Forum:CT:Repealing the Lego Page Creation

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Repealing the Lego Page Creation
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 Repeal the proposals passed in Forum:CT Archive/Creation of a LEGO Icon and Tab for The Freemaker Adventures. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:44, September 30, 2017 (UTC)

This page: Forum:CT Archive/Creation of a LEGO Icon and Tab for The Freemaker Adventures voted to create a Lego page for the characters that appear in the supposed "Lego Canon." This idea in my opinion seems to cheapen the integrity of Wookieepedia and I believe that we should vote to repeal this decision which was only passed with 10 votes. There is not enough content within the "Lego Canon" to fill these pages so it seems unnecessary to create a new tab for each character when we have gone for so long without one. The coverage of this Lego universe should be limited simply to the non-canon appearances section at the bottom of each characters page. A tab at the top is not necessary for characters that exist outside of the Lego universe. Vote below and if you have any questions leave them under the discussion section.

This vote includes two perspectives:

  • Support: The voter supports the idea of repealing the Lego Pages for characters non-specific to the Lego universe and removing them from this Wiki.
  • Oppose: The voter opposes the idea of repealing the Lego Pages for characters non-specific to the Lego universe and removing them from this Wiki.

Support

  1. As the proposer.--Benjay2345 (talk) 02:54, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Again with this supposed new "canon." We don't need three articles on Luke Skywalker when the last one could easily just have it's important information contained in the canon Luke's Bts and the rest in the individual OOU media articles. Anything more specific should be relocated to the LEGO Star Wars Wiki, which is actually one of our Official Friends and is an active wiki. We barely have enough people to maintain the articles we have. Creating thousands more articles that will need to be updated and maintained that aren't related to real Star Wars canon in any way is just not a good use of our time and limited workforce. It's not detrimental to our mission. It's essential to continue our mission of recording real canon Star Wars. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 17:10, September 20, 2017 (UTC)
  3. After extensive deliberation, I'm changing my vote to support. Seeing the system in action, I've realized I don't want to see hundreds of LEGO articles with little to no content on the wiki. I agree with Fred that the LEGO SW wiki is much better suited for this. At a bare minimum, we definitely need some sort of stricter notability policy that applies to LEGO—no one benefits from an article like Year/LEGO, for example. Canon/Legends articles with a LEGO counterpart can include an external link at the bottom of the page, leading to LSWW. 1358 (Talk) 18:43, September 20, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Per Fred and 1358. Although I've always said everyone should work on whatever they like, creating a boatload of unnecessary LEGO articles is a waste of time. While I can understand why pages like Kordi Freemaker or Wick Cooper should exist, I really don't see the point of Luke Skywalker/LEGO so far. --Lelal Mekha The Uprising crest (Audience Room) 21:26, September 20, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yeah, letting the Lego Star Wars Wiki have 'em sounds like a better idea. Imperators II(Talk) 19:24, September 21, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Per above - Tommy-Macaroni Imperial Emblem (Talk) 19:46, September 21, 2017 (UTC)
  7. I have no interest in seeing Wookieepedia become Wookieepedia, the LEGO Star Wars Wiki. Although we have a certain obligation to cover this information, the degree to which we devote coverage is really what's most important, and I'm beginning to see it was a huge mistake out of poor foresight by the original CT to authorize tab creation without putting some kind of notability checks in place. We gain nothing and serve no purpose by having articles like Blaster/LEGO. Wookieepedia would still be serving its mission by restricting LEGO coverage to parent articles and leaving individual character pages to the LEGO Star Wars Wiki. They're one of our Official Friends, and we should be properly utilizing them as a cross-wiki reference, not presuming to become the LEGO Star Wars Wiki ourselves. That is not Wookieepedia's mission. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:52, September 21, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Upon further reading the proposal, I've come to realize that I was mistaken. While certain things could have the LEGO tab, I definitely do not think every little thing should have to have a LEGO page. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 21:00, September 21, 2017 (UTC)
  9. I'm also changing my vote. I love the "LEGO" banners for articles like Baird Kantoo or Jek-14, and I think that aspect should remain. However, an extra tab for topics that aren't LEGO-exclusive seems unneeded. - Cwedin(talk) 20:43, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
