Category talk:Sets

Erroneous pages

There are a few pages in this category (Ancient, Builder of the Toa Canisters, etc.) that do not fit my understanding of a "set". The "sets" are the ones produced and sold by LEGO, right? Toa Magnemite 23:17, 12 May 2013 (PDT)

It can be argued that the fan-made Dark Hunters and Rahi from the guides (Plus things like Certavus, Tobduk, etc.) are "sets", but I have no idea why the Builder of the Toa Canisters, Botar's Replacement, etc. are here. We don't even have images of them, much less models representing them. We should ask Dorek, Swert, Bionicleman, or another higher-up make the call on fan-made models, then one of us can clean this category up. LockmanCapulet _{Talk the Talk|Walk the Walk}

Given that I was looking into actually doing a set database at some point, this is something I would love to discuss. Obviously as our current definition stands, fan-models are not "sets", and shouldn't be in the category (how Builder of the Toa Canisters got there is beyond me; maybe I mucked something up with the new templates?). But for several of them, we do have instructions, and they are physical models. So essentially, we're walking the line. Do you guys have an alternate term for "sets" that we could/should use? -- I AM THE DOREK _{do not truffle with me} 09:43, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

I would think that for non-set models, we could just say "models". Unless you want a new term... is "MOCs" (My Own Creations) too unprofessional? LockmanCapulet _{Talk the Talk|Walk the Walk}

I'm thinking "Fan-made Models" might be the best term to name the category, like we do with category:Fan-created Canon. --Vartemp 14:52, 13 May 2013 (PDT)

Style

How are the set pages supposed to be done? I could contribute, but are there rules about which sets get a page or not? What about combiner models? Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2015 (CEST)

Our best examples are probably of currently released sets, so my go-to is Set:70788, which is the Kopaka Master of Ice set page. Set:8557 is also a good one to look at. It has the format for what you need to do for a set page.

Combiners will also get their own page, yes, using the set numbers with plus signs (so for example, Set:8531+8532+8534 would be for Akamai. Any BIONICLE set with a number will be getting their own page, so feel free to start wherever you like! -- Dorek _Talk 00:09, 7 May 2015 (CEST)

All right, thanks. Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2015 (CEST)

So, it doesn't look like there's a consistent place to link to the instructions on set pages. The Kopaka page, for instance, doesn't seem to have a link at all. I tried adding an extra line to the set template, and you can see an example here, in my sandbox. What do you think? --Volitak Boxor (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2015 (CEST)

Good idea. Actually it might be good to flip it with the reviews, so the bottom part of the template where the reviews currently are would have the instructions and vice-versa. Would you mind trying that out? -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2015 (CEST)

I was actually planning on deprecating the reviews links into a separate template, but I'm still tweaking format ideas, so the instructions can probably just replace the review links outright. -- Dorek _Talk 09:24, 8 May 2015 (CEST)

Something like this? --Volitak Boxor (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2015 (CEST)

Works for me. -- Dorek _Talk 20:35, 8 May 2015 (CEST)

There seems to be a discrepancy between whether or not to include set numbers at the top of the set templates (see Lewa's page vs. Kopaka's). Is there a preference one way or another? It should probably be standardized. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2015 (CEST)

2 questions: should alternate models be put in the set category instead of/in addition to the alternate model category, or JUST the alternate model category? Also, the Kabaya Turaga and Bohrok Va sets have three combiners each. For the sake of completeness, I think we should have a page for them all. But each of the three models use the same four component sets. How would we title those pages? Set:1417+1418+1419+8544-1, Set:1417+1418+1419+8544-2, etc? Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2015 (CEST)

Also, should we include extra pieces for the piece count? Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2015 (CEST)

@Volitak Boxor: Ideally yes, the problem with Kopaka, for instance, is that it didn't all fit on the same line because the set name is just so long. But yes, they should all have the number on the template title.

@Cheesy: Both, preferably.

As for the Kabaya combiners, I didn't realize there was more than two. My plan was to add (Alternate) at the end of alternate sets, but if there's more than one, (Alternate 1) seems like a viable solution. Which would be the primary one, do you think? -- Dorek _Talk 21:58, 8 May 2015 (CEST)

The Kabaya sets only include instructions for one, with just pictures for the others. I'd say that the one with instructions should be the "primary" one. Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2015 (CEST)

I attempted to make a template for combiner models, and alternate models (like the Nui-Kopen) can probably just use the Set template. There's an example on the Wairuha set page. Any comments? I don't know if we want set names along with numbers in the "component sets" section. Now that we're getting into combiners, will we need a combiners navbox? If we do, we'll need to draw the line somewhere over which particular models this database will cover. There's a lot of gray area under the combiner umbrella.

