Talk:Bionicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bionicle is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
June 4, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
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.
B
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.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Archives

  • /Archive 1: Dec 2005 - Mar 2006 External links dispute
  • /Archive 2: Mar 2006 - Apr 2006 External links dispute (cont.)


[edit] Somewhat random question

Does anyone know the name of the song used in the most recent commercial, the one with the Titans. Thanks in advance. Seven-point-Mystic 13:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. Seven-point-Mystic 02:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[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)

SOME PICTURES WOULD BE NICE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.239.237 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[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)

[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. --TorriTorriTalk 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..." –BoMEpsilontalk 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)

Uh... what are you talking about? I don't see anything Bionicle-based here. --Gerlicky 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Got it now! Jeez, it wasn't even a bad guy commercial! It was an Inika commercial! --Gerlicky 20:16, 18 August 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)

It;s possibel that they would have a lawsuit, I mean, there was the one with the woman suing McDonalds because their coffee was hot!


Actually, "Umbra" is a Romanian word, meaning the same as in latin (shadow). I don't know how to put this in the article, so I'm asking someone to take care of this. The difference from other languages is that Romanians have no problem with this name of the Bionicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.161.78 (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say that the word 'koro' is Fijian for village and it is used in the the chronicles segment in that capacity. I'm not sure how to cite this because my source is my own knowledge of my mother tongue (I'm Fijian). Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.2.6 (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2008 (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)69.223.58.110 13:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been evil and cruel! how dare you delete my page69.223.58.110 13:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take note of this policy (speaking to the above anon user): WP:CIV. Insulting anyone (me or otherwise) is counterproductive. If you believe that something I did was in error, please bring it up for discussion respectfully and calmly. :-) To your concern, as far as you've posted so far, I am not sure what you are referring to, because I have not deleted any articles. Perhaps you are referring to a revision of an edit at some point? It would help if we knew what you were talking about. :-) Chances are, whatever was removed was removed for good reasons, especially if this is related to the controversies section, since you added that comment in this section of the talk page... --Bonesiii 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, checking the history of this page, I notice you blanked the Bionicle page twice, and are thus a vandal (WP:VANDAL). Things seem clearer... --Bonesiii 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Note about Languages edit

Note in addition to my edit line comment ("rv edit by 71.113.37.243; that info not needed in overview article, but feel free to discuss on the talk page, or look into a separate wiki page on the language. And it's not "Bionicles"."); there is already a section of the society article that covers Bionicle language. For the record... --Bonesiii 00:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bionicle Anthologies

Would it be illegal to create a website so people could enter their own bionicle stories? I want to do that. I want to include my own on my gallery at the Brickshelf Gallery [1](I'm dume809)Ijust wanted the opinion of the other members of the wiki.(my gallery [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Takuna (talk • contribs) 17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC).-User:Takuna

I'm assuming that by "a website" you mean "a Wikipedia article". Fan-made creations are not notable enough to be included in a general-purpose encyclopedia and will be deleted from Wikipedia quickly. If you wanted to do this stuff on a separate website, that's fine; BZPower has a whole section of the forums set apart for people to write fanfiction. Drakhan 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Thets exactly what i meant.-User:Takuna

Not to start advertizing, but BS01 recently set up BS01 EU, which basically is what you just asked for, a website where users can submit their own stories. Here is a link, but unfortionatly BS01 is currently offline, but it will hopefully return in the next week.--Bionicleman (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bionicle Logo Caption

So, after reading over one of the reasons why this article failed to be a Featured Article, some members claimed it's because the Image Logo used is a fan-made one, in an "attempt to avoid copyright violation."

Let it be known, I doubt Lego would honestly care. I came upon this font awhile back, and ignoring the middle prong in the E, it's accurate to the font used in the logo. For all we know, maybe Lego decided to fix it in post-production so it couldn't be reproduced, who knows.

For now, I'm adding a note saying it's a recreation of the logo. Trust me, when I made it, the logo we were using here was almost unreadable. --BS01Swert (Talk) 07:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention, the website name is BIONICLEsector01. I appreciate whoever thought I made a mistake and fixed it to read BIONICLE Sector01, but that's not correct. I pretty much try to make everyone understand how I enjoy it being spelled. --BS01Swert (Talk)

[edit] Spoilers

Recently, a number of people have been eliminating spoiler tags from Bionicle articles. This is fine in most cases as many of the tags were outdated, but there are a few things that are still considered spoilers where people keep trying to remove the tags:

  • If an item was only recently published officially, (say, within the last month or two), it should be marked as a spoiler. The books only appear in stores gradually, and things shouldn't be spoiled for someone whose local shop hasn't gotten it yet.
  • If a piece of info was released in advance by the author, it should also be spoiler tagged until it appears in official materials.

