Talk:Sets/Collectibles

From BIONICLEsector01

General / 2001

I wanted to start this page, since nobody had yet. It's very much a rough draft; feel free to mess with whatever. A couple points:

  1. There are a lot of masks we need images of. I think that for many of them (e.g. Noble Masks), there are CG images that we could use instead of photos, but I haven't found anywhere to download them. We'll need to pick out photos for some others, too.
  2. I found a link from an old BZPower topic that shows some info about some of the rarer 2001 masks. Haven't linked it as a citation yet, but it was helpful.
  3. Does anyone know of a good comparison between the US and UK versions of the Copper Huna? I'm not familiar with the difference.
  4. I found a bit of a discrepancy about what collectible was available at Legoland Windsor. A September 24, 2001 BZPower report said that the TNGM was available there, while the archived Bionicle.com page linked above and the BZPower Rare Collectibles topic say that the Copper Huna was available there. This probably isn't a big deal, but I wanted to write it down.
  5. Does anyone recall further details about the Gold Hau sweepstakes that the Gold Hau in MNOG was part of? I couldn't find many records about it.
  6. Apparently, Bionicle Heroes stated that 30 Gold Haus were made (Ctrl+F carat in this guide), and the BZPower Rare Collectibles topic agrees. Does anyone know of a better source to confirm this?

What do you think? --Volitak Boxor (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

For the noble masks, I haven't found any super HQ source, and nothing useful in the style guides. Where did people get them from to make their various checklists? At the very least there's some LQ shots we can use as temporary things.

The copper versions, as I remember it, were a different material for the US/UK productions, so they appeared as a slightly different color. I have no source backing that up, but there is a comparison pic.

30 sounds good to me. Never played Heroes, so I didn't even know! -- Dorek Talk external image 05:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for starting this. I'm glad somebody did! I really like what you've done so far.

1. Actually, what would you guys think about using photos instead of CGI images for all of the masks? The reason I bring this up is that the colors in the CGI images is often inaccurate or misleading. For example, all of Gali's masks are light blue rather than medium blue, most of the Kaukau colors are just wrong, and it is difficult to tell that Kopaka's and Nuju's masks are different shades. I think part of the utility of this page could lie in providing high-quality descriptions of the real, physical items, and not simply mirroring the dozens of charts that already exist online, which generally use the CGI images that have the problems I mentioned. When I have more down time and access to the proper equipment, I would be happy to contribute some nice photos. I have more or less a complete collection of masks and krana. As long as you take pictures against a neutral background with consistent lighting, I think it's not hard to make it look good.

2. Yup, that's the official chart from the old bionicle.com. It even acknowledges the existence of the "misprint" masks.

3. I have both versions. Under normal lighting, they are basically indistinguishable. But when you hold them up to a light, the US version is clearly translucent, and the UK version is completely opaque. The difference is very striking, but you can only see it in the presence of some sort of backlight.

5. You can find official details about the contest in the 2001 comics.

6. Don't know... but I trust BZP.

On the noble mask pictures: There are some low-quality gifs from the 2001 web kit. They probably used those. Oh wait, nvm, I think you're already aware of those.

Suggestions:

  • When describing the misprint masks, I think it's worth pointing out that although the colors are not actually "printed" onto the masks, the term "misprint" stuck nonetheless.
  • I really like the prose you've written so far. I would actually prefer to split it up into clearly defined sections, to make it easier to look up information about specific items: one section for the mask packs (including the infected Hau and a sub-section for the misprint masks), one section for the sets, and sections for each of the rare collectibles (Vahi, copper masks, TNGM, etc.).
  • For sets that contain more than one of the same mask, maybe write (×2) instead of listing the same thing twice.

—Planetperson 04:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Photos vs CGI: I'm... not opposed, per se, but I would like some semblance of consistency, so if someone wants to embark on a quest to photograph every possible mask (I've seen some good ones here, as an example), I'd be okay with it. Since a lot of misprint ones anyway are going to be photographs anyway I don't really mind if we segment between "what has a digital render" and "what is a photograph" though. And I'm totally okay if someone has some mad photoshop skills and wants to edit certain ones, but I'm also a quality snob, so maybe not.

