Brickwiki talk:Open Questions/Archive 1

From Brickwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Name the new server

The new server [10 December 2005] needs a name. Any suggestions?

  • name it after user nr. 500
  • -thirtynine- which is 12 + 5 + 7 + 15, which are the numbers in alphabet (L+E+G+O)
  • name it after LEGO-series, like System, Technic, Mindstorms, Scala
  • Ole Kirk
  • Darwin Project. after the real darwin project, when LEGO started researching computers and 3D
  • 2005, since that is when it was new -- or at least when this question was posted :-). Seriously, is there a dedicated Brickwiki server? What is its hostname? --Rogerhc 00:45, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Mailing List

  • Would people like to see a Brickwiki mailing list (or more than one)? --Venkatesh 15:01:03, 2005-08-11 (Eastern Daylight Time)
    • It depends what they would be about. Maybe for technical issues but otherwise, I don't think I'd subscribe as I already get enough mailbox clutter from S*P*A*M. Tim 15:14, 11 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • I had wanted to make a mailing list for technical issues, since I didn't think that they should reside on the wiki itself. --Venkatesh 15:28:10, 2005-08-11 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I think they do belong on the wiki, although maybe in their own namespace. But a tech issues mailing list would be handy so that people could know what's wrong if the server shuts down for example. Tim 15:46, 11 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • Hello from Paris... Mailing-list can be both useful and a pain, i agree. I think the "Recent changes" is kind of a mailing-list: i can come sometimes, and see what's new. It's a pull technology, what I think is better than push ;-) Of course this page could be easier to read, like showing the topics/pages only, and not every single change... but this may change the wiki engine, i don't know if you can do that... It's a good work, all, thanks!


  • Is BrickWiki fast enough for people here now? Are there any specific areas which feel slow? Does it feel as fast as before? --Venkatesh 09:42:57, 2005-08-13 (Eastern Daylight Time)
  • Hello from Paris... no speed problem here, except updating (this page for ex.), takes huh 10 secondes or so. But no other problem.
  • I am from Germany and the speed is ok to me (same as wikipedia).
  • speed is a bit slower than wikipedia I think. Ít's enough for now. But when this wiki grow...


Can we use a bot here, if we throttle it appropriately? I think creating all the color templates will be laborious and maybe a bot is a good approach.

Bots are just fine. They would help with the colors and probably a few other things. If you can make a bot, just tell me what it is and you will be free to run it. --Venkatesh July 24, 2005 21:47 (Eastern Daylight Time)
what I read elsewhere suggests that a separate userID should perhaps be created to run the Bot under (for example LarBot...). Is that your desired approach? I now know a bit more than I did yesterday, found User:Pearle over on wikipedia, which has code and instructions. Perl is what I would have wanted to code in anyway, so yaay. Let me hack, it may be a while before I have anything useful. ++Lar 24 July 2005 21:53 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Not only would I recomend that you create 1 user for your bot, I would recomend telling Venkatesh that user x is for the exclussive use of a bot so that he can mark the user as a bot. You should also ask before using it. btw, there is a Python library to assist with creating bots for MediaWiki. --Astronouth7303 24 July 2005 22:08 (Eastern Daylight Time)
OK, I'll create such a user (LarBot strikes me as a good name), let V know it will be bot only, and ask him to review the code (which will be in perl, and based on the code in Pearle, see link above) before I run it. I won't be using Python as I don't know it and don't plan to learn it at this time. ++Lar 25 July 2005 10:25 (Eastern Daylight Time)

A bot for color templates is no longer needed, it seems. However there may be other uses for one, and if and when the need arises and I am interested, I'll post in the appropriate place to signal intentions, then follow the procedure outlined above to notifiy (and seek permission from) the appropriate folks before, during and after running it. ++Lar 25 July 2005 19:49 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Maybe you can start on one to render the parts library, to be ran server-side. I know we'll need one when we start on parts. --Astronouth7303 26 July 2005 10:31 (Eastern Daylight Time)
not sure I agree (even if I was comfy doing a server side bot!). See the next section and please give some serious thought to my questions, as I feel they are very important. Is the goal of site to do the same things other sites do but differently or better? Or is it to do different things that can't be done elsewhere.++Lar 26 July 2005 10:34 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Comprehensive goal regarding parts/sets

Should this encyclopedia eventually have an entry for every part? For every set? Astronouth talks of creating MediaWiki extension tags for parts and sets. In my writings at LUGNET I sometimes find it VERY handy to be able to refer to a set inline by giving (via FTX) an embedded transcluded set reference. (LMK if you need ref for that) That reference has a set image thumbnail and some key/basic info. It also has clickable links that take you to the GUIDE entry for the set (where you can then go a lot of other places)

This wiki now have articles appearing that reference particular sets. Should we have something like FTX transclusion, above, available? If so here are some questions:

  1. should we create all the sets in advance (perhaps by periodically running a well mannered spider against peeron, BL, Lugnet, or some other data source???) and creating articles for all of them? Most sets don't, at this stage, deserve articles in their own right.
  2. Conversely, is there a way to fetch sets on an as needed basis, (something analogous to how subst: works... if you reference a set with the proper tag, (very heavy magic needed here!) that reference itself causes that set and that set only to get added to the wiki, so that only sets that are mentioned in some article get set up....)
  3. Or, on the third hand, should this tag always just go to an external reference? Or embed an external image (with permission from the image source?) or something else?
  4. Or should the tag do nothing, just show th set number and be a clickable link at most, to one of several places?

There is a current Part: and Set: prefix that I am not totally sure what they do that is useful other than taking you to Peeron. (and possibly imposing a load that people don't mean to, the place that they take you is to show you where that part occurs, a non trivial query presumably, when maybe all you wanted was to see an image of the part and it's name and stuff... I dunno)

Note that Peeron (and possibly LUGNET) use set references as a fund source by providing links to Amazon that get the referrer a commission when someone buys something. If this wiki used their images but not provided their links to Amazon that owuld be considered very unfriendly I would expect, so it should not be done

This question also applies to parts, although for parts generating images isn't as hard, there is no need to harvest info from anything other than the LDraw parts lib and genning images can be done in many ways... the other info around parts is important.