I'm not saying these are the spoiler rules here, but they are the guidelines that I follow. If you disagree with these, discuss it here, but hopefully we can stop these revert wars. Drakhan 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the following things absolutely need spoiler tags at this time:
  • The object of Mantax's search
  • Toa#Lesovikk - his story will be published on Bionicle.com soon
  • The Toa Nuva's upcoming activities ("World Tour" section)
  • Any and all information regarding the Hand of Artakha (found in Characters and groups in Bionicle, Dark Hunters, and Order of Mata Nui) - official reveal will come in the revised Bionicle Encyclopedia
  • The death of Mata Nui (Great Spirit)
I'm willing to let contents of Bionicle Legends #7 slide and be spoiled; many of the spoilers already up have long been known. But the items on the above list are still future events and must have the appropriate warnings. Drakhan 21:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Drakhan. The items above need spoilers and will have them. -- -- Gravitan 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, David Gerard came up with the idea to use "future" tags instead of "spoiler" tags for upcoming stuff, which is a good idea to me. I've replaced all the relevant spoiler tags in the above list, so hopefully this argument can end. Drakhan 01:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I still think that we should use spolier tags instead, but if this will keep us from edit warring, it has my support. -- -- Gravitan 10:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

--

I'm reopening this discussion because the subject has come up again. I understand the admins' position on this, that spoilers should be assumed when discussing plot, but I don't think you quite understand ours. Not every source is widely available, and when we add spoiler tags it's as a courtesy to those who cannot access these limited sources. The tags are only intended to be temporary, until said points are widely released. In the current case, the disputed spoilers come from a comic book, only available to registered members of the Lego Club Magazine. The points are expected to be covered in the next mass-market paperback book, but said book will not be released for another month or two. We have been tagging the comic points so as not to spoil the book for those who do not get the comic. The only other time we intend to use spoiler tags is immediately after a book's release, when not every bookstore has it in stock yet. Please understand this and leave the spoiler tags alone; they're there for our use and we're trying to use them responsibly. Drakhan 04:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You should look over WP:SPOILER, which describes some of the considerations to consider when placing spoiler tags. Just because something is newly released doesn't mean it has to carry a spoiler tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't say it can't have one, either. -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I had looked over it before, and I don't see anything that completely rules out using spoiler tags. The answer to "Is it widely known?" is, of course, no; at least compared to the cited examples. And then in the next section it says "In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled 'Synopsis' section." The death of Mata Nui is quite a twist ending; the heroes failing to save the one they've been trying to save all this time. The "current fiction" tag suggested may work, but I really prefer the spoiler ones; I find it all too easy to just ignore top-of-page tags and the spoiler one really commands attention by the way it breaks up the page. I do feel the way you do, that a header like "plot overview" is kind of read-at-your-own-risk, but I don't think it's fair to just announce things like this without some kind of warning to those trying to go spoiler-free. Drakhan 03:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem with your approach is that it's very much a "fans-only" attitude. The {{spoiler}} tag benefits only those readers who are caught up to exactly the point in the story that you are assuming. Indeed, the spoiler tag may convey a false sense of security. Once they see the {{spoiler}} tag, readers may believe that the remainder of the article is spoiler-free, and it is not. Marc Shepherd 12:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You folks say that a plot summary section indicates spoilers. If this is the case, folks who are not into the story can see that and choose whether or not to read. For those who are up to date on the story, however, the spoiler tag seems (to me) like a good option. -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
A fair point, but in general, if you've read through the page that far, you've already spoiled the existing storyline. The situation you suggest means that a person skims the article, sees the spoiler tag, and begins reading the Plot Summary from the top without noticing that it goes in-depth. I figure that most people would be smart enough, if they did do that, to realize and stop before they got past the not-very-spoilery basic setup. The way I see it is that, like Gravitan said, fans wanting to avoid spoilers can skip only the section marked with the spoiler tag, while newcomers avoiding spoiling the storyline can recognize a Plot Summary section for what it is and ignore the entire thing. Drakhan 20:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like a use of spoiler tags that is consistent with Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia. Basically. all the accepted arguments against this use of spoiler tags seem to be being cast aside in favor of "ad hoc" justifications. Moreover I'm not convinced that there is anything like consensus for this. --Tony Sidaway 14:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Fans wanting to avoid spoilers should not read a section entitled "Plot details", "Plot summary", "Plot", etc. One person's minor detail is another person's spoiler; there's no objective way to divide up a plot section into "background" and "spoilers". Similarly, anyone who reads an biography of a fictional character had better expect it will contain plot details. And they should be disappointed if it doesn't. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


