BIONICLEsector01 talk:Articles for Creation

Shortcut: AFC
From BIONICLEsector01

Approved proposals (please make these pages!)

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)


Page will be made.

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)

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)

Glatorian Action Figure Game

Page will be made.

I was looking this up the other day to remind myself of the rules. For some reason though, there's only a note in the set information for glatorian of all places. It seems strange for it to not have it's own page, or at least it's separate section or sub section on the glatorian page. --"♫We're driving old smokey! Porkchop's at the wheel! When we hit the junk realm, we'll make the drones squeal!♫" ~Prof. Srlojohn 20:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments on Glatorian Action Figure Game

so, how many votes are needed to get approval? --"I wanted show that humans are not gods, nor are we monsters, i wanted people to think about what it means to be human" -Lex ~Prof. Srlojohn 19:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Per the rules on BIONICLEsector01:Articles for Creation you need three more votes, unless someone votes no, in which case you need five more. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Were the rules only ever listed in the back of manuals, or was there a "better" version listed anywhere? --MightBeAlon (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

maybe on the website, if not that's it then. Though there were slightly different rules for; single, double, +Agori, and Vehicle. --"I wanted show that humans are not gods, nor are we monsters, i wanted people to think about what it means to be human" -Lex ~Prof. Srlojohn 18:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense. It might be worth someone scoping out the possible variations between them and compiling the differences, if any, between the potentially different rules on this hypothetical Agori Game page. --MightBeAlon (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
agori game? it was just an add on to the normal --"I wanted show that humans are not gods, nor are we monsters, i wanted people to think about what it means to be human" -Lex ~Prof. Srlojohn 18:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, I meant to call it the Glatorian Game but had a brainfart --MightBeAlon (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The website used to have "interactive" tutorials for each of the four variants (it was like a glorified slideshow, but it explained things pretty well.) I don't know if anybody (BioMediaProject/Wayback Machine) has these preserved? --Snaptor(talk) 23:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Music of the BIONICLE films

If the topic is deemed worthy of its own separate article, I would very much like to create one for the soundtracks to the Bionicle movies. I believe a suitable title would be "Music of the BIONICLE films". The Music article would be given a link to it at the top of the "Movie Scores" section (e.g. Main article: Music of the BIONICLE films).

This article would encompass the full details of the Miramax trilogy soundtrack releases as well as their history, using as much data about them as I can find. It would cover subjects such as how Nathan Furst was initially brought on board to score the films, why they remained unreleased for such a long time, and the efforts made to release portions of the score prior to the official releases. It would also include any available information on the score of The Legend Reborn; even though that film has not been given a soundtrack release, it is possible there could be one in the future. It would not include information about the music of The Journey to One since that is a web series and not technically a movie.

I believe this topic is worthy of its own article due to the large amount of relevant information about it, in contrast to the other sections of the main Music article. I would, of course, be happy to assume responsibility for creating and maintaining the article.

Please post your thoughts below; any support would be greatly appreciated. I'd really love to be able to move ahead with this article.


Create Music of the Bionicle Films Page

  1. Definitely. —Planetperson 22:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Seeing as each is it's own release, i say a separate page --"LBX battle on!!!" ~Prof. Srlojohn 17:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. I think that it makes a lot of sense. We could have a separate soundtrack page for each of the albums, now that they have been officially released. --Lukas Exemplar (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't Create Music of the Bionicle Films Page

  1. As much as I love these soundtracks, I can't see them warranting their own page, although I agree that the information on the Music page is lacking. I feel that any relevant info on these albums should either be added there, or on the page for Nathan Furst (which is another page that could use a rewrite). --Snaptor(talk) 01:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. I gotta say no here. Info should just be put on the relevant existing pages (i.e. music, nathan furst, each movie's page, etc) (The preceding unsigned comment was made by Intelligence4)
  3. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. Not necessary. -- Toa Jala Converse 03:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. I think we can greatly expand the Music page with more information, such as track listings, maybe lyrics? but I don't think we need pages for the soundtrack, unless we are to also make pages for the songs. ~ Wolk (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  6. SurelNuva (Talk) 02:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Music of the Bionicle Films Page

