Talk:Bionicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bionicle article is part of WikiProject Lego, an attempt to expand, update, and improve all articles relating to Lego on Wikipedia. You may edit this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives for the project.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
???	This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

[edit] Archives

/Archive 1: Dec 2005 - Mar 2006 External links dispute

/Archive 2: Mar 2006 - Apr 2006 External links dispute (cont.)

[edit] Maori vs Lego

Some mention needs to be made of the Maori vs Lego issues that these toys caused, see:

[edit] Toa Hagah

I keep seeing info about the Toa Hagah (meaning Pouks, Bomonga, Gaaki, and Kualus; we already know about Norik and Iruini) being added to a number of pages, particularly their mask and spinner powers. Now, I've never seen this info in any official source, but then again I haven't gotten the Bionicle Encyclopedia yet. I think this stuff is made up, but can anyone confirm whether it is or not?

Yes, it is. The masks, armor, spinners, and tools of the other Toa Hagah have not been revealed. AaronCrane 20:32, January 7 2006 (UTC)

Where?

[edit] Jeez

Some pictures woiuld be nice.

Because nobody would have any clue what you're talking about otherwise.

Flameviper12 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Jeez your self. Go to some of these websites: www.bzpower.com ; www.bionicle.com ; www.biosector01.com OR if you wanted to use common sense, then you'd go to etither Yahoo or Google and search Bionicle in images. See how easy that was

[edit] Secondary Colors

Doe this seem really nessessary? The sets are easily identifiable as they are. There really is no use to list secondary colors. If someone can explain solidly why these should stay in a week, I wont remove them. Unknown Toa 19:04 February 20 2006

[edit] Advertising on the page

I think it does need descussion, not to make anyone mad, and mabye I shouldn't even bring this up, but what are all of the other links doing on the external links page, besides derecting people to their sites to obtain more members... just something to think about...--Toa of Sound 17:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it's so much about that, more to provide content or specifics not actually written on the page. BoMEpsilon 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's not on the page, why doesn't someone just put it there? This article needs a heavy rewrite, anyway. --InShaneee 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just put the info in the actual article! Why rederect to sites when you could justput it there! --Toa of Sound 15:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is for people new to Bionicle. Beginners don't need to know, say, what job a minor Matoran had on Mata Nui; and such details would probably overwhelm them. If they wanted to know more, then they could go to BS01 or its wiki and begin looking in-depth. BZPower and Mask of Destiny provide communities where fans can talk with each other; the closest Wikipedia has to that is the talk pages. Drakhan 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This argument could not possibly be more wrong, and, as much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with Toa of Sound, this is an argument for linkspam. Wikipedia is meant to be comprehensive, NOT a 'beginner's guide', and I really don't know where you got that idea from. No, wikipedia does not offer a community for specific subjects, nor does it need to, intrinsicly or through links. As a matter of fact, linking to a site for the sole purpose of providing access to a message board is strongly discouraged, and often disallowed outright. --InShaneee 05:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Who, when they are new to bionicle are going to come to wikipedia and look it up! It is just a bunch of exuses to cover up advertising! No one get mad, but, that is what it is!--Toa of Sound 18:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with MNOnline? It has many members, a good community, is the thrird largest Bionicle forum, and Greg F is a member there. What is wrong with the site? -Lihyahm

The problem is that none of those are criteria for including an external link on a page. --InShaneee 21:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point, the point is, the links are just rederects to obtain members! Even though greg is a member there dosn't mean anything! It is link spam, and I don't get why you guys think you can put your links on the page and no one else can! Putting your links on the page when we don't.--68.238.37.141 15:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

i've just joind in and i agree that link's are used for advertizement. i am part of the MoL staff ( the one that you have never heard on this discussion or any others, i've been keeping my moth shut and observeing the setuation, and i don't want to get abuseve like the others.--Sonic blur 20:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is all link SPAM! No external links should rederect to message boards!--Dark Jedi 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Once I started this discussion, all of the site owners jumped to defend their sites! They knew they were just adversiting, and now they are exposed!--Toa of Sound 22:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

I fixed the inconsistent usage of Bionicle/BIONICLE to match the lower-case version used here in the main article, but BIONICLE 3: Web of Shadows needs to be moved to make them all consistent. One other thing, due to a poor move on my part. Need to move Objects in Bionicle to List of objects in Bionicle. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Great job on the page cleanup! I have a feeling that this could get Featured status by the end of the year at this rate. :) --InShaneee 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but unfortunately this is not something I am familiar with, so I couldn't improve any particular details. I'll have this thing sub-categorized soon, and will probably clean up the articles, but any actual additions to content will have to be by those who actually know this stuff. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries. We got plenty of people here who can work on that. The first thing is just getting everything structured sensibly. --InShaneee 02:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything is categorized now, though there are a few things I wasn't quite sure on. Point is, at least they can be moved to the right place if they're not already there. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I really like that you moved stuff around to make the use of capitals consistent, but... I'm sorry, I can't get behind the recategorization. For one, most of the subcategories have something like three entries apiece and I think that's just too small to warrant its own division (much less the "spirits" category with only the one entry for Mata Nui). Second, some of the categories have too much overlap; for instance, Toa could fall under "groups", "species", or even "characters". I'd rather just get rid of the subcategories altogether except for possibly "movies" and "books", maybe combined as a "media" category with Bionicle: The Game.

I also liked the template the way it was, giving links to generic category pages that would then link to more specific articles. This isn't that bad, but it could be shorter, at the very least (I think it could be made to be more horizontally-oriented than vertical; look at the Legend of Zelda template for an example). I do prefer grouping things like this in the template rather than in subcategories. Drakhan 03:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mata Nui can be a character, I'll give you that. However, those categories (minus spirits) should remain. Stuffing everything in the main category looks terrible. To an outside observer, you can't tell a character from a species or a group sometimes. I can honestly tell you I couldn't make heads or tales of that beforehand. You may need to recat a few of my changes, but the bulk of them need to stay.

This I can agree with, and I'll look into scavenging that template later. For now, I just want everything organized into clear and defined areas that can be easily modified. Style can be discussed once the content is fixed. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I moved your replies to my post together so they'd be a bit easier to read. I also requested that the character list and group list be merged, as the organization between the two are extremely similar; but I don't want you to feel like you have to be the one to do it, in fact, I'll probably take care of this one in a day or two.

I also just wanted to say that I'm really impressed with everything you've done so far in just one night. I've done some mass edits to the Bionicle articles before, but if I ever set my mind to do a task this big it would take me weeks to get through everything. Seriously, good job. Drakhan 05:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I adjusted the template to a sideways format. As for groups and characters, I suggest keeping those separate. The names of this series are really quite vague. To an outside observer, Toa might seem like a person. Keeping them separate keeps their meaning clear and there are more than enough on either side to warrant a category for both. In general, if you have one really big list, you can and probably should categorize its elements. Now groups and species is something you need to sort out. I'd be willing to bet I put at least one in the wrong category. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of link cleanup needed

I thought I'd bring this here to ask you guys for help, as it's a pretty big problem on all of the bionicle articles. According to WP:CONTEXT, only the first instance of a term should be wikilinked in an article. In the bionicle articles, pretty much EVERY instance of a bionicle term has been wikilinked. Anyone want to help clean this up? --InShaneee 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to help. --TorriTorri 01:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

== THIS GUY DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING HE IS SUCHA NERD! == —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.129.126.100 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Back to it

No way. Mask of Life is back.

No, it's not. See above. --InShaneee 22:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images needed

For anyone watching this, the Bionicle articles (except this one) are almost all in need of images. There's three sources that can be drawn from for this: First, bionicle print advertisements. Second, screenshots from any of the Bionicle movies. Third, nicely formated personally-taken photos of the actual models. Anyone want to help? --InShaneee 23:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey InShaneee. Sorry I can't help, because I'm staff on the BS01 Wiki, but I can tell you that you can use any pictures there. Just search for what you want, and I'm sure you will find it. --Utopia7391 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's that many that we could use there, since we need SPECIFIC information about the images' sources. I'll look into it though. Anyone else? --InShaneee 18:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd probably have done it myself a while ago, except I don't know how - dealing with the copyright stuff is particularly intimidating. I'd like to help format stuff once it's uploaded, but I'm not sure how to do it in a way that has all the right source information. Drakhan 21:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just tried my hand at uploading an image and including it in the Toa Inika article. InShanee, could you please check it to make sure it has all the correct copyright information? I want to make sure I'm doing this right before I go looking for more pictures to upload. Drakhan 05:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sourced and correct copyright tag; good work! --InShaneee 16:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Requests - 17/18 July 2006

