BIONICLEsector01 talk:Articles for Deletion

Shortcut: AFD
From BIONICLEsector01

Approved proposals

G2 Elements

So as we know, the G2 ended, and all of the G2 elements are listed on one page, because they don't need individual pages. I think we should delete the "G2 >element name<" pages and restore the G1 elements to the original pages. So the Fire wouldn't be a disambig page. We might put up the disambig sing at the top of the page, id somebody is searching for the G2 elements.

Delete G2 redirects and restore the G1 elements to their original pages

Proposal will be followed.

  1. I don't think we have enough info on the G2 elements to have a disambig page for the 8 elements. A mention on the main/G1 elements would be enough, for all the 8 would redirect into the G2 elements page.— SurelNuva (Talk) 08:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. ^ditto --"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 16:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. This makes sense to me given how little is known about G2 elements. Toa Nidhiki05 18:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. -- Toa Jala Converse 01:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. --Snaptor(talk) 02:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  6. ~ Wolk (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete G2 redirects, but keep the G1 and the disambig pages separate

Don't delete the redirect pages

Comments on elements

So, there are 6 votes for yes, and 0 for no, can we make this happen? I'm not a moderator to delete pages, so I could only blank the redirects/update the individual pages to be redirect for the g2 elements page, and maybe restore the original ones, and add the disambig tag/headline, if we can consider this poll to be closed.--Surel-Nuva (Talk) 06:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You're quite right. Thanks for noticing this. I guess we never redid the AfD rules when we redid the AfC ones, but it's totally fair to apply the AfC policy in this case. What you've written up sounds like a good plan. I may not be able to keep close tabs on this, but once all of the links to the G2 redirects have been changed, let me know and I'll delete those pages. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Clone Tools

For want of a better word, I'm making this section to nominate the deletion/merging of a bunch of pages, as mentioned in the toa hagah tools discussion. I figured instead of making a yes/no votes section, we could just have a running tally of each group of pages we want to condense. If you think of another set of pages you want to nominate, just add it as a subsection here and we can all vote.

Rahkshi Staffs

Make Rahkshi Staffs

  1. Intelligence4 (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2017 (CET)
  2. SurelNuva (Talk) 14:16, 30 June 2017 (CET)
  3. --777stairs (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2017 (CET)
  4. No these tools don't contain a Rahkshi's power, but they still are a very notable weapon deserving a page.--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2017 (CET)
  5. Though they do not contain powers, and while there might not be much information on them, we have tons of tool pages with less information. It's still a tool, even without the power. --~ Wolk (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2017 (CET)
  6. --Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2017 (CET)

Don't make Rahkshi Staffs

  1. Nah, it's an extension of their own power, not a separate tool. --External Image Owner (talk|contribs) 05:20, 1 July 2017 (CET)
  2. This^--Vartemp Talk 22:20, 29 September 2017 (CET)
  3. -- Toa Jala Converse 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete the pages but don't make Rahkshi Staffs

  1. I agree with Swert that we don't need a page including all the staffs, but this also implies that we don't need pages for them at all. ~OnionShark 12:25, 1 July 2017 (CET)
  2. --Snaptor (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2017 (CET)

Bohrok Shields

Make Bohrok Shields

  1. SurelNuva (Talk) 14:16, 30 June 2017 (CET)
  2. ~OnionShark 15:44, 30 June 2017 (CET)
  3. --777stairs (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2017 (CET)
  4. --WOLKsite (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2017 (CET)
  5. --Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2017 (CET)
  6. --Vartemp Talk 22:20, 29 September 2017 (CET)

Don't make Bohrok Shields

  1. if the rakhshi staffs are an extension of their power, then the bohrok shields certainly are as well. for one thing, the staffs were something that they held in their hands and could be put down, but i don't think we've ever seen a bohrok put its shields down. afaiknew, they were part of the bohrok themselves, and not a separate tool. anyway, i don't think we need a page for these, we can just have a section on the bohrok article for them.
  2. Nothing that would belong on a page for the bohrok shields would be out-of-place on the bohrok pages. Maybe just a redirect link to their powers section would be the way to go. --Snaptor (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2017 (CET)
  3. -- Toa Jala Converse 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Bohrok-Kal Shields

