BIONICLEsector01 talk:Voting Center
Discussion
Restructure the Phantoka and Mistika
So currently if one searches for either, they will recieve a disambiguation where they can choose between three things: 1) a specific form of adaptive armor, 2) a Toa nuva page worded as "toa team that used adaptive armor", 3) product line from 2008. Out of these only the third option is without problems. So what is the problem with the other two?
1) Phantoka/Mistika has nothing to do with adaptive armor, so this link should not be present (should be removed).
2) Phantoka/Mistika describes specific combinations of three members of a particular toa team, not a team as a whole (rewording necessary), but the fact they used adaptive armor is irrelevant to them being called that (armor mention should be removed). In addition to the Toa, they also describe specific combinations of three Makuta (should be added).
So why am I saying this? The word Phantoka in matoran means "spirits of air" and it comes from an Av-Matoran legend. The Matoran began calling those specific characters Phantoka because they reminded them of the legend and they believed it was realized in physical world, projecting the Phantoka legend onto Toa and Makuta. There apparently was no pre-existing "Mistika legend", but Av-Matoran derived this term from the Phantoka to describe Toa and Makuta in the swamp. Here are the releveant passages from the book sources:
The Matoran of Karda Nui nicknamed both their allies and foes the "Phantoka". Decipher the meaning of this word in the Matoran language and the content of the legend that is associated with it.
Air Spirits. The Phantoka live in the clouds where they fight endlessly. In daylight, the good Phantoka win. The evil ones triumph when darkness falls. The Matoran believe that the Phantoka took the physical form of the Toa Nuva and Makuta so that their battle could continue...
The Toa Nuva fighting in the skies of Karda Nui were nicknamed "Phantoka" - "The Spirits of Air". The Av-Matoran named the Toa Nuva struggling with the evil forces in the misty swamps "Mistika" - "The Spirits of Mist".
Therefore, in addition to afformentioned changes, I propose to add a link to Society page where the Legend of Phantoka is mentioned, to Phantoka and Mistika disambiguation pages. The Matoran Society portion should probably be improved in structure as well, dividing the myths into sections dependinfg on the region.--ToaKebaka (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think it's worth noting that in some sources, the Av-Matoran, Icarax, Mutran, and Toa Ignika were also part of the "Phantoka" subtheme (though Mistika seemed to be more restricted to just the six canister sets). I'm not sure how to address that... I suppose that is sort of in the same vein that Nocturn is a "Barraki" though, which he obviously is not in the story. ~ Wolk (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have been thinking about how to best handle the Toa Nuva/Makuta point. I think the link to Toa Nuva page is good, but the description of the link needs to be reworded to make it clear which three Toa Nuva it concerns.
- As to the Makuta, I propose to add a link to another disambiguation page, which would contain links to the individual Makuta pages - one such page for Phantoka Makuta and another for Mistika Makuta. So the flow would look something like this: a user searches for the term Mistika → they arrive on a disambiguation page that has 1) link to Society page, 2) link to Toa Nuva page specifying it concerns Tahu, Gali and Onua, 3) link to Mistika Makuta disambiguation page containing links to Krika, Gorast and Bitil pages, 4) link to 2008 set line page.
- I think it would be easier to just have the initial Phantoka/Mistika page say "The three Makuta sent into the swamp - Gorast, Krika, and Bitil." etc. and have "Mistika Makuta" redirect to Mistika. Although, perhaps we should have section on the Brotherhood of Makuta page, or something, regarding the Karda Nui strike team... ~ Wolk (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Create Merchandise Subsections
I'm nearing the end of the Merchandise deluge. Inevitably there are things I haven't been able to find, but the bulk should be on here now. Rather than having all the information in a massive, unwieldy Merchandise page, I want to break up the information into sub-pages with just the Merchandise page as a list of each year's merch. The sub-pages would cover categories that spanned multiple years, while unique promotions (like the 2006 Battle Spinners or Burger King promos) would fall under "Other Merchandise."
Also, for all the new setlinks for these new items, we can make them redirects to these sub-pages until pages are made for them.