  10. Per Fred, and ecks. Supreme Emperor (talk) 21:29, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
  11. What they all said. Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:47, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
  12. 100% per Tope.--Exiled Jedi (talk) 22:25, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
  13. It feels silly just picturing the three tabs: canon, legends, lego. The LEGO information should be covered in the behind the scenes sections of non LEGO-specific characters/elements. Adamwankenobi (talk) 22:39, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
  14. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 23:38, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
  15. Changed my mind after some reflection. There is a place on this Wikia for LEGO Star Wars media including the Freemaker Adventures. But doesn't make sense to have articles like Human/LEGO and Standard year/LEGO. Andykatib 19:20, September 23, 2017 (UTC)
  16. I am frankly astonished that we allowed this to happen in the first place. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:39, September 24, 2017 (UTC)
  17. While I definitely think Freemakers should be covered on this wiki, I agree with everyone above that the majority of articles that would need to be created for a LEGO tab to exist would be extremely redundant and likely little more than stubs. Keeping individual articles for the unique Freemaker characters and BTS sections for everyone else is more than enough coverage as far as I'm concerned. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:35, September 24, 2017 (UTC)
  18. After giving it more thought, there is no need for our coverage to extened beyond Freemakers, though I'm not too sure about The Yoda Chronicles. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 21:40, September 24, 2017 (UTC)
  19. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 21:45, September 24, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. LEGO Star Wars: The Freemaker Adventures is a major part of the franchise right now and it would be foolish to not cover it. Wookieepedia is seen as a source of major Star Wars information and to not cover such a major topic in the franchise would be a detriment to the mission of Wookieepedia. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 02:55, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Completely agree with Brandon --Lewisr (talk) 02:58, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
    <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 03:15, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
    Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 03:17, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
    Cwedin(talk) 03:18, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Completely agree with Brandon Jkirk8907 (talk) 03:31, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
    If story group created their own category for the LEGO universe for the holocron, I don't see the problem doing the same--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 04:42, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
    I recommend that Benjay read the IGN article on the Freemaker Adventures. In one section, the co-producer Bob Roth described "LEGO Star Wars as its own unique universe if that continuity was "reenacted by a kid playing with his toys." It makes sense to have a LEGO continuity articles that deals with the various characters, locations, events, starships, droids, and etc. that appear in LEGO Star Wars media, literature, and products. Andykatib 04:54, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
    Imperators II(Talk) 08:36, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 08:45, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
    1358 (Talk) 09:45, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
    Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:22, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
  5. I unfortunately have had so little time for Wookieepedia lately that I had no chance to vote on the creation of the LEGO tab. However, I personally have felt that this is something we should have had for a long time now, so I am definitely against repealing it am actually really glad we now have it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:39, September 21, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • If these LEGO pages are going to be implemented (as the vote seems to be overwhelming) I think it would be extremely necessary to get them made as soon as possible in order to solidify the format.--Benjay2345 (talk) 05:27, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
    • Is something planned, but as you know we all are volunteers. I don't know how much time it can take to create all the necessary articles, but it will be made--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 05:31, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
      • Have to agree with DarthRuiz30, Wookieepedia basically depends on volunteers like us. Most of us have other commitments including family, study, work, church, and etc. By the way, Benjay, only the administrators have the power to archive a consensus track poll. Ten is the minimum quorum for a vote. LEGO Star Wars may represent a comedic and even slightly silly depiction of Star Wars, but it is still Star Wars. So, that's why we created the LEGO tab. Andykatib 09:03, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