Make Bohrok-Kal Shields

  1. SurelNuva (Talk)
  2. ~OnionShark 15:44, 30 June 2017 (CET)
  3. I'm for putting them on their own page, sure. --External Image Owner (talk|contribs) 05:20, 1 July 2017 (CET)
  4. --777stairs (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2017 (CET)
  5. These shields seem iconic enough to be separate from the normal Borohk shields.--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2017 (CET)
  6. --Vartemp Talk 22:20, 29 September 2017 (CET)

Don't make Bohrok-Kal Shields

  1. I feel it would belong on the same page as the regular Bohrok Shields. --WOLKsite (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2017 (CET)
  2. same argument as the bohrok shields above from me - and if we were to create that page, i don't think the kal shields are special enough to warrant their own page - perhaps a section of the regular bohrok shields page, if anything. ideally, there would just be a section for them on the bohrok kal page. Intelligence4 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2017 (CET)
  3. -- Toa Jala Converse 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Twin Knives

Merge Twin Knives with Takadox

  1. See the comments ~OnionShark 15:44, 30 June 2017 (CET)
  2. we could probably do this with a lot of pages - most tools didn't show up separately from their users. Intelligence4 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2017 (CET)
  3. Changing my vote (Can we do that?) simply because I put it in the wrong section. Snaptor (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2017 (CET)
  4. Changing my vote, there's too little information on these tools to deserve their own page ~ Wolk (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't merge Twin Knives with Takadox

  1. I'm not convinced that this doesn't warrant the same treatment as the other Barraki pages. --777stairs (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2017 (CET)
  2. Individual enough to be on its on page. We have the same ammount of info about it as we have about the Flame ClawsSurelNuva (Talk) 12:04, 8 July 2017 (CET)
  3. --Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2017 (CET)
  4. --Vartemp Talk 22:20, 29 September 2017 (CET)
  5. -- Toa Jala Converse 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Phantoka/Mistika Makuta Weapons

Make Phantoka/Mistika Makuta Weapons

Merge Shadow Spear, Longswords and Hook Blades with Mutran, Bitil and Chirox respectively.

  1. Do we really need pages for these? There's very little information actually on them.--Snaptor (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  2. we can just link to the tools section of the makuta's page Intelligence4 (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2017 (CET)
  3. Changing my vote, there's too little information on these tools to deserve their own page ~ Wolk (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't merge Shadow Spear, Longswords and Hook Blades.

  1. They aren't clone weapons, so I don't think they should be merged. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  2. I think the movement to delete/merge weapon pages is useful for clone tools and clone tools only. --Angel Bob (talk)
  3. Eh, we need some individual pages. — SurelNuva (Talk) 11:57, 25 September 2017 (CET)
  4. --Vartemp Talk 22:20, 29 September 2017 (CET)
  5. --Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2017 (CET)
  6. What you're suggesting with these nominations could snowball into the elimination of all tool pages. -- Toa Jala Converse 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  7. --Gonel (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


The Piraka weapons are individuals enough to deserve their own pages. — SurelNuva (Talk) 14:16, 30 June 2017 (CET)

The Shark Tooth Blades and Tri-talons have enough info on them to merit pages of their own, but I think that one for the Twin Knives is unneeded. I also like the suggestion of having both the normal and Kal shields on the same page, but for now let's keep the voting options apart. Lastly, I don't think that a page for the Va's tools is needed, simply because they don't already have pages of their own but are mentioned in the abilities and traits sections of their respective Bohrok, so they are fine like this. ~OnionShark 15:44, 30 June 2017 (CET)
Pahrak Va have the same hammers as Turaga Onewa, the Tahnok Va have firestaffs like Turaga Vakama. — SurelNuva (Talk) 15:49, 30 June 2017 (CET)
One more reason to get rid of the 7 Rahkshi staffs that answer claims that the shape of the staff doesn't matter, they are just the focus.[1] So Guurahk's and the Rahkshi of Heat Vision's staff are the same weapon, but being held by another Rahkshi. — SurelNuva (Talk) 17:44, 30 June 2017 (CET)
It seems like batching clone weapons on a single page would be better organization, but will character pages have any info for tools or will all the info be on the list of clone weapons? Also, in the case of say, Takadox's Twin Knives, where his weapon would be merged with his character page, does anybody think it excessive to have a page batching the Barraki tools together even though they are not clone tools?--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2017 (CET)

Eh I think we should only be doing this sort of thing for clone weapons. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2017 (CET)

Do we have any other clone tools? — SurelNuva (Talk) 12:10, 8 July 2017 (CET)
Bohrok Va still need to be voted on. I'll make the section.--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2017 (CET)
Oops. Didn't realize it was already decided. And no, I suppose they don't have staffs, I guess I was just thinking about Tahnok Va when I did that.--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2017 (CET)