- Clocks - watches, clocks
- Pens
- Clothing - shirts, jeans, hats
- Costumes - costumes, foam masks, foam weapons, Hordika gauntlet
- Toy Guns - sphere shooters, waterguns,
- McDonald's - McDonald's figures
- Bags - including backpacks, gym bags, luggages, wallets--many of these were released in series, so anything falling under these categories would fit here.
- Shoes
- Toothbrushes
- Linens - bedsheets, towels
- Keychains
- Other Merchandise
Thoughts? --Gonel (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Comments on Merch subpages
Maybe as an alternative, we just do year pages for Merch? It would match the way we do Sets. Like, we don't have a page for Canister Sets, it's just an understood sub category, but we do have a page for 2006.
Also, fantastic job with the merch. It's just what I always wanted! -- Dorek Talk 03:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm thrilled it's meeting expectations!
- Yeah, honestly I've thought about doing year too. The tricky thing about years is that things are much less rigid or clear-cut than with the sets--the Vahki toothbrushes, for example, were announced in 2004 but not spotted until 2005, and Hordika-themed linens didn't come out until 2006. And there are a number of things where we know they were official but don't know what year they came out. Certainly doable, but we'd have to be upfront with anything that's unclear.
Yeah, I don't think I would mind that necessarily, the release date is the release date, even if it's not matching the year depicted, but that's the nature of the beast. How would you envision both working? -- Dorek Talk 20:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's the difficulty though; in most cases we don't have precise release dates (since merch releases were much more sporadic and random than the official set waves), and a good amount I haven't confirmed the original release years for. Sometimes we just know when something first appeared on ebay, or when fans first happened to spot something and report it to BZP/MOD. It's made more tricky when things were delayed by a year like the Hordika linens or Vahki pens which appeared the year after. According to Bricklink, the Inika bag series wasn't released until 2008, though I haven't been able to confirm this myself yet.
- As for how both would work, I'd have to draw up some Sandbox articles. The pages would have complementary information, at least until individual product information can be moved to dedicated pages for each product. Once that's done, each page would just list/link products relevant to a given year or a type of product... if that makes sense. --Gonel (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
If it is to be split up I would be inclined to do it by merch type rather than year, and to not split things up into too many pages (i.e. have clothes, hats, shoes all together) but I think it works to keep it as-is, all in one gallery but with sections within that gallery. Turaga of Force (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Expedite improvements/additions to BS01
Currently, for a poll to pass and be implemented, it requires 8 yes votes or 6 unanimous yes votes. Since BS01 and the Bionicle community are so small and quiet anymore, a year or more can go by without the required 6 or 8 votes needed. On some things that people disagree on such as knowledge/memory crystals and Dekar/Hydraxon, adequate discourse and voting is certainly warranted. But for other things such as the galleries I recently proposed, I think there should be a faster way to implement the content than waiting potentially a year or longer for required votes. Perhaps if, after a month or so, there is not a single no vote, and all active BS01 staff approve, the content should be added even if it fails to reach 6 votes. Thoughts? ~Turaga of Force (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Been thinking about this--I'd certainly be open to speeding things along all things considered. A big issue with the slow process is that someone who proposes something and is interested in doing something may have lost interest by the time it passes (if they even find out it has). I'd suggest a Sandbox requirement for new pages and a minimum vote tally, maybe four--which already clears if the proposer and a few staff are onboard. --Gonel (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry if this is a dumb question but what do you mean by "sandbox requirement"? -Turaga of Force (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- New pages are first drafted in the Sandbox before being officially created. This is to ensure the quality is checked by editors and staff alike before it becomes an official page, and to avoid confusing casual readers who randomly stumble across an in-progress page that isn't fully sourced/properly written yet in its creation phase. --Toa Dante (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay I created sandbox pages for the 3 galleries. I didn't add images yet, just got the templates done, as soon as I get the go ahead I will create the pages and add content. -Turaga of Force (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is completely warranted. I propose possibly a lower baseline number of required votes, and/or a decreasing amount of required votes to make a decisions with each option over three. I also think a window of time, like 2 months, should be enough that, if there is no tie and at least three votes are cast on the highest voted option, that the vote can pass. Finally, as the owner of BS01, Swert should be able to, but not pressured to, make decisions if more than 2 or 3 months have passed, and no decision is reached. I realize this last part could be controversial, and we don't have to implement it, but as seriously as we take ourselves, we are still just a fan-wiki, and I think that keeping things moving and changing is the best thing for our community. These are just my suggestions, though, so feel free to disagree with any or all of these ideas. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