Related question is if we did provide an FTX renderer, woiuld that imply that set references would need to be valid, as in choice 1 above?

I think these, all together, make a good set of questions that need thinking about. Snap answers may not be what is needed, but rather some thought over a number of days. The implications of trying to host all sets and all parts seem very bandwidth intensive, potentially.

++Lar 25 July 2005 19:44 (Eastern Daylight Time)

#4 above is the primitive hack until we can get the system set up. #2 is how image thumbnails work. #3 is the most probable until we get something figured out as to how to organize set articles. (Maybe a subwiki like I suggested for Parts.)
The Part: and Set: prefixes are interwiki links to (I think) Peeron. You can use these, but I would encourage the use of template:part (and template:part2) and template:set (and template:set2) so that we don't have to change hundreds of articles when the extensions are deployed.
Personally, I'm more of a technical person then a "ramifications" person. If you (collectively) can decide on how you want it, then I can try to implement it.
btw, Venkatesh is working on setting up Subversion, IIRC, so we can collaborate on the code side. --Astronouth7303 29 July 2005 13:45 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Where do we want to go?

Dear all, while this particular question may not seem all that important and a good answer might be, wherever we end up, it does have some practical implications which I'd like to address here.

Let us use as an example, the article on Flora. Even as it stands, this article is far too specific to appear in Wikipedia. At present the tone of the article is relatively light and is aimed, I believe, at a relatively experienced builder who is interested in adding a couple of trees to his or her layout. Of course, in future, this article might have some tutorials attached to help more novice builders, or it might have some advanced techniques added to help those builders who have already been building trees for years but are after a solution to a particular problem. This is nice. The article can be expanded upon to suit different audiences. Unfortunately it opens up a question that Wikipedia doesn't have to deal with. When is an article 'finished'?

What got me musing on this was the concept of a stub. Over on wikipedia a stub is basically an unfinished but sufficient article. One knows what an article should cover as one has experience of Encyclopeadias and thus knows what is a finished, or unfinished article and so stub has a meaning.

Here, however, the concept of finished/unfinished is a lot more grey. Is the flora article finished? Would it be finished if we add a tutorial? etc. In truth it will never be finished as there is no definite concept of what that is. As such, the concept of a stub is more grey than at Wikipedia.

What is a solution? We can either refine the concept of a stub, add new categories, or just assume that all articles are stubs. It boils down to answering the generic question "Where do we want to go?" and dozens of smaller related ones.

Sorry for rambling, but I wanted to make the point as expansively (if not clearly) as I could.

Tim 28 July 2005 15:56 (Eastern Daylight Time)

PS. If this doesn't belong here, please move it. I wasn't at all sure where it should go.

"where do we want to go" is a great question. You'll see that there are two other questions, one pretty deep, on the talk page of open questions. I wonder if we should organize that like conventions, where the talk page has the talk but the front page Open Questions has just the question (and a link to the talk section or something)? that sort of feels funny. Maybe the twho other questions on the talk page should go to the front too. That might be a topic for Conventions, I dunno. ++Lar 28 July 2005 16:06 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Man I'm dopey today. It should have gone on the talk page. I don't know what should happen with the Open Questions main page. Perhaps it should say: Go to the talk page to discuss open questions. Tim 28 July 2005 16:40 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I admit to struggling with this too, I am having fun but am not sure how far to go or how far I CAN go. There is so much to write about everything. Maybe encyclopedic IS the right approach, get enough detail in front of people that they know where else to look and what else to think about. I dunno. ++Lar 28 July 2005 16:06 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I think it should have more than an encyclopaedia. It would be nice to see tutorials and stuff I think. If we want just an enclopaedia there are other resources but here we can answer little questions, big questions, impart knowledge etc. Particularly if Lugnet does vanish it will be somewhere to help out new AFOLs and others which won't really exist otherwise. In that way its kind of cool to just make lots if little bits which point to other sources of information but which can be worked on in the future. Thats sort of what I was aiming for on the Flora section, soemwhere where a newb could go and say 'oh! I can do that' or an experienced builder can go 'oh! there's that link to classic-castles page' or 'I was planning on building a desert'. It just means we need to refine our concepts of what is 'done' I guess. Tim 28 July 2005 16:40 (Eastern Daylight Time)
PS. Perhaps this should be moved to the Open Questions:Talk page. If you agree, please move/copy it. -Tim
So moved. ++Lar 28 July 2005 16:54 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Early on, I had thought that this would be a sort of vast Lego reference - it would be both encyclopedic and a resource for Lego newbies. I am a Lego newbie myself - around this time last year, I just discovered that there was an online community of Lego enthusiasts. Before that, I dreamed and bricked just among friends here. If I had had a site where I could browse about legos and come upon concepts, read about them, and have tutorials, that would have been awesome for me. An example I'm thinking of is the idea of SNOT. I had never thought of having studs not on top. If I had had a BrickWiki the way I wanted it to be, we would have a SNOT article, photos/creations using the concept, tutorials for newbies, and a place where veterans could improve the content.

A great model is the one from an old "encyclopedia", called the Young Students' Learning Library, specifically the red edition. The encyclopedia had short, descriptive articles on each subject, little infoboxes all over the place with interesting information, and often tutorials as to how to try out concepts and things that were described. For example, the entry on barometers had a blue box on the left side of that page, explaining how one could build their own barometer and play with it. The article on Hero's engine had the same. The see also and references sections were detailed and the books were large and interesting. So the books were far more practical than conventional encyclopedias.

Legos are a 100% hands-on field. Every concept could have tutorials or explanations or tips gleaned from experimentation. On example I tried to make here was the Suspension Bridges article. I thought that it would be helpful to describe the concepts behind suspension bridges, examples of ones that have been built, and tips that I have learned through building them. That article, imho, is less than half-done. There is not enough information there for someone to sit down and try to build a bridge from. This also the reason I think that the idea of NPOV doesn't really belong here. Opinions, especially from experts in a subfield of Legos, matter a lot. An example would be an opinion from an LDraw wizard, telling me not to bother rendering the Lego crown, as it was impractical. Another example would be a master builder of towers saying what form of supports or what core geometry was the best - its an opinion, but the more information the master provided, the better informed the newbie would be.