As for the noble masks, I was referring to those, I just don't have any of the original sources handy, so I don't know what the best resolution is that we can get.

Re: Misprints: I think the terminology also comes from "printing press" as a way to describe any general line of production, but making a note isn't a bad idea.

As far as the division of information... the trouble with splitting up sections like that is that there's going to be some overlap in certain areas, but at the same time we should specify what came from collector's packs because that was their whole point, yeah.

On a specific note, I also don't think the US/UK copper masks need different sections because they're supposed to be the same thing. Same thing when Krana comes up, definitely note the extra "purple" variation, but we don't need a whole subrow just for that. -- Dorek Talk external image 05:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


I think the 'brown' kaukau is off. It should actually be trans-orange shouldn't it? --"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 22:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

All the Kaukau are rendered in the solid Toa Mata colors, with the exception of Gali's, in which case all her masks are rendered in Transparent Blue. They were kept in these incorrect colors because those renders are from official sources. ~ Wolk (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
In other words, Someone was slaking off at lego and we just have to deal with the consequences. --"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 12:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it slacking off. Maybe the idea was to use brown and the plastic wasn't compatible, or they had an error in production and had to make a change. Who knows? It's just a quirk. No harm done. -- Dorek Talk external image 19:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that's likely. The only known brown transparent color is 111 Transparent Brown, which was used for Onua's Kaukau mask. You have to understand that transparent LEGO colors are completely seperate colors from the solid colors, not translucent versions of them. The more likely scenario is that when whoever made the renders was unaware that the Kaukau were different colors from the other Kanohi, or that it was simply seen as too much of an effort to add additional colors. ~ Wolk (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Move page

Quick note, this page should be called Sets/Collectibles (subpage of Sets) or Set:Collectibles (Set namespace). Because it starts with Sets:, it's not a subpage, and it's not in the Set namespace. I'm in favor of Sets/Collectibles myself, a la Sets/Combiners and Alternate Models, but what do you think? -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. My intention was for the page to be in the Set: namespace, but being a subpage wouldn't be bad, either. I'm pretty indifferent. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


14k Gold Haus

I've been doing some research on the various 14k Gold Hau giveaways. Not sure where best to put this info, but wanted to store it here for now.

2002

The 2002 section should be about done now, if I'm not forgetting anything. In the Krana table, I thought it would look nicer to mimic the poster's ordering (6 Bohrok, then 6 corresponding Va) than to strictly follow the set numbering order. The Va Krana images are .gif files, and they're not resizing the same as the main Bohrok's Krana images, which are .png files. If anyone knows a simple fix, that'd be nice, but it'll eventually be a moot point if we can get photos for everything (a plan I think would be nice, if someone has enough collectibles & free time to take a uniform set of photos). Similarly, the purple variant Krana could potentially go in the big Krana table once/if we get photos to show the difference. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hrm... I'm more partial to the set numbering for consistency.
How about instead of attaching the Krana table to the Bohrok sets, we always open the sections with the collectible boxes, list the collectibles (in poster order, as you suggest), and then move onto the sets (more like how it is in the 2001 section). Then for the sets, instead of listing every potential, we just say "contains 1x random Krana of X color". Maybe we can replicate this question mark image and then change the color, or something along those lines.
ALSO I think we should probably do the "collectibles in sets" tables horizontally... vertically feels like a waste of space.
Edit: Also also no idea about the gifs and their resizing. I summon the almighty Morris. -- Dorek Talk external image 03:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd like the idea of putting the Bohrok and Va sets down in the set table if we could get question mark Krana images for each color. I uploaded a relatively high-res image from the side of the Krana box (thank you, eBay), but I'm not sure how easy it would be to make 12 color variations that match that image. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm having Swert create a custom one we can use that we can swap out colors for. Might take a bit, but the box one will be good in the meantime. -- Dorek Talk external image 17:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Cool, that'll be nice. We could probably use something similar for the Kraata included in the Rahkshi sets, too. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