In response to Snaptor's comment in the "No" section at 01:29, 23 August 2018: Some of the information I had hoped to include in the proposed article is actually stuff I previously put on the Music page in the Movie Scores section, but another user seemed to think it was too excessive for that page and removed most of it (while also suggesting that I try to AFC a page). --Metalla (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That was probably me! Personally, I find a lot of it extraneous. I don't need to know where in Web of Shadows that minutes 1:05-2:37 of song 23 appear. We're not a Furst fanpage, no offense to the guy. The information needs to be relevant to more than just itself. -- Dorek Talk External Image 02:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Understandable. This is why I feel a separate page would be a worthy undertaking, as there is a fair bit of information on these scores that people may like to explore and/or simply have a comprehensive database to refer to. Of course, I wouldn't include information that's just plain unnecessary like, say, a detailed list of where each track appears. --Metalla (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think if Metalla wants to spend his personal time contributing useful information to this wiki, even if some of you find it more detailed than necessary, there's no good reason not to let him go ahead and do it. —Planetperson 00:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Planetperson, I appreciate the support! --Metalla (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
While I do appreciate Metalla's enthusiasm here, and also agree that we could most definitely use more information on the soundtracks, there is a point where, even on an extensive wiki such as this, there can be simply too much information. Imagine if we went to Greg Farshtey's page and added everything we know about him from the ask Greg topics over the years; nobody needs to know what his favorite pizza topping is (seriously, I think someone did actually ask that). If we really want to make pages for these soundtracks, we should make one for each album (I feel a page for an actual album release is plenty justifiable if we have pages for fifteen second flash animations and the like). I just don't think we should make one, big page that would likely end up reading like a Nathan Furst fan tribute; as awesome as he and his soundtracks are, this is still a wiki and should remain objective. I support the movement for more information on these soundtracks, we just need to think about how we go about doing it. Individual album pages would have my vote, as long as we are discerning with exactly what we put on them. --Snaptor(talk) 01:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I get what you're saying. But given the amount of verifiable information that's currently available on the soundtracks (keep in mind it's only 3 albums, maybe eventually 4 if we're lucky), I really think a single cumulative page would be the best fit, at least for now. It would be better to have a page that encompasses all of the soundtracks in a complete and concise way rather than have multiple pages that are fairly short and contain redundant information. I would of course be very open to edits by other users, especially since there could be additional relevant information I am leaving out. --Metalla (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, been a little over a month since this section had any activity so I kinda wanted to touch base. Opinions on this AFC seem pretty mixed so far, though it doesn't look like a lot of people have voted. To anyone who has a definitive opinion on whether this article should be created or not, I'd love for you to share it and/or cast your vote in the appropriate section, as I'm eager to have a more clear idea of whether this thing is gonna fly or not. Furthermore, the possibility of creating individual pages for each of the 3 albums has been suggested; if more people voice approval for that idea, I'd be willing to change the proposal (or create a new one altogether) and advocate for the creation of those instead. --Metalla (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is actually possible to create another voting option for the individual albums in the same poll - some others have added third sections after another option becomes apparent. --Snaptor(talk) 09:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Rename "Reformation of Spherus Magna" to "Restoration of Spherus Magna"

I think "reformation" is a poor choice of word here. The word "reformation" normally refers to correcting an institution or practice, not repairing a physical thing. It also has religious undertones. The term "restoration" would be more suitable.

Definitions: reformation, restoration

Do rename "Reformation of Spherus Magna" to "Restoration of Spherus Magna"

  1. Planetperson 00:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. ~ Wolk (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. SurelNuva (Talk) 17:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. --"LBX battle on!!!" ~Prof. Srlojohn 17:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. "Reformation" never sat right with me, you hit the nail on the head. --Angel Bob (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  7. --PeabodySam (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't rename "Reformation of Spherus Magna" to "Restoration of Spherus Magna"

  1. Feels somewhat unnecessary, the three fragments are literally "re-forming" into Spherus Magna, so the new name actually feels more vague to me. Only real argument I can see against this is that restoration does better describe the re-greening stuff Mata Nui did. --Snaptor(talk) 23:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. -- Toa Jala Converse 02:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. --- I agree with the two people above me, Reformation makes perfect sense in this context.--Lukas Exemplar (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Name "Reformation of Spherus Magna" to something else

