of release to the reader. I like chronological order because it removes any doubt about where things are supposed to go, and it's logical. 2) If they are grouped by type, then the krana pack needs to be mentioned in two separate places, once in the Kanohi section, and again in the krana section. Same with the Krana-Kal pack. If they are grouped by pack, I think it ends up being much cleaner.
I would be okay with a section at the bottom listing the Metru-style Kanohi, like I have in my sandbox. At least some of them came out in different colors over the years. I don't think they merit their own page.
I strongly echo Dorek's opinions on the page being more history-focused and on not including Inika masks and helmets. The page doesn't need to be another parts checklist.
Planetperson 06:36, 27 September 2017 (CET)

wow i sure have missed out on a big discussion. anyway, here are a few of my thoughts: what's the point of this page? all the collectibles that were available could/(should?) be under the sets page. also, anything that would go on this page is pretty much mentioned as its own page, unless i'm mistaken. (am i? please tell me) either way, if we were to create this page, i'd think it should just be a category of the merchandise page.Intelligence4 (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2017 (CET)

There are several collectibles that didn't come in a pack or a set. Some of them do not have storyline significance and are not mentioned in existing wiki pages. For example: TNGM, orange Vahi, all the silver Krana-Kal, TOK, Kanoka 175, gold Hau, gold Kanoka, etc. I think it's also just nice to have a comprehensive list, which would be especially useful for readers not as familiar with the line or who just need a reference. —Planetperson 02:12, 28 September 2017 (CET)
Return to the project page "Articles for Creation".