Forum:CT:Fremakers are not the only part of LEGO

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was oppose proposed changes. Imperators II(Talk) 19:37, September 24, 2017 (UTC)
Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Fremakers are not the only part of LEGO

The original CT discussion only took the LEGO Star Wars: The Freemaker Adventures into account, which, now when the changes are being implemented, created a problem. Only articles from that series are allowed to have the LEGO banner and tab. This problem is most obvious on the divission between Jek-14 and Jek.

The character was introduced in LEGO Star Wars: The Yoda Chronicles, whose first 3 episodes aired, before the EU was rebranded Star Wars Legends, on Cartoon Network. The rest of the series however, was aired after April 25, 2014 on Disney XD. And then the character made an appearance in an episode of the Freemaker Adventures. This means that with the current system, a completely non-canon character has to have two pages.

I argue that all of LEGO canon is set in the same universe after the release of LEGO Star Wars: The Padawan Menace and information from it should be kept on the same tab. The reason why The Padawan Menace should be the starting point is that the whole style of LEGO animations and games changed by that point to include full voice acting. Older titles such as LEGO Star Wars: The Complete Saga or LEGO Star Wars: Revenge of the Brick only had basic animation and mubling characters. A major change of style is enough, I think.

This change would mean information from LEGO Star Wars: The Padawan Menace, LEGO Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Out, LEGO Star Wars: The Yoda Chronicles, LEGO Star Wars: Microfighters, LEGO Star Wars: Droid Tales, LEGO Star Wars: The Resistance Rises, LEGO Star Wars: The Force Awakens and all its associated media should be included on the LEGO tab alongside LEGO Star Wars: The Freemaker Adventures.

Support

  1. ZapikCZ (talk) 12:11, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
    Makes sense to include all LEGO products on one tab --Lewisr (talk) 12:43, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
    Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 16:31, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
    I agree, although is not because the belong to the same "Lego continuity", but because they'r part of the LEGO parodies. It makes more sense add everything to the LEGO tabs and add the Non-canon template for old legends continuity like "Padawan Menace". Although there is evidence of some continuity like Padawan Menace having Han Solo as a youngling and later on the New Yoda Chronicles Yoda and Han seem to remember each other. I'm ok having all LEGO shows/characters in the same tab, but making the clarification that there's not one LEGO continuity.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:42, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. First of all, I feel the decision to force on a vote on this issue so quickly, before the current "repeal" CT has even finished, before ZapikCZ could even double check that he spelled "Freemakers" correctly in this title, and before we even had a proper discussion to consider the merits and disadvantages of turning Wookieepedia into a full-blown "LEGO continuity" wiki, was poor and rash, to put it mildly. But since this vote has been forced upon us, I'm going to say that I can probably come up with half a dozen reasons to oppose this, but I'm going to start with the most simple one for now. The nominator claims, "I argue that all of LEGO canon is set in the same universe after the release of LEGO Star Wars: The Padawan Menace..." That's a nice theory. Prove it. We have documented confirmation from the Freemakers creators that their work is "canon adjacent" and that they worked alongside the Story Group in development. Can the same be said for any of the other LEGO stuff? Do we have any indication that any of the other LEGO stuff is supposed be part of the same "LEGO canon"? Considering things cited above like The Empire Strikes Out, The Yoda Chronicles, and Microfighters were created before the Story Group either existed at all or fully become involved with everything, I'm left to question their status—and, for that matter, what even constitutes proper "LEGO canon," assuming anyone can even define this. The proposal certainly can't, I know that for sure, which is more than enough reason to oppose creating a new continuity system that we barely even know what it is. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:48, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Toprawa and Raltir. My main disagreement with this Lego change is how quickly it has been instituted. I don't think that the place for a Lego continuity Wiki is Wookieepedia and that the Lego continuity (if necessary) almost should be its own thing. For all we know, Lucasfilm could go no where with this supposed "Lego Continuity" and the Freemakers could be the only thing in it at which point an entire continuity for it alone becomes obsolete. I originally was against the Freemaker continuity tab on these merits, but seeing as the community is leaning towards it I decided to go along with it. However, I feel that the continuity at this point should be limited to the Freemakers as it is currently the only thing following a basis of continuity. It would be jumping the gun to include anything else. If Freemakers turns out to be the only thing in this continuity and other Lego content begins to defy this continuity, I would advocate to at that point remove remove the tab. For now, though, the Freemakers tab is appropriate with nothing else included until further discussion.--Benjay2345 (talk) 20:16, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Per Tope. I don't feel like picking and choosing what's separate based on a gut feeling is our task. 1358 (Talk) 21:11, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
  4. I'm not convinced a real LEGO continuity exists, so I'm not convinced we should even have a tab for it. But the community voted to have one, so I'm out of luck for now. However, the only LEGO product that can really claim to have any sort of continuity is "Freemakers," so I can't bring myself to justify putting it all in the same group as if it's all connected in a way that goes any deeper than the "LEGO" logo on it's cover. As this proposal stands, it does nothing to indicate that all these LEGO franchises are not officially connected. It leads the reader to believe that everything with the brand's logo is somehow part of one giant canon that simply is so convoluted and contradictory that it will just confuse the heck out of them. To address Darth Ruiz, this proposal does not create any markers or anything. It simply lumps everything together as one canon, which is simply not accurate. All of this is beside the point that I don't even want most LEGO stuff on Wookieepedia, but that's a topic for a different thread. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 21:19, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
  5. I clearly misunderstood this, saying that all LEGO content is one "canon" is incorrect and would confuse anyone. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 21:31, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Having thought this through a bit more, I actually feel Freemakers and possibly LEGO TFA are the only LEGO products that really deserve any form of individual articles as they are the only products with any element of continuity. I don’t think any other LEGO product really needs covering outside of their respective media articles or the LEGO wiki. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:04, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Changing my vote after some reconsideration --Lewisr (talk) 22:06, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Per above, I'm no longer sure that other LEGO products were created with the intent that would share a continuity. I.e., there are sets based on TFU and SWTOR. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:09, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
  9. Per Tope.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 23:08, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
  10. Per ecks. Imperators II(Talk) 09:10, September 18, 2017 (UTC)
  11. Per Tope et al. We need to stick with the evidence. Andykatib 21:53,September 18, 2017 (UTC)
  12. Certainly per Tope. Supreme Emperor (talk) 16:56, September 20, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The IGN interview that has been cited to supported the Freemaker continuity is pretty vague. Bob Roth describes LEGO Star Wars as forming its own continuity but he doesn't explicitly state which other media besides the Freemaker Adventures forms part of that continuity. Since the interview only mentions the Freemaker Adventures, it would be safe to only include Freemaker articles in our LEGO tab. One problem is where would characters who have appeared in both the Freemaker Adventures and other LEGO Star Wars media fit?