BZPower's Rare Colectibles topic says that the light purple Krana (which are the ones that fluoresce under a blacklight) weren't found until the release of the Krana/Kanohi Nuva packs. This Mask of Destiny article corroborates this information. This source might come in handy if we add more detail once we get better Krana photos for the variants; just wanted to record it here for the time being. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Extra Kraata

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but this page is to document all the collectibles that actually appeared in physical form at some point right? If that's the case, dosn't it seem like we should leave out the list of kraata types that were never released as a set, chain lighting, sonics, etc.?--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Random Kraata for any of the 42 Kraata powers could be found in 8580 Kraata. Unless I'm misunderstanding your concern, all of the Kraata listed on the page have been released in a physical form. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, really? I didn't know that. In that case, maybe we should label what colors those kraata are supposed to be on this page.--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

2003

Kraata photos are going to be fun for the brave soul who accepts that gauntlet. Some random Kraata photos might also be nice (like the question-mark Krana images Swert put together, which look quite nice. Thanks!).

Krana-Kal color names are just copied from Kraata color names; not sure whether that's accurate. (Though it probably doesn't matter; we haven't been using official Lego color names for a lot of things on the page, which I don't mind. I don't have any problems calling Kongu's mask Teal instead of Bright Bluish Green, for instance.)

Is the Transparent Orange Kraata solid plastic or flexible? I've never seen one in person. Also, I'm pretty sure it's a Stage 1 shape, but most of the photos I checked weren't great angles.

Mask Collector did an interview fairly recently where he talked about getting the Platinum Avohkii. Again, probably not important for the page, but another useful reference.

I forgot about the Poisoned Hau Nuvas; I'll put those in soon. I should probably convert all those links to references sometime, too. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

TOK is slightly more flexible than your standard Kraata, probably because it's transparent. Only comes in Stage 1.
I'd generally prefer official LEGO color names (I just used shorthand because I'm lazy), but it does get unwieldy. In a perfect world with images of everything, maybe we don't need to specify color at all? Maybe we can do hovertext?
I'll get Swert working on a Kraata question mark image. We'll also have a Kanohi one and a Kanohi Nuva one (I have a generic Krana one waiting to use); anything else we'll need? -- Dorek Talk external image 02:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
If we had a consistent set of photos, all in front of the same background, I think we could let the photos speak for themselves. Not sure how feasible that is, though; it'll probably be a while, if ever. I'm not sure who the main target audience for this page is... people more familiar with Bionicle, involved fans of Lego in general, or relative newcomers? I think that some of the official Lego color names are kind of long and/or awkward (e.g. Mata Blue is Bright Blue, but Mata Green is Dark Green; Metru Brown is Dark Flesh; Keetorange is Flame Yellowish Orange). Do we expect the typical reader to be familiar with Lego's color names? An old G1 fan might more quickly recognize something like Metru Blue, but readers who didn't follow G1 might not recognize the significance of the Metru. Just saying Dark Blue is straightforward, but may get vague. I guess that since there should be photos by every caption, any name would get the point across, as long as we always use the same name for the same color. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, typically BS01 values official information over informal information, which is why I would lean to using the proper nomenclature, but I also get that LEGO's naming can be pretty esoteric, which is partly why unofficial fan names pop up all the time. There is no real "target audience" as it is, this is just for the sake of recording information. We could always caption the images on the file itself, which we almost never do (especially if we were to get individual photos) that I always try and get people to do =P. We don't NEED to include color names, per se, but I feel like it helps. -- Dorek Talk external image 06:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea of having captions on the uploaded images. In that space, we could potentially provide additional context, if we wanted. For instance, Dekar's mask image could have a caption that said something along the lines of "A Kanohi Kiril in Flame Yellowish Orange (the primary color of Keetongu)." If we can provide both the official Lego color name and a convenient reference for the more obscure colors, I think that would work well. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

2004

So. The dreaded discussion. Do we consider any post-2004 masks as "collectibles" for the purpose of this page? I keep flipping back and forth. On the one hand, just because there's only one of them (occasional recolors notwithstanding) doesn't mean they can't be considered collectible, since when we get to 2015 we'll include all of those masks.

