BIONICLEsector01 talk:Articles for Deletion

Shortcut: AFD
From BIONICLEsector01
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Approved proposals

None currently.

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.

Bohrok-Kal Shields

Make Bohrok-Kal Shields

  1. ~OnionShark 15:44, 30 June 2017 (CET)
  2. I'm for putting them on their own page, sure. --External Image Owner (talk|contribs) 05:20, 1 July 2017 (CET)
  3. --777stairs (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2017 (CET)
  4. These shields seem iconic enough to be separate from the normal Borohk shields.--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2017 (CET)
  5. --Vartemp Talk 22:20, 29 September 2017 (CET)
  6. Bohrok and Bohrok-Kal are separate articles, as are Krana and Krana-Kal, so there's precedent for giving the Bohrok-Kal shields their own page. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  7. Per Morris. Keplers (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't make Bohrok-Kal Shields

  1. 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)
  2. -- Toa Jala Converse 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. --maxim21 06:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Combine it with the Bohrok Shield page. Dag (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge Bohrok-Kal Shields with Bohrok 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. Merge them with the Bohrok shields.--Surel (Talk) 00:06, 3 May 2021 (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)

Kinda wanna bump this. For Rahkshi Staffs - They do not contain the Rahkshi's power, they merely channel them. As such, having distinct pages (as is) is not a good idea IMO. They're also next to always referred to as "(Rahkshi name)'s Staff of Power." Way I understand things:

- Option 1, make one page that covers all the Rahkshi staffs, like how Vahki Staffs is right now.

- Option 2, keep the 7 individual pages as they are right now (Staff of Absorption, Staff of Fear, etc.)

- Option 3, merge them into the individual Rahkshi pages.

If they are "not a separate tool," as Swert put it, then Option 2 (which is voted for in this case), does not make sense. ~ Wolk (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge Protodermis Reclamation Yard with Protodermis Reclamation Furnace into Protodermis Reclamation Center

I noticed that the Protodermis Reclamation Center was not previously mentioned the wiki, so I went digging on it.

From BA1: "Vakama hoped to find the answer at the huge, fenced-in lot just ahead. Its official name was Protodermis Reclamation Center, but to every mask maker in Ta-Metru, it was a graveyard. No matter how many hours of work had gone into a mask, a single, tiny flaw could ruin it. Then it would be transported here, to sit on top of a pile of other broken, useless masks until it could be fed to the furnace and melted down. It was the one place no mask maker ever wanted to visit."

Way I understand it, the facility is the reclamation center, and the yard and furnace are parts of it. Rather than making a page on the rec. center which just sums up the Yard and Furnace, my suggestion is to merge the two existing, rather small, pages into one page covering the whole of the "facility". ~ Wolk (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Votes for merging Protodermis Reclamation Yard with Protodermis Reclamation Furnace

  1. ~ Wolk (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  2. --Gonel (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  3. My thoughts exactly.--Surel (Talk) 17:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  4. -- Toa Jala Converse 00:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  5. --ToaOfSnow(talk) 09:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  6. -- FirespitterVakama 08:08 AM, 24 May 2021 (EST)

Votes against merging Protodermis Reclamation Yard with Protodermis Reclamation Furnace

Comments on merging Protodermis Reclamation Yard with Protodermis Reclamation Furnace

Delete Earth Tribe and Elemental Lord of Earth (Again)

The other day, I started a discussion about the canonicity of the Earth Tribe and EL of Earth, which for years has been debated. They were even deleted from the wiki once before. I think most of everything relevant was discussed, so I thought it appropriate to start a AfD topic for it once again. I don't know if this is the best way to go about it, but it would at least gauge more opinions about it. To summarize:

  • The Earth Tribe started as just a placeholder name for what became the Iron Tribe and was initially deemed non-canon by Greg. However, starting in 2014 and fleshed out further in 2017, Greg introduced the Earth Tribe back into canon retroactively after the cancellation of the G1 story.
  • No published materials that make reference to the Elemental Lords mention the existence of the Elemental Lord of Earth, only to the main six, Fire, Ice, Water, Jungle, Rock, and Sand (the Iron Tribe did not have an EL because they were wiped out before the ELs were created). While Greg explained that this was because the Earth Tribe was banished from society after the Core War, it's unnecessarily convoluted.
  • The Chamber of Elements, where the Great Beings created the ELs, had six sections for each tribe: Fire, Ice, Jungle, Water, Rock, and Sand (Iron was not included because they were wiped out before the chamber was created). The Earth Tribe was not given a section, and there is no answer in canon as to why. This was prior to the Core War, so the outcome of it has no baring on Earth's absence from the chamber.
  • In Riddle of the Great Beings, Chapter 6, the EL of Jungle says he and five of his brothers were chosen to become the Elemental Lords. The ELs of Fire, Ice, Water, Jungle, and Rock are male, while Greg canonized along with the Earth Tribe that the ELs of Sand and Earth are female. Either Earth or Sand must be corrected to be male, and it would be much simpler to remove Earth entirely and make Sand male.

