BIONICLEsector01 talk:Articles for Deletion

Approved proposals (please handle these pages!)

Raid on the Destral Fortress

The current "Raid on the Destral Fortress" is slightly deceptive, as the information on it actually covers two closely related but distinct raids performed by the Toa Hagah. As many know, the first, titular raid was conducted by all six Toa Hagah on Destral to steal the Avohkii. The second one was the raid performed by Norik and Iruini as depicted in the Birth of the Rahaga comic.

There's a pretty solid chunk of information available on both events, and if the page were split in two, presumably neither would be a stub. All information relating to the Birth of the Rahaga would be spun off into a second page, perhaps titled something to the effect of "Attack/Raid on the Visorak Fortress".

However, it would also make sense to rename the page a title relevant to both events, such as perhaps "Raids of the Toa Hagah." All the contents would remain the same. I think the only downside to this option would be the presentation by the infobox and the "Goals" section which mixes information on both events. --Gonel (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Page will be Split

Comments

I absolutely support this, however doesn't this belong on Articles for Creation?? Firespitter Lhii (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably. --Gonel (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Rename "Field of Shadows" into "Zone of Darkness"

The current page has the "Field of Shadows" as its main name, but I have looked into this and this is what I have found:

• Bionicle encyclopedia updated
  • Kahgarak entry p51
    • zone of shadow
    • realm of shadow
  • Zivon entry p160
    • dimension of darkness
    • the darkness
    • realm of shadows
  • Krahka entry p67
    • zone of darkness
• Comic 24
  • p9
    • zone of darkness
    • shadow
• Rahi Beasts
  • Kahgarak entry
    • Zone of Shadow
• Bionicle Adventures #8
  • p50
    • a field of shadow*
    • the darkness
    • the dark
  • p71
    • the darkness effect*
    • shadow
  • p72
    • the dark
  • p104
    • field of darkness
  • p106
    • the darkness
  • p124
    • field of darkness
    • eternal shadow
• Into the Darkness
  • chapter 7
    • zone of darkness

So we see the name "Field of Shadows" is not even used for this dimension. The only time we see anything close is "a field of shadow" in BA8, which however is used to describe the visual effect of Kahgarak's spinner enveloping a target, NOT the dimension iteslf. We see this repeated several pages later were the book once again references "the darkness effect". Out of the other names actually used for the dimension the tally is:

• zone of darkness (3)
• the darkness (3)
• the dark (2)
• shadow (2)
• zone of shadow (2)
• realm of shadow(s) (2)
• field of darkness (2)
• dimension of darkness (1)
• eternal shadow (1)

Out of these "zone of darkness" and "the darkness" are the most used. Considering that "zone of darkness" sounds more like a concrete name and is already utilized as a secondary name on the page, I propose to use it as the new primary. "Zone of shadow", "realm of shadow" and "field of darkness" (or any of the others really) could be listed as alternate names.

Page will be renamed

Rename "Dekar-Hydraxon" to "Hydraxon (Duplicate)" and "Hydraxon" to "Hydraxon (Original)"

Most articles covering subjects whose names changed during the story use the subject's new name. Examples include "Jaller," "Takanuva," and "Treespeak" (back when it was a full article). Renaming "Dekar-Hydraxon" to "Hydraxon" would match that convention. With this change, we could also remove the Nickname template from that article--"Dekar-Hydraxon" was a term made up for BS01.

Of course, then we'd have two "Hydraxon" articles, so we could turn "Hydraxon" into a disambiguation page and distinguish the character articles with the titles "Hydraxon (Duplicate)" and "Hydraxon (Original)." -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Votes for renaming "Dekar-Hydraxon" and "Hydraxon"

1. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
2. -- Dag (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
3. - Toa Jala ^Converse 21:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
4. TuragaHordika (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Votes for renaming "Dekar-Hydraxon" to "Hydraxon (Dekar)"

1. Same as the above suggestion, but Dekar rather than Duplicate. ~ Wolk (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
2. --Surel (Talk) 18:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
3. --maxim21 07:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
4. This option sounds good as well. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
5. I like this option as well, but I also agree with Dorek that Dekar and the Hydraxon duplicate should share a page. - Toa Jala ^Converse 22:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Votes against renaming "Dekar-Hydraxon" and "Hydraxon"