But BrickWiki shouldn't be just a resource for newbies. Another valuble service it could do would be to let Lego masters expand their field of interest. Imagine a really skilled builder who has never heard of LDraw. BrickWiki could serve as a simple introduction, where you could see what LDraw is, see a few editors, and tips from masters as to how to get started.

That was just what I had in mind - I hope you (pl.) come up with more organized ideas and a formal directive of what we are doing. Till then, our work is here is preliminary. --Venkatesh 28 July 2005 17:12 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Hi V. Thanks for the fantastic response. As it stands I think that the Main Page details are excellent at explaining what you've just expanded upon. It sounds like what you want is quite similar to what I'd like to see too. I think we should redefine the meaning of stub and perhaps add a new work in progress equivalent to aid in this vision. That way we can encourage relative newbies and experts alike to work on stuff by making it quite clear that an article could always use some more work. What do you think? Tim 28 July 2005 17:33 (Eastern Daylight Time)
You know what? I think it would be great to have, at the bottom of every page, a section saying This article is unfinished, if you have something to add please do so. That would really make it clear that new additions are always welcome. Tim 28 July 2005 17:36 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Category structure

Version 1

Hi all, I'm just trying to get a basic idea of what a good category structure would be. Please suggest alternate names/orders etc. here

  • Playing with bricks
    • Games
    • Software
    • Themes
  • Building with bricks
    • Techniques
    • Tutorials?? (maybe)
    • Special bricks
    • Famous minifigs
  • Computerised Bricks (some other name)
    • LDraw
    • Mindstorms
  • Acronyms and terms (this way we can include purist and others)
  • The Brick Community
  • The LEGO Group
    • The company (name?)
    • Theme parks
  • Events
  • Regional
    • N. America
    • S. America
    • East Asia
    • South Asia
    • Oceania
    • Europe
    • Africa

what do you guys think? Note I've kept the number of main categories to a minimum and kept nothing deeper than a subcategory. This should make navigation clear but simple. Related categories would have a pointer to similar (eg. Playing with Bricks would have a link to Building with Bricks) along with an explanation.Tim 30 July 2005 16:47 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Seems a good start. I don't think LDraw fits under computerized bricks though, it probably goes near or under Software. Also I'm not grokking the difference between playing and building, how would those two categories help people find the subcats? ++Lar 09:34, 31 July 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
re. playing/building I'm not 100% sure of the difference myself. It might be worthwhile just bundling it all in together. As for computerised bricks--the name does suck. Maybe it should be split or maybe it just needs a better name. Tim 09:38, 31 July 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I think it's OK to have a lot of top level categories, I don't necessarily see the need to have only a few. Hence, perhaps, if Playing and Building are just categories to contain LDraw, special techniques (that one maybe should just be "techniques"?), etc etc, maybe the best thing to do is lose them entirely and let their current subs be first level? Themes in particular seems a first level category. ++Lar 10:37, 31 July 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Not 100% sure what you're getting at there. Could you copy the table and fiddle? Tim 10:53, 31 July 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Another Pass

  • Software
    • Games
    • CAD
      • LDraw
    • Utilities
  • Themes
  • Techniques
  • Tutorials
  • Special bricks
  • Famous minifigs
  • Computerized Bricks
  • The Brick Community
    • People
    • Groups of people (name?) - for organisations, LUGs etc.
    • Running Jokes
    • Debates (?? see Category talk:Running jokes)
    • Acronyms and terms (so we can include Purist - Tim)
    • Events
  • The LEGO Group
    • The company (name?)
    • Theme parks
  • Regional
    • N. America
    • S. America
    • East Asia
    • South Asia
    • Oceania
    • Europe

As requested. A lot of categories are moved to top level and Playing/Building are gone. Playing is building is playing, I'm always playing when I am building so it was a false dichotomy... ++Lar 11:45, 31 July 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

That suits me fine. It does remove the playing/building separation. One question though: What goes under utilities? Tim 11:54, 31 July 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
software that is not games or CAD! For example Ahui Herrara has a collection inventory/manangement program that he sells (you can use it to do insurance documentation). For another example, BrikTrak and its competitors. It's a forced category name I guess. Perhaps just put those things right in software. A category can have articles and subcats. Note that I expect there is no meaning to the ordering of this list, it's just in the order that you and I thought of things, presumably ++Lar 12:01, 31 July 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I think just leave them in the category. Basically it would be a Misc which just confuses things IMHO. As far as I know you can't specifiy an ordering in MediaWiki, it will always be alphabetical anyway. But no, I grouped a little bit for reading/checking clarity but other than that it was pretty much random. Tim 12:05, 31 July 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Agreed. There MAY be a way to manipulate orderings I think, but it would require giving categories weird names. BTW, I found the "regional" divisions odd, I'm used to the conventional continents, but I can see east asia and south asia. Fair warning, many 'murricans don't know what is what in that grouping/division. (tough for them I guess) ++Lar 14:31, 31 July 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I split the two Asias because they have such vast populations and, as an Australian I don't think of India etc. as Asia and nor do they from what I understand. I know at present South Asia doesn't have much AFOL presence (bar Swarmi) but its got a hugely growing middle class so it could soon. And I assume most articles would be added by people from the region who will know what it means. Perhaps some clarification would be useful on the category pages. Tim 14:48, 31 July 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)


Questions - Is BrickWiki fast enough for general use? Does BrickWiki feel fast to use? Are there any features that seem slow? Has it felt faster in the last few days? Any other thoughts on performance? -- 15:47, 31 July 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