The main problem with the current system is that a proposal can be one vote away from passing, with even several staff members voting for it, but be filibustered by a single member. More needs to be changed, but for the time being, I think the most obvious change we should make is lowering each vote requirement by one, so a unanimous vote would require 5 instead of 6, and a vote with some against would require 7 instead of 8. This change is, I think, a necessary acknowledgement of the fact that there are less active users today than when the vote policy was first written, and it's clear from the proposals that have been on the table for months. If this change is made, it would automatically pass many of these proposals and be a major first step at making progress. Dag (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's not lost on me that this discussion has sat here for months! Yes, at the very least we should lower the vote requirements by one. That's very reasonable. I'll edit the rules now and keep this discussion open. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Another idea that just came to mind: a new section for ambivalent voters who vote to drop thresholds by one. For example, three ambivalent voters would drop the threshold from seven votes (if someone else has dissented) to four, or from five votes (if nobody else has dissented) to two. Effectively, ambivalent voters would vote both for and against, except their votes wouldn't trigger the dissent thresholds. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Polls
Create Memoirs of the Dead
While the Memoirs for the Dead contest is mentioned on Meta:Fan Community#Incomplete_Contests, it was brought up here on the Main Page's Talk Page that Greg said that the winners would become official(it isn't clear if that means canon or not though), and that they did not need to get his approval so long as they didn't contradict the existing story. With the contest for the Mangai's tools and Kanohi, I don't believe these were rejected from canon either, so I don't believe that its status is applicable here. We could also make the decision if the winning stories would also get their own pages, probably coming down to whether we consider them canon, but this is about an overall page. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Votes for creating Memoirs of the Dead
- Firespitter Lhii (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- TuragaHordika (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Willess12 (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Votes against creating Memoirs of the Dead
- See comment. --Gonel (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Dag (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- To be consistent, I don't think we should make a page for the contest. I think it's reasonable to create pages for the stories so long as we explain on those pages why they are non-canon. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Comments on creating Memoirs of the Dead
As far as I remember Greg never canonized them as official, neither has he read them to decide if the winners, by his point of view, can be canonized. Even if we make the page/pages, we should put the non canon banner up on them.--SurelNuva (Talk) 12:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Since they're not exactly non-canon, but not exactly canon either, would it be possible to make a new banner for them, an "uncanonized" banner? Otherwise, I agree, they should have pages.--Willess12 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, technically speaking, as long as they are not canonized by somebody who still works for/at the Lego company, they are not considered part of the official canon.--SurelNuva (Talk) 05:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that until we decide on the implications of the quote provided by Jam Pot, it would probably be best to list them as non-canon. TuragaHordika (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, technically speaking, as long as they are not canonized by somebody who still works for/at the Lego company, they are not considered part of the official canon.--SurelNuva (Talk) 05:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