  • Just another question for everyone, should we include all other LEGO products and media under the LEGO banner such as The Yoda Chronicles TV series, games, and books, Droid Tales, and LEGO Star Wars: The Resistance Rises. Should we redirect the links in those articles to LEGO ones as well? I have redirected all the links in the Jek-14 article to LEGO links. Let me know what you think. Andykatib 09:17, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
    • Firstly, this is off-topic and should be discussed on an SH thread. Secondly, if you read the linked-above CT thread, the decision to implement a LEGO tab was at the time intended only for the Freemakers stuff. Imperators II(Talk) 09:25, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
      • I understand. I'm sorry, I must have gotten a bit too enthusiastic. Would be save to focus on the Freemaker continuity for now. Could discuss the matter further at Forum:SH:Eras Lego heading instead. Andykatib 09:31, September 16, 2017 (UTC)
  • This series of tweets: [1] shows just how vague the status of The Freemaker Adventures is. Leland Chee seems very unopinionated concerning the inclusion of a Lego tab. This suggests to me that perhaps putting Lego tabs for characters appearing in The Freemaker Adventures (such as Luke and others that cross over) is unnecessary as it seems less and less like there is an actual canon for the Freemakers and Lego content. Also, just putting the Freemaker content in this tab seems to be a very thin amount of content for a tab. --Benjay2345 (talk) 02:50, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
    • That string of tweets literally means nothing (and I say that as the person who runs the Wookieepedia Twitter account and has interacted with Leland about LEGO content on multiple occasions). Leland is not going to comment on what a website chooses to do with its content, that's not his job. I think it's time for you to accept that the community has chosen to include a LEGO tab, that it currently has Freemaker Adventures content, and may be expanded to include more LEGO content in additional CTs. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:01, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm all for it. I just think someone needs to be making sure this is the best way to go with this. People jumped the gun with the first tab (adding in all of the Lego content) so I'm just being cautious. I think small steps is a good idea and to start it with just The Freemakers is a very good idea. It is my opinion though that the jumping the gun with the first tab put a bad taste in my mouth. As I said, I'll get over my personal opinions. Just playing the devil's advocate to get the best possible results out of this. --Benjay2345 (talk) 03:07, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
        • In that case I would strongly recommend no longer campaigning for the outright removal of the LEGO tab. It's not a productive use of time. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:11, September 17, 2017 (UTC)
  • I see the point of having Rowan Freemaker or Luke Skywalker/LEGO, but we really need Human/LEGO or Color/LEGO for example. LEGO continuity is based on the current canon why not just link to those, and just keep "Important" LEGO articles--189.211.1.146 20:20, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The original intention of the original CT, though written too narrowly, was a focus on major topics, not every single topic. It was also intended to expand to all LEGO-related TV shows, which is why we'd have things like Luke Skywalker/LEGO. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:00, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
      • Will abide by any outcome. I think in the interests of good neighbourliness with the LEGO Star Wars Wiki, we shouldn't try to move into their niche area. Will continue working on the Freemaker and Rebels articles when I am free. Right now, preoccupied with other things including my studies and the New Zealand election. Will respect any decision made by Wookieepedia as a community. |Andykatib 19:14. September 23, 2017 (UTC)
  • I would change my vote, but removing this would affect the Freemakers articles?, Some of the original characters should be definitely covered here, and I agree the Jedi/LEGO and those kind of articles seem unnecessary--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 21:37, September 24, 2017 (UTC)
    • This would not affect the Freemakers articles. The original characters would all be covered. The only thing this would do is not have Lego pages for characters (such as Luke or Leia) and things (such as Jedi/Lego or Blaster/Lego.) Only Lego characters specific to the Lego universe would have their own Lego pages and characters that are not specific to the Lego universe would have their Lego appearances limited the BTS section.--Benjay2345 (talk) 21:41, September 24, 2017 (UTC)
      • Still some characters like Hera or Quarrie should be covered more than a BTS section, but I guess we could solve that later--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 21:45, September 24, 2017 (UTC)