I would like to throw my support behind the use of spoiler tags in this case, which from your description seem reasonable. I also recommend joining the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler to help define the cases where spoiler tags should be used - the more people who join the discussion there, the better shaped consensus will be, and perhaps in the end it will be more generous towards spoilers. Wandering Ghost 12:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Tony: I'm not convinced there is consensus on your side, either. What I see is a few editors removing massive numbers of tags all over the place. A few editors does not, to me, indicate even the slightest hint of general consensus. CMB: I understand, but some fans will go so far as to not read an article at all unless they know where the newest spoilers are, so that they can avoid them. In this manner, you are essentially providing people with a reason not to come to Wikipedia. The casual reader can disregard the tags. The fans will (and do) find them useful. -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 12:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There was a lengthy discussion in May (see the archives of WT:SPOILER and the mailing list). The present situation (in which spoiler tags are only used in limited circumstances) is the result of that discussion, which did involve a large number of editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Then consider the BIONICLE pages to be under the "limited circumstances" category. Also understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but one that is unlike any other, so making rules and guidlines under that assumption is not the right direction. There is nothing in WP:SPOILER that definitively states that the tags are not to be used under our circumstances. In addition, what harm can possibly come from using them? This is not a life or death situation, so please, let's all try to be a little flexible. :) -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 00:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The point of "limited circumstances" is that you have to give a compelling argument why these articles are different than the average article on a fictional character. You can't just declare it by fiat, and I don't see it right now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
We have already stated why they would do no harm and why it would make people feel better about reading them. Also, Wikipedia and several other websites (two forums and one other wiki) rely on each other for information, and if you take the tags away, you begin to confuse the members of those sites who come to view or edit here. And again, there is nothing in the policy that states we cannot use the tags under our circumstances. -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 12:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has its own standards, independent of other sites. The argument that spoiler tags aren't completely prohibited, therefore they can be used here, is not compelling. If you want to use spoiler tags, you need to be able to justify their use. The general standard for inclusion is that the plot details have to appear somewhere that the reader does not already have a reasonable expectation of finding plot details. Biographies of fictional characters are always going to contain plot details. Basically: these articles are supposed to contain spoilers, so there is no need to put in a tag saying that the articles contain what they should. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Despite the fact that it's not a compelling argument, if nothing says they can't be used, I don't see why anyone would want to stop us. And in regards to your other point: I can't state this as fact, but I'm quite sure that most viewers of the Bionicle pages are not adults, and thusly will not understand why there are no tags. They don't see the tags as repetetive; they see them as indicators of new information, and I have personally talked to people who do not like the fact that the tags are being taken away. -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 14:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry those people dislike it, but there has been a general change of practice on Wikipedia regarding spoiler tags. Rather than worrying about why someone would want to remove the tags, you should focus on explaining why the plot details in these sections are unexpected or otherwise different enough to warrant spoiler tags. The resolution of the long discussion about spoiler tags is that the vast majority of plot details do not need to be marked with spoiler tags. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Very well. However, I believe that the event under the spoiler tag in Mata Nui (Great Spirit) deserves the tag. It was not an expected detail, and the whole of next year's story and further hinges on it. Unexpected enough to justify the tag, in your opinion? -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, I love how you are being so much more immature than we in regards to this. A general consensus has not been reached here, so until then, stop removing the tags because, as it says, they stay until the discussion comes to a close.

Now, onto another subject. Directly from WP:SPOILER, I present this:

"In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section."