It seems fast enough. Hard for me to say, I see such wildly varying performance depending on where I am (Hotels, at the client, airports, rest areas with wifi, at home, at home dialed in because Comcast sucks, etc.) but haven't noticed it being slow when other things weren't slow too. ++Lar 16:06, 31 July 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
It's a bit inconsistent, but generally too slow for me; 10-20 seconds to load a page, and sometimes, it just times out. I'm using a cable modem in Colorado, and no other sites I'm accessing today are slow, so it certainly seems to be something to do with this server. Joe Strout 16:35, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I'm starting to see glitches in response even when other sites are OK.... but my overall env is glitchy so I wasn't sure. ++Lar 17:18, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I was having trouble but when this post first appeared it seemed to have stopped so I forgot about it but I have had some troubles (including time outs) too. They seem to occur when there are lots of people on (as opposed to lots of activity) if that helps? I'll study this a little more if you like. I have BW up most of the day and I'm already online when the US comes on so it's a pretty good vantage point. Tim 17:25, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)


I just got this response to one of my 'advertisments' for BrickWiki. This suggests to me that a post on Lugnet might be worthwhile, making it clear that we cover techniques and the like as well as general history/factual material. What do you mob think? Tim 16:13, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Totally, dude. (well played!) I periodically drop hints on LEGOFan as well... answering questions by giving refs to existing articles is a good way to do it. I just wish image uploading worked as it would be even more inviting with more images. ++Lar 16:55, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Set: namespace

Unlike the templates for parts, (template:part and template:part2) which create links to peeron, the set templates template:set and template:set2 seem to put you into editing an article which is in the "set:" namespace. I think they could be changed to put you into creating an article in the regular space though.

I would like to better understand what the thinking was here. What is this namespace, and should we be using it for articles about sets? So far (by an unspoken convention that we seem to have arrived at) most (all) of the set articles created have been in the regular namespace but with names like 10020 Santa Fe Super Chief, that is, with the set name (as shown in the LUGNET guide which is arguably problematic as it may be ambiguous) in the article title.

To try to play wiht this a bit I just created set:10020 which just consists of a redirect to 10020 Santa Fe Super Chief (I noticed this because Tim removed my set2 template ref from an article I just created and I started digging into why.) Should these articles be created? Should they point to peeron? Should they redirect to articles in the regular space?

Color me confused till I hear more about the namespace plan. Creating articles for each set, we all seem to agree, would be a lot of work and a lot of duplicate effort. Bots could do some of it, true. So what is the thinking again? This ties to the "what do we want this to be" question asked elsewhere on this page... ++Lar 17:08, 5 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Hello from Paris... Just my 2 cents. Peeron is good and enough for describing sets. Or sites give good info about sets, old or recent. I'm not sure this is interesting here - except the wiki concept of describing a set... I crowled the web for lego fans sites, and interesting information. Thousands of them have little info, broken/incomplete/outdated pages or do not exist anymore... It was frustrating, and deceiving. Especially obsolete pages give a bad impression on lego. I like the idea of concentrating here all user's lego info. From users, to users. It needs of course introducing lego concept/pleasure, newbies help, technical help (how to make this, what is torque...), encyclopedia (Flora page or SNOT...), links and info on useful tools, pages (CAD, OS, main shops...) but also some links to sharp fan pages, or fan pages, why not. Having a wiki makes it easy to remove the terminated sites. Thanks all!

MOC bin?

Should BrickWiki be a MOC bin? Yes? No? Somewhere in between? For the purposes of this discussion, I'm using "MOC" to mean any specific fan-created model, no matter the size of the group or the creation. (I'd search, but it seems to be broken from the move.) --Astronouth7303 21:31, December 9, 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)

No. MOCPages and BrickShelf do fine for that. I suggest that we treat MOCS like people. No writing about your own MOCs. If a MOC is remarkable enough that someone ELSE wants to write an article, great. But that should mean there are 100 remarkable ones out there, tops. If that. ++Lar 00:52, December 10, 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)
I mostly agree with Lar on this although there are times when using your own MOCs has advantages (eg. because you can easily choose the license for it). It's a matter of intent I think. Or do you mean articles on a specific MOC/MOCs? I would treat that like people articles. Make sense? Tim 05:56, 10 December 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)
I agree with Tim and Lar. BrickWiki shouldn't have to do what MOCpages and Brickshelf do fine already. In fact, I don't really think there should be ANY articles on MOCs themselves. I think MOCs should only be in articles to display as certain building technique, like SNOT. Lord Of The LEGO 12:05, December 10, 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)
To elaborate and expand a bit... There are a FEW MOCs that are milestones, and therefore encyclopedic. I can't think of an example right offhand, but perhaps one of the bridges that set a Guinness record might be one, or the first MOC that was turned into a set by LEGO (Dan Siskind's blacksmith shop) for another example. As with persons, and in alignment with Wikipedia community practice, articles about those MOCs ought to come into being because someone ELSE thought them encyclopedic. This prevents them being used as a self promotion tool. That's my thinking on MOCs as article topics... MOCs as ILLUSTRATION of a point in an article about (for example) construction techique, are different. In that case, the MOC (or render or whatever) is there to support the article, and arguably, ANY other MOC could be substituted if it illustrated the same point (1 LDU offsets, for example), so the focus of the article is not the MOC. I agree that using your own MOC, just as with using your own photo, or your own render, makes licensing/copyright etc. easier... I think we're all basically saying this... I think further this ought to migrate over to proposed conventions if a nice friendly wording could be found. ++Lar 12:49, December 10, 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)
I see what you mean and yes I agree. Important MOCs should be treated like people but could be worthwhile including. Other examples I can think of are the first Great Ball Contraption and the Lego Desk which was the first time I saw an MOC posted on slashdot. Possibly the first eight-wide train but I won't be writing about it ;) Tim 16:35, 10 December 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)
Yes, I was refering to articles specifically about a particular MOC. The "MOC" that I was wondering about, KCCUSA, I had never heard of (granted, I'm not really in the loop with LEGO). It definately does not fit into the guidlines mentioned above (written entirely by a member of both groups mentioned). --Astronouth7303 13:34, December 11, 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)
I have no problems with such articles, in fact I have no problem with people doing their own page instead of waiting for someone else to do it. I think that just leads to silly exchanges like this, which I feel is unnecessary. The KCCUSA page is informative, and the fact that it advertises the author's website is neither here nor there to me. (I think that was Rosco... ++Lar)
I was asked to write that article, IIRC, (KCCUSA is a museum NOT a MOC) and I made it as bare bones as I could, hoping someone else would fill the details in, because really, I don't want to be accused of self promotion. It may be a bit weird but I just don't. Further, I think projects fall into the area of notable. The article identifies the museum and the project but doesn't give project details. An article about Tony the Tiger, on the other hand, would be about a MOC. (an arguably notable one, as it's one of the largest for hire MOCs done to day by other than LEGO or CLP, and it has some significant steelwork/engineering in the armature and base... and as it turns out, under the above guideline, I COULD write it, because engineering was done by Steve Ringe, and lead artist was Spencer Rezkalla, other than a little glueing during final prep, and driving the SUV that pulled the trailer that delivered it, I had no direct involvement, I was just the Project Manager and contract holder...) If someone else wants to write more about that museum or that project, the links are there for them to do their own research and draw their own conclusions, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to do more than I did about the project as a whole. ++Lar 20:41, December 11, 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)
And another thing, I think maybe we DO need to hash this around a bit on talk:conventions... the Wp guideline of no self promotion is what I was basing my thinking on, where it's considered gauche to author your own article or author articles about things you've invented/discovered/written/done. I think that's a good principle even if it does lead to a bit of awkwardness like the exchange I had with Nathan... MOCpages and personal websites and BrickShelf are there for self description etc... That may be bending backwards too far given this environment, I dunno... I am unf. about to get terrifically busy so maybe someone else could help start the discussion there? thoughts? ++Lar 20:55, December 11, 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)
OK. I'll leave the discussion here for a bit and move the whole thing over to conventions at some point (assuming noone minds since it sits somewhere in between). I've been thinking more about this issue (for people and MOCs) and I'm shifting more towards Rosco's opinion that people can write about themself or their MOCs. If an MOC is not considered that important by others then Wiki-evoloution will reduce its importance by ensuring it has less link ins. One exception I would make is if someone tries to use the site to sell stuff (which IMO the KCCUSA articles is not at all). Under those circumstances I would edit out the offending material and make a comment on the talk page. Another is if someone uses the wiki as an image store in which case I would propose deleting the images after discussion with the person. Truth is it is gauche to self promote but sometimes it can be the best solution (eg. if a famous MOC is not so well documented). Referring to the KCCUSA article itsel, I have no problem at all and don't see it as an MOC bin article but more as a community activity article. Tim 10:12, 12 December 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)