For example, Jek-14 appeared in both the The Yoda Chronicles and the Freemaker episode "The Maker of Zoh". Someone has created a separate Jek article to deal with his appearance in the Freemaker Adventures. Right now, the LEGO version of article is facing a trash compactor vote. Jek-14 seems to raise some hair-splitting questions. Perhaps a Tweet from Pablo Hidalgo or Leland Chee could clarify things? I haven't mastered Twitter so perhaps someone who is more competent with Twitter? Andykatib 07:21, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

  • [1] This tweet from Leland pretty much sums of the vagueness of the continuity. Because of this vagueness I'm not even sure why a Lego tab was necessary in the first place. My opinion is that we hold off on the Lego tab at least until the continuity is better defined. I think the community is jumping the gun.--Benjay2345 (talk) 14:08, September 18, 2017 (UTC)
    • All that tweet means is that Leland isn't going to comment on it and decide on it for us, that's down to us on Wookiepedia to decide --Lewisr (talk) 14:15, September 18, 2017 (UTC)
      • I think that Leland's lack of comment makes it vague. And of course it is down for Wookieepedia to decide, I just feel like we are jumping the gun.--Benjay2345 (talk) 14:17, September 18, 2017 (UTC)
        • As Brandon said here, 'Leland is not going to comment on what a website chooses to do with its content, that's not his job.' He doesn't want to decide for us what we should and shouldn't do about the Freemakers stuff, he wants us to resolve it ourselves that's why he was maybe vague in his response to the above tweet you linked --Lewisr (talk) 14:27, September 18, 2017 (UTC)
          • Have to agree with both of you, Benjay2345 and Lewisr. The IGN article only refers to The Freemaker Adventures and no other LEGO Star Wars media. It would be wise for us to then err on the side of caution. As a community, we must follow fact-based solutions. Will continue working on the Freemaker articles in my free time. Andykatib 02:35, September 19, 2017 (UTC)