Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lego

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Thomas & Friends merchandise to be moved to The Railway Series and Thomas & Friends merchandise. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lego Trains to be moved to Lego trains. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Pinging the following users who may be interested in joining the discussion: @~2026-35805-86 @Ringtail Raider @Piotrus @IceWelder @InfiniteNexus

There are hundreds of articles covering the subject of Lego, a great (if not exhaustive) selection of which can be viewed at Template:Lego. However, many of them are subpar or outdated. Even Brickimedia doesn't see much activity at all these days. I marked the WikiProject as semi-active in February due to little activity on the main project pages and a limited number of editors working on those articles in general.

Plenty of cleanup is needed. List of Lego themes should probably be mostly rewritten as it is a more of a database than a list as of now, and it is important since it is a common redirect/merge target when articles on specific themes are deleted. Quite a few other articles would deserve a complete rewrite as well.

There is thus room for a group effort to improve and maintain articles related to Lego. Is there any interest in reviving this WikiProject? NewAccount7295 (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Brickimedia is a failed fork of Brickipedia that tried to leave Wikia back in 2013. The original Fandom version of the site is (unfortunately) still active, despite being full of poor-quality writing and misinformation.

I agree this Wikiproject desperately needs revival. Many of the non-video game Lego articles are in poor condition, with some having seemingly never been improved upon since 2008 (something I'd expect more from the aforementioned fan wiki, as most of those are seemingly also trapped 15-20 years ago quality-wise). It almost feels like it'd be better to completely start over with some of these articles, I'm not sure how people would feel about that, but a lot are pretty bad and have been bad for years.

Some examples: Recently I ended up going through and cleaning up a lot of the theme articles on that list. A few that had very few citations ended up having most of their content removed, and others had big fancruft sections or overly long lists of every single minifigure in the theme (someone got mad at me for removing one of those, despite it making the infobox far too unwieldy). History of Lego is another one I tried cleaning up a little recently; around half the article is completely uncited, though I hesitated to go ahead and remove all of it, but I probably will if no sources are added. I also found some parts that were directly plagiarized from Lego's website, and I'm not sure how much more of the page is like that, hence what I said earlier about wiping and starting fresh just in case. Brickfilm is one I looked at just today, and it seems to have large amounts of unsourced or badly-cited material (several paragraphs use citations that do not contain any of the info in the prior sentences).