Personally, I think that at the end of the day, it's up to BrickWiki users and contributors to use their common sense as to what MOCs to document and what ones not to. I agree that attempts by users to "dump" their MOCs on BrickWiki simply as an alternative storage location to BrickShelf or another image hosting service should be treated as self-promotion and dealt with accordingly. Just my two cents.--GreenLead 00:06, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Performance on 12-10-2005

Does Brickwiki feel any faster today than it did earlier? Any slower today? Any difference? --Venkatesh 09:11:14, 2005-12-10 (Eastern Standard Time)

It seems marginally faster than say, a week ago, but still terrifically, painfully, slow. Are we on the new hardware? If so, then I suggest maybe hardware isn't the problem? If not, well here's hoping... ++Lar
All the peripheral, side stuff has been or is being moved to the new server today, but the main slow component, Apache, will be moved tommorow. I just wanted to see if moving MySQL helped any. --Venkatesh 12:59:48, 2005-12-10 (Eastern Standard Time)
I've found it faster but not by much. Tim 16:31, 10 December 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)
I've detected no difference, but it's not like I'm timing it. ;) Lord Of The LEGO 20:26, December 10, 2005 (Eastern Standard Time)

Advertising for BrickWiki

I'd like to suggest two pages via which BrickWiki could advertise. The first is a site directory which, to some sites advantage but to others disadvantage, relies on hits coming in to move up and get towards the top of the page. The second displays sites on a first-come-first-serve basis. and are the two links. If you would rather for the second page get me a button, preferably 88x31, I can add it for you instead of using the email link. However for the first one, the directory, we prefer if the sites owner or at least a staff member submit the site so they can manage the information if need be without contacting our staff. Best of luck,

AgentA Administrator

Does anyone want to make a button for us? --Venkatesh 15:08:33, 2006-04-19 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I can if it's needed. It'd just be from the existing bricks in the top right and with BW or BrickWiki for words. That fine? -AA
Brickwiki button.png
Brickwiki banner.png
I likes the banners left and right image, the tilt pictures look pro, but the font is not feeling like encyklopedia. and the there could be a small line under saiyng "open content encyclopedia" klasbricks 15:37, June 6, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
A wiki is an open content encyclopedia. -AA
No it's not. It's a system for allowing multiple editors with a simple syntax. Look here for a full desctiption. 16:05, June 6, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
It is editable by anyone meaning it's open content. It's used most comonly today as an encyclopedia or similar project. -AA
Still not right. The Open comes from Open Source reflecting the licensing arrangement of wikipedia and most wiki based encycloepadias. There are private wikis too within workplaces and for projects that are not open to the public or open content. Tim 16:19, 6 June 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Does it really matter? -AA
I don't think the buttons need "open content encyclopedia", but I do agree the font - it doesn't look right to me for Brickwiki.
It reminds me of the sgi font. Just a little bit wobbly compared to that one though. Imagine "Brickwiki" on a purple backdrop? =)
The font is the Lego one....-AA


I noticed some pages about LEGO related things on Wikipedia where there is none hear. Is It ok to copy content from Wikipedia to BrickWiki. Also some pages hear contain links to nonexistent pages that aren't related to LEGOs such as locations. Is it ok to include an InterWiki link there. If this is OK we can get a lot off of wikipedia:Category:LEGO. Is it ok to link back and forth?--Yskyflyer 23:25, April 29, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

WP is GFDL. We are GFDL. Therefore very compatible in both directions. We have copied some content verbatim to use as a starting point but the preference is to have our content be different (more extensive than a general purpose encyclopedia can be). We often crosslink with interwiki links. they work in both directions because BrickWiki was added to the list on meta to make it work See for example Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen which draws heavily from wikipedia:Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen ++Lar: t/c 09:20, April 30, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Er, bad example since the WP article is a stub. But there are others, I just can't remmeber what they are offhand. Maybe some of the LEGOLand ones? ++Lar: t/c 09:25, April 30, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I was Thinking about a Page I saw with lots of redlines and General articles in Wikipedia that are more detailed (I forgot the sight but I was being selfish because I wanted to add it myself before somebody else found it). (I take it this sight is for these Externally Specific Lego terms that would criteria for Speedy deletion in Wikipedia for being to trivial)