The following Bionicle articles just got marked with merge requests but I don't agree with all of them; I wanted to discuss them here instead of just rudely deleting the requests: Krekka into Dark Hunters, Lhikan into Toa, Sidorak and Karzahni (plant) into Brotherhood of Makuta, and Visorak and Keetongu into Rahi (Bionicle).

I think Visorak and Karzahni should be left where they are. The Visorak were the focus of the 2005 storyline and are well-known enough to have their own article. The information on the Karzahni plant should be left where it is because if there's going to be an article on Karzahni, the tyrant; then it would be most logical to put info of two things with the same name in the same article. Regarding Lhikan, and Sidorak; their articles are big enough that I'm not convinced any of them should be merged; but if Sidorak is merged it should be into Visorak instead of the Brotherhood, as he was the Visorak's King. Krekka's and Keetongu's merges, on the other hand, I have no problem with; in fact, all the relevant info on Krekka is already on the Dark Hunters page, so all that's needed is a redirect.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. What's everyone else's opinions on this? Drakhan 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see my requests were completely ignored (save that Karzahni was left alone), and more requests were made. I reverted the Visorak merge, and I'm taking the liberty of deleting the requests on the following articles: Toa Hagah/Rahaga, Toa Inika, Toa Metru/Toa Hordika, Toa Mata/Toa Nuva, Rahkshi, Piraka, Mata Nui (Great Spirit), and Makuta. All of those are well-known enough on their own to warrant their own articles and should not be merged.

The other ones marked to be merged now are Nidhiki, Roodaka, Axonn, Brutaka, Umbra (Bionicle), Kraata, Krana, and Kanoka. Of these, I don't mind the Order of Mata Nui members being merged. Nidhiki and Roodaka, I'm not sure about; because they have made names for themselves beyond whatever group they would be merged into. And I don't feel the "collectibles" articles should be merged; I could see Kraata merged with Rahkshi and Krana merged with Bohrok, but Kanoka, at least, would be an awkward fit anywhere else. Anyway, I would like to hear more opinions than just mine this time. Drakhan 14:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. InShaneee, this Talk page is getting kind of long; could you split it or delete some old discussions or something?

Sorry, I ignored because I distracted. visit my talk or disscusion in talk pages of these articles. I going recreated them. --Antidermis2319 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I didn't expect you to just go and undo everything. To tell the truth, I think a few of those merges were a good idea and I might go ahead and re-merge them myself; at least Krekka and probably Keetongu, maybe the Order members as well. But thank you. Drakhan 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thinking to merged Protodermis and Antidermis and former one biology article, and the colectibles merged to one page, or not? and former tecnology article to Bohrok, "Fohrok", Vahki, Boxor and Exo-Toa. But I have difficults... BS01 out of net and administraders fixing errors after Lego wiki project have merged. --Antidermis2319 16:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.: How to you put advices in history pages?

I don't think any of those articles should be merged. Protodermis is well-known enough to have its own article, and for antidermis, describing one specific virus doesn't really fit with the Biology section we already have in Bionicle society. Merging the "collectibles" all into one article would just be too big; the Kanohi article is large enough as it is, just think of how long it would be with Krana and Kraata and Kanoka etc. As for technology, the Bohrok and Vahki are major enough characters to get their own articles, and the rest can be described in the Vehicles and Machines section of the List of objects in Bionicle. Drakhan 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, projects cancel. I think in others. But how do you put advices in history pages? I not know do it. Antidermis2319 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I forgot about that. Below the main editing section is a box labeled "Edit summary". That's where you can write little notes about whatever changes you made, and they'll show up on the History page. Drakhan 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think divide Nidhiki article for Toa and Dark Hunters an Roodaka for Dark Hunters and Brotherhood of Makuta (or Visorak). They are only characteres to not have category (Sidorak as merged to Visorak). --Antidermis2319 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, leave them alone; they're well-known enough to get their own article, at least for now (I feel the same goes for Sidorak; I'll go and revert that). Please, no more merges for a while. By the way, given how your grasp of English is kind of shaky, I don't think you should be correcting anyone's grammar like you tried to do in Bionicle Adventures and Bionicle Chronicles. Drakhan 22:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I use office to help in correct grammar. And I try this section (or few sections of LEGO themes to have complex history) to haven't useless articles. its right to Roodaka and Nidhiki are double sides, but Sidorak... --Antidermis2319 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but whatever you're using to check grammar isn't always correct; I think it's main problem is not being able to tell the difference between singular terms and plural terms (especially because Bionicle often uses the same word for both). And on the merges, I understand that you don't want articles to small and useless; and I don't want them that way either. But the point of putting up merge requests is to alert people of what you're going to do so they have time to react if they don't like it; putting up a request only ten minutes before the merge (as you did just now with Lhikan) doesn't help anyone.

