Wookieepedia
Advertisement
Wookieepedia
Forums > Senate Hall > SH:LEGO Star Wars articles

LEGO Star Wars media has been an important pillar in animated content for the last few years. With TV series such as LEGO Star Wars: The Freemaker Adventures and LEGO Star Wars: All-Stars to Disney+ specials such as The LEGO Star Wars Holiday Special and LEGO Star Wars Terrifying Tales. With their importance to Star Wars animation, we have seen lately several LEGO subjects being introduced into canon such as R0-GR, Rowan Freemaker, M-OC, Lena Freemaker among other subjects.

As some know, a few years back, we passed a CT which saw the creation of a LEGO tab. Then after seeing creations such as Commander/LEGO and Battle of Endor/LEGO, and people's intention of creating Color/LEGO, Human/LEGO (among other articles of this type) the tab was repealed citing "There is not enough content within the Lego Canon to fill these pages so it seems unnecessary to create a new tab for each character when we have gone for so long without one."

The repealing CT also states: "The coverage of this Lego universe should be limited simply to the non-canon appearances section at the bottom of each characters page. A tab at the top is not necessary for characters that exist outside of the Lego universe"

Now with the introduction of Freemakers and All-Stars content to the canon continuity, we have seen LEGO universe articles being moved entirely to the Behind the scenes section of their respective article (See: Graballa, N-3RO, BL-OX, Freemakers, M-OC, Kordi Freemaker, Rowan Freemaker, R0-GR) creating a long BTS section that it's divided like an article.

I'm looking to repropose the LEGO articles, but with another approach. A LEGO article or in this case subpage would only be created for subjects that originated or were created for the LEGO SW universe. This means that subjects such as Moxie Freemaker, Ka-Pao, Freemakers, R0-GR would be able to have a LEGO article. Subjects that originated beyond LEGO original media may not have a LEGO article, and will continue to be placed in the BTS section. The LEGO article subpage would be linked in the Behind the scenes section using the {{See also}} template, while we decide if we want to have more tabs.

With the recreation of LEGO articles, I'm proposing to add the following to the Wookieepedia:Notability policy

"LEGO subpages are to be used only for subjects that were created for LEGO media and have been mentioned in canonical media. (example: RO-GR, Freemakers, Pace Freemaker, Graballa) Characters and subjects that originated outside LEGO media will not be eligible for a LEGO subpage. (example: Lightsaber, Blaster, Luke Skywalker)"

Before creating a CT, I would like to hear out the community. I know that some users already dislike seeing an entire article being moved to a BTS section. I've also already talked with some members of the community and most agree that if we are reintroducing the LEGO articles, they should be more focused in LEGO original content rather than having pages like Blaster/LEGO.

I've also created two examples of how it would look. First we have Kordi Freemaker, which would contain only the canon information. The other one is Kordi Freemaker/LEGO which contains the information from the LEGO shows.

Any questions or suggestions let me know. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion[]

  • I think this is a great idea. — YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol.svg (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely the right step! Supreme Emperor Holocomm 02:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. SilverSunbird (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I like it! If I understand correctly, it means we wouldnt have a kyber crystal LEGO page, but we would have a Kyber saber LEGO page? Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I mean we already have Kyber Saber, so it wouldn't really change anything. If the Kyber Saber is introduced into canon, we would be able to have Kyber Saber/LEGO since that weapon was created for LEGO media. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
      • It might be a good idea to reword the proposed update to make it more clear that the "/LEGO" page thing will only apply to subjects from canon-adjacent LEGO media which have subsequently appeared or been mentioned in fully canonical media, and that subjects from said LEGO media which have not been mentioned in canon (such as the aforementioned Kyber Saber) don't get these pages. SilverSunbird (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I can reword it. What about this? "LEGO subpages are to be used only for subjects that were created or introduced in LEGO media and have been mentioned in canonical media. (example: RO-GR, Freemakers, Pace Freemaker, Graballa)…" With this change it also considerates your other concern of having Legends material being introduced into a canon-adjacent media. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
          • "LEGO subpages are to be used only for subjects that were created for LEGO media and have been mentioned in canonical media. (example: RO-GR, Freemakers, Pace Freemaker, Graballa)…" With this change it also considerates the other concern of having Legends material being introduced into a canon-adjacent media. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Separate point, how would linking work? I'm assuming we would link to the canon version of the article? But what about appearances by things currently not re-canonized (if there are any), should we create a canon article or link to the legends page? Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, it would be linked to the canon version of the article. Not sure that I understand the second question, any examples that you can provide? DarthRuiz30 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Not off the top of my head, just wondering how you think we should approach linking to say, Starkiller or Mara Jade if they appeared in lego media. Would we simply link to the legends page (potentially being the only legends link on an otherwise canon-linking LEGO page) or create a canon page? Could this happen or not with the current media thats been released? If not we could simply look into it if ever happens (eg if they did a Lego shadows of the empire for an anniversary). Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
        • If we had something like LEGO Shadows of the Empire, we could probably take that as something Legends and place it in their respective Legends articles. As for what would happen if we had Starkiller or Mara Jade appear in LEGO media, I think maybe we could use the approach use with Belgaroth asteroid field, originally it was an article with the Non-canon template, but once it got canonized that was moved to the BTS. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
          • This and the adjustment is perfect! Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This makes sense on the whole. One thing though: Taking the more complicated case of Jek-14 for example, with this revised rule, am I right in assuming that the LEGO subpage would detail information from only one continuity? I'm thinking that Jek-14 would be the Canon article, since he canonically exists in that continuity; Jek-14/LEGO can be created based on the Canon page per new policy, so it would cover LEGO content that is considered part of the Canon continuity; while Jek-14/Legends would stay as a non-canon Legends article since the character only exists in LEGO media in that continuity. OOM 224 08:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, that would be the approach with this new proposal. The LEGO subpage would only cover LEGO canon-adjacent media, while Jek/Legends will continue to cover LEGO legends media. Jek is such a unique subject and I debated with myself how we should approach it, but I think continuing to have Jek/Legends is the right way to go. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this is a much better approach than the last time LEGO pages were suggested. I am curious about how we would treat something like The Wheel, which originated in Legends, before appearing in LEGO, and then being canonized. Should that get a LEGO page, since it appeared in LEGO content before canon content, or not since it was created for Legends decades earlier? Ramsay Sanders (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Same as Belgaroth asteroid field, in my opinion. An article with the non-canon template, but once canonized everything is moved to the BTS, given that its a non-original LEGO subject. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I like this. Great stuff, Ruiz. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 03:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I love this idea. NBDani (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to let you know that is seems a good idea to me too. --NanoLuukeCloning facility 18:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • While I find this to be a good idea, why can't we have a Luke Skywalker/Lego and things that have enough Lego information to wright a page about it. Lego Starwars Timeline (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Because there's not enough information to have a separate page for them. Their appearance is LEGO shows is minimum and can be covered easily in the BTS. Besides, we already tried that approach. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
      • The things that didn’t have enough info were the things like Color/lego and Day/lego some of the major movie characters have enough lego information for a page. Lego Starwars Timeline (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement