Talk:Bionicle/Archive 3

Now, in accordance with the author's wishes, we're requesting that people wait at least a few weeks before posting new spoilers. For those who do not want to see spoilers, however, we're also asking that people follow policy and not delete spoilers should they appear. Hopefully we won't get in an edit war again and have to have an admin lock articles. Drakhan 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...This would be placed best in the Bionicle Legends Talk Page... :) Erebus 18:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The original discussion from when Legends #5 came out is already there. I posted it here as well because it's an issue that affects all Bionicle articles. Drakhan 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've go an idea, maybe we should request to protect the page

Bionicle Legends to help conserve the wishes of the author of the book (aka Greg Farshtey) and keep people from deleting/complaining about spoilers ToaRabin

14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The author's wishes do not contravene policy; verifiable and relevant information may stay. --InShaneee 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying, it is probably pointless to upload the leaked Mahri pics as we do not know enough about the Mahri to make a topic on them yet. - Rabin 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention it's most likely impossible to prove the accuracy of the pics. --InShaneee 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There's that, too. -Rabin 15:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So there has been disagreement over whether Bionicle creators "Alistair Swinnerton" and "Bob Thompson" need to be linked and/or referenced in the article introduction. Please discuss here instead of continuing the edit war. Thank you. Drakhan 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

BS01 is back online. I have taken the liberty of adding a link back. Is this alright? --Swert —The preceding

Of course the freaking girl was frightend! The more in-depth things get in the story line, the evil guys have to get more evil! The only freaking product for girls from LEGO even is freaking Clippits! AND THOSE ARN'T EVEN MEANT FOR 2-YEAR OLDS! They are meant for up past 4! No wonder lego didn't recall the sets! READ THE MANUAL! Xenongamer 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that.Xenongamer 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Oh! Got it now! Jeez, it wasn't even a bad guy commercial! It was an Inika commercial! --Gerlicky 20:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

can u please give more info on what happened? either Gerlicky or Xenogamer please?

oh i got it now! Knapper1176 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

in case u dont get it read the next thing below before asking for more info.

Couple things. First, who edited in the bit about the recent lawsuit? We need citing of that. Supposedly a father of a little girl sued because she was scared by an ad? Sounds highly unlikely... Although people do odd things, certainly, heh--but something like that definately needs cited. Also, some of the wording of that paragraph wasn't very neutral; I've edited to hopefully fit NPOV better; please comment if you disagree. Also, this whole article has a bit of overkill on the controversies, and the AAR RPG; there is much more relevant information about Bionicle that should get equal weight than those things. For now, I've combined the two controversies sections into one and moved them to the end. Seems a more neutral arrangement to me, and that seems to be the convention on most other articles with controversy sections that I have seen. Again, comment if you disagree... And finally, the "recall" claim about Pridak; the only site I've seen with members being uncomfortable with that (myself included to a degree) was on BZP, and nowhere was there anything about a 'recall' so that needs sourcing as well, please. --Bonesiii 23:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Tried googling for information on this claimed lawsuit. There's nothing, far as I can see... --Bonesiii 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them. The thing about the little girl is non-notable even if it is true, and the 'calls for a recall' might be able to return if some good citation can be found. --InShaneee 23:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember the lawsuit being mentioned on BZP a few months ago, but I agree that it's not really notable. The Free the Band promotion could also stand to be demoted ... maybe combine it with "Controversies" to make some kind of "Media and Marketing" section? Or just delete it outright sooner or later; in a few years, I don't think anybody's going to care. As for Pridak, maybe there should be a little blurb about how some fans are worried with increasing levels of violence in the franchise; in the debate about Pridak's "blood" some people mentioned that there was some concern the previous year about the Piraka using what looked like firearms. Drakhan 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't. A message board is not a reliable source. --InShaneee 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ironically I just found it... at BZP, heh. No idea how I never saw this article, but we do link to a source that seems on the up-and-up. However, it was not a lawsuit. It was only a complaint. I'm assuming this means it's even less notable... --Bonesiii 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Seems like a few editors feel like having an edit war over the "Inika" and "Pridak" controversies. The above discussion decided that those could not be included, since the sources either were not reliable, or the subject was not notable. That is, the Pridak one did not have any sources at all (and as far as I know, it's not even true, except that some BZPers did take issues with it, but that's hardly noteworthy in an encyclopedia). The only source I could find for the supposed Inika lawsuit is mentioned above, and it says that it was not a lawsuit; just a complaint to LEGO. Hardly noteworthy, and hardly a "controversy." Now, actual noteworthy, citable sources for controversies can go in the article, but those things were not either. Again, please discuss this here, rather than waging an edit war over it. That's what talk pages are for, guys... --Bonesiii 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)69.223.58.110 13:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Please take note of this policy (speaking to the above anon user):