Comments on renaming "Reformation of Spherus Magna"

Rename "Assembler's Villages" to "Assembler's Village"

It doesn't really make sense for the page name to be in plural, in comparison to other pages such as Rahi (Artakha Bull, Stone Rat, etc.), objects (Zamor Launcher), occupations (Crafter). Additionally the BEU entry on page 11 is not in plural. ~ Wolk (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Do rename "Assembler's Villages" to "Assembler's Village"

  1. ~ Wolk (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. -- Toa Jala Converse 02:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't rename "Assembler's Villages" to "Assembler's Village"

  1. --"♫We're driving old smokey! Porkchop's at the wheel! When we hit the junk realm, we'll make the drones squeal!♫" ~Prof. Srlojohn 20:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. The closest comparison that comes to my mind is Matoran Homes, and that's plural. --Snaptor(talk) 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Per Snaptor. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Same as Snaptor— SurelNuva (Talk) 02:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments on renaming "Assembler's Villages"

i say no, because some of the guides say that there are multiple villages spread around Po-metru. --"♫We're driving old smokey! Porkchop's at the wheel! When we hit the junk realm, we'll make the drones squeal!♫" ~Prof. Srlojohn 20:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, but there are also multiple Zamor Launchers? ~ Wolk (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
A long time ago, back when the Vahki staffs were their own pages, there was a conversation about how they were named plurally ("Staffs of Command") while the Rahkshi staffs were named singularly ("Staff of Anger"). Somebody told me it was because each single Vahki had multiple staffs, but each single Rahkshi had only one staff. Not sure how to apply that to this, but thought it was worth mentioning. Is it accurate to describe this page as about the Assembler's Villages as a collective unit? -- Master Inika (Talk) 21:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

To expand on the comment I made in my vote; this seems to be a common trend for "plural locations". Chute Stations, Sea Gates, and Stalactite Villages are all examples of this, in addition to Matoran Homes that I mentioned above. If we really want to make this change, it really should be an all-or-nothing attempt, which is why I voted against just renaming the Assembler's Villages. I would be more open to a full renaming of plural locations, but would still need to hear the arguments. --Snaptor(talk) 23:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Put Rahi Challenges on it's own page

I feel it would be appropriate to allocate the Rahi Challenge expansion for BIONICLE: Quest for the Masks it's own page; it was released several months later as it's own design, would help give better distinction between itself and the base game. --MightBeAlon (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes: Create Bionicle: Rahi Challenge

  1. MightBeAlon (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

No: Do not create Bionicle: Rahi Challenge

  1. --Gonel (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  2. If it was just an expentions with new rules it should stay where it is. Would be worth to mention the changes/new rules tho— SurelNuva (Talk) 02:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments on proposal to create Bionicle: Rahi Challenge

This is just my general ignorance on the card games themselves, but are the two sets not compatible? New rules is all fine and dandy, but if it's actually just an expansion, then I'd say they should stay on the same page. -- Dorek Talk External Image 02:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wondering this as well. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


I noticed that we while we do have a gallery for prototypes sets, we do not have a gallery for actual set images. ~ Wolk (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes: Create gallery:sets

  1. ~ Wolk (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Could be handy, really. --Snaptor(talk) 08:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. this would be nice. --"I wanted show that humans are not gods, nor are we monsters, i wanted people to think about what it means to be human" -Lex ~Prof. Srlojohn 15:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. -- Toa Jala Converse 03:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. --Gonel (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  6. I guess, but only if we include 1 picture for each— SurelNuva (Talk) 01:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No: Do not create gallery:sets

Comments on proposal to create gallery:sets

I'm not opposed, I just don't see anyone willing to do the legwork =P. If someone were to actually create one, I certainly wouldn't complain. -- Dorek Talk External Image 07:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I can give it a shot. I'll need some help on formatting though, so I know what templates an whatnot. --"I wanted show that humans are not gods, nor are we monsters, i wanted people to think about what it means to be human" -Lex ~Prof. Srlojohn 15:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to split Fenrakk into Fenrakk Spawn and Fenrakk/Kardas/Kardas Dragon

Per our previous vote, we are splitting Fenrakk/Kardas/Kardas Dragon off from the Fenrakk Spawn page. Vote on what the new articles should be called! -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Split Fenrakk into Fenrakk Spawn and Fenrakk

