User talk:Dorek

Capitalization of Bio, Kio, and Mio

I've noticed that throughout all of the pages, it varies whether or not Bio, Kio, and Mio are capitalized seems to change. I would guess that they should not be capitalized, though I don't know. Also, I don't know how to do case-sensitive searches, so it would be very difficult for me to fix all of the pages, but I can do it if there isn't an easier way. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll ask if there's a way to do case-sensitive searches. I would lean towards capitalizing them; I know it's been a point of debate on whether or not we should capitalize stuff that isn't treated like that in-story (e.g. Kraata) but honestly I just think it makes more sense for a reference site to be as readable as possible. -- Dorek _Talk 00:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Still breaking doors?

How are ya man? Long time no see! Grant-Sud

My dude! How have things been? You on Slack or Discord or anything of the like? -- Dorek _Talk 16:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Question Regarding the Meta Tag

For Meta pages, I've had a few questions.

Do we include cameos of a character from other Lego themes or media? For example, Tahu is spotted for about one second in The Lego Movie, while Guurahk is seen in the LEGO Club Show music video "Black Eye Piece" (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_7AEGzPnKk).

Lastly, should we also include media not even directly from Lego? For example, Tahu alongside the other Toa Mata appeared in a Green Lantern comic from within a yellow floating portal. -- TheRocketRacer (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, both are good! KZ has a sandbox that lists some appearances of LEGO in other media User:KZN02/Sandbox#BIONICLE in Popular Culture, so that's a pretty good place to reference as well. -- Dorek _Talk 09:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty, sounds good, thanks for letting me know! -- TheRocketRacer (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Shadow is Easier?

You undid my edit on Shadow with the note, "I don't think "easier" is the right word". I'm a little confused - how is it not the right word if it's the word that Greg himself used to describe it? - Toa Jala ^Converse 01:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

He said it was "easy'" to use, not "easier" which implies a comparison. There could be a lot of factors that make Shadow easy to use, but it's not like it was ever stated that Light was hard to use, so I don't read it as making a comparison between the two. -- Dorek _Talk 02:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The quote in question is referring to Takanuva's Shadow powers from when he was half drained. If Shadow isn't easier to use than Light, Greg's answer doesn't really make sense. Why would you use Shadow more often if it was just as easy, or harder, as Light? Besides, Greg explicitly confirms Shadow is easier than Light in this CwGF quote, which Toa Jala added to the Light page. Dag (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Greg's answers pretty clearly refer to the morality of using it, not any larger metaphysical difference between the two elements, so it makes more sense for it to be a clarification of inner light. Saying one is "easier" than the other is reductive, and more implies that one is stronger or better in some way. It's fine the way it is now. -- Dorek _Talk 04:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Elaborating on that: I think there's confusion since the statement "Shadow is easier to use than Light" could mean multiple things. It could mean that manipulating elemental Shadow requires less effort than manipulating elemental Light at the same proficiency level. That was true for Takanuva, but I don't think that was true in general. In general, Greg seems to have meant that inner Shadow is easy to tap into because it's tempting, not because it takes little effort to wield.

If I understand correctly, in Takanuva's specific case, elemental Shadow actually *was* easier to wield than elemental Light. Since his inner Light didn't regenerate, eventually Takanuva's elemental Light powers would have grown much weaker than his elemental Shadow powers stronger. So for Takanuva, yes, Shadow was easier to use than Light. I don't think Greg meant that for all beings though.

The second quote explains the situation in general. Greg compared the moral light/darkness situation to Star Wars. In Star Wars, the Dark Side is linked to temptation, and the Light Side is linked to avoiding temptation. Temptation is easy to give in to and hard to avoid, which is why "the Dark path is always the easier one to walk." So in general, inner Shadow would be easier to access than inner Light because Shadow is tempting. That temptation might even apply to Takanuva: As more and more of his inner Light was replaced with Shadow, Takanuva would be tempted to tap into his elemental Shadow more often. As a result, Shadow's traits would dominate his personality more--traits such as willingness to give in to temptation. So there was a feedback loop where temptation could cause Takanuva to further spiral into Shadow.

That's my read of those quotes anyway. As for the trivia point, the Light article covers why inner Light powers are harder to access than inner Shadow powers. If people want, we can adapt that info for the Shadow page, or we can just leave it where it is. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. It might have pertained to Takanuva specifically rather than all Shadow-users due to his circumstances. With this in mind, I'd say leave it as-is, since we really don't have enough data to settle this. - Toa Jala ^Converse 15:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I found another relevant quote:

"Which is true? If Takanuva uses his light power too much, he will only be able to control shadow. Or: If Takanuva uses his shadow power too much, he will only be able to shadow."

"Using his shadow power too much will simply make using shadow more appealing, because it's easier to use. But it won't mean he loses his light powers. Using his light power too much would mean that, because the psychic shield caused by the shadow leech makes it impossible for him to regenerate light. So the more light he uses, the more shadow will predominate."