Also, checking the history of this page, I notice you blanked the Bionicle page twice, and are thus a vandal (

WP:VANDAL). Things seem clearer... --Bonesiii

20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Would it be illegal to create a website so people could enter their own bionicle stories? I want to do that. I want to include my own on my gallery at the Brickshelf Gallery [1](I'm dume809)Ijust wanted the opinion of the other members of the wiki.(my gallery [2] —The preceding

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

Thets exactly what i meant.-User:Takuna

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to be clear, the following things absolutely need spoiler tags at this time:

• The object of Mantax's search
• Toa#Lesovikk - his story will be published on Bionicle.com soon
• The Toa Nuva's upcoming activities ("World Tour" section)
• Any and all information regarding the Hand of Artakha (found in Characters and groups in Bionicle, Dark Hunters, and Order of Mata Nui) - official reveal will come in the revised Bionicle Encyclopedia
• The death of Mata Nui (Great Spirit)

I'm willing to let contents of Bionicle Legends #7 slide and be spoiled; many of the spoilers already up have long been known. But the items on the above list are still future events and must have the appropriate warnings. Drakhan 21:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You should look over

CBM · talk

) 22:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't say it can't have one, either. -- Gravitan^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had looked over it before, and I don't see anything that completely rules out using spoiler tags. The answer to "Is it widely known?" is, of course, no; at least compared to the cited examples. And then in the next section it says "In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled 'Synopsis' section." The death of Mata Nui is quite a twist ending; the heroes failing to save the one they've been trying to save all this time. The "current fiction" tag suggested may work, but I really prefer the spoiler ones; I find it all too easy to just ignore top-of-page tags and the spoiler one really commands attention by the way it breaks up the page. I do feel the way you do, that a header like "plot overview" is kind of read-at-your-own-risk, but I don't think it's fair to just announce things like this without some kind of warning to those trying to go spoiler-free. Drakhan 03:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your approach is that it's very much a "fans-only" attitude. The {{spoiler}} tag benefits only those readers who are caught up to exactly the point in the story that you are assuming. Indeed, the spoiler tag may convey a false sense of security. Once they see the {{spoiler}} tag, readers may believe that the remainder of the article is spoiler-free, and it is not. Marc Shepherd 12:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You folks say that a plot summary section indicates spoilers. If this is the case, folks who are not into the story can see that and choose whether or not to read. For those who are up to date on the story, however, the spoiler tag seems (to me) like a good option. -- Gravitan^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A fair point, but in general, if you've read through the page that far, you've already spoiled the existing storyline. The situation you suggest means that a person skims the article, sees the spoiler tag, and begins reading the Plot Summary from the top without noticing that it goes in-depth. I figure that most people would be smart enough, if they did do that, to realize and stop before they got past the not-very-spoilery basic setup. The way I see it is that, like Gravitan said, fans wanting to avoid spoilers can skip only the section marked with the spoiler tag, while newcomers avoiding spoiling the storyline can recognize a Plot Summary section for what it is and ignore the entire thing. Drakhan 20:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a use of spoiler tags that is consistent with Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia. Basically. all the accepted arguments against this use of spoiler tags seem to be being cast aside in favor of "ad hoc" justifications. Moreover I'm not convinced that there is anything like consensus for this. --Tony Sidaway 14:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fans wanting to avoid spoilers should not read a section entitled "Plot details", "Plot summary", "Plot", etc. One person's minor detail is another person's spoiler; there's no objective way to divide up a plot section into "background" and "spoilers". Similarly, anyone who reads an biography of a fictional character had better expect it will contain plot details. And they should be disappointed if it doesn't. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to throw my support behind the use of spoiler tags in this case, which from your description seem reasonable. I also recommend joining the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler to help define the cases where spoiler tags should be used - the more people who join the discussion there, the better shaped consensus will be, and perhaps in the end it will be more generous towards spoilers. Wandering Ghost 12:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony: I'm not convinced there is consensus on your side, either. What I see is a few editors removing massive numbers of tags all over the place. A few editors does not, to me, indicate even the slightest hint of general consensus. CMB: I understand, but some fans will go so far as to not read an article at all unless they know where the newest spoilers are, so that they can avoid them. In this manner, you are essentially providing people with a reason not to come to Wikipedia. The casual reader can disregard the tags. The fans will (and do) find them useful. -- Gravitan^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion in May (see the archives of

