This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lego on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Expand: Lego themes list, people involved with Lego, Lego Magazine (such as information about different issues), all the Legoland articles, Lego game articles
Other: List set numbers and descriptions of sets in an organized manner. On each theme page, each subtheme should have their own section. Descriptions of subtheme should go at the top of each section, with a table listing the sets following that.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we combine articles on individual Lego sets and themes into omnibus articles or lists? If so, what form should these articles take? 20:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Rationale from proposer: During the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lego Monster Fighters, it was pointed out that this was one of many such articles. Rather than have a more deletion discussions it seems appropriate to discuss omnibus articles of some sort that deal with the sets and themes in large groups. Most if not all of them are not individually notable and would be deleted at AFD because of the lack of sources. However, the overall topic of Lego sets and themes is notable. Since there is little to say about each set or theme it should be relatively easy to group them into larger articles of some kind, with existing and future articles on individual themes and sets redirecting to them. The main decision to my mind is how those articles should be organized.
Three possible options:
By related themes
Also, should the articles be organized as simple lists, or should they have a section for each set or theme? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we should merge articles that are unexpandable beyond perma-stub, and we should not be trying to exhaustively list all purchasable sets.
With a sortable-table, all 3 organization options are possible at once; picking the default would be the only choice (chronological is my preference for that).
Quantity: Need a clearer list of what content is being considered for inclusion/merging, before weighing in on whether an article or a list is more appropriate. Could you (or someone) sketch out some rough numbers/examples, from the content within Template:Lego (current and discontinued themes), and Category:Lego themes? (I assume 90% of that content, or so?)
Quality: Which articles are the current best representations of usable prose? Lego Modular Houses (GA) according to the statistics. Lego Atlantis also looks quite well written, from just a glance around. At the other extreme are articles like Belville (Lego) which seems almost unexpandable (i tried googling, but found very little).
Merging the unexpandable perma-stubs, into a full-featured list (ie, making List of Lego themes a Featured list eventually) might be ideal. A few sets/themes warrant separate articles, but not all. (These other featured lists (eg) might be helpful reference models.)
I am planning to try and tag all articles that would be affected by this, but at the moment I have to go to work. Looks like about 65 articles give or take, may be able to get to it later today. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, may take a moment to determine the full list of proposed mergers. I have discovered we already have a list article at List of Lego themes, as well as Category:Lego themes. I'm thinking a quick review of every entry in the category to insure it is the type of article we are talking about here, that is a single theme with no real notability unto itself. Once we have a comprehensive list I'll either begin the tagging or try to get an WP:AWB user to do it all at once. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Certainly sounds a good idea, merging the articles, but don't get carried away. I think themes like Ninjago, Bionicle and Hero Factory deserve to have their own articles. So, my opinion is: good idea in principle, might well work, but don't get carried away. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘So, how would we define which ones are "deserving" of their own articles? When I looked at Lego Castle my initial reaction was that here is a nice long article, with lots of detail, on a theme that has carried from the seventies right through to the present. Then I took a look at the sources. They are garbage as far as establishing notability. As are the sources on almost all Lego theme articles.
They mostly seem to fall into these categories:
other fan sites
catalogs or other sales materials
Books about Legos such as the "Lego Star Wars character encyclopedia"
While these may be ok sources for verification purposes, they are worthless as far as notability is concerned. As that is the standard for having a Wikipedia aricle I think we will find going forward that in fact the sat majority of themes are justifiable candidates for merging. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe it would be a very big page, which would be unwieldy to navigate. I'm against it. Can someone come up with a good source considering notability? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
That is rather the whole point. Generally there are not reliable, independent sources that discuss toy themes in detail. Many of these articles have been here for years and have either no sources at all or links to retail websites that sell toys. The other option as I see it is to delete most of them. Keeping them as stand-alone articles is not really a tenable position. Yes, it will be a long list. I am certainly open to the possibility of breaking it up by which decade the theme premiered or a simple alphabetical splitting. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I vote for a combination of chronological-listing and related theme-listing. It seems the best way, to me. Although I also see the perks of having it in alphabetical order. And, in answer to Wakuran, I have had experience of large list-like articles and I have learnt to navigate them. Other users can to. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I think Lego Technics is very different to normal lego sets and should retain it's own article. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought it might be good to take one of the candidate pages and use this section to sandbox how it might look when merged. I'm not an expert at tables so I'm hoping someone with more knowledge of that area can help out. More or less at random I picked Lego Aqua Raiders to serve as an example. For reference here is the article body as it exists right now (17:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)) minus the merge tag, navbox, and categories:
Aqua Raiders was one of the Lego Group's new themes for 2007. The setting is in the Bermuda Triangle. A group of divers go down with high tech submarines and other equipment to look for lost treasure and shipwrecks.
==Aqua Raiders Team== The Aqua Raiders team was the only team that was brave enough to fight the depths of the Bermuda Triangle. Equipped with the latest technology, they were sent to recover a treasure from an ancient king.
In the Trench game, one of the Aqua Raiders spoke, and he had a strong Australianaccent, leading to believe that the Aqua Raiders are of Australian origin.
==Sea Monsters== When they start the mission to go under the depths, they are attacked by several underwater creatures within a matter of seconds.
==Vehicles and Weapons== The Aqua Raiders have a variety of weapons and vehicles, which, according to the Aqua Raiders website, is the latest technology developed for undersea exploration. ===Vehicles===
actually this is a good example of the very lowest end of the spectrum of proposed mergers. No reliable sources, absurd levels of crafty details, and downright silliness like "The Aqua Raiders team was the only team that was brave enough to fight the depths of the Bermuda Triangle." This could easily be slimmed down into a simple entry in a table. Something like this
dates of production
Lego Aqua Raiders
Bermuda Triangle/underwater exploration
Only properly formatted as a table of course, we'll get to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I was really, really hoping somebody who was good with making tables would come along. That looks great. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Implementation: redirect now or merge more content first?
In implementing the decision above, would it be appropriate to simply redirect Lego Exo-Force to the list article, or are there some details that still need to be incorporated into the list first? (This article came to my attention when I nominated a related article at Wikiquote for deletion, unsuccessfully.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I would think that anything that is already mentioned in the target article can be redirected, if more content is desirable it can easily be pulled from the page history. Anyone doing that should be sure to mention what article they are merging in their edit sumarry so that proper attribution is kept. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. Has it been decided in this brief discussion that not a single Lego set is notable? Merge tags have been added to over 60 articles; has an effort been made to determine the notability, or lack thereof, of every one of these articles? Because it looks to me like the prevailing logic is that some of them aren't notable, therefore none of them are. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
If it's not too late I would like to dispute this merge. Sources and the contents of the Lego Star Wars franchise say this is notable enough for a separate article. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 10:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree. A mass merge is not the way to go. Each theme should be assessed seperatly. Try to find info like reviews on the various themes and then merge if nothing arises. Salavat (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment from closer: Formal closures are intended to draw a line under disputes to allow the community to move on. Over 60 articles tagged and an RfC being called is about as much exposure as a merge discussion can get. In other words, merge opponents have had more than enough opportunity to speak up and provide evidence that at least some of the sets meet notability requirements. Unless someone wants to dispute the accuracy of the closure (as opposed to the result of the discussion), my suggestion to merge opponents is to start separate ("unmerge") discussions for individual sets they believe meet notability requirements. (Further reading: Wikipedia:Closing discussions.) Goodraise 18:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I am also confused as to why it took several months for these objections to surface. Most of the alleged sources attached to these articles are either from Lego websites or fan sites, not reliable sources. I would suggest that the easiest way to proceed is to do pretty much all the merges, excepting any that have two or more references from actual independent reliable sources. If, when that is done, there are themes merged that a user thinks should have it's own article they should propose splitting it back off on the main article talk page and provide the sources at that time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I do dispute the accuracy of the closure. Six people participated in the discussion. Beeblebrox obviously supported the proposal. Two users, Quiddity and ProtoDrake, supported merging some of the articles – they both expressed the opinion, however, that each article should be assessed on its own merits, and that a blanket merge was not the way to go. Wakuran was against the proposal. The anonymous IP said that the Lego Technic article should be retained, so we can put him down as being against a blanket merge. 2nyte didn't offer an opinion, but is presumably in favour of the proposal.
So that's two people supporting the proposal as stated, two (maybe three) people suggesting that only some of the articles be merged, and one person who flat out opposes the proposal. The outcome of that discussion should not have been "merge all articles". I'd call that a "no consensus" at best. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll grant you that had this been an AfD, it should have been closed as "no consensus" (i.e. "insufficiently strong consensus to delete") because of the higher skates (i.e. the articles' edit histories), but it was a merge discussion, which is an entirely different animal. Merge decisions reached outside of an AfD can easily be overturned by subsequent discussions and, unlike deletions, merges can be reverted without an administrator's toolbox. Suggesting that each article should be examined for notability individually loses, as an argument, a lot of teeth when during a month long discussion not a single article is shown to meet notability requirements. There was plenty of time to do that, and there still is. Especially in the light of this post-close opposition, I'm wondering if anyone actually wants to do the research necessary to demonstrate these articles' notability or whether what is happening here is a symptom of editors' being content with seeing the decision making process dragged out indefinitely (or at least until merge advocates lose interest or give up). Having weighed the arguments for their merits, rather than counting votes, I believe the closure to be reasonable. If you disagree, feel free to ask for reevaluation at the administrators' noticeboard. Goodraise 23:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
This merge opponent didn't comment because he didn't find the discussion until this morning when he commented. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 03:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Its now been over six months and the merge has clearly not been completed. The above discussion indicates questions over the closure and lack of consensus. I would propose that the current merge be marked as Stale and the merge tags be removed from corresponding articles.
There might be scope for a more focused merged discussions, with articles being treated individually. Some like Lego Technic, Bionicle and Lego Duplo seem to be clearly too large and important to be merged but others like Lego Ninja might be appropriate for merging.
The current list of articles to be merged include:
By Wikipedia policy, we can and should merge any article that does not have independent reliable sources. We should not be using Lego's own publications and promotional materials as sources for entire articles. I had meant to work on this but I obviously it slipped my mind at some point. The vast majority of these articles would never survive a deletion discussion, so merging still seems like the easiest road to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I doubt it is a good idea because Bionicle has developed into such a full-blown franchise, that now we need a separate article to contain all of the information. Sure it may require some extra work maintaining it, but I believe that it is well worth the effort. After all, if Bionicle fans or people interested in the franchise found no main article for it, they would be very disappointed. I know I would. Besides, Wikipedia is one of the very few website with any complete information on Bionicle. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the Bionicle article it is in fact clear that is an exception, because it does have at least a few independent reliable sources, something which is completely absent in the majority of the above listings. I've struck it from the list and will remove the merge tag from the article. Next thing would be to identify other articles that have actual RS like that so they can also be excluded. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been featured
Please note that Lego Cuusoo, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 02:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team