Template talk:Set

From BIONICLEsector01
Jump to: navigation, search

Subthemes for Large Sets

I've been going on about this a bit on the Sets Category talk page, but I thought I'd continue over here because it's going to be a lot of text. Anyway, unlike small sets or canister sets, many of Bionicle's large sets don't fall into easily-identified subthemes. The current plan is to go by the Lego shop's categories, but that can lead to some potentially misleading labels. I'm going to put together a full list of what the subtheme labels would be if we strictly followed the Lego shop's categories, and then we can have a fully informed discussion of what, if anything, we want to change.

Here goes. I'm starting from 2002, because I don't think anyone contests the Rahi subtheme label for 2001's large sets.

  • 8556 Boxor is categorized under Matoran. Note that it is labeled as the Boxor Vehicle, although its set name is simply Boxor. Link
  • 8557 Exo-Toa is categorized under Toa Nuva. Link
  • 8558 Cahdok & Gahdok is categorized under Bohrok. Note, however, that while Tahnok, et al. are marked with the subcategory of Bohrok and Tahnok Va, et al. are marked with the subcategory of Bohrok Va, Cahdok & Gahdok are not marked with a subcategory. Link
  • 10023 BIONICLE Master Builder Set is categorized under Toa, of all things. Like the Bahrag, though, all other sets in the Toa category are also marked with the Toa subcategory, while the Master Builder Set lacks a subcategory. Link

  • 8593 Makuta, 8596 Takanuva, and 3287 Takutanuva show up under the Makuta & Rahkshi category. I couldn't get Wayback Machine to show anything on 10201 Takutanuva. Link
  • 8594 Jaller and Gukko and 8595 Takua and Pewku are a bit unusual. They are listed under the Matoran category (see Boxor's link), but on their own pages, the submenu for Makuta & Rahkshi, not Matoran, is opened up, even though this submenu does not contain links to 8594 or 8595. Link

  • 8621 Turaga Dume & Nivawk, 8622 Nidhiki, 8623 Krekka, and 10202 Ultimate Dume all appear under the Vahki category. Link
  • 8811 Toa Lhikan & Kikanalo are listed under the category Toa of Metru Nui. Link

  • 8755 Keetongu, 8756 Sidorak, and 8761 Roodaka are all originally listed under the category Visorak. Later, though (see Axonn's link), they were recategorized as Titans. Link
  • 10203 Voporak isn't listed under the Visorak category, but that's the category that's open on his page's sidebar. Link

  • In 2006, the Titans category was introduced, which included 8733 Axonn, 8734 Brutaka, 8764 Vezon & Fenrakk, 8625 Umbra, and 8626 Irnakk. The 2005 large sets were also merged into this category. Link
  • Interestingly, on some pages from earlier in 2006, Umbra and Vezon & Fenrakk were not listed under the Titans category on the sidebar, though they still appeared if you clicked on Titans. Link
  • Couldn't find anything on 10204 Vezon and Kardas.

  • 8922 Gadunka, 8923 Hydraxon, and 8924 Maxilos & Spinax were listed under the category of Warriors, but a bundle of the three was called the Titans of Mahri Nui Collection (still categorized under Warriors). Link
  • By late 2007, the Lego Shop's Titans category contained only 8939 Lesovikk and 8940 Karzahni. Link
  • Couldn't find 8935 Nocturn on Lego Shop. However, a building instructions page from late 2008 has Nocturn, Lesovikk, and Karzahni listed as Warriors, along with Hydraxon and Maxilos & Spinax. Link

  • 2008 has two different sources we could choose from! First, Lego Shop. 8953 Makuta Icarax is listed under Phantoka. Link
  • The 2008 Warriors include 8697 Toa Ignika, 8698 Vultraz, 8699 Takanuva, 8952 Mutran & Vican, and 8954 Mazeka. Link
  • 8941 Rockoh T3, 8942 Jetrax T6, and 8943 Axalara T9 are all listed as Battle Vehicles. Link
  • If you look at Bionicle.com's building instructions categories, you get Icarax, Toa Ignika, Mutran and Vican, and Takanuva listed as Warriors (see link after Nocturn). Mazeka, Vultraz, and the T-series vehicles are listed under the category Vehicles. Link

  • 8990 Fero & Skirmix and 8991 Tuma are the final two Warriors sets. Link
  • 8992 Cendox V1, 8993 Kaxium V3, 8994 Baranus V7, 8995 Thornatus V9, and 8996 Skopio XV-1 are all categorized as Battle Vehicles, like the previous T-series vehicles. Link
  • 8998 Toa Mata Nui appears under the category Glatorian. The V-series vehicles also appear within this category, in addition to Battle Vehicles. Link
  • 2009 also had a bit different categorization in the building instructions section of Bionicle.com. There, Toa Mata Nui was listed alongside Tuma and some older sets as a Warrior. Link
  • The V-series vehicles and Fero & Skirmix were listed under a category called Vehicles & Creatures, which also contained the T-series vehicles and Mazeka and Vultraz. Link

It's not a very consistent system by any means. I have some ideas for what I would do, but I've been putting links together for too long. I'll write my thoughts here later. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2015 (CEST)

I mean, it seems to work out for the most part; 2002-2004 are filed under whatever the most applicable year term is (varying a bit since there was less of a strict winter/summer divide up to 2003), 2005-2006 use titans (with 2005 getting grandfathered in) and 2007-2009 use Warriors (with the exception of Karzahni and Lesovikk). I don't see much of a problem using any of these terms, except maybe for the Rahi Builder set. And in the case where something receives a reclassification, we can always mention both, neh? -- Dorek Talk External Image 20:10, 28 May 2015 (CEST)
Yeah, 2005-2009 seem relatively clear-cut. There were a couple of other potential ideas I had (plus some general comments), to minimize subtheme labels that were the same as a line of canister sets.
  • If we use the Vehicles label from Bionicle.com, instead of Battle Vehicles, we could put Boxor, Exo-Toa, and maybe Takanuva under the subtheme of Vehicles. There's a bit of a precedent for using the term Vehicle for these older sets (Boxor was called Boxor Vehicle), but I admit it's not a very strong one.
  • If we use the expanded category of Vehicles & Creatures, Jaller & Gukko, Takua & Pewku, Lhikan & Kikanalo, and maybe Turaga Dume & Nivawk could also fit into that category (matching the rider + mount style of Fero & Skirmix). Of course, at this point, Vehicles & Creatures would be a very broad category, with over 20 sets.
  • It's a shame Dume & Nivawk aren't associated with the Dark Hunters, because that would work as a subtheme for Krekka and Nidhiki. Ideally, though, they'd all three have the same subtheme. Dume makes a bit of sense under Vahki, since he commands them, but it makes more sense for the other two to be labeled as Dark Hunters, in my mind... I'm not really sure.
  • I'm pretty sure Master Builder Set is already marked as Rahi, and I'm fine leaving it that way. There's an argument that could be made for classifying some other sets, like Dume & Nivawk, as Rahi, but that's more of a story-based similarity than a set-based one.
  • The Bahrag really defy categorization, even within the story. I'm beginning to see that there really isn't a better label than Bohrok for that set. Maybe marking their subtheme as "Bohrok (Queens)" could be a possibility, to differentiate them from Tahnok, et al.? We could do the same for Dume maybe, labeling him as "Vahki (Commander)" or whatever, and Krekka and Nidhiki could be labeled as Dark Hunters?
  • I think that if we don't put Takanuva as a Vehicles set, we should label him as a Toa/Toa Nuva, matching the way that Jaller & Gukko and Takua & Pewku are marked as Matoran.
  • Personally, I lean a bit towards putting Lesovikk and Karzahni under Warriors, following the 2008 Bionicle.com Instructions page, to keep 2007 large sets together, but it's not a big deal to me either way.
Those are just some of the options I've thought about. If it were just me, here's what I think I would do for subtheme labels:
  • All 2001 large sets: Rahi
  • Boxor, Exo-Toa: Vehicles
  • Cahdok & Gahdok: Bohrok (Queens)
  • Master Builder Set: Rahi
  • Jaller & Gukko, Takua & Pewku: Matoran
  • Takanuva: Toa Nuva
  • Makuta, Takutanuva: Makuta & Rahkshi
  • Krekka, Nidhiki: Dark Hunters
  • Turaga Dume & Nivawk: Vahki (Commander)
  • Ultimate Dume: ??? (Either same as Dume or maybe slide under Makuta & Rahkshi?)
  • Lhikan & Kikanalo: Toa Metru (Lhikan wasn't a Toa Metru in story, but set-build-wise he is.)
  • All 2005-2006 large sets: Titans
  • All 2007 large sets + Mutran & Vican, Toa Ignika, Makuta Icarax, Takanuva, Tuma, Fero & Skirmix, Toa Mata Nui: Warriors
  • Mazeka, Vultraz: Vehicles
  • Rockoh T3, Jetrax T6, Axalara T9: Vehicles (T-series)
  • Cendox V1, Kaxium V3, Baranus V7, Thornatus V9, Skopio XV-1: Vehicles (V-series)
I could really go either way on whether Mazeka and Vultraz are Vehicles or Warriors and whether we call the T-series and V-series sets Vehicles or Battle Vehicles.
Anyway, that's my idea. There's probably better ways to do it, but this way, there's only a few overlaps between canister set subthemes and large set subthemes, and the overlaps that exist make sense and/or are clarified. So, what do you think? Anything you'd do differently? --Volitak Boxor (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2015 (CEST)
Now that 2003 large set pages are going up, anyone have any comments? --Volitak Boxor (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2015 (CEST)
I'll still say avoid any terms that aren't used in the shop pages themselves. So the Bahrag are still "Bohrok", Takua and Jaller are fine as "Matoran", Takanuva should probably still be Makuta and Rahkshi, even though that's weird. -- Dorek Talk External Image 23:08, 21 July 2015 (CEST)
Yeah, I guess it does make sense to use the shop's system, since it's the only thing that can serve as any sort of proof. And it's not like we're using the subthemes as categories or linking them to anything, so it's not a huge deal if they don't make much sense. There's still a bit of BIONICLE.com vs. LEGO Shop ambiguity around 2007/2008, but we can make a decision there once the set database gets to that point. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2015 (CEST)

Instructions Links

I learned today that when linking to a PDF file, if you start the link with [[Media:... ]] instead of [[:File:... ]], you can get a link directly to the PDF file's contents instead of a link to the page on the wiki where the PDF was uploaded. Currently, most of the instruction links in Set templates use the [[:File:... ]] syntax, but I think that the [[Media:... ]] syntax would be more convenient. I don't particularly want to manually fix this on each individual set page, though. I was wondering if there was a way to set up a conditional in this template so that if the instructions parameter started with [[:File:... , it could be replaced with [[Media:... . It doesn't seem like it would be that complicated, but I'm not at all familiar with what string manipulation capabilities this wiki markup has. Is this a feasible idea, or would this take longer than just going back to fix all the pages manually? Thanks. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2016 (CET)