On the other hand, they're not involved in any play features, and then you have things like Glatorian helmets and stuff that are definitely NOT collectibles.

But then you have, say, the Ignika, which is all of those things, but also definitely a collectible.

So I dunno. Go through all the product descriptions and see what they say? -- Dorek Talk external image 03:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I would lean towards including the post-2004 Kanohi. It would seem a bit weird to me to say that the Ignika is a collectible, but all these other set-exclusive masks aren't. And there would still be some points of interest; for instance, readers could learn that Turaga Dume and Toa Norik had the same mask shape, that the Thornatus is adorned with silver Crasts, or that Toa Whenua, Garan, and Umbra all wore the same mask.
On a similar note, what do we think about the Hordika's mutated Kanohi or Vezon's Ignika? Not conventional masks, but Kanohi in-story. The green mutated Huna in Karzahni makes me reluctant to drop the Hordika masks, and I'd prefer to mention all Ignika iterations. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's sort of what gives me pause; the Crast piece, despite ostensibly being a "mask" is really just another LEGO piece; it's not intended to be collectible, even though it appears in a different color (almost BECAUSE it appears in a different color, at that point). Same with the green mutated Huna. The recolor is a coincidence there, unlike, say, the Skull sets, where the golden/transcolor mask is a deliberate inclusion. Not to mention that for some pieces, they're designed to work in conjunction with other ones (e.g. visors), so is it really a collectible if it's not "whole"?
Specifically talking about the Ignika, the gold version on the Toa Mata Nui titan set IS definitely a collectible... but does that grandfather in the silver version, or does the silver version stand on its own? As for the Vezon version, technically it's supposed to connect to things other than Piraka heads, so I would lean toward yes... but then the Maxilos version falls into the same "structural not collectible" trap as with the Crast et al.
Not that we can't mention the exceptions, but when we're taking up more time having to explain why something is or is not a collectible than actually having collectibles to write about, I wonder why we would bother in the first place. -- Dorek Talk external image 05:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking at this point, Post-2003 Kanohi are not collectibles. Unless they were specifically listed AS a collectible, such as the Kanoka, it shouldn't be listed here. Likewise, I think the specific requirement should be "whatever showed up in a booster pack but has more than 10 different forms." That'd be the huge difference, IMO. --external image Owner (talk|contribs) 23:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Would it worth having a sub-subpage called "Other Kanohi" or something? Then that could be broken down into post-2004 masks (Great Huna, Sanok, etc.) and structural masks (silver Crast, gunmetal Ignika, etc.). The main Collectibles page could still have info on post-2004 masks released in pre-2004 shapes (Nuhrii's Ruru, gold Kraahkan, maybe the Stars Haus) and the few other masks that are pretty obviously promotional collectibles (gold Vahi, Ultimate Dume Kraahkan, gold Ignika, maybe Lhikan's Hau?). I can see why we wouldn't want to list all these set masks on the Collectibles page, but some people do collect them anyway, and I think it'd be nice to record the information somewhere, even if it's a bit further out of the way.
The gold Kraahkan in particular stands out to me as an interesting piece. It holds significant interest for a collector (the Mask of Shadows feels pretty special, and now it's in gold!), but it's arguably another one of the "structural, not collectible" pieces. And that's not even getting into the old gold/pearl gold distinction. Lots of fun with edge cases coming up.--Volitak Boxor (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
At that point there's the Kanohi page itself, so I don't think it would be necessary. Once we start getting into breakdowns of individual pieces, I feel like there's just other places that do it better.
Golden Kraahkan, as much as it pains me to say it, probably doesn't count, even though it does have that added bit of history with the gold transitions. Ultimately it's not what collectors define as collectible (as backwards as that sounds) it's what's marketed as such. For a lot of these fringe examples, I'd be curious to see what the product copy actually said (but then I also want those put on their respective set pages, so y'know... goals). -- Dorek Talk external image 01:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Where would we want to include more details about things like the gold Kraahkan, then? Add more detail/images to the Kraahkan page under Set Information? Are we satisfied with what's there already? Somewhere, it might be nice to list all the Kraahkan (or whatever mask) variants and the sets they can be found in, with accompanying images. We have images in the Kanohi gallery and prose on the mask pages, but not both together. I kind of liked the idea of having all the set information on either subpages of Sets or pages in the set space, but we certainly don't need to make Set:Hau, Set:Kraahkan, etc. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It is possible we could put them on the set page the mask is associated with, or perhaps a paragraph or two on the Collectibles page that explains what this mask is or whatnot. Ideally, it's nice to have a single catch-all page, but that page would have to be carefully constructed as to not be both redundant or too cluttered. I dunno, it just feels like we need to tread carefully. --external image Owner (talk|contribs) 04:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not actually opposed to a "Set:Hau" type thing, but we'd need official part numbers and the like (as I said before: goals). I think most of that information is already on the Kraahkan page itself, and whatever other respective pages so I don't inherently feel the need to get that deep, but as a pipe dream it's nice. -- Dorek Talk external image 04:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I basically agree with what's been said about not including non-collectible masks. The specific exceptions that I would make are the pearl gold Kraahkan and the gold Ignika, both of which are quite hard to find these days and fetch very high prices. Since people still seem to be interested in having lists of the plus-rod style masks, even though they are generally non-collectible, it might be worthwhile to include a section at the bottom of the page listing them and the sets they came in. Even then, I'm on the fence about including any "Kanohi" that do no fit into this system, such as the Hordika heads and the Mistika Makuta masks.
Will we not be mentioning the Zamor and squid packs, seeing as the contents of those packs was always the same?
—Planetperson 12:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm willing to extend the definition to the gold Ignika since it was a special part only included in a special set (and advertised as such); if we don't, we would realistically have to discount the movie-edition Kraahkan, since there isn't much difference there. The gold Kraahkan though... I know people place value on it, but it wasn't intended as such. I wouldn't mind mentioning it in the history though, since we're considering the Kraahkan as a collectible (aren't we...?). -- Dorek Talk external image 20:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
If we do Rhotuka I feel like we should do Zamors, and if we do Zamors I feel like we should do Squids, but it's tenuous, I agree.
I do recommend including the PGK, since it is a very hot item in the collectors' community. Note that this is not the standard dark gold Kraahkan that came in the Tower of Toa set, but a "misprint" that came in early releases of the set.
The line you can draw between Rhotuka and Zamor/squid packs is that there were more Rhotuka variants than could be included in one pack, whereas every Zamor/squid pack automatically included all variants. So although there were only 12 Rhotuka to collect, you still needed to buy multiple randomized packs to collect them all. This was not the case in later years.
—Planetperson
The PGK actually came after the flat gold version, because that's when they changed gold colors. I'm not discounting its value TO collectors, I'm more just wondering what it's intent AS a collectible is; even putting misprints aside (that's a whole can of worms I don't even want to get into) technically anything could be considered a collector's item with enough time and based on the whims of the original and current fanbase. Entire sets themselves are collectible in that sense. I think it would be fine to mention, but not include on the "list" as it were.
It's a good point about the Rhotuka packs at least having some randomizable element to them. -- Dorek Talk external image 03:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I put together an abridged table in the sandbox of a way that we could document the non-collectible masks from 2004-2010. It probably doesn't belong on the collectibles page, but it'd be nice to at least have somewhere, right? Not sure where it would best fit, though. I still think we could keep the Metru Nui Matoran masks, Kraahkan variations, etc. on the collectibles page since they were released in pre-2004 shapes. We should keep all the Noble Hunas (for instance) on that page, even if some weren't released in mask packs. I'd say they're analogous to the orange Pakari or the dark gray Hau.