Also, regarding set numbers in templates, I'm assuming that we don't want those on combiner pages, right? It would certainly be a lot of unsightly numbers at the top of, say, the Matoran Nui. On the other hand, that would introduce an inconsistency between set and combiner pages... --Volitak Boxor (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2015 (CEST)

I was also going to suggest a combiner navbox.

I also want to bring up an interesting issue: what do we name the pages for Kirikori Nui and Ranama? They aren't really made using any specific sets, and they both use masks only available randomly packaged in mask packs. Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2015 (CEST)

A combiner navbox can just use the names, sure. Maybe divide them up by where they appear? Like Magazine, Online, Instruction Booklets, etc? Just use the same year colors, whatever you do.

The combiners template is also a pretty good idea, since it will help distinguish when we get to sets that are also combiners, like Voporak =P.

As for the Kirikori Nui and Ranama, I'm going to say they'll follow the same rules as contest winning models, so they won't get a set page. I know they have instructions, but it can stay in the set info section on their respective pages.

(also, if it's not too much trouble, whenever you make a page could you also make a redirect for just the plain number? Only if it's not a distraction =D) -- Dorek _Talk 01:24, 11 May 2015 (CEST)

Reworked the Set navbox into a Combiner one. Any comments? I tried to condense a few of the similar names into the shortened versions in parentheses. Going forward, I can see a few issues that will need to be addressed eventually (they aren't urgent or anything):

1. Alternate models (Nui-Kopen, etc.): Do we want to keep the same designation for "type" in the main template (i.e. "Large Set")? That's the way it is now, but I think it would make sense to change that to just read "Alternate Model" instead.
2. Naming conventions: Many of the more obscure, non-canon combiners don't really have established names (ex: 2003 Matoran combiner, Japanese Nuhvok/Kohrak combiner, Rahkshi Kabaya combiners). Any ideas for names that aren't a mouthful?
3. Do we want one page or two for the 2003 Matoran combiner? There's two figures, a humanoid and a beast, but they're both built from a mix of all 6 sets and are only ever depicted together.
4. I'm assuming we don't need a combiner page for the Golden Bionicle, right? We could probably cover that on a collectibles page for the Golden Armor.
5. Fan-created instructions from photographs are better than nothing and worth including, right (for things that never had instructions originally)?
6. On a related note, Mask of Destiny has old Turaga Nui instructions, but they're copyrighted. We'd need permission to use those, right?

Also, I mentioned this on another page, but it probably got buried in other updates: Akamai's set page has a typo in the title, and I can't find the button to move the page and fix the issue (is that just a mod ability?). Can't believe 2001 is almost done! --Volitak Boxor (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2015 (CEST)

1. Yes, that sounds good
2. Uuuuuh not really. This is why I wanted to use set numbers. Maybe put it in quotation marks if it sounds made-up?
3. Just one page then, I always thought the two models used a specific set of three for each.
4. Nah, that'll go under some eventual collectibles heading anyway.
5. Yeah, that's fine.
6. Are they still active? If they are, we can just ask, if they aren't, then steal it and worry about the consequences later!

As for Akamai, yes that's a mod ability, no I didn't notice =P. I'll fix it. -- Dorek _Talk 03:53, 11 May 2015 (CEST)

Regarding point 2: I agree the set numbers keep everything clearer, but there's got to be some kind of name to put in the templates/navboxes. I guess if any name seems particularly unwieldy, we can deal with it on a case-by-case basis. And there's always the nickname Mahi. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2015 (CEST)

And, uh, you moved the Akamai set's talk page, not the actual page. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2015 (CEST)

I made a set page for the Power Pack. It focuses solely on the set aspects, and links to the main Power pack page for more in-depth information.

Also, for the sake of completeness, couldn't we make Set:Ranama and Set:Kirkikori Nui pages? It would help with the more in-depth set information. Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2015 (CEST)

Ranama and Kirikori Nui are oddballs, not really fitting in with anything else. It's hard to categorize them, because they aren't really combiners... I think their pages would look a bit out of place, when all the other Set space pages have numbers for titles. And there really isn't a whole lot of information to write about those two. I could maybe modify the Combiner template (take out the component sets bit), and we could just use that to expand on the set info part on the main space pages for Kirikori Nui and Ranama. We could use the same template for the contest winning models that had instructions, too, if we wanted. Any thoughts? (Also, if we can't clearly decide whether or not to make the pages, we could always run it through AfC) --Volitak Boxor (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2015 (CEST)

Similar to the "Golden BIONICLE," the link-ups with the Av-Matoran/Shadow Matoran and Phantoka/Mistika don't count as combiner models, do they? Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2015 (CEST)