The death of Mata Nui in Bionicle would most certainly meet this. He is, albeit I am reluctant to say this, a god-like character, and his death means the desctruction of the entire world. Yes, this is a major spoiler, and a spoiler tag is therefore necessary. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 12:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just an ordinary plot detail; Bionicle is not a murder mystery. But more importantly, that part of the guideline is talking about an article about a work of fiction. This is an article about a fictional character. There is an extremely strong presumption that an article about a fictional character will include all details of that character's life, including the end of it. I'm not saying that this detail might not be a spoiler - it's doesn't matter whether it's a spoiler. We don't use spoiler tags on most spoilers, including this one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Define "ordinary", please. And where is this presumption coming from? How do you know that that reflects what every reader of Wikipedia thinks? The way I see it, Wikipedia is more about the viewers than the editors, and we should keep that in mind when deciding things. Also, if it is indeed a spoiler, why not use the tags? Why not lable it as what it is? In addition, I have yet to hear what is wrong with using them. What is so bad about these things? Is this so much about what the policy allows as it is editors removing the tags simply to make a point? -- Gravitan(♦ | ♣) 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There was a long discussion in May and June. The outcome of it is that we don't put spoiler tags on most spoilers. The general disclaimer already points out that Wikipedia contains spoilers. We only use spoiler tags in very limited circumstances, and those don't include biographies of fictional characters, which must contain plot details to be encyclopedic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Very well. I think that (almost) wraps this up. Thank you for your comments. Though I really wish I had taken part in that discussion. However, I have one more argument here. The detail being discussed here is quite possibly the most important event ever to happen in the storyline, and not very many fans know or expected that it would happen. It will affect almost every single other point from now until '09. Can we at least keep the tags for this one plot point until it becomes common knowledge in December? -- Gravitan(♦ | ♣) 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Wait: there is a source provided to "Bionicle: Ignition issue #10". Are you saying that isn't actually published yet? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No, the info has been published. But the comic it was published in is only available to those who are members of the Lego Club. There will be a generally released book out in December that also contains the detail in question. -- Gravitan(♦ | ♣) 17:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise of Gravitan's repeated edits on that page. He continues to revert with the edict, "it stays until the discussion is over." No editor has the remit to issue orders about which content stays or goes, until a discussion has ended to that editor's satisfaction. Marc Shepherd 18:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering I stated that on the article's talk page before dicussion even started, and that there is nothing in WP:SPOILER that states we cannot use the tags under our circumstances, I don't see what the problem is. -- Gravitan(♦ | ♣) 18:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a double negative, and two negatives don't make a positive. Marc Shepherd 20:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dec 07 Spoiler Discussion

Reopening again, as a) all the "future" tags were deleted and b) nothing was resolved last time anyway. I'm putting spoiler tags back in, because we need something to mark things that haven't happened and haven't been officially published yet. If it's in a book, fine; I've given up on the "wait a few weeks after publishing" thing, but if all we have so far are comments by the author, it needs to be marked. Drakhan (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, as spoiler tags apparently no longer exist. So what do I use now? Give me something to work with! Drakhan (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The one tag that did exist for that purpose, {{spoiler}}, was deleted over a month ago. We simply don't mark spoilers within articles at the moment. On the other hand, if all you have are unpublished remarks by an author, the material shouldn't be in the articles at all. Only when it appears in reliable published sources is material suitable for Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it removed!

Can whoever keeps taking "purple" out of the sentence Black characters are usually identified with earth, which use the prefix "Onu-" Please stop because some Onu-matoran are purple like Onepu.Swirlex 23:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Black is the major recurring color; in every group of six there is always a black one. Purple is only worn by, what, one supporting character? Purple is mentioned as an Onu- color in the Matoran article, but it doesn't belong here. Drakhan 00:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I see thank you for explaining.Swirlex 00:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BIONICLE

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all official sources refer to the series as BIONICLE not Bionicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.161.65 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, but Wikipedia's style guide says that most all-caps stuff should be adjusted so that only the first letter is capitalized - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps. Drakhan 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Why is the Bionicle Sector 01 wiki still up, when it says you need authorization?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.53.223 (talk • contribs)

We are currently experiencing difficulties with our host. But, the site's not down forever (yet...), so until then the link'll stay, even if access is restricted for a short period of time. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 02:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Good. I was hoping I culd rejoin soon. Anyhow, thanks for clearing that up, but you should mention that next to the link. 24.193.53.223 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's up again, and we're a bit more stable now.
We are, however, rebuilding ourselves. It's not going to affect the overall name of BS01, but it will slow us down for a little bit. Thankfully we have backups of most of our pages xD --BS01Swert (Talk) 19:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kanohi

I keep wondering how to pronounce Hau. It it "how", "ha-oo", or what. I am usually, an expert on Bionicle and it's pronunciation, but this one stumps me. I think we should put pronuncitaion sections to the articles.