This disproves your explanation that Shadow was only easier for Takanuva as he used up his Light. Also, you said "Greg seems to have meant that inner Shadow is easy to tap into because it's tempting, not because it takes little effort to wield," while Greg said here "using his shadow power too much will simply make using shadow more appealing, because it's easier to use." It's not easier because it's tempting, it's tempting because it's easier. Greg said "it's easier to use," stated as a noncontingent fact, just as it was in the first quote. That's just how Shadow is. Dag (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how that contradicts what Morris said; ignoring light, it's that using Shadow exacerbates the negative traits. We literally see that in the books, Takanuva saying "choke on it".

But as Toa Jala mentioned, Takanuva is a unique test-case that's hard to apply to other scenarios. Roodaka, for instance, was said by Greg to have acquired her shadow powers though "extensive training"; sure, maybe Roodaka just sucked at it, but that would be a fairly liberal reading of the text. Just saying one is "easier" doesn't really contextualize anything. -- Dorek _Talk 18:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Morris was arguing that elemental Shadow takes less effort than elemental Light for Takanuva specifically, but not in general ("that was true for Takanuva, but I don't think that was true in general"). The reason he gave that it is true for Takanuva is because:

"As more and more of his inner Light was replaced with Shadow, Takanuva would be tempted to tap into his elemental Shadow more often."

In other words, Shadow only becomes easier and more tempting than Light for Takanuva because his Light is slowly replaced with Shadow. But the quote I posted says the exact opposite ("using his shadow power too much will simply make using shadow more appealing"). But I also think Morris' interpretation of the CwGF quote is incorrect. He considers it to only be concerned with moral Light and Dark, but the question is asking about elemental Light and Dark powers. To this, Greg answers "the Dark path is always the easier one to walk," proving that it's not just for Takanuva. Your point about Roodaka going through "extensive training" is still valid, but that doesn't mean that Shadow is not comparatively easier than Light. You say this doesn't contextualize anything, but I think it does. If Shadow is this difficult to use, and yet is easier than Light, that speaks to just how difficult Light is. Dag (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Turaga Kaita

I still don't understand your reasoning for removing the information concerning Turaga Kaita. You said it's a hypothetical, which I know is an old BS01 tradition to not pay much attention to hypotheticals, but that is no longer the case (for example, Other Kanohi). You also said that "the citations don't back up the statement," but I don't know what you meant by this. Which statement? How did the citations not back it up? Dag (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Bad move pointing me towards other hypotheticals!

Part of my issue is with the terminology; the term "Turaga Kaita" is technically a fanmade one since it's just stringing together two pre-existing words that were never otherwise connected. I could say something is a "Ta-Kanohi" but that doesn't make it the right term. I had a similar issue with "Kra-Matoran" which is why the page isn't named that (and don't get me started on Solis Magna lol). The other part is that it's just not part of the story; obviously the Turaga Nui isn't either, but it's at least referenced (we should probably cite whatever obscure book or website archive it was actually first mentioned in too, come to think of it...), and there's the visual model to boot.

As for the citation, the last one about the increased strength, Greg just says "probably" (and it doesn't even reference the Nui). I know sometimes in the absence of truly definitive statements we tend to consider that as "good enough", but especially because it was purely about something that's basically a hypothetical, it's all circular logic. We know that a "Turaga Kaita" can exist (and I guess that it doesn't have increased elemental powers) but that's basically it. -- Dorek _Talk 02:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized that apparently the Japanese Kabaya Turaga combiners were explicitly called Turaga Kaita, and this was sufficient to refer to them as such on their pages. While I can see this not being enough to say it's actually canonical, it's definitely not a fanmade term. Dag (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that does lend it some credence, although something tells me the story team didn't necessarily have a hand in naming those. Plus, those are 4, not 3... did we ever land somewhere explicitly on what constitutes a Kaita? I seem to recall some debate about that. -- Dorek _Talk 20:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Redirects

Your undo of my edit on the Fan Community page was entirely unnecessary. I created the contest redirects because, while working on them, I got tired of having to search for "Bioniclesector01" in front of it, and always forgetting if it was BIONICLEsector01, Biosector01, or BS01. I then figured that if I were going to create these redirect pages, there wouldn't be any harm in making more use of them, so I replaced the original article names in links because they were redundant, having the article name in the link twice. Even if there is some reason we should prefer the original articles in links, I doubt its anywhere major enough to worry about. Your edit does nothing but exude pettiness. Dag (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hokay, so, lot to unpack here. To start with, the characterization of "pettiness" is pretty uncalled for. I haven't deleted the redirects, they still exist, and you're more than welcome to continue using them. General wiki format calls for not using redirects (we have whole bots for that!) on completed pages. Redirects are a search tool, not a shorthand. If you wanted to argue for changing the contest namespace entirely, that's a different discussion.

There are plenty of ways you can keep it all handy without needing to memorize small details; some people use notepads, I personally keep fifty bajillion tabs open. If space saving is really what we're worried about, Morris recently introduced me to the pipe trick; if you include a | after a page name and close it off immediately, it will automatically redirect to the shortened version of something. So Mata Nui (Being) becomes Mata Nui, and BIONICLEsector01:Certavus Contest becomes Certavus Contest with just one extra character!