On another note, I think that a discussion of the Zamor and the Sea Squid would help to tell the story of collectibles' decline in prominence over the lifetime of Bionicle. You go from Kanohi to Krana to Kraata to Kanoka, then you get the Rhotuka, where there are far fewer to collect. Then you get Zamor, where different sets have different colors, but the ammo packs are all practically identical. And then the squid are the same in every set with one other color in the ammo pack, and 2008 doesn't have anything but set Kanohi. Plus, this would give us something to write about for every year (except maybe 2008?), which would be nice. Zamor in colors exclusive to non-Bionicle sets may complicate things, admittedly, but we could probably ignore those for the most part. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I've actually warmed a lot to the separated page that documents non-collectible types, to the point where I think the Zamor/Squid/etc information could ALSO go on there, essentially documenting the "post-collectible" culture and leaving collectibles as a lean, mean, focused page. The devil, of course, is in what to actually call the page, and I'm drawing a blank there. -- Dorek Talk external image 07:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Something like Pseudo-Collectibles would probably communicate the idea of the page decently well, but the name is kind of clunky, and I don't think anyone has ever actually called a Zamor or post-2004 Kanohi a pseudo-collectible. Maybe someone else can think of a better way to phrase this general idea? --Volitak Boxor (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't we call whichever Collectibles that had dedicated sets the "Featured Collectible" of that year while all the others are just "Recurring Collectible Elements/Parts"? ~Mattym 15:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"Featured Element" or "Recurring Element" doesn't sound too bad. I guess the problem with the former is that in later sets Kanohi basically don't get mentioned at all unless it's like the Ignika or something, so it's barely a "feature" and more of a given. I don't necessarily want to change the name of Collectibles to "Featured Collectibles" though... -- Dorek Talk external image 18:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"Non-collectible Accessories"? —Planetperson 18:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

