# Should we have a LEGO tag?

I see is no longer allowed. Since this site seems to be not exclusively about LEGO, is this a good idea?

• Note that there's a really, really practical reason not to have the tag, even if it would be occasionally useful: since the vast majority of questions will need it, it'll either be omitted (making it useless) or used in lieu of more specific tags (making tagging useless) on a fair number of them. Anything you can do to encourage one good tag by default should usually be done. – Shog9 Oct 26 '11 at 0:39
• If there is a LEGO tag does it need to be in all caps? – jcolebrand Nov 2 '11 at 22:00

I think we should keep the LEGO tag - if we rename the site to make it obvious that we welcome k-nex, etc. then it makes sense to be able to say "I'm interested/not interested in "

Otherwise there's no way to filter them out later.

I've got no experience with knex, which (I feel) we should welcome on this site, but I'm not going to be able to answer any of the questions about that, so would like to be able to filter them out using the "Ignored Tags" feature.

The opposite is probably equally likely: There may well be people who are experts in knex, but with limited interest in LEGO - shouldn't they also be allowed to "Ignore" LEGO specific questions?

Finally, thinking far into a possible future - look at Facebook.stackoverflow.com if this site gets big enough that we become an "official" support channel for one of these toys, then providing this sort of separation is much harder if a specific toy isn't tagged correctly (we should aim high after all ;))

• Also, if we keep the lego tag, we can deal with things related to the LEGO company itself – jrg Oct 25 '11 at 21:37
• Hmm, @jrg interesting point - if we want to ask a question about LEGO the company is that off topic, or should it be tagged with something like "LEGO-corporate"? – Zhaph - Ben Duguid Oct 25 '11 at 22:04
• No idea, that'd also be another question worth asking. – jrg Oct 25 '11 at 22:38
• For the company I'd just recommend their name: the-lego-group. – user23 Oct 25 '11 at 22:52
• @Dori True... Didn't think about that. – jrg Oct 26 '11 at 0:23
• @Dori But I don't think that applies in this case - unlike the Apple site, we're not exclusively about LEGO, but open to other brick based construction toys - so having a "LEGO" tag is more use. – Zhaph - Ben Duguid Oct 26 '11 at 7:35
• Still, if the tag is on 90% of the questions, it's not very useful to have at all. – user23 Oct 26 '11 at 9:53
• @JoeWreschnig That was my initial thought too, but after thinking about it, I felt it had value. – Zhaph - Ben Duguid Oct 26 '11 at 10:02
• The only thing it enables that I can see would be the ability to ignore 90% of the site - I'm not sure that's actually valuable. – user23 Oct 26 '11 at 10:05
• But if the site were renamed to be slightly less "LEGO-centric", would that encourage more people later to join in and ask more questions about other toys? Then the balance might be more even? Isn't it just that the initial interest is from LEGO users, the proposal was LEGO specific, but was open to other toys, so to start with it's going to be biased? – Zhaph - Ben Duguid Oct 26 '11 at 10:31
• In my opinion the site is open to the whole range of brick toys. This does not include K'nex. Within the world of brick toys, LEGO dominates both commercially (99% of brick toys are Lego-based) and technologically (the remaining 1% are largely defined by if and how compatible they are with Lego). – user23 Oct 26 '11 at 11:21
• @JoeWreschnig In which case we need a greater body of people to consider bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/93/what-is-oodammo off topic, as I'm sure you've done, and update the FAQ to be more explicit about what we're not talking about? – Zhaph - Ben Duguid Oct 26 '11 at 12:14
• @Zhaph: Indeed, I am one of the two off-topic close votes on that question. (Although more telling, I think, is the low views and no upvotes - the only question to receive no upvotes so far.) I am not sure the FAQ needs updating - "LEGO® - Stack Exchange is for LEGO® and building block enthusiasts." – user23 Oct 26 '11 at 12:29
• @JoeWreschnig My concern is that the most upvoted and accepted answer during the commitment phase to "Should we expand the LEGO proposal to also include other brick families, like K'Nex and Erector?" (discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/1613/…) seemed to be "yes". – Zhaph - Ben Duguid Oct 26 '11 at 13:01
• @JoeWreschnig There was a motion at one point for it to be called Construction Toys, which to me would seem to be the best idea. The difference between brick and non-brick based toys is hazy, and the definition between Lego and non-Lego is a bit restrictive. Construction Toys is very clear cut. – fredley Oct 26 '11 at 15:46