I usually pronounce it "How," and I believe there used to be a chart of how to pronounce the masks. It's possible someone felt the masks were all easy to pronounce, or not worthy of an article to pronounce, who knows. --BS01Swert (Talk) 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I usually see it as "How" too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.26.233 (talk) 00:21, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

In Māori, au is pronounced the same as it is in French. So Hau rhymes with 'toe'. Kahuroa 20:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if pronounced in Maori, but that was not the case the last time I checked. Last I bothered to look up pronunciations, it was "how." --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 21:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Definitely not how. I am a fluent speaker of the language by the way. Kahuroa 07:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I do believe I just said that I understand that when pronounced in Maori, it would be like you said. But that isn't the case here. This is an entirely seperate thing, and here, it has always been pronounced "how." The frickin' author has been asked several times, and he has chosen to pronounce it "how." --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
sweet as, bro. Kahuroa 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 08

How much 08 information is allowed at this time? Is it the same as allowed for BS01? I somewhat doubt it since this is Wikipedia and not a wiki like the BS01, but I'm not familiar with much of Wikipedia for spoilers, etc.--Koji toa of ice 13:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything that's been officially confirmed by Greg or another source in Lego is fine, though in a lot of cases I don't think we have quite enough information to post yet - just names an appearances for the most part, little to no background info. If you do post something, be sure to include where you get the information so that we know it's accurate. Drakhan 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note, BS01 began allowing 08 spoilers as of December 1st, 2007 ^_^ --BS01Swert (Talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandilism

After looking at the history of the article I noticed a fair amount of vandilsm over the past few days. Does any one think this could be a continuing trend and that it may lead to some problems —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coho (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC) On a similar vain it appears that alot of articles - including the toa mata and the brotherhood of makuta have been deleted as i can't access them - instead it just re-routes me to the main page - no idea how to fix it but thought somebody should know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.255.39 (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Makuta (Phantoka) for that last one; someone felt the sources weren't good enough and redirected them (I'm about to fix it now; I would've done it earlier but was away from the computer all afternoon. Drakhan (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Have the pages been deleted? I'm debating about just starting over and adding info to the List of Toa page. 75.21.106.231 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BS01

BIONICLEstory.com was NEVER made to replace BS01. They still require BS01 and other reference sites to tell a more in-depth story. That is why it's there. Plus, you link it on OTHER related pages already, why bother removing it now? --BS01Swert (Talk) 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention you guys have no problem linking to wikis on other articles. There's no difference here. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Proof of what I'm saying is true. That's the current Bionicle.com and Bioniclestory.com lead webmaster's blog. Note what he is saying. --BS01Swert (Talk) 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New content

Can someone please go to www.bionicle.com and update this article? John Khoo (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Why are all the Bionicle articles being deleted? They're important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.221.30 (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the Villians section???

I swear there was a Villians section on the list of Bionicle articles. Does anyone know why it was deleted? It might have been vandalized(if i spelled that correctly), but it not, why the #%&*&$%@$ did Wikipedia remove it? It was one of the key articles. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.7.86 (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WHY THE ***** ARE ALL THE BIONICLE ARTICLES GETTING DELETED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111112111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111122221111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!122222221111111111!!!!!!!!!111111111!11111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 75.185.66.118 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

They're not relevant enough. v.v However, may I recommend BS01? We've got BIONICLE pages for everything. :) -- Opinions are bad! 05:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark

Bionicle is trademarked in all caps. Shouldn't this article be moved to "BIONICLE"? Opinions are bad! 04:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The page exists, it just redirects here. :/ Bfahome! 04:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, then should it be then other way around? XD -- Opinions are bad! 05:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No that would go against the WP:MOSTM. There are some exceptions to this guideline but none of them apply here. --76.71.211.198 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Though there would be no objections if you changed the article lead to something like
Bionicle (trademarked BIONICLE) is a...
preferably accompanied by a respective citation. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I AM HAVING A PROBLEM THAT YOU KEEP DELETING THE BIONICLE PAGES FOR NO REASON, WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS!!!!! C'tan Nightbringer (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image?

http://pixels.xoditech.com/bionicle.jpg

This is my own image... if one is desired and that one is applicable, I can do whatever needed to make it happen (GPL license, or something. Not sure how it works). pixels (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)