Split Fenrakk into Fenrakk Spawn and Kardas

  1. BIONICLE Encyclopedia's entry is called Kardas. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. Makes sense, we could make Kardas Dragon into a redirect and Fenrakk into a disambiguation page. ~ Wolk (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. Same as Wolk.— SurelNuva (Talk) 09:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Split Fenrakk into Fenrakk Spawn and Kardas Dragon

Comments on proposal to split Fenrakk into Fenrakk Spawn and Fenrakk/Kardas/Kardas Dragon

I do get the Ussal page comparison, but I gotta say I'm not really feeling this. It's a confusing enough situation as it is; they were introduced to the audience as "Fenrakk" and then "Fenrakk Spawn" but the Fenrakk Spawn are basically the original, even though that's not what the name implies at all? I think it's fine as is. -- Dorek Talk External Image 17:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah Fenrakk spawn is a misnomer. I suspect it's an out-of-universe nickname, but there's no confirmation for that afaik. Regardless, if we don't split the page up, we should at least move it to "Fenrakk Spawn" since that's the actual subject of the article. The current setup is analogous to calling the Ash Bear article "Graalok." -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
My understanding (admittedly this is an uncertain topic) is that the "Fenrakk Spawn Spiders" are distinct from ordinary "Fenrakk" which are distinct again from Vezon's specific Fenrakk (which I think we should refer to as Kardas, it the same sense that we say Takanuva and not Takua). --Snaptor(talk) 10:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually the BEU says that the Ignika enlarged a Fenrakk Spawn into Vezon's Fenrakk. — SurelNuva (Talk) 19:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Rename comic articles

Currently comic articles have the format "Comic issue-number: issue-name" while articles for other media, such as books, follow the format "BIONICLE series-name issue-number: issue-name." For consistency I think we should also use the latter format for comics too. To be clear, we say the series changes when the issue number resets. The format would be:

  • 2001-2005 comics: "BIONICLE issue-number: issue-name" (BIONICLE 1: The Coming of the Toa)
  • 2006-2008 comics: "BIONICLE Ignition issue-number: issue-name" (BIONICLE Ignition 11: Death of a Hero)
    • Note: For 2008 comics, we'd also set up redirects with the format "BIONICLE Battle for Power number: name." That's because the Ignition series was rebranded as Battle for Power during 2008. (The issue number did not reset in 2008, so the 2008 comics are still part of the Ignition series.)
  • 2009-2010 comics: "BIONICLE Glatorian issue-number: issue-name" (BIONICLE Glatorian 6: All That Glitters)

This scheme is consistent and predictable. It leaves out subseries like "Metru Nui" or "Sea of Darkness" because subseries were advertised inconsistently. Instead it only relies on the series name and issue number, which are less ambiguous, so readers can more easily find articles. As an added benefit, this scheme would let us delete silly redirects like Comic 1. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes: Rename comic articles

  1. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. If it helps with the reference-based citation system, I'm on with it— SurelNuva (Talk) 19:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. ~ Wolk (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  4. --Gonel (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No: Do not rename comic articles

Comments on renaming comic articles

I noticed that there are no shortcuts like 'C1' or 'IC12', unlike the books. Do we want to add that? ~ Wolk (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

BIONICLE Adventures Sampler

Here's a somewhat unusual suggestion: I know Dorek had previously mentioned that he was hoping to work on forming some sort of section for novel boxed sets and/or set packs, but the BIONICLE Adventures Sampler (which I was just recently able to get my hands on) is a unique publication that was technically released as part of a boxed set in the Special Edition Ta-Metru Collector Pack. The book itself is 70 pages, consisting of the prologue and first chapter of each of the first four Adventures novels and has an ISBN of 0439734606--I've uploaded an image of the full cover for reference. Not really sure what this would be categorized as, so I'll just nominate it for a page here and see what is suggested. --Gonel (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Create BIONICLE Adventures Sampler

  1. --Gonel (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't Create BIONICLE Adventures Sampler