2004 Disk Questions

Before we hit the mask issue, I had a couple quick questions about the Kanoka. First, does anyone know of any definitive/citeable source for what's inside the golden Kanoka? Everything I could find from official sources just called it a gold disk or gold-plated. One BZPower topic says that the inside is metal (correcting a previous user who thought the core was plastic), and a Eurobricks topic has a user claim the inside is sterling silver. If anyone can verify that claim, that would be helpful. I doubt anyone has ever intentionally stripped the gold plating off to check the inside, so I'm not certain on what basis people know what the middle is made from. Weights? Hearsay? Statements from Lego that I can't find? It's not really a big deal, but I'm curious.

Also, does anyone recall where the blank glow-in-the-dark Kanoka came from? The BZP Rare Collectibles topic says they were fairly common, but doesn't really say where they originated (contrast the blank tan and black Kanoka, distributed in Legoland Billund in 2005). I might ask on BZP, too, see if anyone there can give an answer. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought the blank one was a misprint? I have one lying around somewhere, but I couldn't tell you where it came from. -- Dorek Talk external image 19:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the blank ones were probably misprints, but I didn't think they often showed up in the blind packs, right? (As opposed to the European misprints, which were included in many mask packs).
Also, re: recent edits, not all 54 possible disk patterns were produced. According to the Kanoka page and all the checklists I've seen, there are only 36 codes that showed up in the blind packs (I'm pretty sure the disks that came with sets couldn't be found in the random packs). Speaking anecdotally, my Disk of Time Zadakh didn't include the Po-Metru disk. I assume that that's typical (compare the Shadow Kraata Rahkshi, which didn't have a regular Kraata), but it's possible that my set was a fluke. Was the Disk of Time promotion available at Lego retail stores or other retailers in other countries? I know that it was a Target promotion in the US, but I didn't know if that was the only store to do the promotion. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hah, you might be right, I just always assumed that there was a disk for each metru and power level. I learned something today! —Planetperson 04:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