1. I agree with Dorek's reasoning below. --Angel Bob (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
2. Dekar is his own character. It isn't as though he changed his name, he simply ceases to exist now. I think the page should just be called Dekar if anything. We should keep a fair but not extensive amount of info here about the "new" Hydraxon, as that is what happened to his body and it is standard, but the info about Hydraxon should be on the Hydraxon page. The Ignika brought Hydraxon back. At the very least, things should remain as-is, or Dekar-Hydraxon should be changed to Dekar. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments on renaming "Dekar-Hydraxon" and "Hydraxon"

I vague remember we having a very similar poll already. And we've made the changes, that was the time when we merged Dekar's and the Dekar-Hydraxo pages I believe, only to Dorek rename the page back to Dekar-Hydraxon. So I'll only vote if he's okay with the changes lol --Surel (Talk) 20:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's what I found.^[1][2][3] Also, if the pages do end up being renamed, we should have a "Hydraxon" disambiguation page. Dag (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I knew we'd talked about the page name a while back but had forgotten we'd actually voted on it. My bad (and thanks for bringing up that info). Also, agreed about the disambig. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm still not sold on it, although it is the least obtrusive solution (aside from what it is now). Functionally, he's still Dekar, and it feels remiss to have his name just be a redirect. It's too unique to compare to Takua or Treespeak.

We could also just make it Dekar =P -- Dorek _Talk 02:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Since the article is about two identities (rather than a single identity/concept with two names, as in the other examples), there's a good argument for mentioning both identities in the title. Personally, I still lean against "Dekar-Hydraxon" since it's a nickname while "Dekar" and "Hydraxon (Duplicate)" aren't. In that case, since the new Hydraxon doesn't remember his past, I think it'd make more sense to title the article with his new identity instead of his old one. None of my opinions are strong though, and I'm curious to hear others. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we should create a separate page for Dekar. Once he becomes Hydraxon, he's no longer Dekar. Dekar essentially no longer exists (RIP). Like Morris said, they're two different identities, but I agree with Dorek as well: it's too unique to use Takua/Takanuva as a model, so we need to do something else in this case. When Takua became Takanuva, he was still the same individual, so it makes sense to give him only one page. Either way, I support the name changes being proposed here. - Toa Jala ^Converse 21:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, that's how it originally was, waaaaaay back in the day. I think the argument for fusing them (maybe I did that? idk it's been 15 years) was because he IS still Dekar; mind readers can access those parts of his brain, and literally any time he appears in the story people go "this guy's a phony!" so being Dekar is still central to the character and his arc. It's not like we would have had two pages for amnesiac Takua and regular Takua, or Metru Nui Nuhrii and Mata Nui Nuri, etc. etc. I think having two "Hydraxon" pages doesn't really capture the complexities of it, although at some point I get that it's just semantics. -- Dorek _Talk 18:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge Bohrok Kaita Ja and Bohrok Kaita Za with Bohrok Kaita

I know this might seems like a strange nomination, but hear me out. We don't have examples of either Bohrok Kaita in the story, and they don't even have official names. As far as I'm concerned, they're both just stubs and don't contain much unique information. - Toa Jala ^Converse 17:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Votes for Merging into Bohrok Kaita

1. - Toa Jala ^Converse 17:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
2. Dag (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
3. ~ Wolk (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
4. --Surel (Talk) 19:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
5. TuragaHordika (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Votes for Merging them into the main Bohrok page

1. To be honest, I don't think they worth more than the Bohrok Va Kaita, which doesn't even have their own page, just mentioned on the main Bohrok Va page.--Surel (Talk) 22:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
2. Either is fine. Dag (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
3. I'd rather they have their own page, but I'm also okay with merging them into Bohrok. - Toa Jala ^Converse 18:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Votes to Leave Them as They Are

1. The wiki needs to be consistent. If more can be added to each page, that would be great, but this would be like getting rid of pages for many of the Matoran or Toa, and that is simply not something we do. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments on Merging into Bohrok Kaita

