Talk:Bridge

From Brickwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Consolidating?

Any objection to consolidating the various bridge-articles into the main article? I see the utility of these "how-to" articles but I do not see why we need separate ones for each type for each type of bridge. Tedward 17:34, 8 June 2012 (CDT)

I'd rather see redlinks that encourage people to write articles. If later they should be merged we can discuss, but there are a lot of different bridge types and the construction techniques vary widely. Redlinks are goodness, not something to avoid. ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 12 June 2012 (CDT)
I tend to agree with Lar on these points. I tend to be, what is the wiki jargon, inclusionist, rather than deletionist? --ALittleSlow 23:12, 12 June 2012 (CDT)
It seems we come once again to the "what Brickwiki is not" discussion and clearly we have very different visions. When we were discussing the idea of becoming an instructions repository some years ago it was made clear that BW was NOT the place for everything related to the hobby and we decided not to pursue that opportunity. Now we are supposed to host articles on every possible structure that could be built of LEGO and anything relating to trains and railroads. There seems to be a bit of a double standard when it comes to train-related articles. It seems to me that a site dedicated to the train theme is a better place for reference materials. Oh, I don't know, perhaps something where people could find instriuctions and how-to articles with reference materials. Oh, how about if we call it RailBricks? I wonder if we could start such a site? Anyway, more seriously, an article outlining the different types of bridges and perhaps giving some links to get builders started is useful. A dozen articles on the minutiae of bridge construction seems to me beyond the pale. If we are to keep all these articles then I guess I better undo all the deletions of the Bionicle character articles since they contained just as much info as some of these "bridge" articles and for some fans they have just as much meaning as articles about railroads. And, for the record, I have no objection to "redlinks" so long as they are to LEGO-related articles. If the subject is not really about LEGO then it is better to make it a Wikipedia link or remove the link altogether. I mean what's next? A reference article on toilets? I mean after all I have seen many builders try to render a commode @ minifig scale. I could provide pictures of various real toilets from around the world perhaps. Is that really the sort of article we want to see on BW? Tedward 00:13, 13 June 2012 (CDT)
Ted, the sarcasm may not be the most helpful way to make the point. When someone builds a toilet that gets 24,000 oohs and aahs, (which bridges at NMRA conventions tend to do) then yes, an article about it might be warranted. And if someeone WANTS to write a reference article about toilets, let them. Right now, we have a dearth of authors. So we should be inclusionist... when we have too much material and too many people clamoring to write more, then we can consider improving things by tightening standards. I've been uncomfortable with the amount of deletion going on, but perhaps I should have spoken out in defense of Bionicle... I didn't notice it. ++Lar: t/c 10:32, 13 June 2012 (CDT)
Sorry but the mild sarcasm was to make a point that clearly you do not wish to address. Why are we competing with other sites rather than focusing on articles about LEGO and the hobby? We do indeed have a dearth of authors and having them spend time creating articles on anything and everything that can be built out of LEGO seems a foolish use of resources. As for the toilets vs bridges argument your bias is clearly showing through. Sure there have been some spectacular bridges but more people (by a factor of a 100 or more) have probably built toilets at some time in their MOCs or are likely to do so in the future. An article giving them building ideas on how to do it is probably more useful to a greater number of people. But in the end, if you want to spend time doing it fine. I asked about consolidating and clearly it is not supported. Feel free to reverse the affected edits. As for Bionicle, that particular project started before the Dark Age of BW and there was a full and robust discussion that I believe you contributed to. We agreed that only significant characters, in whatever theme, deserved articles. If we want to revisit that then please open it up on the conventions talk page. Tedward 10:53, 13 June 2012 (CDT)
I'm not sure I don't wish to address it. It's not about competing, it's about encouraging participation. If someone asks me what to write about, I'm going to encourage them to write about things that are clearly core. But if someone says "hey I have this great idea for an article..." as long as it's related, I'm not going to DIScourage them. As for Bionicle, I'm not going to reverse my position on it, the previous decision is fine. You raised Bionicle, though. As for my "bias"... well now I think you're possibly not assuming good faith on my part. Look, you've done a great deal of the organizing work here and I'm just a gadfly. But... 1) you asked for opinions and 2) I have seen these very arguments before and I tend to be informed by what worked on the Big Wiki. It did well by being inclusionist. We have a severe lack of content. I want to set an encouraging tone. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 13 June 2012 (CDT)
No worries on the "good faith" part. I just mean our biases tend to make us a little blind to some things. I always use Bionicle as an example because it is my least favorite theme and I try to use it as a substitute for what I have a bias towards. In this case rather then "bridges" I would think of articles on Matoran houses. Would we support a series of stubby or even redlinked articles to the various dwellings of the Matoran as depicted in the movies or would it be more reasonable to have one article that discusses them all? And I am sorry but we are not, by definition, inclusionist here because we are a LEGO-related wiki and we already exclude articles not about the brick, company or hobby AND for significance. Bridges as a topic is significant. Every different type of bridge, not really.Tedward 10:44, 14 June 2012 (CDT)
There by no means are even redlinks to *every* different type of bridge. Merely the major ones. And construction techniques differ. Matoran houses are *fiction*. Bridges are real, and there are thousands, if not millions, of them. And they draw oos and aahs at shows. Which toilets, or matoran houses, do not do. But I tire of this as well. Instead of sparring about this, we should be figureing out what we need to do before we relaunch publicly, and how to get lots more editors. ++Lar: t/c 17:45, 14 June 2012 (CDT)
I appreciate the above discussion and the points Lar raises, but I think that consolidation is the best option here. Lar mentions that the "bridges at NMRA conventions" which get the oohs and aahs. I think it is significant that he says "bridges" rather than a particular type of bridges. Claude Bombarde 00:38, 14 June 2012 (CDT)
Thanks Claude but I think I am going to abandon the idea of consolidating for now and hope to see some progress in making these articles relevant and useful. If there are still redlinks and articles without significant LEGO-content in 6 months or a year (and I remember to come back to this) I will have no problem consolidating at that time. Tedward 10:44, 14 June 2012 (CDT)
Personal tools