That's a more interesting one. It's not really a combiner since it's more of an advertised feature, but it does use two sets, and we're considering the new "power-up" models as combiners, especially since they have separate sets they're being sold as. Were there ever combo packs with just the Makuta/Matoran? -- Dorek _Talk 02:09, 12 May 2015 (CEST)

I don't believe so, but it's hard to say. I don't remember any, but newly discovered combo packs are popping up relatively often. Just yesterday a topic was posted on BZP featuring a Cable Crawler 2-pack featuring Toa Hordika Vakama and Whenua. Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2015 (CEST)

I mistakenly titled the Mata Nui Fishing Bird page "Set:8551+8554," when it should be "Set:8551+8555." Can someone fix this? Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2015 (CEST)

Can we cite MoD for the "Critical Response" and "Community Response" sections? They have a lot of reviews of older sets and combiner/alternate models that BZPower doesn't. Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2015 (CEST)

Yup, fine with me. -- Dorek _Talk 06:46, 17 May 2015 (CEST)

Dorek, you mentioned that it'd be good to tell what combiners and alternate models a set was a part of on each set page. This had been included in the text, in the second or third paragraph, on most set pages. Did you have something else in mind? --Volitak Boxor (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2015 (CEST)

Yeah, I started it like that originally, but now I'm thinking a bulleted list might be a better option. Maybe as a subsection? -- Dorek _Talk 17:26, 17 May 2015 (CEST)

On a related note, did we want to have a big Combiners page, analogous to Sets? I don't really know if it'd be that helpful, since it wouldn't really have much descriptive text like the Sets page does. The idea just crossed my mind because the titles of the combiners navbox currently just link to the BIONICLE page. That's not ideal, but there's nowhere really combiner-specific to link to. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

Maybe as Sets/Alternate Models and Combiners? That or I/somebody can make separate combiners sections on the sets page itself, but I'm not opposed to a subpage. -- Dorek _Talk 04:07, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

I like the subpage idea, because we could get all the info and images in one place without cluttering up the main Sets page, and we would be fine if there wasn't a ton of text, because it's just a subpage. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

Cool beans, I'll make one then. -- Dorek _Talk 20:24, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

2001 Review

As far as I can tell, aside from documenting reviews/reception and collectibles (including the Kanohi pack sets), the 2001 section of the set database is pretty much done, at least in a preliminary form. Now that this first section for Gen 1 has come together, is there anything anyone thinks should be added or changed? Or does what we have seem pretty comprehensive? Also, it'd probably be good to have another set of eyes skim over what's there to proofread or give feedback. I think it looks pretty good now, but more opinions are probably better. It's been nice working with you, Cheesy! --Volitak Boxor (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2015 (CEST)

The Kanohi packs can get their own pages, and we'll add in something for them later based on how we do the collectibles. Most of it looks pretty good to me, and I look forward to seeing 2002 =D -- Dorek _Talk 19:36, 16 May 2015 (CEST)

Should there only be one page for the 2001 Kanohi pack? There were three different versions: American boxed, European boxed, and European bagged. American boxed is set number 8525, and both European versions have have the set number 8530. Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2015 (CEST)

Ideally two pages at some point in the future (that goes for the Kabaya as well) but for now just one page and a redirect is fine. -- Dorek _Talk 06:46, 17 May 2015 (CEST)

2002

And 2002 is done! At least, it is in a preliminary form. Anyone see any outstanding issues? One thing I was wondering about was the subtheme for Boxor, Exo-Toa, and the Bahrag. They're all labeled as "Warriors", but with a citation needed tag. From what I can see, Warriors is just the title that Brickset gives to most large sets from 2002-2008. This designation varies from place to place; for example, most sets Brickset calls Warriors are labeled as Titans on Bricklink. I've done a preliminary search using the Wayback machine: The 2005-2006 large sets are filed under Titans, but prior to that, it gets a bit weird. The 2003 and 2004 large sets didn't really have a consistent category. They just seemed to be thrown wherever. Takanuva was listed under Makuta and Rahkshi, and Krekka, Nidhiki, and Dume were all listed under Vahki. Titans could be used for later years, but I don't think Lego Shop categories would be that helpful for determining subtheme labels prior to 2005. I couldn't find anything from 2002, because Wayback Machine doesn't have very good records from that long ago.

Wow, that got rambly. In short does anyone know where the Warriors designation comes from? If that's not official, I really don't know what subtheme label to use for things like the Exo-Toa. We could always make subtheme an optional section for the Set template. Any thoughts? --Volitak Boxor (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

Subthemes should probably be derived from whatever the shop designated. In this case, it appears the older ones weren't really called anything, while 2006's were intermittently called "Titans", though the term is also applied to the special edition large sets of 2007 (and in a twist, the reverse had happened in 2006!), and 2007 is actually where they were called "Warriors" (similarly inversed in 2006).