2006-2010

I (or someone else) still need to put in the tables/images for 2005, but what next after that? Did we want to put the Zamor/Squids/Golden armor on this page? A few months ago, there was some discussion about making a 'Non-Collectibles' (name pending) page for those items and the post-2004 masks. This week, Dorek mentioned putting the post-2004 masks on the List of Sets page; if we did that, what would we want to do with the Zamor/squids? Also, Dorek, how were you thinking of displaying the masks on the list of sets page? As a new column in that big white table you're working on, or underneath? --Volitak Boxor (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The lists I'm making now are sets only; if we wanted to we could use something similar for Featured Elements (name pending, but I like it well enough). Something like a picture, with a description, and a list of sets that it appears in?
Re:Collectibles, yes to Golden Armor, no to squids, and... no to Zamor, although I could at least see the diversity being worth an argument. -- Dorek Talk external image 03:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I was working on a table in the Sandbox a couple months ago, maybe just put that on a Set:Featured Elements page? Might be a bit tricky if we want to break it up by year, but if we leave it as one big table, I think it'd be okay.
I'll probably try to write a paragraph for 2006-2008, just to have something for every year (no tables, though), then Gold Ignika for 2009, Golden Armor for 2010, and G2 is straightforward. We'll see how that looks. --Volitak Boxor (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm willing to condense years too, if we don't think they feature any collectibles, so just a single heading of 2006-2008?
And yeah, something like that table, maybe minus the recolors. We could do Element ID, picture, description, appears in, colors available; if we're going to include stuff like Squid it might not make as much sense to sort by name. -- Dorek Talk external image 04:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Umbra has a Rhotuka spinner, is that worth adding? ~ Wolk (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, my preference would be to include the zamor and squid and not include the golden armor. I think that the zamor and squid are both worth mentioning because they came packaged in the same kind of box at the same price range and clearly continued the spirit of the collectibles, even though practically speaking they were accessories/ammo packs rather than collectibles. Additionally, they are an obvious continuation of the projectile-weapon-as-collectible formula set by the Kanoka and Rhotuka in previous years. So although they are not collectibles proper, I see the zamor and squid sections as a good place to explain how Bionicle phased out collectibles after 2005. I don't have a strong preference whether they are included in the same section or separate sections.

On the other hand, the golden armor does not clearly fit into the traditional category of collectible. There is no element of randomization, nor were they packaged in a way that resembled previous collectibles, unlike the zamor and squid. The armor pieces also do not represent variations of the same type of functional unit (different kinds of masks, disks, spinners, projectiles, etc.) but are just a particular assortment of pieces that happened to be packaged across multiple sets. I realize this is a bit subjective, but that's my opinion.

Finally, it might be nice to enumerate all of the variations of zamor and squid for completeness' sake. Zamor and squid of particular color blends come in a range of colors depending on how they were dyed; for example, one of my Hydruka came with a bright red zamor that was supposed to be yellow-red.

—Planetperson 02:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Nestle Promos

Something that slipped my mind until recently are the Nestle promos, those little dudes with the disks/spinners. Anybody know more about that? Did they have set numbers? Would we call them collectibles? -- Dorek Talk external image 05:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Color names

Currently, the colors for the Kraata are using official LEGO color names (with the exception of the usage of 'grey'), however no other listings do. Would we want to apply the official names to all collectibles for consistency? (If so, I can do it.) ~ Wolk (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's only really important to have them for the Kraata, because of how many colors they have and how obscure some of them are. But it probably would be a good idea to standardize it for the whole page. Master Inika (Talk) 05:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I would love official LEGO color names for everything, but, thinking about it, only when making the distinction for a physical product. -- Dorek Talk external image 05:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

2015 Collectibles

Should we include the transparent orange Mask of Fire as well as the gold Skull Warrior masks from those polybags onto this list? -- FirespitterVakama (talk) 06:03 PM, 4 October 2021 (EST)

I'd say, only if we include sets (which I suppose can be done). ~ Wolk (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Vacuum Metal Krana-Kal

Were these Krana-Kal ever officially referred to as "Vacuum Metal", or is that a colloquial term? Are they in any way different from standard LEGO chrome silver? Because if not, then we should just call them chrome, isntead of implying there's something different... ~ Wolk (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, they've been VMKK forever so I don't think we're going to call them any different lol, but the extra description could be helpful. As far as I know the name is just referring to the process to metallize it, and the only contemporary I can think of are those minifig weapons from the 90's/early 00's. These days it's a plastic color, but I dont know when this changeover occurred or what the official color names are. -- Dorek Talk 19:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Right; I would move to say "colloquially known as" when using unofficial terms, but I agree the term should still be present. Chrome Silver (and Chrome Gold) remain vacuum metallized coatings, but are rarely used these days. ~ Wolk (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://biosector01.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sets/Collectibles&oldid=184493"