I appreciate that you want to make things easier for yourself (I do this all the time! This situation is reversed when we're talking citations!), and yeah, the namespace convention can be a pain, but redirects aren't intended to be a personal editing tool, they're supposed to be an additional inclusion based on complications in search. -- Dorek _Talk 05:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, Swert has pointed out that you can sub in Project: for the BS01 namespace and it accomplishes the same thing. Project:Certavus Contest -- Dorek _Talk 05:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

My comment was not at all uncalled for because this is just one example of a larger trend from you that I have been rather frustrated with for a while. You consistently make irrational judgments based entirely on your own opinion, as evidenced by the two topics immediately above this one, and when you removed the winning Artakha MOC purely because you didn't like that it used a 3D printed mask, to name a few. When you're a moderator taking a moderative action, you need a better standard than that.

Second, I don't see how creating the redirects for these pages violates general wiki format (I'm not sure what you mean by "completed pages"), but as you said, redirects are a search tool. I thought I was clear on that when I said "I got tired of having to search for 'Bioniclesector01' in front of it, and always forgetting if it was BIONICLEsector01, Biosector01, or BS01." Anyone else wanting to search for these pages would've had the same problem, and new users might not be familiar with BS01's or MediaWiki's terminology. So again, I see no reason why the redirects shouldn't have been made, and you seem to be okay with them since you said I'm welcome to use them. So if they're going to stay, might as well use them in articles. Sure, closing it off with a | would work, but again, why not just use the already existing redirects? Dag (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You can call my arguments irrational if you want, but that doesn't mean there's any basis in fact for that. For the two topics above, one is... one where I asked a question and got no response? The other was not definitively closed, but disagreeing with somebody doesn't necessarily make one person or the other right. I put forth sound arguments; in lieu of further debate, that, to me, seems the matter is closed. You're not exactly shy about bandying about your opinion either, so if you didn't respond, I didn't see any need to further press the issue. The Artakha mask debate is a wholly separate issue that has larger existential implications that are really not suitable to discuss here, so I won't.

When I say "completed pages" I mean there's nothing inherently wrong with using a redirect as a placeholder; that's one of their purposes, it's a safety net to avoid pages with broken links. But the general idea is that these redirects will get fixed at some point. See again the citations; I'm obviously pretty lazy when it comes to adding those in, so I just slap down the link and walk away. I wouldn't in any way call that finished, but it's good enough in the moment, until it can be formatted properly. If you had just added the links in to where they had not previously existed, I probably wouldn't have even noticed. But you specifically changed the links down from already workable titles to a redirect, which functionally makes no sense; if I now went around changing every [[Takanuva|Takua]] to [[Takua]] (or heck, removing the citation templates and just leaving plain links), that would be deranged. But if somebody types out a paragraph and links just Takua, then I'm not going to bat an eye, I just might go in and change it. This isn't in any way a slight towards you, which leaves me a bit confused by the reaction; to me this is a minor change in coding, nothing more. -- Dorek _Talk 07:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If there is any basis, you have failed to effectively communicate it. For Turaga Kaita, your question could've been easily answered had you searched the Greg Archive (quote). Your point about Turaga Kaita on the Japanese combiner being 4 instead 3 didn't change the fact that it's still an official source using the term. Your issue with Turaga Kaita was that the name was fanmade, even though it's not, and you changed the wording to "Turaga are also capable of fusing in sets of three to become Kaita," still calling it a Kaita, implying the fusion would be called...a Turaga Kaita. Your other point was that it was a hypothetical even though, as I already pointed out, the wiki mentions hypotheticals in other places.

As for the Shadow topic, I didn't respond because I genuinely have no idea how you came to conclusion that you did, and I saw no reason to continue wasting my time in repeating what I had already said. I made my point quite clear, it's not my fault if you didn't understand it.

I still don't know what you mean by a "completed page." Saying "there's nothing inherently wrong with using a redirect as a placeholder" doesn't define what a completed page is. But your comment about avoiding pages with broken links suggests you're talking about pages that exist, i.e. literally every single article on BS01. If that's the case, and if we shouldn't use redirects for completed pages, then redirects shouldn't exist at all! My point is that you're not communicating your point well, and if you had in the first place, perhaps this could've been avoided.

You say "this is a minor change in coding," which only leaves me questioning why you undid my edit in the first place. Again, I made the redirect pages first and foremost because of the inconvenient searching. It just so happened that a byproduct of creating those redirects was that their links could be optimized. Even though they were functional already, there was absolutely no harm in changing them, and yet you undid it. If you thought it was such a minor change, what compelled you to undo it? Dag (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If I may try to help, I think Dorek's point is that the redirects are usefull when you use the searchbar to search for pages, that may not be called the same, but when you mention them on the page, use the full link, like in the "[[Takanuva|Takua]]" or "[[Jaller|Jala]]" situations. The completed page may be the wrong expression here, but he point is, we don't link simply "[[Takua]]" or "[[Jala]]" from the articles, because it's kind of "faster/easier" to use the direct link with a different name than linking a redirects, which is a separate page that will send you to the actual page. With a bad internet connection useing the redirects takes a bit lomger times, because technically you open 2 pages indirectly.--Surel (Talk) 09:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the primary issue I think. In addition to being portaled through another page, I think you also lose out in the "What Links Here" section. However, Wikipedia actually recommends using redirects... ~ Wolk (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks guys, that does help, but it looks like its a bit more of a complicated issue than Dorek made it seem. He said it breaks "general wiki format," even though Wikipedia seems to prefer it. Whatever BS01 prefers, that needs to be made clear somewhere, probably on the help pages. As it currently stands, I seem to have broke some sort of unspoken rule that might not even exist, which is infuriating. Dag (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Until now I'd believed there were a couple reasons to avoid linking to redirects.