Our Own Article

Why not have an article on wikipedia about this place. We first have to see if it is notable. Instead of just going ahead and creating the article on wikipedia I have started the article on my user sub page and will move i to he main space when the article has claimed notability and has it's initial steps towards writing the article done. The Early stages of my writing the article is at wikipedia:User:Yskyflyer/BrickWiki Please Fix up the article. But let's just make sure it isn't a Vanity article first. Sound like a good idea or bad idea--Yskyflyer 18:14, May 2, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Bad Server

Sorry! The Wiki is experiencing some technical difficulties, and cannot contact the database server.

Actually this sight is not working so much I can't really find the use in using it--Yskyflyer 20:15, April 30, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
When were you getting these errors? -- 01:26, May 1, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I've been getting DB server balks for several days now, on and off... ++Lar: t/c 01:58, May 1, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Likewise, I've been getting them since late last week. Sometimes it just happens every few pages, a couple of times I have been unable to access any pages for several minutes.ROSCO 08:24:15, 2006-05-01 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Has the whole site slowed down or has it just been intermittent speed drains? And does this happen for only logged in users or for anonymous ones as well?
I was getting the errors as I was saving this page on April 30, 2006 (The date on my signature). Right now it is not bad (see signature for time)--Yskyflyer 16:50, May 1, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I was getting it both while logged in and not, but it hasn't happened for about 24 hours now.ROSCO 21:10:13, 2006-05-02 (Eastern Daylight Time)

It's Working fine for me now--Yskyflyer 18:09, May 2, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Merge Brikipedia

It has been suggested that this Wiki be merged with Brikipedia. (Discuss)
--Yskyflyer 17:40, May 5, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

It seems Pointless to have 3+ 4+ places to look for a wiki artile about LEGOs

There is

  • wikipedia:Category:LEGO
  • BrickWiki (Please fix inter Wiki link. It works from Wikipedia)
  • [[Wikia:c:lego: Main Page]] (Please fix inter Wiki link. It works from Wikipedia)

We all love LEGOs but If we want to get one good Lego ecyclopdidia it is best to Consolidate our efforts.

The first thing is to make sure the Wiki’s are parallel with Wikipedia so that one doesn’t have to look in 2 places. Each little wiki should have everything on Wikipedia But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information so not all Lego articles can be on Wikipedia. Brikipidia and Brickwiki both seem to have the same gole of the same articles and trying to keep the 2 parallell would be pointless. I sugest we merge this to wikis together

Now if we merge the wikis one has to link to the other. Which one will it be

In considtering wich one to use we need to consider

  • Google page rank
  • Sever availability (does the server crash)
  • Current active members
  • Current article count
  • Current developed articles
  • Feasibility of inter wiki linking
  • Which wiki is more stubborn
  • Who came first
  • Who has a user box on Wikipedia

As a side though. All of us can come together and make a WikiProject on Wikipedia for LEGOs.

I happened to find brickwiki fist when I was looking for userboxs and I found brikipidia later after I noticed the link to Wikia on the bottom of uncyclopidia and decided to search for Lego to see if brickwiki was on it.

Lets combine our efforts into one effective Lego theme--Yskyflyer 18:06, May 5, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time) Comparing articles on Wiki Brikipedia statistics Has almost No articles (12) Actually No Page views But has Lots of members. (probably just the genral Wikia members not actaul reading/writtig menbers) BrickWiki statistics has way more pages (474) and way more page views but he meber list is shorter. I asume this is becose these meber has to find there way here but Brikipida pigibacked on wikia I sugest the 12 articles be merged into Brickwiki and set up this project as a redirect and protect the page--Yskyflyer 18:58, May 5, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

If the brickipedia people are willing I'd have no problem merging in what is there. I'd not heard of it until now. I couldn't quite understand the WikiProject concept but if someone wants to start one I'll happily help out. Tim 06:53, 6 May 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
IF they want to merge would be the big thing. speculating is pointless without selling them on the idea... and that's non trivial. I'll leave that to others. As for a WikiProject... to understand more what one can do, check one out. For instance I'm pretty heavily involved in The Beatles WikiProject... but for one to be successful you need a core of 5-10 or more editors who want to spend a fair bit of time on it. If there's interest, and several people leave me a note on my talk page there, after my RfA finishes, I can set it up... ++Lar: t/c 22:18, May 6, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

This is some Usefull information of we Merge Brikipedia into brickwiki

Oh look Another one brickiwiki (I guess thoes pages we deleted were vandalism or sombody thinking they were one sight). Boy all our Effort are widespread. This other Sight Dosn't use Wiki formating (I found out the hard way making a coment on a page i can't delete now. And the Pages are edited while viewing them. It's really weird)--Yskyflyer 19:15, May 15, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Some thoughts: I don't think that taking Brickwiki/(any other Lego wiki) and making them into WikiProjects on Wikipedia is a good idea. Wikipedia was not meant to subsume all the encyclopedic wikis ever - some are too specific, some run with different policies, and some chronicle details that don't really belong in a general reference work. Wikipedia, much like Britannica, is not meant to nor can it contain all knowledge. This wiki has a very specific focus, a relatively free set of policies, and some content that would not fit into Wikipedia guidelines - we don't really force articles to be wholly neutral, since we are documenting not just physical bricks but the culture around them. There can be and will be plenty about Legos on Wikipedia; its just that we serve a different purpose.