In short, when in doubt, check the wayback machine anyway, because it's as good as we're going to get =P. -- Dorek _Talk 04:04, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

I don't really know if the shop's worth following for the older stuff. For 2002's large sets, the shop lists the Boxor under Matoran, the Exo-Toa under Toa Nuva, and Cahdok & Gahdok under Bohrok. Boxor I can kinda see, because it includes Nuparu, but the Exo-Toa is clearly not a Toa Nuva set (going by what most people consider the Toa Nuva sets to be), and same for Cahdok and Gahdok. In my mind, subthemes should indicate similar sets, and lumping in Exo-Toa with the rest of the Toa Nuva and Cahdok and Gahdok with the rest of the Bohrok just muddles the system.

I think for cases like that, where Lego seemed to somewhat arbitrarily categorize a large set, it would be better to just leave Subtheme off the template altogether (Or we could mark subtheme as "None", like LoSS). Of course, that opens a can of worms as to what counts as "arbitrary categorization" and what shop labels we want to keep. I could potentially try to create a full list of Lego Shop categories for large sets 2002-2009 (I don't think anyone has a problem with calling '01 sets Rahi), make a couple of suggestions myself, and then we could decide as a group what we want to do about subthemes going forward. Does that sound like it could help? --Volitak Boxor (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

That sounds good. I think at some point we're probably just going to have to accept a weird shop designation or two and be done with it. I mean, at what point does being arbitrary stop? Especially given that they didn't introduce terms like "titans" until 2005 or 2006, so retroactively applying it doesn't necessarily work (and I'd prefer a designation to no designation, but you're right in that some sets won't). So, play it by ear I guess. Go with what the shop says, cite it if it looks weird, and then make a note of what could stand to be changed. -- Dorek _Talk 20:22, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

I changed the subtheme labels for Boxor, Exo-Toa, and Cahdok & Gahdok. This still doesn't feel right, but I agree that it's better than just using Warriors, which was never used by Lego in 2002. It'll do for now. I'll try and compile Lego Shop's categories for all the large sets in the next day or two, and then we can discuss if we want to change anything misleading. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2015 (CEST)

2003

What do we want to do about Takutanuva? Dorek, I think you said we'd make regular pages for combiner sets with a retail release, but should we still have a link in the combiner template? And should there be separate pages for the regular version (3287) and the limited edition (10201) that had the special Kraahkan? --Volitak Boxor (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

This is where it starts getting tricky. Based on the system, I would think that there would actually be three pages, one for the combiner, one for the set, and one for the special edition set. A redirect to the limited edition version seems the most efficient for now. -- Dorek _Talk 03:48, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

Fun times. Well, if we're aiming to be consistent and comprehensive, I can accept some redundancy. Besides, 90% of the text will just be a copy/paste job. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

I'm mostly just trying to think which would be the "base" page, and which one would have a "for more information, see: page x", like how wikipedia does it. I guess realistically the combiner page would actually be the most comprehensive, and others should link back to it, but this is an instance where the package actually offers up more than the combiner.

For things like Kardas, the model only actually exists in the exclusive set form, even if it is a combiner, but for Takutanuva, it had instructions prior to being a set; if we were to have conceptualized this database at the moment we learned of Takutanuva, the combiner would have come first, for instance (if that makes sense...). So it'll probably be a bit asymmetrical in the way we do things, but I think we can work it out.

tl;dr pick whichever one you want for now, as long as the information is there we can split it up later. -- Dorek _Talk 20:18, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

When I uploaded a picture of the Comic 14 Rahkshi Combiner and added it to Gallery:Combiner/Alternate Models, it was deleted on the grounds that discussion had been had and it was determined that it was a fan-submitted MOC. Is this still the case? Cheesy Mac n Cheese (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2015 (CEST)

Mmm, now that is an interesting question. Part of me still wants to say no, but I think I'll allow it to stay this time.

No set page, though! It's definitely too far removed from that. -- Dorek _Talk 20:37, 13 June 2015 (CEST)

I take it that I should probably remove that model from the Combiners navbox, then?

On a related note, it's too bad we don't have any record of the original Japanese Lego Club magazine where this model originally came from (unless we do and I just don't know about it). It could clear up once and for all whether this was just a fan model or something that the Japanese Lego Club staff designed and featured in the magazine. I agree that it's more likely that it's the former, though. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2015 (CEST)