First, if we avoid linking to *all* redirects, we're less likely to accidentally link to a double redirect (a redirect to a redirect). Linking to double redirects is generally undesirable because clicking one only sends you through the first redirect, so you end up on the second redirect page instead of the final destination page. (More info is available at wikipedia:Wikipedia:Double redirects.) Fortunately, Fohrok can identify double redirects and point them to the final destination page, so linking to double redirects is no longer an issue.

The other weaker argument for avoiding redirect links is basically an appeal to aesthetics. Some might find it abstractly pleasing to keep the content pages separate from redirect pages. The idea that the "core" of the wiki is articles that only link to other articles, and then the redirects are a layer added on top for the convenience of readers. But this silly aesthetic reason is not practically relevant to running a wiki.

Regarding Surel's point about performance, I haven't done any tests to confirm this, but I would be surprised if linking to redirects causes any slowdown. Redirects are taken care of serverside, so when you click one, the server does a trivial amount of work to figure out which destination the redirect points to, and then it sends over that destination page. Your computer only loads the destination page. Similarly, I believe Special:WhatLinksHere counts links made through redirects, so I believe that isn't sufficient grounds to avoid them. I might be incorrect about that though.

I might be forgetting something, but I don't think links to redirects have come up in discussions before. Generally, if I was already making an edit and happened to notice the article had a link to a redirect, I might swap it out for a link to the original article while I was at it. Either way I wouldn't give the matter much more thought. Anyway, per this discussion, I looked into how Wikipedia handles links to redirects. Wolk linked to it before, but here it is again for reference: wikipedia:Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN. That page provides some situations where linking to redirects, rather than the original page, makes sense. Personally, I find Dag's and Wikipedia's reasons compelling. So, overall, I think linking to redirects is fine, and so is linking to the original page. Just go with whichever convention makes more sense to you in the moment. It's probably not worth anyone's time or effort to go around editing pages just to switch conventions. From that perspective, it was probably not worth Dag's time changing the contest page links. That said, once that change was made, it wasn't worth Dorek's time to undo it--for the exact same reason. Either way, the page is fine, and the situation is not worth agonizing over. Hopefully all sides find this solution acceptable.

Now putting on my staff hat for a minute, I feel I should express concern about the tone of this conversation. Dag, intentionally or not, your messages came off as rather hostile--both in Dorek's opinion (as evidenced by his responses) and in mine, a third party to this discussion who is ambivalent about the redirect issue. Of course, text generally comes off as more cold or blunt than the equivalent face-to-face or voice interaction, so I don't want to read too much into it. But I don't think everything that drew my concern can be chalked up to that, so I'd like to point those things out.

Obviously, when talking over text, you can't give instant nonverbal feedback with facial expressions, body language, etc. To convey your feelings, you have to explicitly write them out. Otherwise, the other participant is left to infer your feelings in the way that makes the most sense to them. When you are talking through a disagreement with someone, and you think you made a really compelling argument, and the other person doesn't respond, it's pretty natural to assume that the other person now agrees with you. Similarly, if you are discussing something and ask the other person a clarifying question, but they never respond, it's natural to assume that the other person isn't interested in continuing the discussion. But from your messages here, it seems that when Dorek made those assumptions during the two earlier threads, they didn't reflect your true feelings--you wanted both conversations to continue. Dorek simply didn't know. Please, if you feel that way, write those feelings out in a kind way so that others understand your perspective, instead of letting resentment fester in silence--because that is unfair, both to yourself and to others. We all want the wiki to be a fun place.

I say all this because your tone here has not seemed kind. I do not see how these statements came from a place of kindness:

"Even if there is some reason we should prefer the original articles in links, I doubt its anywhere major enough to worry about. Your edit does nothing but exude pettiness." You wrote to Dorek to make sure he understood your opinion, yet you dismissed Dorek's opinion before even hearing it. How is this fair to Dorek? Dorek then tried to explain his reasoning, and you dismissed it as "irrational" and suggested he was not being clear. But your original comment suggested that you didn't care to learn his opinion--so it isn't fair to turn around and complain that he didn't express his opinion clearly enough.

"I made my point quite clear, it's not my fault if you didn't understand it." I see no way of reading this statement that does not come off as rude or condescending.