Merging with other Lego wikis is a very, very good idea, especially if it can be pulled off right. Right now, we have one of the larger/largest Lego wikis around. Brickipedia just started so we could contact the wizards behind that project and talk to them about working together/moving to either platform/merging content/etc. It runs on Wikia (and the MediaWiki platform) so the technical issues are very minor. Brickiwiki is another very neat little project, hosted on wetpaint, which buys them a very new and powerful platform. (Side note: Around a month or so ago, wetpaint contacted us and asked if we were interested in moving Brickwiki to their platform. It seemed like a very neat thing to do, but the reasons we didn't end up going there were the lack of an extension model and the fact that the wetpaint system was nowhere near as test/assured as Mediawiki.) The Brickiwiki project has significantly high quality design, tools, and pages at the moment that working with them would establish the GULW (Grand Unified <strikethrough>theory</strikethrough>Lego Wiki). We should contact the wizards behind that project and see what can come of that as well. After all, consolidating information is a good thing. --Venkatesh 09:55:53, 2006-05-17 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I think there is always room for more than one wiki about a subject, just as there are several old-style websites out there on LEGO bricks. But that said, there are advantages in merging, especially in helping to build up a community large enough to keep the wiki going well. Wikia has the advantage of a shared userbase over a large number of wikis - if any of those uses go looking for a LEGO wiki, then they will look on Wikia first. Wikia is a great community and one that is growing and developing at an exciting rate. So why not consider a move to Wikia hosting? You would be most welcome there. It looks as though the founder of Brikipedia has moved on, so we could set up that site to duplicate this in many ways, including changing the name. We have a strong staff team who are there to help out at any time, and good investment in equipment to keep everything running well (we have just added new servers in Florida, to work with those already in place in California - that will give us more redundancy and so more security). There is more about the advantages of Wikia at Wikia:Why use Wikia? We have had quite a few sites move to us, including the very successful Memory Alpha and Uncyclopedia. It's free of course, and the content would remain under the GFDL. So please let me know if you are interested, and I can set things in motion. Thanks for your time all -- sannse (Wikia community team) 15:03, July 15, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Well. It has been over a year. Do we want to look at this any further? ++Lar: t/c 08:29, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

More on mergers

This might be interesting reading (or not): Dilution of critical mass ... Comments welcomed ++Lar: t/c 17:11, 4 March 2008 (EST)

I'd support a move and merger but I wouldn't be able to offer any edit activity... It would be nice if there was a good mediawiki merger software. Tim 04:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
What does that mean? That if things merged you would not want to do any editing at the new site? Or that you can't help sort through articles to find dups, etc.? Or something else? I agree a good tool to help would be nice. ... offhand I don't know of one but I could ask around. ++Lar: t/c 17:30, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
It means that I think it's a good idea to merge but I can offer no assistance in doing it. ie. I can't put my money where my mouth is. Tim 11:42, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't think it would take Money, especially if the merge was TO Wikia. It would take time sorting through articles, resolving dups, merging things, etc. There is a bulk import function. To my way of thinking, to get this to happen requires at least one person, or better two, from each site, to actually sit down, plan out what needs doing, etc... that's the hard part. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Welcome Committee

I don't know what you all think, but when I joined Wikipedia and when I joined Azerbaycan Vikipedia I got a welcome right away. I did not get that with BrickWiki. I am not complaining, but to prevent that for future new members I think we should form a Welcome Committee. What do ya'll think? --Merond e 15:05, June 8, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Better late than never: Welcome to Brickwiki... I think it's a good idea. I usually try to welcome people and Lar used to but having more people to do it would ensure better coverage. Tim 05:15, 9 June 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Is it possible that we could make a special talk page for the Welcome Committee? I would be willing to be a member. --Merond e 09:26, June 9, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Do you mean something like BrickWiki talk:Welcome team? Tim 14:09, 9 June 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. So that the Welcome Committee has a place to meet. I guess I will just click that link and make the page. --Merond e 02:32, June 10, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Hard to find article

This article is marked as a stub, but though it is short I don't think any more information can be gathered about that topic. I think that the stub tag should be removed, but I want to see what others think first. So what do ya'll think? --Merond e 08:17, August 8, 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

It's not the only one that is small but fairly complete. I used to favour leaving things as stub but maybe it would be better to remove the tag to have a few complete articles. In summary: remove the tag. Tim 13:11, 8 August 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Category tree

I am having trouble seeing where LEGO Factory and DUPLO appear in the category tree. They do not seem to connect anywhere and I would think we should see all categories connected back up through to the main menu rather than be orphaned. I guess that is an admin thing to connect categories? Tedward 12:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Not an admin issue but it's a good idea to ask and/or make sure they match the current system. I'd add them both as master themes at the same level as space, trains etc. Tim 14:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Does that mean we can create categories? Is there an example/instruction article? Tedward 16:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Adding something to a category that doesn't exist creates the category. If you then click on the category link you can edit it (add somedescriptive information). Adding a categroy to the category page then puts it in the master category. There is also some discussion about categorisation [[1]] which you should take a look at. Tim 17:21, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Plus signs

What is up with the anon edits changing my sig to remove the plus signs? This seems to happen on a fairly regular basis. I wonder if it is a broken spambot? (There is a spambot that deletes everything after the first ampersand that plagues various wikis including this one). Or is it someone just being childish for some reason. I revert them as I see them but it's a bit annoying (and thanks to those of the rest of you that revert it when you see it too). Maybe I should change my sig here to get rid of them? It's just all very silly. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Anonymous editors?