CBM · talk

) 13:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Then consider the BIONICLE pages to be under the "limited circumstances" category. Also understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but one that is unlike any other, so making rules and guidlines under that assumption is not the right direction. There is nothing in

WP:SPOILER that definitively states that the tags are not to be used under our circumstances. In addition, what harm can possibly come from using them? This is not a life or death situation, so please, let's all try to be a little flexible. :) -- Gravitan^{(Talk | Contribs}

) 00:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of "limited circumstances" is that you have to give a compelling argument why these articles are different than the average article on a fictional character. You can't just declare it by fiat, and I don't see it right now. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We have already stated why they would do no harm and why it would make people feel better about reading them. Also, Wikipedia and several other websites (two forums and one other wiki) rely on each other for information, and if you take the tags away, you begin to confuse the members of those sites who come to view or edit here. And again, there is nothing in the policy that states we cannot use the tags under our circumstances. -- Gravitan^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own standards, independent of other sites. The argument that spoiler tags aren't completely prohibited, therefore they can be used here, is not compelling. If you want to use spoiler tags, you need to be able to justify their use. The general standard for inclusion is that the plot details have to appear somewhere that the reader does not already have a reasonable expectation of finding plot details. Biographies of fictional characters are always going to contain plot details. Basically: these articles are supposed to contain spoilers, so there is no need to put in a tag saying that the articles contain what they should. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 14:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that it's not a compelling argument, if nothing says they can't be used, I don't see why anyone would want to stop us. And in regards to your other point: I can't state this as fact, but I'm quite sure that most viewers of the Bionicle pages are not adults, and thusly will not understand why there are no tags. They don't see the tags as repetetive; they see them as indicators of new information, and I have personally talked to people who do not like the fact that the tags are being taken away. -- Gravitan^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry those people dislike it, but there has been a general change of practice on Wikipedia regarding spoiler tags. Rather than worrying about why someone would want to remove the tags, you should focus on explaining why the plot details in these sections are unexpected or otherwise different enough to warrant spoiler tags. The resolution of the long discussion about spoiler tags is that the vast majority of plot details do not need to be marked with spoiler tags. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 15:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well. However, I believe that the event under the spoiler tag in Mata Nui (Great Spirit) deserves the tag. It was not an expected detail, and the whole of next year's story and further hinges on it. Unexpected enough to justify the tag, in your opinion? -- Gravitan^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Now, onto another subject. Directly from

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

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

This is just an ordinary plot detail; Bionicle is not a murder mystery. But more importantly, that part of the guideline is talking about an article about a work of fiction. This is an article about a fictional character. There is an extremely strong presumption that an article about a fictional character will include all details of that character's life, including the end of it. I'm not saying that this detail might not be a spoiler - it's doesn't matter whether it's a spoiler. We don't use spoiler tags on most spoilers, including this one. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 13:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Define "ordinary", please. And where is this presumption coming from? How do you know that that reflects what every reader of Wikipedia thinks? The way I see it, Wikipedia is more about the viewers than the editors, and we should keep that in mind when deciding things. Also, if it is indeed a spoiler, why not use the tags? Why not lable it as what it is? In addition, I have yet to hear what is wrong with using them. What is so bad about these things? Is this so much about what the policy allows as it is editors removing the tags simply to make a point? -- Gravitan^{(♦ | ♣)} 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a long discussion in May and June. The outcome of it is that we don't put spoiler tags on most spoilers. The general disclaimer already points out that Wikipedia contains spoilers. We only use spoiler tags in very limited circumstances, and those don't include biographies of fictional characters, which must contain plot details to be encyclopedic. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I think that (almost) wraps this up. Thank you for your comments. Though I really wish I had taken part in that discussion. However, I have one more argument here. The detail being discussed here is quite possibly the most important event ever to happen in the storyline, and not very many fans know or expected that it would happen. It will affect almost every single other point from now until '09. Can we at least keep the tags for this one plot point until it becomes common knowledge in December? -- Gravitan^{(♦ | ♣)} 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait: there is a source provided to "Bionicle: Ignition issue #10". Are you saying that isn't actually published yet? — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the info has been published. But the comic it was published in is only available to those who are members of the Lego Club. There will be a generally released book out in December that also contains the detail in question. -- Gravitan^{(♦ | ♣)} 17:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise of Gravitan's repeated edits on that page. He continues to revert with the edict, "it stays until the discussion is over." No editor has the remit to issue orders about which content stays or goes, until a discussion has ended to that editor's satisfaction. Marc Shepherd 18:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering I stated that on