"As it currently stands, I seem to have broke some sort of unspoken rule that might not even exist, which is infuriating." You didn't break any rule. For reference, here is Dorek's edit summary: "We'll keep them on the BS01 namespaces, so I don't see why we would use the redirects over the regular links...". Dorek didn't suggest that you broke a rule, or that undoing your edit was a disciplinary action. He said he didn't understand the reasoning behind your edit. If Dorek's edit is "infuriating"--which is a very emotionally charged term--then that is a point of concern, because this wiki is a collaborative effort. Everyone here has had their edits questioned and undone. When we assume that other editors have good intent and kindly ask clarifying questions when we don't understand others' actions, then we can generally keep a cordial tone without letting disagreements rise to the level of fury.

Please, if the intent behind your words wasn't negative, then consider your words more carefully--again, with the understanding that formal written text is an inherently cold medium, and so your first draft might need some tweaking to come off as intended. Or if the intent behind your words was negative, then please let those negative feelings out in a more appropriate way, because you don't get to talk to other users like that, no matter how you feel about them. Your edit to change the redirects might not have broken a rule, but the way you have spoken to Dorek has. See BIONICLEsector01:Policy, rule 12: "Respect everyone."

Keeping with the spirit of this message, I hope you take the time to reflect on this conversation and respond thoughtfully, because without that feedback I will not know how this message came off. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in and being reasonable concerning the redirects and clarifying the issue, but I do want to address your other comments.

First, you said I "dismissed Dorek's opinion before even hearing it." I did hear it. I read his edit summary. But he gave no reasoning, which left me to assume it was based on nothing but his own personal opinion. He could have mentioned the completely valid points raised by Wolk and Surel, but he didn't. If he did base it off of more than his own opinion, that's what edit summaries are for. If it was that he just didn't know, then he shouldn't have so confidently made the change before inquiring with other staff members. I don't know how BS01 staff operates, but to me, from an outside perspective, this seems to show that there is no communication between you and there are different contradicting ideas on how to handle situations, leaving us editors to guesswork. That's what I meant by breaking some unspoken rule and why I called it infuriating. I want the wiki to be a fun place too, but how can it be if there's miscommunication, which naturally leads to argument, as it has here?

You then said I dismissed his reasoning as irrational. What I specifically said was that Dorek has consistently made irrational judgments based entirely on his own opinion, which is true. Again, he gave no other reasoning in his edit summary for the redirects. And you said it yourself, "it wasn't worth Dorek's time to undo it," so would you not call that irrational (he even returned the page to exactly how it was before, instead of implementing the pipe trick he recommended to me). You did say that my edit was also not worth my time, but at the very least it did have sound reasoning, optimizing the links as to not be as long or redundant. But I also cited other instances where Dorek has behaved irrationally. I think the Turaga Kaita topic and the Artakha situation are self evident. But for the Shadow topic, since you also agreed with his conclusion, I've made a response there as to not clutter this section.

You also said:

"When you are talking through a disagreement with someone, and you think you made a really compelling argument, and the other person doesn't respond, it's pretty natural to assume that the other person now agrees with you."

I could say the same about you. I know I said I wouldn't dwell on the Shadow topic, but I responded to your post with a quote that I argued disproved your point, which you never responded to. Did you not have a response, or did you simply agree with Dorek's? "To convey your feelings, you have to explicitly write them out."

I really do believe that I'm coming off as clear as possible, but if I'm not, I want to make it absolutely clear that I do NOT enjoy these conversations. I don't want to be rude, and I want to respect everyone. But some times, I feel as though I need to be stern to be heard. However, I think you've overreacted to my posts. Not once did I attack Dorek's character, only his actions, and I backed those claims up. I do not see how that is a violation of Rule 12, just as I wouldn't say your comments to me violate it, even when I vehemently disagree and have taken offense to them. Dag (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Morris has kindly and thoroughly distilled the issues at play, so I'm just going to offer a bit of my own perspective.

When I undid the edit, it was based on my own understanding that redirects are generally something to be avoided. This is how we have operated for many years, and I have a long edit history backing that up. In this instance, it seems I was, if not mistaken, then at the very least not up to date with current wiki policy. As Morris (and Wolk, with some serendipitous thinking) pointed out, Wikipedia, and our software, fundamentally doesn't care, and there are reasons to leave a redirect in. While those are not the reasons cited in the disagreement, which was entirely about personal preference, they are nonetheless valid. As Morris also pointed out, changing redirects one direction or another is equally unnecessary; in an ordinary scenario, I might not have bothered, but because it was an easy edit that I thought was more in line with our practice, I made it. That was the entire extent of my thinking. (We only found out the wikipedia guidelines after the fact while talking together, if you would like some insight as to our own process.)
Regarding the other disagreements: we can continue to have these discussions in their respective sections, if you so choose. Saying you don't understand my point and walking away is fine, and your prerogative, but you can't use that as evidence that I am somehow being unfair. You keep calling my actions irrational; while I would never claim to be a perfectly rational person, you also have not provided any evidence of that other than disagreements in interpretation that we have had. Also, there is a difference in content between the linking and the other two issues that were discussed. The latter are both, again, interpretive issues that do bear discussion. The former is more or less about policy (or as we now know, a lack thereof), yet your reaction to discussing them is the same, and they are all somehow connected to my approach in edits; this is what Morris means when he says that the tone of your post is hard to interpret as anything other than rude.
Rarely do I say "I disagree, and because I am in a position of authority, it must be accepted this way". I understand that I AM in a position of "authority" (ugh) and I try to be mindful of that, but I am also an editor and a BIONICLE fan, and it's under these auspices that I do what I do. Which brings me to my final point... we do this for fun! Morris mentioned this, and it bears repeating; this wiki about a long-deceased toyline is a collaborative effort that springs from a shared passion. I feel like I've been mentioning this more lately, but we don't get paid for any of this. This is entirely on our own time. Call it the communist in me, but there isn't a lot that separates us; we all do what we do because this it's fun, and we enjoy doing it. What would be the point otherwise? It's natural to disagree on approaches, but that has to be done in a healthy and constructive manner, which to me, this was not. And I'm not in any way offended, mostly just... perplexed. -- Dorek _Talk 20:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Per your edit summary, you had part of this typed out beforehand, and I covered several of the points you raised in my response to Morris, so I would recommend reading that first. I will say though, if your initial reasoning was that redirects are generally avoided, why not say that in the first place? For transparency, your edit summary said:

"We'll keep them on the BS01 namespaces, so I don't see why we would use the redirects over the regular links..."

You didn't see why, but didn't explain why you didn't see why. I would be willing to drop this entire issue, forgiving and moving on if I was given an apology. You did not make your reasoning clear when you made the edit, and you admit now that you were mistaken in undoing my edit, but you still imply that you are not at fault. Dag (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I did, in fact, read it; the entirety was not intended to be a direct response, because frankly I think Morris has addressed the issue in a better manner that you yourself have not adequately replied to, but just a general summation of my feelings on the matter, which remain unchanged.

I'm functionally still not understanding your point; my edit summary seems to make it clear that we will continue to have the article on the main namespace, so that being the case, there's no reason not to use (what I thought was) the proper linking format when it already exists. Your edit, from my perspective, was an unnecessary one, hence why I undid it. Based on what we now know, BOTH edits were unnecessary, and yet you seem dead set on extracting an apology from me for reasons I cannot fathom. -- Dorek _Talk 21:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You retort that I haven't given you evidence of my claims, and yet you claim that I did not adequately respond to Morris, but make no effort to back that up. That is by definition hypocrisy. Second, your edit summary only made clear that you, personally, did not see why my edit was necessary, but again did not elaborate, leaving me confused and frustrated. And again, you say "from my perspective," as if your perspective is immediately obvious and goes without explaining, which is incredibly self centered. The reason I would like an apology from you is because it shows you are able to accept accountability. If you can do that, that goes far in my view and would be enough to show you my respect. But because you continue to refuse to accept accountability, even though you admit you were mistaken, I see no reason to show you my respect.

EDIT: You have just again proven my point. You just removed the TTV Hagah art from the infobox, only saying "Mmmmmmmnope" in the edit summary. Why did you do that? Was it too big? Did you just not like it? You have to give an actual reasoning for edits and not just quips. I would argue that it should be in the infobox because its the only depiction of the whole team. You need to better justify your edits, or else you only create more opportunity for misunderstanding and arguments. Dag (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I know Morris has a lot to say, so I'll defer to him for the most of it, but I'll address the Hagah issue:

I don't always use the edit summary field as intended. This is something I've done (or not done) for many years; it's pretty ingrained, and it's just my method of allowing my inner thoughts (which are sometimes detailed, and obviously sometimes not) out to help me guide what I'm doing. From my perspective, the flip side is that I could have very easily not added anything at all, and nothing would have changed; if somebody has a question as to why I made that edit, they are more than welcome to take to the talkpage, or to ask me (or even undo it, since the whole "no reverting staff edits" is hardly something I've enforced lately). Not every single edit is accompanied by a justification; you made an excellent point earlier that things that seem self-evident may not be as such, and that holds true for everything we do. But simply because of the culture we're operating in, we make changes and find consensus... that's the general ethos of a wiki. Similarly, I don't think this habit of mine in some way makes me seem unapproachable or more authoritative, but again, I might not be able to see outside of my own blinkers; if it needs to be officially said, if somebody does take issue with (anything I do, but specifically) the way I use my edit summaries, I would be happy to hear you out, or if you don't feel comfortable talking to me, I know Swert certainly would.

HOWEVER. I should have been more mindful of this conversation that's happening, that we're having. Something in the way I approach things seems to be triggering; while that isn't my intent by any stretch, I should have more carefully considered the impact of what I said in that moment, and it was insensitive of me to carry on like nothing had happened, for which I am sorry. -- Dorek _Talk 03:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

First off, Dag, I appreciate that you've taken the time to reply and convey your feelings.

Addressing asides first:

Re: Dorek not using the pipe trick: When you use the pipe trick, MediaWiki actually edits the content of your edit to expand the pipe-tricked link into a full link. It's the same sort of thing that happens with signatures, where you type ~~~~, and it gets changed to your signature's wikitext. So for example, I'm writing the following link as [[Mata Nui (Being)|]], but once I save the page, the wikitext will say [[Mata Nui (Being)|Mata Nui]]: Mata Nui. For more info on the pipe trick, check out wikipedia:Help:Pipe trick.