We don't page pages for any other fan contest, and I can't imagine what's worth adding to it that isn't already covered in the Meta:Fan Community page. So I would actually be less inclined to do a page for the contest itself as for individual pages for the stories of the Memoirs, Thousand Years Untold 2, and Lesovikk Hiatus contests, assuming they have the non-canon banner. This would mainly be for the sake of their preservation as something that once nearly became canon, and also a piece of fan history (like the lore details of the Xian Weapons which aren't canon but preserved here). But a page for the contest itself is unnecessary imo. --Gonel (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- My preference would be that the page only contain brief info about the contest, then include each of the stories. The page's purpose should be archive the stories, and the info on the contest itself would be from Meta:Fan Community and only be seen at the top of the page, similar to how we provide background for stories such as The Many Deaths of Toa Tuyet. If this goes through, this treatment should also be applied to the other two contests. TuragaHordika (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Create Pages For Ancient Protectors (G2)
I don't know exactly how much is known about the old protectors from 1,000 years ago, but it certainly isn't nothing. One option I propose is that we just create pages for them(Agarak, Uganu(formerly Udapo), Owaki(formerly Owa), Etoku(formerly Epolim), Kerato, Mamuk, and maybe even Bumonda, Buzkayo, Droton, Flammik, Jagiri, and Rokreng). Alternatively, we could either have some or all of these other protectors on a Protectors/Other Protectors page. Finally, we can just make a page for Protector of [Element] for each element, and that will be the page for all of them. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Votes for creating Agarak, Uganu, Owaki, Etoku, Kerato, Mamuk, and and 'Others' page(for either Okotans in general or specifically one for Protectors [specify] )
- Firespitter Lhii (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think that Okotans/Other Okotans should be made in addition to these 6, though I would also be fine if we just make Characters/Other Charcters (Generation 2) with category #Okotans Firespitter Lhii (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Votes for creating Agarak, Uganu, Owaki, Etoku, Kerato, Mamuk
- Don't see a need for an 'other protectors' page or for the six that are simply name-dropped, but Agarak & Mamuk's group, yes. ~ Wolk (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- --SurelNuva (Talk) 10:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- TuragaHordika (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Dag (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Votes for creating Agarak, Uganu, Owaki, Etoku, Kerato, Mamuk, Bumonda Buzkayo, Droton, Flammik, Jagiri, and Rokreng
Votes for creating only Protectors/Other Protectors or Okotan/Other Okotans (specify)
Votes for creating 6 "Protector of [Element]" pages
Votes for no changes
- It's fine the way it is.- Toa Jala Converse 04:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Comments on creating pages for Ancient Protectors(G2)
With only three groups, I think they can all be adequately listed on the Protectors page. ~ Wolk (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
We have so many Toa and Matoran that don't even have a name given nor associated action, yet they still find themselves on an 'Others' page. I don't really oppose either just making Okotans/Other Okotans (which would include the unnamed Okotans currently listed on the main Okotans page, and is what I would like if we don't feel we have enough for an 'Others' page just for protecters), or even just at least add them to Okotans#Ancient. I know they may be of questionable canonicity if they truly do only appear as background inscriptions in one illustration, but I don't know that they should be relegated to a triva point and potentially lost to time (in the real world, though that seems to be the case on Okoto as well :p). I will just add my vote to both sections and explain, but if you think we should just merge those vote categories, I am alright with that. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Bumonda & co. should be listed *somewhere*, that much I agree with, just not having a page only for the sake of listing them and them alone. Whether a separate page is warrented for the list is a question of how many entries we are dealing with. Personally, I'd list them on both the Okotans and Protectors pages. ~ Wolk (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Generally all the unnamed matoran are either listed on their respective matoran page, like Ta-Matoran#Known Ta-Matoran or on the main Matoran#Other Matoran, the same thing goes for the Agori#Known Agori too, so I don't see why we would need a separate page just to list them, simply adding them to the Okotans page, if they aren't already there, would be enough for those we wouldn't make individual pages imo.--SurelNuva (Talk) 15:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Is a sandbox available for Agarak and co.? I haven't read the G2 books so don't know how much info exists about those Protectors. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Rename "Bionicle Ignition 6" as "Bionicle Ignition 6: The Secret in the Depths!"
Even though the sixth Bionicle Ignition Comic was not given a name in its release on the website or in the Graphic Novel, it was given a name in its German release, which translates to "The Secret in the Depths!" While there's no precedent for an exact situation like this, there is the case of "The Crossing", which was published in Polish, and the name had to be translated. Since we don't have any other known name for this comic, I think it would be good to let the page title reflect the name the comic was given. (The preceding unsigned comment was made by Willess12)
Votes for renaming "Bionicle Ignition 6" to "Bionicle Ignition 6: The Secret in the Depths!"