Surel-Nuva's suggestion sounds reasonable as well. Just the same, here's the sandbox of my imagined Bohrok Kaita merged page. - Toa Jala ^Converse 22:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If you could include the Bohrok Va Kaita too on this one, you'll have my vote for a merged page. :D --Surel (Talk) 12:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, although it adds virtually nothing to the page. You may be onto something. - Toa Jala ^Converse 19:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why, but it just feels right to include them there.--Surel (Talk) 19:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel that whatever happens may as well happen with the Kal Kaita and the Rahkshi Kaita. Both had such minor antagonistic roles, and their BS01 pages are minimal enough that they could very safely be consolidated. Their unique names differentiate them a bit, but not everything with a unique name warrants a page. --Gonel (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The difference IMO is that the Rahkshi Kaita and one of the Bohrok-Kal Kaita at least have appearances. - Toa Jala ^Converse 04:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This would open a huge can of worms. While I'm not against that, it would basically be a complete overhaul of the standards which BS01 has been built on for many years, and I don't see a good reason for it. If this is purely about reducing the wiki's sever size, then there are far better ways this can be done. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with server size. The Bohrok Kaita "Ja"/"Za" do not have official names beyond "Bohrok Kaita", have not appeared in story/are not known to ever been formed, and are not unique entities, which separates them from the Toa, Kal, or Rahkshi Kaita. They are most closely comparable to the Va Kaita which do not have a page. Matoran Kaita do also not have pages. ~ Wolk (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Rename "Meta:Use of Māori Words in BIONICLE" to "Meta:Use of Appropriated Words in BIONICLE"

It makes sense given this page to have similar pages dedicated to the use of other languages in BIONICLE (notably English, Latin, and the various languages of MNOGII names). But instead of having one small page per each language or just a second page for every other language, I feel it just makes sense to consolidate all this information on the same page. --Gonel (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Votes for Renaming

1. --Gonel (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
2. ~~ KDNX (Talk) 04:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Vote for this if different, new title is chosen, along the lines of "Appropriated Words" or "Misapproprated Words". (See Discussion) Firespitter Lhii (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
4. --ToaKebaka (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Votes against Renaming

1. - Toa Jala ^Converse 04:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

What makes the use of Māori words unique is the controversy that ensued. The page isn't just about the words, it's about the lawsuit and the culture. A list of Latin or English words wouldn't have the same significance. I'd be open to renaming it "Use of Polynesian Words", seeing as that was also part of the controversy. - Toa Jala ^Converse 04:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Rename, but keep Māori words in their own subsection, first, or second after English. Include info on the use of Māori words controversy. ~~ KDNX (Talk) 04:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Do not rename, as 'real words' is vague and would refer to nearly the entire Matoran language. If it is renamed, it should be to "appropriated words" or "misappropriated words". Firespitter Lhii (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly the title doesn't matter so much to me as expanding the page's scope, but still keeping it in this vein. I'm entirely happy with a title to the effect of "Misappropriated Words" or such. So if we changed the title to something like that would it change your vote, or would you still be opposed to the change overall? --Gonel (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I would support the vote if it is changed to something more along those lines. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. My only stipulation would be that the Polynesian (including Māori) words be kept in a separate section, seeing as the controversy played a significant role in the development of the franchise. - Toa Jala ^Converse 16:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I want to amend my stipulation. I don't object to renaming the article so long as the information about the information about the Māori lawsuit still has a section on the page. I see no reason why the Māori words themselves require a separate section, but the lawsuit definitely does. P.S., "Appropriated Words" seems like a good fit IMO. - Toa Jala ^Converse 18:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that sounds good - but what about English/Latin etc. words of later years? Does that fit under the "appropriated" name? Do we cover those on the individual pages only, or at all? Or create a separate page for other name origins? ~ Wolk (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Since they are words used for creation of names in a fictitious language, I believe term "appropriated" is fitting for all real world languages.--ToaKebaka (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, in the above proposal I mentioned putting these on this page too. If there's an overabundance of information then maybe we could split it up, but since all these revolve around a similar subject--pulling words from real-world languages for names--I don't see a need for a separate page. LEGO was still drawing on real languages, they just got much more careful and respectful with how they were doing it/which ones they used. But perhaps we could split the name into Mata Nui-era/Polynesian/MNOG II names and post-lawsuit ones --Gonel (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that there is no "post-lawsuit" because lawsuit never happened. I don't think any eras are necessary as long as the code of conduct is explained on the page.--ToaKebaka (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I want there to be more on the page than just Māori words, but I agree with above statements that a seperate section for Māori words (and closely related words from other Polynesian languages) due to the particular significance. As far as what User:ToaKebaka is saying, I think it is technically true, but it was a legal (and social) dispute. Yes, Lego was willing to make the changes without being made to by any government, but it was a lawyer representing the Māori people who voiced the complaint, laid out a lawsuit case and may have even filled it over the game BIONICLE for the GBA. It was settled out of court before the lawsuit made it's way to court, though I don't think it is known (unless someone wants to check lawsuit records from Denmark, the US(a major distributor/head of much of Lego's operations), New Zealand, and internation courts/arbitrators, such as UN or EU complaints and motions) how far it got, and it is definitely possible that it was never officially filled, but when it comes to law, especially international law and law relating to cultural appropriation, settling out of court is very common, yet is generally still called a lawsuit. That being said, I don't mind if we start refering to it as the Māori socio-legal complaint/action, but it was a clearly significant, specific event, which head Lego representatives fly to meet with Māori representatives, and I believe a cease and desist order was placed on the publishers of BIONICLE for the GBA, which resulted in recalls, reprints, and the implementation of a code of conduct relating to cultural appropriation, representation, and legal and social due-diligence. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely be interested in having a concrete proof of how far the situation went on official legal terms. I think it is worthwile to document accurately. If it was settled out of court (which seems very likely) I would like to have that on the page if possible. I have often seen people blow it out of proportion, talking about the incident as if it were some huge legal battle that went to court, but in reality the resultion was very amicable - Lego Group recognized the cultural damage they have inadvertently done and responsibly took action, even impressing the Māori representatives. But from what I have seen, the "lawsuit" seems to have become somewhat of a misconception in the public eye. But the best course of action would be to thoroughly verify this.--ToaKebaka (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