Re: Me not responding to Shadow: You're correct that I could have responded to your Shadow comments but explicitly chose not to. I don't hold strong opinions on the Shadow issue, so I did not feel the need to respond. In my last reply, I suggested that you should express your feelings if other people misunderstanding those feelings would lead to resentment. Because I did not have strong feelings on the subject, I was not concerned that other people misunderstanding me would have a negative impact, and so I felt no need to respond. If I felt invested enough that being misunderstood would hurt, then I would have taken my advice for that situation and responded. I hope this explanation clarifies my behavior.

Now getting to the main points. Both parties could have handled this situation with more grace. As Dorek said in his apology, you two have different communication styles. Formal writing only widens the gap, as I mentioned earlier. Which is fine. People miscommunicate. That's life. Now here's an opportunity to reflect on why the miscommunication escalated into an argument.

To be clear, I am not asking anyone to defend their behavior. Also, I can't control whether or not anyone takes offense at my words. What each of us can do is make a conscious effort to conduct ourselves with respect. That is, when someone tells us that our behavior was inappropriate, we can think back critically on the interaction, examine our behavior from as detached a perspective as we reasonably can, and determine whether or not we conducted ourselves appropriately given our knowledge at the time. If we did behave inappropriately, then we think about how we can change our behavior to prevent similar situations again. Dorek went through this process and apologized. I also went through it when Dag told me he took offense at my last message. Based on that, I concluded that I owed Dag a fuller explanation, hence this new message.

Dag, you said, "I want to make it absolutely clear that I do NOT enjoy these conversations. I don't want to be rude, and I want to respect everyone. But some times, I feel as though I need to be stern to be heard." I appreciate that you want to stay civil, and it's unfortunate that you feel the need to be stern on BS01 to be heard. You also said, "I want the wiki to be a fun place too, but how can it be if there's miscommunication, which naturally leads to argument, as it has here?" I'm glad that it seems we want the same thing. In my experience, on BS01 and in life, miscommunications don't naturally lead to arguments. So, I encourage you to think about why, in your experience, misunderstandings DO typically lead to arguments. Personally, my read is that you hold strong convictions on wiki issues and hold others to a high burden of proof. When others present opposing ideas without enough justification, you sometimes dismiss those ideas with blunt language, and do not demonstrate a desire for mutual understanding. When the other party does not understand that approach, it can come off aggressively, sparking an argument. It can seem doubly aggressive in writing, for reasons I described in my earlier comment. I believe that if you soften your language and aim to empathize more with other users, then they will actually hear you more clearly, and even if they misunderstand you, you will get into fewer arguments.

Before, you said that you do not understand why I cited rule 12, so let me clarify. As you said, "Not once did I attack Dorek's character, only his actions, and I backed those claims up." You didn't mean to attack Dorek, which is good! But you understand that you attacked Dorek's actions. Really, no attacks were needed at all! There was a miscommunication, which you could have resolved by seeking mutual understanding. Dorek opened the door for mutual understanding in his redirect edit summary: "We'll keep them on the BS01 namespaces, so I don't see why we would use the redirects over the regular links...". He expressed confusion, so now the ball was in your court. You might have said, "I changed the links because A, B, and C. I don't understand why you prefer original articles in links instead of redirects. Could you explain your reasoning?" Dorek would have answered your question, and you could have asked follow-ups. Maybe you'd have changed his mind, or maybe he'd have changed yours, or maybe you'd have met in the middle. No argument needed. Instead, your first comment came off as dismissive, which was disrespectful toward Dorek. I explained how, specifically, your original comment seemed dismissive in my first comment. Then he tried to explain himself, and you rather bluntly expressed that his explanation didn't meet your standards. You turned a misunderstanding into an argument. For those reasons, the staff team believes your comments violated rule 12. I hope my reasoning makes sense.

Overall, I hope my two messages convey why you came off more aggressively than it seems you intended. Dorek and I have tried to explain, in as detached a way as we can, why your behavior was inappropriate given your knowledge at the time. I have also tried to explain the questions you can ask yourself and the actions you can take to show other members more respect in the future. Now, as you said, you want to respect everyone--so please, show the community that you mean it by synthesizing this information we've given you.

By the way, you handled the Hagah situation with much more respect and grace. When Dorek made an edit you did not understand, you asked helpful questions and laid out your concerns straightforwardly. When you did that, Dorek put in the effort to empathize with you on the Hagah issue, which was big of him. Miscommunication without argument! Thank you both. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

First off, Dorek, I greatly appreciate your apology, and I forgive you. Likewise, I understand that I did not make the reasons why I was so frustrated clear initially, which left you confused, so for that I apologize, and I hope you can forgive me. I hope each of us use this conversation as a means to better communicate going forward.

Morris, I largely agree with what you have said, but I feel I should still address some points.

You said "I encourage you to think about why, in your experience, misunderstandings DO typically lead to arguments." By arguments, I just meant any disagreement that comes from some misunderstanding. That disagreement could be civil, but its still an argument, which obviously would naturally arise from miscommunication in many instances, that's all I meant.