- If this is the closest we have to an official title, I think we should have it. Maybe could the wording of the page reflect that it's the translation of the german title? Or could we just use the german title instead?--SurelNuva (Talk) 19:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Votes against renaming "Bionicle Ignition 6" to "Bionicle Ignition 6: The Secret in the Depths!"
- I lean against the rename per Gonel since other German titles don't match the English ones. I think keeping the info in a trivia point as-is is fine. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Comments on renaming "Bionicle Ignition 6" to "Bionicle Ignition 6: The Secret in the Depths!"
I've updated the trivia points on BIONICLE Ignition 6 and BIONICLE: The Official Magazine to reflect some digging I did on this exact question. Tl;dr: the title of the German comics/magazines from this period differed from the official English titles, and it's currently unclear what the official English title would have been if it had been published. However, this is a documented title, and the closest thing we currently have to one--we could always change it down the line if the original English production title were discovered. --Gonel (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seeing that the German titles could be slightly different, I think "The Secret of the Depths!" sounds better, but that's just my opinion.--SurelNuva (Talk) 19:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I am torn on this. I would say to keep it how it is now, but I can't deny the hypocrisy in the fact that I want to keep "The Crossing" as is, with the translated title. I think that there is a difference, though, in the fact that there is simply no other way to refer to "The Crossing", save for the untranslated title, while this follows a typical format. I will have to sleep on this, but I am leaning toward keeping this as is, or suggesting that maybe both of them should use their untranslated titles. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- On a side note on the Crossing though, I should mention that the Hungarian title, given to the story in the translated magazine, is "Az Átkelés" which literally translates to "The Crossing" also, so I feel like it was always meant to be the English title.--SurelNuva (Talk) 13:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Heat
Unlike the other power pages I've suggested for deletion, Heat is very much not a stub. However, most of its users come automatically from their control over Fire. From what I could tell, the users who exclusively have control over only heat itself are Lava Eels, Hoto Bugs, one of the First Rahi, Firedracax's Rhotuka, and Tyrant. Three Rahi and two sentient users, one of which is only through his Rhotuka. Surely Heat could be consolidated to the Fire page and/or their respective character pages. Dag (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Votes for deleting Heat
- Dag (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, this should definitely be merged with Fire. TuragaHordika (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- --SurelNuva (Talk) 07:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- --Toatapio Nuva (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- - Toa Jala Converse 05:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Votes against deleting Heat
Comments on deleting Heat
- At that point, is it necessary to have Vacuum and Telekinesis? I wonder how the Heat page would look if the listing of fire users was condensed. ~ Wolk (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've thought about merging the other sub-power pages with their respective element pages, but I also think a case for them to stay can be made. Telepathy and Telekinesis have quite a few unique users (as in they only use Telepathy/Telekinesis, not the wider Psionics element), and Vacuum and Acid because of Lehvak and Lehvak-Kal. Depends on how we decide to restructure the Powers page. Dag (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think keeping Vacuum makes sense under the idea that the other 5 Bohrok-Kal are just using the respective elements. But they're not; Tahnok-Kal has the power of electricity - unlike a Toa of Lightning, it cannot use chain lightning. The 2003 guide book refers to the Bohrok-Kal as having powers, where as for the regular Bohrok, even Lehvak is stated to have an element. As far as I can tell, all six actually only have a subset of an element, or alternatively, the six Kraata powers that were out-of-universe derived from them, since having elements is something fans only came to assume from the later addition of correlating elemental powers -- We really don't know what pool of powers they're working with in reality (although generic power sets seems more likely, as the Bohrok themselves don't have fullfledged elements either to my knowledge). All this to say, vacuum is just sub-air, in the same way electricity is just sub-lightning. As for Acid, I still strongly believe that it is a non-Toa element like Sand, and it doesn't fit in as a sub-power of anything else. ~ Wolk (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Right, and I didn't mean to suggest Acid was a sub-power of anything by lumping it in with these other pages; I was just saying I think it's fine to still have its own page. As for whether it's an element or not, that would be difficult to categorize, since I think it would be the only instance of a