There was an episode of a LEGO-hosted podcast where said representative for the Maori people did appear. It's available on Apple Podcasts. Been a while since I listened to it, but it's a good start. ~ Wolk (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge Memory Crystal And Knowledge Crystal

A while back, I brought up on the Knowledge Crystal talkpage that there is much similarity between knowledge and memory crystals, to the point that they seem identical, and I believe it is a strong enough case to present it as such on the wiki. I'll summarize all the information here:

• The 2004 style guide says Nuju's task was guarding knowledge and memory crystals. While it distinguishes the two, it also says that Ko-Metru is "dominated by enormously tall knowledge and memory crystals," implying that Knowledge Towers are made from both.
• In a string of answers from Dec 2003 and Feb 2004, Greg says that knowledge and memory crystals both store information[1][2] and confirms that they both make up Knowledge Towers.[3] While he did say they were different and this difference would later be explained in the City of Legends guide,[4][5] memory crystals are not mentioned even once in the book and this difference is never explained anywhere.
• The Rahi Beasts guide says that "Frost Beetles have been known to consume the crystals used to grow new Knowledge Towers," then says that "Matoro once proposed a theory that some of these creatures may have eaten memory crystals." While this has long been interpreted on BS01 to mean they mistake knowledge crystals for memory crystals, this actually implies what has already been confirmed, that memory crystals also make up Knowledge Towers.
• The first encyclopedia only mentions knowledge crystals in the entry for Knowledge Towers, but does not have specific entries for either knowledge or memory crystals.
• The updated encyclopedia includes an entry on memory crystals, but still not one for knowledge crystals.

To summarize, both knowledge and memory crystals make up Knowledge Towers and can store information. Although Greg said they are different and this distinction would be explained, this was never followed through on, and later material continued to suggest that they are the same. This leads me to believe that a later internal decision was made to consolidate them to a single object.

As to what the name of the merged page should be, Knowledge Crystal or Memory Crystal, I have no strong opinion either way. Dag (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Votes for merging Memory Crystal And Knowledge Crystal

1. Dag (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
2. CozyFrog (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
3. --Surel (Talk) 19:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
4. ~ Wolk (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments on Memory Crystal and Knowledge Crystal

So, by merging the pages are we saying that they're the same thing, or are we simply saying one page should be predominant and both will be mentioned? I don't mind merging, but I think there's enough evidence to say that they're different objects, even if we can't necessarily delineate their specific characteristics... -- Dorek _Talk 05:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