I am sorry if this has been discussed before but it seems like for weeks the admins have been having to revert too many malicious edits. For almost a month the only "changes" were malicious edits and their reversions. I do not understand why we cannot simply require people to register and login before editing. Its not like it is hard to do or costs anything but it does improve accountability and gives pause to idiots who are not likely to take the time for such procedure if they want to do mischief. To post on LUGNET, Classic-Castle, Euro-Bricks, heck anywhere I have been, you have to go through some sort of registration process or identity confirmation. I propose that we require registration before being allowed to edit BrickWiki. Tedward 09:57, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd be totally in favour of this except that BrickWiki seems to go through patches where you can't stay logged in and anon edits are the only way to go. But ya, reverting these broken spambots is tedious. There are other techniques we could deploy, like visual captchas which the spambots cannot easily defeat (our current captcha is easily passed by, just parse the page and do the math)... oh and maybe you should be an admin too. :) ++Lar: t/c 12:16, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
The problem with requiring registration to edit is that it presents a barrier to users to who want to quickly correct something they see... A better captcha would help a lot more.
The ratio of useful contributions by anons to attacks by anons is very low. So we certainly would lose some useful contribs but perhaps also get less attacks. As you, I'd prefer better captcha though, if I had the choice, for sure. This is a Venkatesh question now, I think, better captchas are out there but they may require never versions of MediaWiki than we have, not sure. . ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
We should probably get Venkatesh to upgrade Mediawiki to something modern and put in a more powerful Captcha, but do you really think that a better one will help that much?
A captcha that a bot cannot decode without a human driving will help a lot but is not a 100% foolproof solution, in my view. I'd rather try that first before locking out all anons from posting. And don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~, even if you're an anon. :) Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the confidence but you don't want to make me an admin. As Tim can attest (see lugnet.color) I put my foot too far into my mouth on a regular basis. Tedward 12:49, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
What matters is not whether you have opinions, or even if you lose your temper, what matters is whether you can be relied on to carry out actions for the good of the wiki, and for the most part (no one is perfect) not misuse your tools to make your case, if you should become in conflict with a regular. Confining yourself to reverting vandalism and blocking vandal bots would still be of great help. Again, I encourage anyone who sees vandalism to undo or rollback even if you can't block. I'll see the change, or Tim will, or some other admin will, and block the vandal soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 08:53, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Anons again

The vandals hit us fairly hard overnight. I sent Tim and V a mail with something I saw that might help but V hasn't replied yet. We do need to do something. It gets old undoing gobbldegook strings in 10 articles pretty fast. ++Lar: t/c 06:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I think it would be well worth locking out anon edits until a better system is worked out. I acknowledge that it can be inconvenient at times, but it's probably less inconvenient than our Admins having to constantly revert changes. Vandal edits seem, sadly, to far outnumber real edits of late. Claude Bombarde 23:22, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Only Venkatesh or someone with more access than I have, can change that setting. For now I would beg all frequent contributors, revert vandalism on sight if you see it. The undo or rollback if available, or just edit it out. If anyone knows how to get hold of V please do. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
I've created a perl script that makes it somewhat easier to block users, view changes, etc. Still, I support keeping anon turned off. ++Lar: t/c 00:52, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Brickwiki Chatroom?

I would be able to set up a chatroom on the 'Darkmyst' Server, maybe something called #Brickwiki, the chats could help set up what the admins want, which articles to create and when, and it will overall, help Brickwiki, as communication is key when continuing to add and edit to a site, so what do you think? #Brickwiki or no #Brickwiki? List of DarkMyst Services
-Blake 21:44, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

If we needed this (and I'm not sure we do), I'd suggest using Freenode as it's very solid. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
I think the current system of communication works pretty well for what we need. As we are all in different time zones and have different life schedules leaving messages here is probably more effective than trying to coordinate a chat time. Tedward 09:48, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
Nod. The reason chat for Wikipedia admins works, for example, is that there are 1000+ admins, and there are always a few around in the channel to deal with whatever comes up. We have well less than 10 admins and probably well less than 25 consistent users who contribute on a regular (or even irregular) basis. Totally different scale. ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Template Listing

I asked in another page but it's already buried. Can a list of template pages be generated or should I start add cat:templates to templates? Tedward 17:37, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

Use Special:allpages rather than creating a generic category that tries to get every page in a namespace. Here's a list for namespace 10 (templates). The dropdown will vary what namespace is shown. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Account Creation Policy Change

I think it is time we moved away from "instant edits" and automatic account creation. The sheer numbers of spammers getting through the security screening is not justified by the ease of account creation for actual editors. If we cannot find a more robust captcha system I would rather we moved to a moderated model where accounts could be created but not able to make edits until confirmed by an admin. Tedward 12:20, 22 May 2012 (CDT)

We are using recaptcha already which I think is about as robust as it gets, the spammers must be employing actual humans to type in the captcha texts. I think if we are going to move to a moderated model it should be like LDraw, where accounts are created by admins after getting a request for one offline... why clutter up the user table with a bunch of accounts that will never be able to edit? (but I support moving to a tighter scheme than we have now, it's not working) ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 22 May 2012 (CDT)
I like the idea of an admin confirming new accounts - can this be done on wiki? I would not be in favor of any system which required email. Claude Bombarde 21:58, 22 May 2012 (CDT)
Looks like it can be done within the wiki: ConfirmAccount --ALittleSlow 06:46, 23 May 2012 (CDT)
The please someone turn it on! :) Tedward 10:33, 23 May 2012 (CDT)
requires shell access as it's a MediaWiki extension that has to be installed. There's an open request before Jer that Brian be granted that access, IIRC. ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 23 May 2012 (CDT)
Excuse my ignorance, but who are Jer and Brian? Claude Bombarde 19:33, 23 May 2012 (CDT)
Jer is described here. User:ALittleSlow is Brian, just a guy who likes LEGO toys and believes in wikidom, and has fooled Lar into believing I'm trustworthy. Oh, I fooled Jeramy, too, because he gave me shell access. --ALittleSlow 11:49, 24 May 2012 (CDT)
I just got a LAMP+MediaWiki VM running on my desktop. Still need to get a copy of BrickWiki running on it. Unless Jeramy gets to it first, I'll test account confirmation there before hosing, er, fixing BrickWiki. Hopefully tonight, otherwise tomorrow. --ALittleSlow 11:49, 24 May 2012 (CDT)
It's done. I created an account called ALS Test. Need a 'crat to check ConfirmAccounts to complete the process. Also you might want to test account creation both as a 'crat and as nobody, to make sure the flow and text are suitable. This system requires E-mail on the user's part, but not the 'crats. Is that acceptable? I'm assuming Claude meant that the admins shouldn't have to create accounts manually based on requests sent via E-mail. --ALittleSlow 22:10, 24 May 2012 (CDT)
No, I meant that email shouldn't be required. For personal reasons I choose not to use/disclose email for wiki related things. But I'm already here, and as long as the email requirement isn't retrospective, I'm not going to die in a ditch over it. Claude Bombarde 00:58, 25 May 2012 (CDT)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Personal tools