Host BIONICLE Adventures Sampler on Boxed/Packaged Set Page

Comments on BIONICLE Adventures Sampler

I had always assumed that was BIONICLE Adventures 1 just because of the color scheme and never really paid attention, hah. I'm still going to say it's more for a section on the BA page (same reason we don't have individual pages for every mini guidebook), but I'm not fussed either way. -- Dorek Talk External Image 02:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Assuming nothing changes between now and whenever I get to it, I'll try to knock that out, as well as the aforementioned boxed sets (assuming I'm not beaten to them). --Gonel (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Reshuffling the Timeline Pages

The timelines have been getting thoroughly facelifted over the past few months, and as new and references come to light and information is reshuffled, the thought has arisen that perhaps there is a more efficient method of presenting information succinctly. Right now, our timelines and our Saga Guides effectively present the exact same information and our subcategorized in the exact same way--the only difference being that the Saga Guides are a past-tense prose presentation and the Timeline is a present-tense bulleted list. Not only is this redundant, but it defeats the purpose of a timeline. Nobody comes to a timeline seeking to learn about the story--that is the role of the Saga Guide. The Timeline should simply and concisely note where a specific series of events happens relative to each other. Our timelines generally don't list series of events as much as they list every event, and in excruciating detail. (For more relating to this, see this discussion which is where this proposal originates.)

Furthermore, there has also been discussion supporting the switching of a central anchor point from the vague, undefined "Present Day" where the narrative ends to the adventure of Takua to summon the Toa, which is the inciting incident of the BIONICLE narrative as it was presented. Most dates past and future are defined in terms of the year subsequent to this event, and the further back or forward one gets from this event, the more erroneus and vague the dating gets. (For more relating to this, see this discussion which is where this proposal originates.)

To settle these two discussion points, I've (mostly) drafted a big long page that represents how the timeline would look like if it were all placed onto one page. Although Reign of Shadows and modern Bara Magna information has yet to be added, every other event in the timeline is noted. Events pertaining strictly to Spherus/Bara Magna are presented in grey while Matoran Universe events are in black font to show how the timelines would lock if the decision were made that all pre-Coming of the Toa (BCT) events were kept on the same page and all post-Coming of the Toa (ACT) events were kept on the same page.

Within the first half, information from the Great Cataclysm, Great Rescue, and Dark Times timelines have been seen most of the excess trimmed out and they now present all the same information in a more concise, accessible manner--and overall fit quite nicely in with the rest of the BCT history. The second half of this timeline--events occuring after the summoning of the Toa Mata, end up making for a somewhat more gargantuan page when presented combined--however, although I have been weeding out some of the excess, there's still a lot that can be trimmed out to make it a more accessible page. Once it were properly revised, I believe it would be about the same length as the BCT half of the Matoran Universe timeline.

In general I favor the idea of four different pages--one with the BCT history of Spherus/Bara Magna, one with the BCT history of the Matoran Universe, one with ACT history of the Matoran Universe, and one with the ACT history of Bara/Spherus Magna (or even just combine the ACT timelines given how closely they interact toward the end). I think these, once extensively refined, would be far more useful resources overall than the timelines as they are, which are just bulleted Saga Guides. --Gonel (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Reshuffle the Timeline Pages

Note: Since this is a bit of a multi-faceted question, if you support reshuffling, please specify in your signature which method of reshuffling you would want (BCT and ACT on one page vs on separate pages; and whether Spherus Magna and Matoran Universe timelines should be combined or kept separate).

  1. Keep BCT and ACT on different pages; no current preference on MU and SM pages --Gonel (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. I see an argument for separating at the Great Cataclysm because that event was significant across the whole MU. That said, separating at the Toa's arrival may make for an easier read, which is the whole point of the timeline anyway. Also, I'm leaning against separating the MU and SM pages, but I keep changing my mind. The way I see it right now, both ends of the MU timeline intertwine pretty tightly with the SM one, and splitting an SM-only timeline at the Coming of the Toa or Great Cataclysm wouldn't be very natural. (Actually, do we know if the Skrall migrated before or after the Toa showed up? If we don't, that could complicate things....) Either way, good call setting this vote up this way. Really the simple yes/no vote to reorganize the pages is what's important, and we can hash out the details later. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. -- Dorek Talk External Image 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep the Timeline Pages as they are

Comments on Timeline Revision

So would we just get rid of the Saga Guides pages? Honestly I've never liked any of these categorizations but I think I'd prefer Timeline more than anything else. I'm not really too fussed with where/how; I guess BCT/ACT would be the smartest, although it's still a bit weird when talking about more contemporary stuff, but I dunno. Whatever's good with me. -- Dorek Talk External Image 03:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I never really saw any reason why should there be a saga guide if there's the timeline. Although I'd say at first, we have to correct/make sure that our timeline is as correct as possible, before we reshuffle it.— SurelNuva (Talk) 04:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
While I do think the Saga Guides make sense for any newcomers to the lore who can't access/don't have time to consume the various media, I do really think they could use some serious revision in terms of how they present that information, as well as being more front and center on the wiki so people can find them easier. I do respect the role they're trying to play--though of course, I almost always forget they exist and don't know of anyone who's used them. Additionally, with the present divisions, it's arduous keeping the Saga Guides up to date with the information updated on the Timelines. I'd tinker with them in my sandbox, but I should probably drain some of the stuff that's already in there first...
As for your point, Morris, the points you raise on MU/BM are ones I've been grappling with myself. Greg very rarely specified timeline placement in his writing (scarcely ever acknowledging even day/night passing), but unfortunately 2009 gets especially egregious. The arrival of the Skrall is one of the few 2009-oriented events where he attempted to give some timescale on, but he ended up contradicting himself in the books--and I don't know of any reconciliation to this issue. Page 18 in MNGtBM holds that the Skrall arrived less than a year before the fall of Atero and did not participate in the last tournament (where Tarix was the winner). However, The Fall of Atero, however shows Tarix and Strakk expecting the Skrall to sweep the championship "Just like they did last year." The Crossing (chapter 5, section 3, paragraph 3) implies that the Skrall have been in Bara Magna just over a year prior to that story. Finally, RoV page 3 implies that the Skrall have inhabited Roxtus for "many years." So far I haven't thought of a clever way to reconcile them, but perhaps these citations will get the ball rolling on that front.
That said, since the only concrete dates in all of 2009 are in The Exile's Tale, as the rest boil down to "months" or "weeks." As such, there won't be an easy answer for Bara Magna's recent history, since most of it is only vague estimations. --Gonel (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Honestly the various inconsistencies are probably WHY I find the Timelines and Saga Guides so unnecessary (although I suppose moreso before we had citations). Could we maybe do some sort of hybrid? A saga guide with a running timeline along the side? -- Dorek Talk External Image 17:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'm not entirely sure what such a hybrid would look like in practice, but (at least with respect to post-Coming of the Toa where such inconsistencies are more common) I imagine trying to keep the timeline on the side would generally run into the same issues on dating, while also losing the nice organization that a bulleted, brisk timeline provides.
However, your comment does provoke the thought that arguably the timeline (at least insofar as it denotes time) is only really necessary for events counting backwards from the coming of the Toa, where things are far more accurate. However, in the MU things get much less accurate counting forward from the coming of the Toa, and on BM things start falling apart counting forward from the attack of the Baterra on the Skrall. In a sense, then, perhaps we could ditch Saga Guides for anything "BCT" while ditching Timelines for anything "ACT" (or before and after the Baterra attack on the Skrall in the case of Bara Magna).
BCT timeline doesn't gain much from having a Saga Guide present information in a narrative format, since the specific details get lost in paragraph form. However, paragraph form is arguably more logical for ACT events. As long as the ACT Saga Guides maintain a neat, crisp presentation, it would sidestep the need to provide specific dates. My one concern is that the Saga Guide format (that is, paragraph format rather than bullets) would make things harder to parse out easily where events happen relative to one another quickly--how the 2001 comics interlock with the books and MNOG, for example, or how the 2008 serials and books coincide (a question least evident in the Metru years which wouldn't fall under this system). For me and my research purposes, the greatest strength of the timelines is the speed with which it helps discern where everything in different media happens relative to everything else. But as long as the ACT saga guides maintained the ability of the timelines to delineate specific events from different media, it would take the best attributes of timelines and saga guides while eliminating the worst. --Gonel (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Would there be any objection if I went ahead and consolidated Legends of Metru Nui, The Great Rescue, and The Dark Times onto the History of the Matoran Universe timeline (as per the overall format shown in the first half of my Sandbox)? That seems like it would be the most logical, most straightforward first step to take in this process. I think that, if in a few days no one responds/objects, I'll at least paste these on the HotMU page and post deletion tags on the extra ones, though of course these revisions can certainly be rolled back by the administrators if they don't want this done just yet.

Following this, perhaps combining the History of Bara Manga page (minus the Baterra/Skrall stuff) with the History of Spherus Magna page would be the next logical step, while the rest of the HoBM, Bara Magna, Journey's End, and Spherus Magna pages could also be easily merged. However, all the original trilogy, Ignition, and RoS timelines will have to have their excess trimmed down before we can even think about consolidating those, though. --Gonel (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

First try to consolidate the information as much as possible (if you haven't done so already) so the HotMU page doesn't become too long. Other than that, I have no objections. Dag (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Very good point. All told, from their collective 56,715 bytes of information, I have so far been able to slice out 38,071 (over two-thirds, or roughly the same quantity as our current Timeline/HotMU page)--all without losing any significant information. At present, counting the revisions that have happened since, all three stand at 17,327. All told, it will fit comfortably onto our History of the Matoran Universe page, adding less than half of its length. Further, as I am transitioning the pages, even more information will be trimmed, and the redundant information that has accumulated will be cut. --Gonel (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
My two cents on this is that if we remove the Saga Guides, then the timeline over those events needs to preserved, etc. I get that it's redundant to have both, but we should always have at least one of them to cover the order of main story events. ~ Wolk (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Wolks here, I think we have 2 options. #1 we keep the Saga Guide pages as an extended version of the timelines, and we trim down the actual timeline pages. Or #2 we delete the saga guide pages, but it means that we have as much information as possible in the Timelines, without trimming them down.— SurelNuva (Talk) 08:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Of these two, I'm strongly inclined towards the first option. As a frequent researcher it's useful to me to see the zoomed out summaries, since I already know the grittier details and am just looking to figure out where various media happens relative to others from the same year (e.g. how the multimedia fits together in the original three years, or how the serials fit together and with the books in the ignition years). However, the Saga Guides do provide that more extended narrative examination for those looking to learn the fuller details for the first time. If anything is going to bear the thorough derail, I'd rather it be the Saga Guides, so the Timelines can remain neat and crisp. --Gonel (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I found the trimming the timelines down a bit inconsistent. I mean on the Legends of Metru Nui page, the events of the movie is highlighted, while the other 4 books are diminished into one sentences, like the defeat of the Morbuzakh, while they learnt to use their elements is just as heavy as defeating Makuta, while rescuing Lhikan and the other 3 Toa Metru. It feels so off, that the Darkness Below is reduced to 1 sentence, while the whole LoMN book/movie could have been trimmed down on the same way, but as I can see, only the main 2 movies' plot was kept on the LoMN and TGR timelines, anything else was trimmed and reduced, and I feel like these 2 must be too, to be consistent. If we would merge it with the History of the Matoran Universe page, these should count as much as the other 8 adventures books after all.— SurelNuva (Talk) 10:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Main reason why it ended up like that was because the main movies have information that's much more relevant to the overall history of the Matoran Universe--events that can are more difficult to convey summarily. TDB has little global or storyline ramification beyond the fact they meet the Krahka which Greg recycles the following year. The first two Adventures as well are summarized as they are because, while a significant thread in 2004, are not so significant in the universal history. The movies are packed with all the important events and conflicts of the year, and as such are much more difficult to slice down while also acknowledging their major events, which do have global ramifications/build on the threads the timeline presents. However, as I am bringing them over today, I'll try and pare them down further where I can. --Gonel (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Where to put Velika's awakening? Accordint to the events page, it should have happened after the energy storms, but seeing that Hydraxon, and a bunch of other characters had already been sapient, I think it should have happened before Mata Nui was first awakened.(or declare it to be non canon for the inconsistency that it has brough upom the timeline) --Surel-Nuva (Talk) 13:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

To quote the awakening page, "The Toa and some others, however, possessed a greater measure of sapience." I think the place in time it is is relatively unknown, but arguably it would have happened only after Mata Nui awakened, else the other Great Beings would have noticed something was wrong sooner. ~ Wolk (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)