You told me your native language was Portuguese, right? It might be better if you worked on the Portuguese Wikipedia] instead of the English one. I know that a Bionice article doesn't exist there, but maybe you can create it. Drakhan 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I go create Bionicle article, translate this, after request me to created EXO-Force article, after Batman article, after City article... brazilian are skilled on net, especially in Orkut and here, but them not unterstand these article. the translantion are very... stranger. The LEGO factory in Amazonia as failure, and Lego Brazil possibily too! --Antidermis2319 00:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Don't hurry, "Guardian of Bionicle pages", I leave this and going to repair other themes) (P.S.S. The failure are in 2000)

[edit] Merged discussion

I think to merged List of charaters to groups and renamed to Groups and Charaters. Do you agree? Antidermis2319 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. I only think "List of Groups and Characters in Bionicle" is a bit long; besides dropping the "List of" part, does anyone have ideas for the name? Drakhan 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Bionicle: Characters and Groups", it serve? Antidermis2319 16:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with "List of groups and characters in Bionicle". It's not really that long, and sounds just fine. --TorriTorri 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Today I will go to merged the articles (Charaters and Groups). But they do not wait small sections… Antidermis2319 18:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

How to do revert edits? These are simple click? Antidermis2319 22:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way is to go an article's history page and click on the date/time of the last correct edit. From there, choose "edit this page", make no changes, and click on the "Save page" button. That will re-save a copy of the last correct edit, undoing any changes that have been made since then. Drakhan 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also see WP:REVERT. --TorriTorri 20:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost images

Drakhan, all images of Wikipedia are deleted after one certain time or not? Antidermis2319 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if an image does not have all the correct copyright information, then it can be deleted after one week. But if the copyright information is correct, then I think it should be safe. I'm not completely sure; an administrator would know better than I would. Drakhan 16:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. If it's in use and has correct copyright/source info, it'll stay as long as its needed. --InShaneee 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three virtues

Just asking for information here: Is there a Bionicle logo? Because if that isn't it, the old 'lineup' image needs to go back. --InShaneee 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The "three virtues" image is about as close as you can get to a Bionicle logo, if you don't count the title graphic. It hasn't been used with the toys in some time, but it's still printed next to the Lego logo on the back covers of the books. Drakhan 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Crud. Nowhere on the toys whatsoever? If that's the case, maybe getting the stylized word "Bionicle" itself might be prudent... --InShaneee 20:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say, there is no actual 'image logo' for Bionicle, minusing the 3 Virtues image.

The only other alternative is to use the current year's featured Kanohi mask, or a collectible, or even something similar. The only other alternative is perhaps the text, as you mentioned, which is rarely changed for the series (2004 and 2005 featured a "Metru Nui"-like image below the BIONICLE text. Apart from that, it's basically left to generic Kanohi masks. The best choice for Bionicle in general, however, would be the Infected Hau that Mask of Destiny uses, or perhaps the Mask of Light, as my Wiki uses, or any other 'important' Kanohi mask. --Swert of BS01

We've got the stylized word logo there now, I'd say that's good. --InShaneee 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barraki

I think to created a article about the Barraki, 2007 characters. I created now or coming the next year? Antidermis2319 22:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd wait until they came out, personally. --InShaneee 22:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Official teasers and information should begin to be released in about a month, maybe sooner. Wait until then. Drakhan 23:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Bionicle WikiProject