You also said "my read is that you hold strong convictions on wiki issues and hold others to a high burden of proof." You're correct only to an extent. I generally hold people in authority to a higher standard than others because they ought to know better. If Dorek were a regular user and not a staff member, I probably would have never said anything. My frustration was partly out of the fact that he is a staff member, but making (at the time) seemingly poor judgement calls and not effectively communicating his reasoning.

Concerning my attacks towards Dorek's actions, you said "really, no attacks were needed at all." I just want to make clear your intentions in stating this. I don't see anything inherently disrespectful about attacking someone's actions (not their character) if they ought to be called out accordingly. You've attacked my actions as being disrespectful, and rightfully so, so I would not argue that you violated rule 12. I do agree with you that no attacks were needed in this specific case, not because attacking someone's actions of any kind should always be discouraged, but because my attacks were founded on a misunderstanding and escalated further than they should have been. Maybe you don't see that as a big distinction, but I think it is worth noting.

While I do accept the rule 12 violation on my part, I think we can agree that all parties involved were at fault in some way, so I think it best that we forgive and move on, using this as a learning experience moving forward. Dag (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad we managed to get on the same page in the end. Thanks for clarifying your terminology by the way. As you pointed out, I've been working with different interpretations of the word "attack" and "argument" than you have.

To clarify the interpretations I'm working with, you said, "I don't see anything inherently disrespectful about attacking someone's actions (not their character) if they ought to be called out accordingly." To many people, the act of attacking their ideas is disrespectful by definition, because to them, the word "attack" carries an aggressive connotation in all contexts. From that point of view, the act of "attacking" someone's ideas is hostile and distinct from the acts of debating, discussing, or constructively critiquing their ideas, which are friendly. (When it comes to ideas, what separates a hostile "attack" on ideas from a friendly "debate," "constructive critique," etc. is how kind the speaker is.) Anyway, the reason I brought this up is because without clarifying definitions first, if you tell someone in writing that you are attacking their ideas, or you tell them that you think it is okay to attack their ideas, there is a good chance they they will interpret your words more aggressively than intended (because to them, an "attack" on their ideas is by definition unkind), which could accidentally escalate a friendly conversation into something hostile.

Similarly, people often interpret the word "argue" to have a hostile connotation in certain contexts. The phases "I argue that..." or "you are arguing that..." are totally inocuous, but the phrases "you are arguing with me" or "we are having an argument" can *sometimes* suggest hostility (that the parties involved are not being kind to each other). For that reason, without clarifying your terms, telling someone in writing, "I am arguing with you," or, "Our argument is about X," might unintentionally turn a friendly conversation into something unpleasant, because people might infer from your word choice that you are trying to be unkind, or that you believe the situation does not call for kindness. Also, this understanding of the word "argument" is why I said that miscommunications do not naturally lead to arguments: working through a miscommunication to reach common understanding does not have to be a hostile process.

Anyway, I pointed out these examples to demonstrate how softening language can help readers better understand a writer's intent, leading to friendlier and more productive conversations in writing. I agree that debating and constructively critiquing people's decisions is productive when done kindly. Thanks for your patience through this conversation. Seems like we've all learned some things. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Well...

Hey there Dorek, just wanted to stop by after all this time to say that I'm grateful for everything that I learned from you back in the day. I cringe when I look back at a lot of the things I said and did here, but I consider it an experience that I gained a lot from. I'm impressed to see that you're still here after all these years! --Vartemp ^Talk 21:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

WELL, WELL, WELL. What's up, my dude! My general "here"-ness is pretty lacking these days, but I try.

Honestly, we all go through those periods, some of us are just lucky enough to have lived through an age where it wasn't as obviously recorded. For what it's worth, I can't remember anything obliquely cringey, but regardless, I'm glad I was able to at least model something useful, whatever that may have been lol. Hope you've been well! Not that I'm ever on there, but I hear we have a Discord that you should probably go and join to see who else is still around. -- Dorek _Talk 07:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll definitely take a look at that, thanks! I've been doing pretty well! --Vartemp ^Talk 13:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

External Citations with broken links(and how to handle edge-cases in general)

How should we handle edge cases not covered by any help or template pages, such as the following? Basically, while editing, I found that the Phantoka Mini Movie page and the Bohrok Promo Animations page have links to Bionicle.com and BIONICLEStory.com, respectively. As these pages no longer exist, they are broken, but since it is not a citation, I can't use the brokenurl attribute. what should I do here? I also can't use a custom reference, as I don't know the info, and even if I did, this isn't a reference list. If there is archives that can be found for these, that would obviously be preferable, but I also want to know this just for going forward while editing. By extension, I also want to know if there is some specific course-of-action in case some other edge case like this occurs in the future. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, just try to search an archived page on the webarchives, and link it that one, that's what we usually do. See the BIONICLE.com page.--SurelNuva (Talk) 20:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Surel. In general you can use an archive link (say from archive.org) and then after the link write {{C|archive}}, {{C|archived}}, or something to that effect. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Page Move Request

As per the vote in AfD, can you please move Meta:Use of Māori Words in BIONICLE to Meta:Use of Appropriated Words in BIONICLE? - Toa Jala ^Converse 19:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It has been done.--SurelNuva (Talk) 20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)