Even though Greg canonized the Earth Tribe and EL, it was strangely out of character for him to do so. He has said multiple times after the cancellation of G1 that he was adamantly against major retcons and upheld the standard that books and pre-established canon take precedence over his online answers. By this standard, the Earth Tribe and EL of Earth cannot possibly be canon. Dag (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Votes for deleting Earth Tribe and Elemental Lord of Earth

  1. Dag (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Votes against deleting Earth Tribe and Elemental Lord of Earth

  1. There's a difference between if you like the explaination, vs. if it is canon ~ Wolk (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  2. They have no appearances, but there's too much information on both to assimilate into any other article. -- Toa Jala Converse 00:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  3. Regardless of canonicity, I have to agree with Toa Jala on this. There’s already enough information on the page with some good sources that came from the Chat with Greg Farshtey archive. I’m aware that there have been media depicting the Elemental Lords that have contradicted the Elemental Lord of Earth’s status of existence from within the canon, however the CwGF archive still exists, and Greg has still provided details to the character. There are several things that some consider canon that have been acknowledged by the writers that may be mentioned but is contradicted from official media, and the ELoE happens to be one of them. The way how I kind of see it is like TTV’s canon contests, for example. Their appearances were never approved by the higher ups (such as the executives) who work at The LEGO Group directly, however somebody else, being Greg Farshtey is a contractor and representative for them, has however approved them himself for canon, and Greg Farshtey has been recognized as somebody who is responsible for canonizing/de-canonizing things for Bionicle, a property that LEGO happens to own but has several contractors that might say things that contradict some employees’ views on certain things and their role in the stories, which leads to certain discrepancies that depend on who you ask. Some people would argue that The Elemental Lord of Earth is canon, while others would say that’s actually not so. Since we have received official word (via Greg; not in the form of the higher-up executives) on the character despite information in canon contradicting one another, I think we might as well leave it since some people might still consider her canon and since the Chat with Greg Farshtey has been a reliable source in the past. Essentially what I’m getting at here is that the appearances of Helryx and Artakha for example, would be considered to be canon for some and not for others due to various sources, whether it could be an official contractor or an executive, and the same could be argued for the ELoE for this reason. Sorry if this was really long, but I hope this all makes sense. -- FirespitterVakama 11:49 AM, 13 May 2021 (EST)
  4. Never again ~OnionShark 17:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  5. That would be rewriting the rules of what is canon and what isn't. I see no reason to delete this. --maxim21 18:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments on deleting Earth Tribe and Elemental Lord of Earth

FirespitterVakama, the only defense you gave to leave the Earth Tribe and EL as canon is just because it's from CwGF, which you claim is a reliable source, but it really isn't. That's not to say new information hasn't come from Greg on those boards, but when compared to his answers from OGD, OGDi, etc, CwGF is low precedence in the case of contradictions like this. This is because by that time, Greg is several years removed from the story, and can't possibly be expected to remember everything by his own admission. As I have explained on the Earth Tribe talkpage, Greg first said the Earth Tribe isn't canon and was just a placeholder for the Iron Tribe, so saying these pages should not be deleted because "Greg said so" isn't enough. I'm not sure how the TTV contests are relevant to this, and I think you've misunderstood. I'm not saying the Earth tribe and EL should be decanonized because only Greg canonized them, and not some larger story team or executives from Lego (which doesn't make sense anyway). Greg has the authority to canonize things by himself, which is why there is no doubt that the TTV contests are canon. I personally did not like the results of the Helryx contest, but I'm not going to argue for decanonizing it because there isn't any reason to do so. But for the Earth tribe and EL, there are contradictions from Greg himself. Dag (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The way how I like to think of it is that it sounds like at different times, Greg considered it canon, and then at different times he didn’t. I’m not sure what Greg’s final/latest stance on canonicity is on her, but in the meantime, the page has enough information from details provided by Greg himself, and also due to the fact that there’s still some people that may consider it canon despite the discrepancies, I think we might as well just leave it as it is. That is why I brought up everything that I did. -- FirespitterVakama 01:13 PM, 14 May 2021 (EST)
Also I thought you stated that Greg changed his mind and decided to have her re-canonized after G1’s cancellation? And the argument that “Published materials always take precedence over Greg's answers.” isn’t always exactly accurate either. There have been typos for different names and terms in published books for example, so by this logic, the typos are canon over names that Greg has provided, like if a character were to be introduced in a book first before Greg could provide more information on it, and said that a name was misspelled, then that would mean that the typo would be canon, which would contradict Greg. All I’m saying here, is that this logic isn’t always 100% accurate. I can agree that overall, yes, the vast majority of this is valid, but not all instances are, like in the case of these kinds of issues. Another thing that I would also like to point out is that there could also be explanations as to why the character was excluded from written statements, which is where head-canons come into place. Like maybe for example, maybe the information provided in-universe was through an Agori and Glatorian, and maybe didn’t know of her existence. From what I’ve heard, she was banished, correct? Maybe the other Elemental Lords felt embarrassed by her, and refrain from even mentioning her if she’s a menace or an outcast. Like maybe that could be why she isn’t mentioned in published works, is because maybe her existence could have been kept secret. An example I like to think of is Lord Voldemort, because in Harry Potter, they refrain from referring to his real name because he is a controversial character within the story, so the characters even hate having to even refer to him by name, and instead refer to him in certain instances in some of the earlier books in the series as “he-who-shall-not-be-named.” But overall, I think it should be up to the reader as to whether or not they consider her canon, and to use their own thinking to make up their own head-canon(s) in the meantime as to why they never mention her. -- FirespitterVakama 01:38 PM, 14 May 2021 (EST)


  1. "Official Greg Discussion," May 19 2003, 11:29 AM. BZPower.