I've proposed a Bionicle WikiProject here. The temporary page is here. --TorriTorri^{Talk to me!} 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bionicle: Quest of the Toa

I have report of a game called Bionicle: Quest of the Toa, as released in 2006 Winter. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWS3zH_t0W4&NR"trailer"). I can view the video (a remark of MNOLG, when Jaller capture Tahu), but its appear much like Bionicle: The Game. That's true?Antidermis2319 23:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, for several reasons. One, I'm pretty up-to-date with video game news and haven't heard a word of this one. Two, Lego is already promoting the Bionicle Heroes game this winter. And three, Lego would want to feature the Toa Inika, not characters that haven't been available for the past five years. It's probably just some fan-made game (or fan-made movie; nothing on YouTube specifies that it's a game). Drakhan 23:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

From the website mentioned in the trailer: "A film for the fans, by the fans..." –BoMEpsilon^talk 17:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fan films are rarely ever notable. --InShaneee 17:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BZPower Link

No more BZPower page. No more BZPower link? Who agrees.71.96.90.244 17:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. I was just at BZPower. I'm putting it back. Drakhan 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If I can't link my own website that I have spent a lot of time on then I don't think you should be able to link to BZpower either. -Toushi

Because Wikipedia is not a place to just advertise every fansite out there. BZPower has been around for years and has established its reputation to the point that the Bionicle Heroes developers turned to them for help with choosing the game's collectibles. With all due respect, a site with only twenty-odd members and a wiki with no articles has no reputation to speak of. Drakhan 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead out on a limb here...

BS01 will be up very soonish. When it is, we can decide from there. -Swert of BS01

Personaly, I think we should have both links, but I don't want to have another link argument. If it was up to me, I'd say BS01.--Bionicleman ^(talk) 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the BZPower page deletion was done in terms of the policies on articles about websites, since Wikipedia is not a sitelist. That has nothing to do with citing sources, so it's irrelevant. If there is another policy about not using web sources for citations that I'm not aware of, please reference it (and only such a policy would mean the BZPower link should be removed; and of course all BZP-sourced info would need removed as well). I would also note that the BZP page deletion was not technically supported by wikipedia policies as linked to on the deletion page... but that decision was made by Wikipedia administration which has the right to define exceptions, certainly. Worth noting, however. --Bonesiii 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Would love to translate the Bionicle Wiki page into German!

Title says it all! I would like to ask if the authors of this pages are ok, if i do this? Becuase I would like to keep the overall layout of the pages with texts and pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martin jakobs (talk • contribs) 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Fine with me. Yyou really don't need permission, and with so many people contributing you really can't get permission from all of them. If someone has a problem, they'll tell you, but by all means go ahead. Drakhan 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Articles?

I've noticed a number of new articles repeatedly being created with little more than one paragraph of information in them ("Squid Ammo" and "Mahri Nui" have had two or three times apiece). I would like to ask people to not create new articles until there is enough info to warrant it; instead putting new information in appropriate places on existing pages (for instance, Mahri Nui info would go under the Mahri Nui section of Voya Nui). If and when we get a lot of information on these subjects; that is when a new article would be a good idea, but please not before. Thank you. Drakhan 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "Squid Ammo" information should go under the "Barraki" Article, since I've heard that this collectable is exclusive to the Barraki (and Nocturn) and the Toa Mahri will have another collectable. -Rabin ToaRabin 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Policy

With Bionicle Legends #6 beginning to show up in stores, I'd like to remind everyone of Wikipedia's spoiler policy. Wikipedia:Spoiler warning lists "Deleting relevant, neutral and verifiable information about a narrative work from Wikipedia 'because it's a spoiler' instead of properly applying spoiler templates" as an "unacceptable alternative".