WP:SPOILER that states we cannot use the tags under our circumstances, I don't see what the problem is. -- Gravitan^{(♦ | ♣}

) 18:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a double negative, and two negatives don't make a positive. Marc Shepherd 20:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dec 07 Spoiler Discussion

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

Nevermind, as spoiler tags apparently no longer exist. So what do I use now? Give me something to work with! Drakhan (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The one tag that did exist for that purpose, {{

CBM · talk

) 01:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yeah, but Wikipedia's style guide says that most all-caps stuff should be adjusted so that only the first letter is capitalized - see

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps. Drakhan

14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

We are currently experiencing difficulties with our host. But, the site's not down forever (yet...), so until then the link'll stay, even if access is restricted for a short period of time. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 02:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Good. I was hoping I culd rejoin soon. Anyhow, thanks for clearing that up, but you should mention that next to the link. 24.193.53.223 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's up again, and we're a bit more stable now.

We are, however, rebuilding ourselves. It's not going to affect the overall name of BS01, but it will slow us down for a little bit. Thankfully we have backups of most of our pages xD --BS01Swert (^Talk) 19:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

In Māori, au is pronounced the same as it is in French. So Hau rhymes with 'toe'. Kahuroa 20:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if pronounced in Maori, but that was not the case the last time I checked. Last I bothered to look up pronunciations, it was "how." --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 21:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not how. I am a fluent speaker of the language by the way. Kahuroa 07:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I do believe I just said that I understand that when pronounced in Maori, it would be like you said. But that isn't the case here. This is an entirely seperate thing, and here, it has always been pronounced "how." The frickin' author has been asked several times, and he has chosen to pronounce it "how." --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

sweet as, bro. Kahuroa 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I say it's pronounced "Can-oh-he". [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Anything that's been officially confirmed by Greg or another source in Lego is fine, though in a lot of cases I don't think we have quite enough information to post yet - just names an appearances for the most part, little to no background info. If you do post something, be sure to include where you get the information so that we know it's accurate. Drakhan 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note, BS01 began allowing 08 spoilers as of December 1st, 2007 ^_^ --BS01Swert (^Talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Not to mention you guys have no problem linking to wikis on other articles. There's no difference here. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Proof of what I'm saying is true. That's the current Bionicle.com and Bioniclestory.com lead webmaster's blog. Note what he is saying. --BS01Swert (^Talk) 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

WHY THE ***** ARE ALL THE BIONICLE ARTICLES GETTING DELETED!>—Preceding comment was added at 15:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I am really, really, sick of this appearent, "make wikipedia smaller" project that's been going around. All over, pages are being deleted, merged, and made smaller. If the pages already existt, why get rid of it?!!!!! 65.186.85.42 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One anwser: money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.87.211 (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Why somebody deleted name list of Finnish Matorans in BIONICLE Page? I Live in Finland AND I can speak Finnish and understand it.

91.152.38.157 (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at

O.K, so I was playing on the CPU, and I found a Bionicle Wikipedia! It always has what I'm looking for. It is Biosector01.com! It even has info about the Hagah (but no pictures). LetterQ (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the external links section it says that Bionicle SectorWiki is the largest "and most accurate" Bionicle wiki. Is calling it "the most accurate" POV or is that an official fact? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's fact, we've been working on it since 2005. --BS01Swert (^Talk)

Very well then. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Bionicle myself, and I must say that the Summery that was written telling the bionicle story is very accurate and worked on heavily. However, note the word Summery. It should be shortened by a large degree and not given as much detail. Bionicle fans will understand the story, but people who just read about it on Wikipedia and don't know about the series won't have a clue of what is going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant-Sud (talk • contribs) 06:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)