Regarding the talk around bohrok shields being an extension of their power, I believe I recall Greg.F confirming somewhere that the bohrok shields are actual shields that are held by the bohrok, as opposed to part of their anatomy/design. So in other words, a toa could hold one without difficulty, although whether or not they could use it I can't remember. I'm not sure where I stand on the question, but I thought it was worth bringing up. Snaptor (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2017 (CET)

Do you have a source for this? that would pretty much settle it. but i still don't think we should make a separate page for them, since we've never seen the shields out of context with the bohrok. they've always been seen with a borhok, regardless if they're part of their "anatomy" or not. Intelligence4 (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2017 (CET)
I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find the source, but the problem with intensively reading through all the old archives is that it's hard to remember exactly where you read what. I think it was somewhere in the original "Official Greg Discussion Topic" from around 2002/2003, so it may have been contradicted later anyway. In any case, I agree with your point that we have never seen a bohrok without it's shield, or vice versa, so it's not hugely important either way. I feel it's similar to how Cahdok & Gahdok are separate beings, but are on the same page because nothing that's relevant to one isn't also relevant to the other.Snaptor (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2017 (CET)
The BEU lists the Bohrok Shields as separate weapons from the Bohrok. " [Element] Shield: Tool carried by the [respective Bohrok]. [next line defines how the shield channels the Bohrok's powers]" and Greg once said that the Rahkshi staffs are not the extension of their powers so a Guurakh could use its powers through a Panrakh's staff. See the Greg answer below. — SurelNuva (Talk) 01:51, 24 September 2017 (CET)

"3. Does a piece of power reside within the Rahkshi themselves or is all their power in their staffs? For example, say Turahk and Guurahk switch staffs, would Turahk have the power of disintegration, or would it do nothing? "
" No, the staffs are just to focus the power, like the Toa's tools are."
— reptilia28 to GregF, Official Greg Discussion May 19 2003, 11:29 AM

If that's the case, then can we really make a page called "Staff of Fear" (for example) if any rahkshi can use it? The fact that the staffs essentially have no power apart from channeling the natural abilities of the rahkshi wielding them only seems to reinforce that a page for them would be rather pointless. --Snaptor (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2017 (CET)
That's why I wanna make a page called "Rahkshi Staffs" which includes the six versions of the staffs could be carried by the Rahkshi. As long as the statement above is true (And Farshtey wrote it, so it is) Guurakh's and the 2010 Rahskshi's staff are the same, only the power of the Rahkshi who's wielding it is different.(The preceding unsigned comment was made by Surel-nuva)

Added a section for three of the Phantoka/Mistika Makuta weapons which we know very little about. I purposefully left Icarax's Rotating Shadow Blades absent from the list because there is more information on them than the other three. --Snaptor (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2017 (CET)

I have found that the article "The Shadow Realm" has been nominated for deletion, but there is no voting on this page for it. Note that I was not the nominator. TessilnTheMaskMaker (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. For the page is a useless redirect, I nominated a ton of these and they were deleted as well. This one must have been left unnoticed. — SurelNuva (Talk) 22:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The Shadow Realm is still nominated for deletion, but still hasn't been, despite having nothing on the page? Should it be properly deleted? --Gresh113 23:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Found this on Bohrok Shields: --ToaOfSnow(talk) 06:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Kanohi Nuva Pages

No, this is NOT a nomination to delete the Kanohi Nuva page. The proposition is that we merge the various Kanohi Nuva pages (such as Hau Nuva) with their respective mask pages. It's not like we have distinct pages for the Noble Kanohi, so it seems odd that we do for the Nuva. We can just detail the Nuva masks in the same way we distinguish the great/noble masks on their respective pages. It would be a lot less confusing, in my opinion, but thoughts? --Snaptor(talk) 01:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge the Kanohi Nuva pages with their respective mask pages

  1. I agree on this, it's just a different variation of the same mask. ~ Wolk (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. I also agree with this. we should make infobox tabs for each version of the mask that we have though, like nuva, great, noble, etc. Intelligence4 (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't merge the Kanohi Nuva pages

  1. No, I don't think so. Kanohi Nuva are distinct masks. Or distinct upgrades of masks --Shadowfax!
  2. --Vartemp Talk 21:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. I think merging the two creates the confusion that Kanohi Nuva are a direct upgrade to Great Masks when Noble Kanohi Nuva could theoretically exist. ~Mattym
  4. Keep them as separate pages, the kanohi Nuva powers are slightly different than the normal ones, and the Noble Kanohi Nuva theoretically would be slightly different than the normal noble masks. — SurelNuva (Talk) 09:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Planetperson 16:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  6. --Devalius (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC) I'd say merging the pages may make it a bit more difficult to find the specific information someone is looking for.
  7. Kanohi Nuva are all distinct Kanohi with unique abilities the other Kanohi do not have; they are similar, but not the same, and more importantly we have concrete examples of differences for most of them. Matkerzah’s logic makes sense here. Toa Nidhiki05 18:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  8. I agree with TN05, the Kanohi Nuva are not necessarily direct upgrades of Great Masks, as some have additional powers. They also have different titles (i.e., Kanohi Nuva Mask of Shielding), which would complicate a merger of the pages. -- Toa Jala Converse 01:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


If we merge the pages, which i think is something we should do, i think we should retain all the content as is on the pages; just move it over to the current page. obviously duplicate content isn't necessary, but other than that we should try to preserve as much as possible. infobox tabs would be helpful as well to distinguish between various forms of the masks, including any noble forms we might have. for the hau, for example, we could put an image of lhikan's mask, but for the kaukau, we don't have an image of the noble version of that, so idk if we should just have a blank infobox tab image, or...? Intelligence4 (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose Kanohi Nuva differ from Kanohi the way Krana-Kal differ from Krana. Kanohi Nuva can aferall exist both as Great and Noble, like regular Kanohi, so I suppose in that sense, they are different. However on the other hand, if they are divided because their powers differ, (this is not a suggestion,) shouldn't Noble and Great Kanohi be split as well? ~ Wolk (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No, Great and Noble are different variations of the same masks. A Kanohi Nuva has different powers and is made for a specific class of being. Also, is there a source saying that Nuva masks can exist in Noble form? It would make a great addition to the Kanohi Nuva's trivia section. -- Toa Jala Converse 15:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, here you go: [2][3] ~ Wolk (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Events/Wars/Battles and Conflicts/Arena Matches

It seems strange that we have so many pages dedicated to listing different categories of events, especially since so much of the material on these pages overlaps. Having a master list of events would be far more logical than dividing them across different pages based on minor distinctions. I'm thinking that the finished page would resemble the Locations page. Perhaps we could even add a tabber linking to to a master Timeline and a master Saga Guide.

Overall, there is a lot of inconsistency and bizarre choices that go into the structure of each (such as listing every individual faction on the Battles and Conflicts page for every event that took place in the MU?) that could be weeded out if the pages were combined. Some parts of the pages also double as Timeline pages, which are especially redundant given our dedicated Timeline pages.

Additionally, there is a lot of inconsistency with regards to which events have pages and which don't (the Underwater Rahi Study has a page, but the final battle in the Toa-Dark Hunter War does not). Combining these into a more efficient list would also make it easier to see if there are any notable events that are lacking pages or any exceptionally minor events that somehow have pages.

Perhaps most bizarre is the inclusion of the G2 Battles and Conflicts (which is frankly nothing more than a listing of G2's storyline) with those of the G1 versions. Honestly, for all things Events (Gen 2) would probably just be more logical to do what Locations (Gen 2) does in the Main Page Navbox and just link back to Okoto.

Tl;Dr: the proposal is to merge everything onto the Events page, redirect the old pages there, and to modernize Events to be more along the lines of the Locations page. --Gonel (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge Pages

  1. --Gonel (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. --Surel-Nuva (Talk) 06:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. ~ Wolk (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't Merge Pages


I agree with the idea, both the G1/G2 separation and the merging, but I may like to see a sandbox first, on how clean it would look like.--Surel-Nuva (Talk) 11:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I made a rough draft of what I'm thinking in my Sandbox. The draft lists every event described on each of these pages (as well as a few I added for good measure), but for any event that's already examined in more detail, I've deleted the description since A) describing events in too much detail overlaps too much with the purpose of the Timeline where the Events page should more reasonably be a listing of BS01's event pages and B) simply by visiting the pages, there is a far superior examination of the event anyway. --Gonel (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I've just checked it, it actually reminded me that I began to clean up the Bohrok Wars page, but iirc I haven't gotten around to actually finish it to be consistent with the corrected timeline.--Surel-Nuva (Talk) 06:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)