I'm sure there are more reliable sources out there about Lego products and people now than there were back when this Wikiproject started, though I'm not sure which would be considered good enough to use as main sources (and a lot of helpful books are probably only in Danish). If there is a revival to this project, I'll gladly do what I can to help; I just don't know how salvageable what we have now is. I'd like to also add, I do greatly appreciate a lot of the work you've been doing adding and developing Lego articles lately. Ringtail Raider (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Minor thing I'll add: for all the problems wikia/fandom projects have, they can't be redundant, due to Wikipedia notability policy, as well as OR. There's stuff that can be covered only there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would like for Brickipedia to be redundant, due to the citogenesis it causes by Lego's (or I guess Dorling Kindersley's) "official" books lazily copying false information from there. Unfortunately it's even more beyond saving; I at least have hope for Wikipedia's Lego articles. Ringtail Raider (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Ringtail Raider If you can document some errors with Kindersley's books, we can call them unreliable at WP:RSN and ban them, presumably removing this way of getting errors into Wikipedia? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Ringtail Raider: I completely agree with you that some of the articles need to be rewritten from scratch (I already rewrote Lego Studios and Lego Trains, the latter of which lost a lot of content. I stated my hope in the edit summary that it could be added back). As for primary sources, the Lego fansites are excellent. BrickFanatics, Brickset, Blocks Magazine, to list a few examples, are all good. NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@NewAccount7295 Something I may be able to (somewhat uniquely) help with: for SF-themed Lego sets that have TV adaptations, I can create content like https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/ninjago . I intend to do so for Chima, Nexus Knights, Bionicle and Dreamzzz in the coming months. If there is content you think should be in our articles on them but there is no RS, well, what it means is that I can create it :) So let me know if something is missing :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@NewAccount7295 I am supportive in theory, but overall I have mostly grown disillusioned regarding what WikiProject can do. I mean, they are net positive, I like assessment templates and alerts, and sure, it's nice to have a place to discuss stuff, but to get to the A-class reviews or such it's almost impossible given the tiny amount of people we can expect to be reasonably active here. I also have the problem of my watchlist being too large and so I won't see discusions here unless pinged. That said, I fully support having a Lego assessment system, article alerts, and feel free to ping me if there is any lego related discussion anywhere. Good luck, and I will add myself to the project members, for what it's worth. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• There are pointed out several things here, not all directly related to each others. Talking about low activity at Brickimedia is not related to the main quesion here, because it is not part of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. You try to make a link between the quality of the Lego articles and this Wikiproject acitivy, and that that would be a reason to mark it is "semi-active". However, I don't see the direct connection in there. And on the other side, when looking at quality, the "Ω = 4.62" of Lego is not bad at all (on average between Start class and C-class! Even better than the Wikipedia:WikiProject Toys and Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. What I also notice is when looking at the Missing articles pages of 1 year ago, I see around 15 of them have been created. Next of that in the last year the amount of Lego articles in the statistics table, has increased with over 50; that is around an increase of 10% (There are just over 500 mainspace articles tagged with the Lego project.). I don't think other Wikiprojects show this incredible high number. When looking at the traffic to this WikiProject over the last 10 years, the amount of views of the last year, is the highest over the last 10 years apart from 2019-2020. All-in-all I see the WikiProject is small, but don't see the real point to discontinue the WikiProject. ~2026-35805-86 (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  One concern I have regarding quality (besides the issues I raised above) is that none of the actual toy articles are above B, most not above C, which might be raising the average a bit. When looking at the article quality for this project, both featured articles and 11 of 15 good articles are about video games; for the other ga/fl, 3 are film and tv, 1 is an actor who was in a Lego film and is otherwise unrelated, and 1 is for a random building that, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with Lego? Fortunately there are at least a lot more B articles than I remember there being a few years ago. I think trying to get at least a couple pages about the toy or company to good status would be a good goal. Ringtail Raider (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I dont think we need to a split in the articles of toys vs games for example, as they are all within this Wikiproject. The SIS Building is nicknamed Legoland (source) because it has stacked block-like forms, stepped design, light-colored stones (pale) and a playful appearance. And improving articles is always a good idea, but note that Wikipedia has not an order which articles must come first. ~2026-35805-86 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I think it's worth pointing out because Lego is primarily a toy, so there should be some toy-related articles that are good quality and not just other media.

  With the building, that really has nothing to do with Lego imo. It's since been removed from thr Lego project. Ringtail Raider (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @SleepyRedHair @Bigbrainsoldier @XCBRO172 NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm currently involved in rewriting a different article, but when I am done, I could maybe assist. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 18:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Same as XCBRO, I'm not opposed to helping whenever I'm not busy elsewhere. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 19:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• I agree that many Lego-related articles are in disarray and I can see how some extra organization could help drive cleanup efforts, but I don't think there is enough manpower that such a small WP would be beneficial. There are no Lego-specific guidelines that the toys WP (and, to an extent, the video games WP) don't already cover. If required for organization, maybe a task force shared between the two would suffice. However, I only work on Lego video game articles occasionally, so I would likely not be a great contributor to either at the moment. IceWelder [✉] 21:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:Lego_Monkie_Kid#TV_series_should_be_split. Source-wise, I expect it should be notable, and within few weeks I'll write up an entry about it for The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.

Looking at Category:Lego television series, it seems the problem is affecting multiple lego articles; at the very least, I see it at Lego_Dreamzzz#Television_series, which I also want to write up for SFE one day. FYI I will be writing entries, eventually, for Lego_Dreamzzz#Television_series, Nexo Knights (that's a TV series article, separate from Lego Nexo Knights and arguably meriting a move to Lego Nexus Knights (TV), Hero Factory (TV series), Legends of Chima (TV series - again, the theme is at Lego Legends of Chima), and Bionicle (film series). And maybe other stuff that has SF elements, although I am not sure which ones that would be (I haven't looked at this indepth). FYI, I already covered Ninjago (https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/ninjago). I hope my SFE entries will help improve the relevant articles on Wikipedia in turn (as SFE is a RS).

Anyway, if someone is looking for low hanging fruit here, i.e. easy articles to create, I think the TV series articles for LMK and Dreamzzz would be good candidates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply