BIONICLEsector01 talk:Articles for Creation

From BIONICLEsector01
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: AFC

BIONICLE Facebook Page

Page will be created.

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)

Generation 2 Elements

Anyone else think we should create separate pages for the Generation 2 versions of Elements like Fire or Jungle? The fact that they're used in G2 pages and link to G1 topics seems like it would be confusing for those unfamiliar with the wiki.--Wiriamu (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2016 (CET)

Yes

  1. -- Dorek Talk External Image 10:19, 15 July 2016 (CET)
  2. --777stairs (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2016 (CET)
  3. --External Image 13:42, 16 July 2016 (CET)
  4. --Vensai 09:23, 12 August 2016 (CET)
  5. --- Creep 03:26, 12 November 2016 (CET)
  6. -- Waffles! (talk)

No

  1. --Intelligence4 (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2016 (CET)
  2. --Surel-Nuva (Talk) 08:51, 1 August 2016 (CET)
  3. Since we now have a full-fledged Elements (Generation 2) page, I don't think we need separate pages for them anymore. --Angel Bob (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2016 (CET)
  4. It would be good enough to just replace the links on the G2 pages to the respective subheading on the G2 Elements page. Master Inika (Talk) 04:39, 5 October 2016 (CET)
  5. -- Toa Jala Converse 16:25, 19 October 2016 (CET)
  6. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2017 (CET)

Comments

It'd be tricky... but I'd like to see it get done. I think from an organizational perspective it'd be pretty useful, even if the page is super bare-bones. But I'm also not scrambling to make them myself, y'know? -- Dorek Talk External Image 10:19, 15 July 2016 (CET)

Unless the Gen. 2 elements are somehow inherently different than the Gen. 1 elements, I think it'd be easier to make "Gen. 1" and "Gen. 2" sections on the existing elemental pages. -- Toa Jala Converse 17:36, 16 July 2016 (CET)
Yes, it would be simpler than creating new pages with less information. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 11:07, 19 July 2016 (CET)
I don't think we should bother, to be honest. The elements are pretty much the same, and it's pretty well known to anyone looking at G2 pages that there was a generation of bionicle before that. at most, we could add a bit in the trivia of the element pages to note that it was also in g2. Intelligence4 (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2016 (CET)

We have redirecting pages for them, so I think we don't need that pool anymore. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 09:41, 12 August 2016 (CET)

I realize now that the Gen2 elements are, in fact, inherently different from the Gen1 elements. For example, G2 Fire also influences magma, whereas G1 Fire does not. G2 Jungle deals with air and G2 Stone deals with sand. Also, G2 Water-users can breathe underwater whereas most G1 Water users could not. -- Toa Jala Converse 07:29, 18 August 2016 (CET)
But we still don't have enough information about them. And we have much more information about the G1 elements than the G2 ones. I think the Elements (Generation 2) is the best place for them. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 15:37, 28 August 2016 (CET)
I think surel has the right idea here. even though the elements are different from their g1 counterparts, (i'll agree with that argument) we don't have enough information on them individually to separate them out in their own pages. that's just unnecessary formatting work, and unnecessary dispersal of information. Intelligence4 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2016 (CET)

We've been tacitly running with the rule that six votes are needed to create/reject a page ever since Rahaga Staffs was made. That said, a lot of recent votes have been unanimous/near-unanimous, but the margin is a lot closer here, so I'm adding the nomination back. The whole thing raises a good point though, maybe the rules should be revised so fewer votes are required to create/reject pages while more votes are required if it's contested? -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2017 (CET)

Tuma's Sword

So does anyone think Tuma's Sword could use its own article?--Wiriamu (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2016 (CET)

Yes

  1. Personally don't see why not, although we don't have too much info on it. --777stairs (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2016 (CET)
  2. Might as well. -- Toa Jala Converse 07:19, 12 December 2016 (CET)

No

Comments

I think Tuma's sword is just the leader class variation of the Skrall Tribal Design Blade, and the Star Skrall's sword is also a variant of the Skrall Tribal Design Blades. So why don't we reformat the Skrall Tribal Design Blades page because all the Swords/Blades of the Skrall are their Skrall Tribal Design tools. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 11:33, 4 November 2016 (CET)
I think STDBs refer to that weird alien pattern on the standard Skrall blades. Tuma's is something different.
Don't really think it merits a page, though. -- Dorek Talk External Image 19:11, 5 November 2016 (CET)

Generation 2 Characters List

So given our lists of various Gen1 and Gen2 elements, anyone think we should make one for the Gen2 characters?--Wiriamu (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2016 (CET)

Yes

  1. You mean like a G2 version of the Characters page? I'm down. --Angel Bob (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2016 (CET)
  2. In this case, why not? But it means that we have to rename the Characters page into "Character (Generation 1)"--Surel-Nuva (Talk) 18:03, 15 November 2016 (CET)
  3. -- Toa Jala Converse 08:30, 20 December 2016 (CET)
  4. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2017 (CET)

No

Comments

Sandbox. -- Toa Jala Converse 08:30, 20 December 2016 (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.

Yes

  1. -- Intelligence4 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2017 (CET) A thorough documentation of fansites isn't a bad idea IMO.

No

Comments

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)

Yes

  1. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 16:13, 17 December 2016 (CET)
  2. --777stairs (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2016 (CET)
  3. --Angel Bob (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2016 (CET)
  4. -- I don't think the comics are a copyright issue since they were published online and freely available to all when they were originally published. that said, i'm not an expert or anything. even if it was technically an issue, i doubt that lego would persure anything against them, since they're not losing any money from it, and don't have any money to gain by going after them. also, if the comics are a problem, then the games like mnog would be too, i'd think. we should definitely have a page for them. Intelligence4 (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2017 (CET)
  5. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2017 (CET)
  6. --OnionShark 17:29, 11 January 2017 (CET)
  7. This is a must need. BMP is godlike. --- Creep 05:35, 14 January 2017 (CET)

No

Comments

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 BIONICLE.com, 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)

Change Skakdi Fusion to Golden-Skinned Being

Considering that everyone, including GregF, uses "Golden-Skinned Being" when referring to the fusion made on Zakaz, does anyone think we should change its page's title? --OnionShark 15:40, 19 December 2016 (CET)

Change

  1. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 17:40, 19 December 2016 (CET)
  2. We could also make GSB a redirect. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2016 (CET)
  3. --OnionShark 22:25, 19 December 2016 (CET)
  4. -- Toa Jala Converse 08:24, 20 December 2016 (CET)

Keep

Comments

I'm down for changing the name, but we should determine what exactly we're going to replace it with first. I looked it up, and this isn't actually the most common description of it. It is only ever called the "golden-skinned being" once, in RoS Ch 11. It's called a "gold-skinned being" in TPTB Ch 1, and it's called a "golden-skinned creature" twice in RoS Ch 12. Its most common name, used 25 times in Sahmad's Tale, is simply "golden being". So, if we're going for accuracy, it might be better to call the page Golden Being, and make the other nicknames into redirects. What do you think? --Angel Bob (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2016 (CET)

But Golden-Skinned Being is the name most commonly used by the fans, and that's what we usually use for nameless characters.
--OnionShark 22:24, 19 December 2016 (CET)
This is kind of a circular thing - I suspect "golden-skinned being" is only used because that's what The Bionicle Wiki chose as the name of the page. I agree that if most people call it the Golden-Skinned Being, that's still better (and less confusing) than Skakdi Fusion. Anyone else who votes yes, what do you call the entity? --Angel Bob (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2016 (CET)
Yep I call it the Golden-Skinned Being. Golden Being could be a redirect though. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2016 (CET)
I call Golden-Skinned Being, (or sometimes as Zaktan's new form. I know that Greg said that Zaktan doesn't control/dominate the creature, but I think he had the strongest will...) -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 05:31, 20 December 2016 (CET)
Whether or not Zaktan has the strongest will doesn't matter, as the GSB has a mind of his own, unrelated to his components. But anyway, I too call him Golden-Skinned Being.
On another note, do you think that we should keep "Skakdi Fusion" as a redirect?
--OnionShark 21:29, 22 December 2016 (CET)
I think we should. E.g. if there are personal comments with "Skakdi Fusion" we should not change them into "Golden-Skinned Being." -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 21:44, 22 December 2016 (CET)

Whichever way this goes, I made Golden-Skinned Being as a redirect page. -- Toa Jala Converse 08:59, 29 December 2016 (CET)

Turn Fire Sword into Disambig, move Tahu's Fire Sword to Fire Sword (Tahu)

See Fire Sword--that's a lot of similar pages. :P

Disambig(s) will be made.

Comments

Or turn the Flame Sword into disamig, for "Energized Flame Swords", Narmoto's "Flame Swords", Ackar's "Flame Sword". 3 out of the 5 are Flame swords, only two are Fire swords. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 22:34, 1 January 2017 (CET)

Okay 3-3 if we're counting Lhikan's Fire/Lava Greatswords... -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 17:36, 2 January 2017 (CET)
How about make both Flame Sword and Fire Sword disambig pages? -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2017 (CET)
The Fire Sword disambig will be enough, or do you want to rename Ackar's Flame Sword too, not just Tahu's Fire Sword? -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 23:16, 10 January 2017 (CET)

we should probably make two pages, a disambig for flame sword and another for fire sword. on those pages, we should make a note, something like, "you may be looking for these other pages" and then link to the other disamb. Intelligence4 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2017 (CET)

I agree. "Flame Sword" should also be a disambig. page. -- Toa Jala Converse 12:05, 18 January 2017 (CET)

Temple of Creation (Okoto)

The Temple of Creation houses the Great Forge, is the workplace of the Mask Makers, and is the scene of the defeat of Kulta. I daresay there's more information for it than a lot of G2 articles we currently do have, and, as has been previously noted, G2 can afford more pages.

Along with this, "Temple of Creation" would presumably become a disambiguation and the current Temple of Creation would be renamed "Temple of Creation (Po-Koro))" or something along those lines. --777stairs (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2017 (CET)

Yes

  1. --777stairs (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2017 (CET)
  2. Why would you call it Temple of Creation (Okoto)?? It would be more simple to create a "{{G|1|Temple of Creation}} / [[Temple of Creation (Generation 1)]]" page (move the article of the original from Po-Wahi here), turn the "Temple of Creation" into a Disamig, and create a "{{G|2|Temple of Creation}} / [[Temple of Creation (Generation 2)]] page for the new one. - Surel-Nuva (Talk) 19:30, 7 January 2017 (CET)
  3. I agree with surel, having a simple g1 and g2 page would be best instead of a disambig Intelligence4 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2017 (CET)
  4. G2 could always use more pages, and this was a crucial location - more crucial than the Temple of Time or Light, and we have those. --Angel Bob (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2017 (CET)

No

Comments

Yeah, or that. I'm too used to other wiki policies XD --777stairs (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2017 (CET)

We have G1-G2 pages for Toa, Hook Blades etc. We also have and use GenTabs in some cases for example for Ta-Wahi (which means Fire Region in G1) and the Region of Fire (the fire region of G2) or for Teridax and G2 Makuta. So it's more simple. :D -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 20:21, 7 January 2017 (CET)
why don't we use gentabs on all the pages that have a (gen #) in their title? if there's a gen 1 version, that would imply an article has a gen 2 counterpart that could/should be linkedIntelligence4 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2017 (CET)

Category:Male characters and Category:Female characters

Just something I thought of that could be worthwhile. I personally would be interested to see the exact numbers, and how bad the ratio is. We could potentially speed up its implementation by including Ga, Vo, and Ce Matoran.

Yes

  1. See above. --Angel Bob (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2017 (CET)
  2. --Wiriamu (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2017 (CET)
  3. --OnionShark 12:08, 15 January 2017 (CET)

No

Comments

I can tell you right now that the ratio of male/female is far less than 5-1, if you take all characters into consideration and not just Matoran/Toa/Turaga. That's probably the one thing about BIONICLE that I never cared for. However, I'm not sure I see the point in measuring it with categories. I'll have to think about this one a bit. -- Toa Jala Converse 12:20, 18 January 2017 (CET)

I have to ask: if we include Matoran types, what would we do with Av-Matoran? It seems like most of them are dudes (7/8 that I know of), but some of them are female, like Gavla. Would we put Av-Matoran in both categories? -- Toa Jala Converse 12:36, 18 January 2017 (CET)
I wouldn't include Av-Matoran in either category. I might not even include the other Matoran groups - maybe it would be more orderly to just have individual character pages. --Angel Bob (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2017 (CET)