What's the difference, because aside from the wiki saying they are different, every aspect of them are the same. Both store data, both can be used to grow Knowledge towers, and that's the only 2 functions these two ever had.--Surel (Talk) 07:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Dorek. Since everything we know about the two behave the same, but they are also distinguished objects from one another, I think we should mention both on the page, and note that they are separate objects, but as far as their known characteristics go, functionally identical. I'd probably go for Memory Crystal for the page name, since that's what got a BEU entry. ~ Wolk (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The only sources that explicitly say they're two distinct objects is the style guide, which was never meant to be public, and Greg saying early on that the difference would be explained, but it never was, and unless Greg writes it in official media, he has the right to change his mind. But the thing I still don't understand is that Crystal Matrix was somehow aware of the Ko-Metru and Nuju bios from the style guide, or they were also in some other source. I had assumed it was from the bionicle.com, but apparently their bios weren't on the site till around April 2004. Dag (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.bzpower.info/story.php?ID=1603 https://www.bzpower.info/story.php?ID=1604 https://www.bzpower.info/story.php?ID=1605 The presskit used the same bios, and was given to BZPower in December 03. Where in the style guide id you find info the Metrus? NVM it's in the intro section... ~ Wolk (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The discrepancy is in the wording of Rahi Beasts: "Matoro once proposed a theory that some of these creatures may have eaten memory crystals and somehow absorbed the knowledge inside them." This can be interpreted one of two ways: either Frost Beetles have been observed eating Memory Crystals and Matoro's theory is that they absorb their knowledge, or they have not been observed eating Memory Crystals and Matoro's theory is: a) that they do and b) that that causes their intelligence. My assumption reading it has always been the second, that the difference between the two is that Knowledge Crystals are something Frost Beetles definitely eat and may or may not make them smarter, whereas Memory Crystals are something Frost Beetles only possibly eat, and if so is what makes them smarter. Master Inika ^(Talk) 15:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If knowledge and memory crystals are indeed two distinct objects, we can't say that Frost Beetles definitely eat knowledge crystals, only that they eat "the crystals used to grow new Knowledge Towers," and again, based on Greg and the style guide/presskit bios, memory crystals also can be used to grow Knowledge Towers. Dag (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that, at one point, they WERE intended to be different, hence Greg's insistence that there would be some sort of clarification. Regardless of that clarification being abandoned/never forthcoming, I feel like the original intent, in this case, should apply, especially since both terms made it into publication, and we don't have anything, conversely, telling us that they are actually the same. It'll be annoying to write out no matter what ("these two things are different. how? nobody knows!") but I wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable declaring them to be the same item (I think the pages can still be merged though). -- Dorek _Talk 03:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

^If they're not the same thing, how would you suggest the pages be merged? - Toa Jala ^Converse 05:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The only reason I'm suggesting merging the pages is because I think the two objects should be considered one in the same. If they shouldn't be, then I'm against merging the pages. If the pages aren't merged, then they still need a serious overhaul to convey their similarities and the ambiguities of their differences, if there even are any, which would be a pain to do. It would be a lot easier for us to go with the simplest conclusion, that they are in fact the same. We would add a note or a trivia point explaining what I've explained here, that originally they were intended to be different, but because no difference was ever given and their only known functions are completely identical, we consider them the same with what little information we have as to not cause confusion. EDIT: Here's a sandbox I quickly threw together to better show what I mean. Dag (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence, since it seems we have no way of definitively determining whether they are or aren't the same object (grr!). That's a good sandbox though. If they do get merged, don't forget to include the part about Matoran storing information at will via telepathy (as stated here). - Toa Jala ^Converse 07:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Arsenal Pages

I was adding a trivia bullet to the Elemental Trident page recently and noticed that the page was rather short, as were the other pages about the Masters' weapons. A number of Toa also have weapon pages where the article is essentially a disjointed stub, and I was wondering if we should put things together more cleanly.

I often reference RangerWiki on Fandom since there's no independent alternative I know of yet, and one of the things that they do there is making an arsenal page, where a given team's equipment is all laid out on a page - common weapons, personal items, Zords, etc. put together in a single location to prevent stub articles and it just looks good.

There would have to be some minor alterations in order to cleanly translate how things work on this wiki as opposed to over there, but I think this is a much better solution than having more than eight stubs for the Masters alone - and with the other Toa teams, it only gets worse.

This page is an example, or perhaps a rough draft, of what I want to accomplish. - Waddlez 22:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Vote to Replace Weapon Stubs with Team Arsenal Pages

1. - Waddlez 22:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
2. TuragaHordika (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
3. For character/group-specific tools within a certain group/organization, yes. I think this is a good idea. ~ Wolk (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
4. I don't think the masks are necessary, but certainly a good idea, similarly to the Toa Hagah Spears page--SurelNuva (Talk) 17:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
5. --Gonel (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Vote to Keep As-Is

1. IDK, we have plenty of stub tool pages already. I don't see the harm in keeping these. - Toa Jala ^Converse 18:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments

For adrenalin mode, it is at the very least mentioned in the set description of 70787 Tahu – Master of Fire. ~ Wolk (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that masks don't need to be mentioned on these pages. ~ Wolk (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)