Now, in accordance with the author's wishes, we're requesting that people wait at least a few weeks before posting new spoilers. For those who do not want to see spoilers, however, we're also asking that people follow policy and not delete spoilers should they appear. Hopefully we won't get in an edit war again and have to have an admin lock articles. Drakhan 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...This would be placed best in the Bionicle Legends Talk Page... :) Erebus 18:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The original discussion from when Legends #5 came out is already there. I posted it here as well because it's an issue that affects all Bionicle articles. Drakhan 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've go an idea, maybe we should request to protect the page Bionicle Legends to help conserve the wishes of the author of the book (aka Greg Farshtey) and keep people from deleting/complaining about spoilers ToaRabin 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The author's wishes do not contravene policy; verifiable and relevant information may stay. --InShaneee 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaked Bionicle Pictures

I'm just saying, it is probably pointless to upload the leaked Mahri pics as we do not know enough about the Mahri to make a topic on them yet. - Rabin 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention it's most likely impossible to prove the accuracy of the pics. --InShaneee 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There's that, too. -Rabin 15:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creator References

So there has been disagreement over whether Bionicle creators "Alistair Swinnerton" and "Bob Thompson" need to be linked and/or referenced in the article introduction. Please discuss here instead of continuing the edit war. Thank you. Drakhan 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BionicleSector01

BS01 is back online. I have taken the liberty of adding a link back. Is this alright? --Swert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.15.215 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Recalls

Of course the freaking girl was frightend! The more in-depth things get in the story line, the evil guys have to get more evil! The only freaking product for girls from LEGO even is freaking Clippits! AND THOSE ARN'T EVEN MEANT FOR 2-YEAR OLDS! They are meant for up past 4! No wonder lego didn't recall the sets! READ THE MANUAL! Xenongamer 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that.Xenongamer 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies Update Issues

Couple things. First, who edited in the bit about the recent lawsuit? We need citing of that. Supposedly a father of a little girl sued because she was scared by an ad? Sounds highly unlikely... Although people do odd things, certainly, heh--but something like that definately needs cited. Also, some of the wording of that paragraph wasn't very neutral; I've edited to hopefully fit NPOV better; please comment if you disagree. Also, this whole article has a bit of overkill on the controversies, and the AAR RPG; there is much more relevant information about Bionicle that should get equal weight than those things. For now, I've combined the two controversies sections into one and moved them to the end. Seems a more neutral arrangement to me, and that seems to be the convention on most other articles with controversy sections that I have seen. Again, comment if you disagree... And finally, the "recall" claim about Pridak; the only site I've seen with members being uncomfortable with that (myself included to a degree) was on BZP, and nowhere was there anything about a 'recall' so that needs sourcing as well, please. --Bonesiii 23:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Tried googling for information on this claimed lawsuit. There's nothing, far as I can see... --Bonesiii 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them. The thing about the little girl is non-notable even if it is true, and the 'calls for a recall' might be able to return if some good citation can be found. --InShaneee 23:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember the lawsuit being mentioned on BZP a few months ago, but I agree that it's not really notable. The Free the Band promotion could also stand to be demoted ... maybe combine it with "Controversies" to make some kind of "Media and Marketing" section? Or just delete it outright sooner or later; in a few years, I don't think anybody's going to care. As for Pridak, maybe there should be a little blurb about how some fans are worried with increasing levels of violence in the franchise; in the debate about Pridak's "blood" some people mentioned that there was some concern the previous year about the Piraka using what looked like firearms. Drakhan 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't. A message board is not a reliable source. --InShaneee 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ironically I just found it... at BZP, heh. No idea how I never saw this article, but we do link to a source that seems on the up-and-up. However, it was not a lawsuit. It was only a complaint. I'm assuming this means it's even less notable... --Bonesiii 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss Controversies, Don't Edit War

Seems like a few editors feel like having an edit war over the "Inika" and "Pridak" controversies. The above discussion decided that those could not be included, since the sources either were not reliable, or the subject was not notable. That is, the Pridak one did not have any sources at all (and as far as I know, it's not even true, except that some BZPers did take issues with it, but that's hardly noteworthy in an encyclopedia). The only source I could find for the supposed Inika lawsuit is mentioned above, and it says that it was not a lawsuit; just a complaint to LEGO. Hardly noteworthy, and hardly a "controversy." Now, actual noteworthy, citable sources for controversies can go in the article, but those things were not either. Again, please discuss this here, rather than waging an edit war over it. That's what talk pages are for, guys... --Bonesiii 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/o/Talk%7EBionicle_8050.html"