non-Toa element existing in the MU (and also doesn't exist on SM). But for the others, if we do end up merging them, that's fine by me. Dag (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, if memory serves, one of the reasons we created Heat in the first place was because some of the abilities couldn't be properly categorized under Fire, since not all heat users (all, what, 4 of them?) have retrograde access to Fire. Basically the same logic as having Vacuum separate from Air, but with fewer defined applications. If it is deleted, it'd probably be helpful to have a subsection for Heat on the Powers page for this reason. Obitor (Talk) 05:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! I agree, the few users of heat exclusively would need to be differentiated from Fire users, at the very least on the Fire page for sure. Whether we do the same on the Powers page depends on its layout. I'm still in the middle of reorganizing it. Dag (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge Shadow Hand with Shadow (Generation 1)
Came across some quotes that suggest we should merge Shadow Hand with the Shadow page. First, it is simply an application/extension of elemental Shadow.[1] This implies that general Shadow users should be capable of Shadow Hands too (hence merging the pages), which Greg confirmed to be the case by saying Takanuva could.[2][3] It's just that he can't absorb beings with it like Makuta can[4] (which makes sense given that Makuta couldn't absorb until after their evolution into gaseous antidermis[5]) and Makuta's have greater power and range.[6] Dag (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Votes for merging Shadow Hand with Shadow (Generation 1)
- Dag (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- ~ Wolk (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- TuragaHordika (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I can go either way on this one. I lean toward keeping Shadow Hands on the Shadow page since they are not a Makuta-specific power/ability (which I just learned from this proposal, interesting). -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Votes against merging Shadow Hand with Shadow (Generation 1)
- Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments on merging Shadow Hand with Shadow (Generation 1)
Looking it over, there's a few points of interest that would need to be mentioned elsewhere:
- How Shadow Hands work - Being able to be wielded through a tool or the user's body, having little control over it, and the recoil - Perhaps something to expand upon on the Shadow page; any reason to assume this is specific to Makuta? I am worried about it getting too wordy, but perhaps that should not be a concerned.
- The channeling of Kraata powers through the shadow hand. Maybe both on the Shadow page and Makuta page?
- Chirox's experience with using it, something relevant to his character and thus can be kept in his Abilities & Traits section.
- The absorbing part probably needs to be reworded on the Makuta page to be more accurate.
I'm hesitant about this merge, because I feel there may be a sufficient amount of information to address about this power. ~ Wolk (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- All good points, and one's I hope to address soon. I just didn't have the time or energy yesterday to finish, especially since there's some caveats I need to look into. I could've sworn I came across a Greg quote saying Makuta can't channel their Kraata Powers through it, but I couldn't find it again. And I totally agree about rewording the absorption on the Makuta page, but I held off because one quote suggests they just gain mass, while the one cited on these pages says Makuta gain the powers of those they absorb. Dag (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Rename Bamboo Disk to Throwing Disc
The name "Bamboo Disk" does not appear to be used in any official media, and seems to originate from the fact that they are made from bamboo in MNOG II. However, the same game titles them as Throwing Discs, which I think would be a more appropriate name for them. While they are most commonly simply called "discs", this is a rather unspecific name, thus I think Throwing Discs is better. ~ Wolk (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Votes for renaming Bamboo Disk to Throwing Disc
- ~ Wolk (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- Dag (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- --SurelNuva (Talk) 13:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- TuragaHordika (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Votes against renaming Bamboo Disk
Comments on renaming Bamboo Disk to Throwing Disc
Merge Gallery:Set Functions with Gallery:Sets
The set functions gallery is very small, although there are a handful more images that could be added, and was made before the set gallery. I think these images generally would fit better next to the sets they're showing. It is also near-orphaned page, with the only page linking to it being specifically Gallery:Sets. ~ Wolk (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Votes for merging Gallery:Set Functions with Gallery:Sets
- ~ Wolk (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- Dag (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't even remember that we have a Set Functions gallery lol--SurelNuva (Talk) 14:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- TuragaHordika (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)