From Brickwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

How do we deal with violations of trademark? This domain cannot remain intact but we are simply recorders for what is out there. If/when the name changes can we simply change the text to say something like: The site was the original name for but was in violation of The LEGO Company's fair play policy. With appropriate linkage? Tedward 13:45, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

What is this site? Is it a collection of dispassionate reporters of what exists, ala wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WP:NPOV)? Or does it take sides? If the former, report the name and the existance and leave it at that. Writers could footnote that there may be a domain name issue but reporting the existance does not, in my view, itself place the writer in violation. If on the other hand the site wishes to foster advocacy, writers could take a stand and refuse to list violating sites (that's a stand in one direction) or list them and claim LEGO is all wet (that's a stand in a different direction) or some other... myself I prefer the dispassionate reportage approach. In that approach, reporting and using trademarks does not itself expose this site or the writers (Wikipedia is carefully worded so that liability flows to the writer, not the site) to liability. Cites are always useful in that regard as well. Myself, I am done with passion about LEGO, at least as much as I can be, I just want to enjoy what it has to offer. ++Lar: t/c 09:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)


There appears that there's nothing at the link. Perhaps another good idea gone the way of the dodo? Should we delete or mark as historic? (I suspect that deletion is better as I don't think site ever became notable, but I may be mistaken). Claude Bombarde 22:17, 1 August 2012 (CDT)

maybe a new article that lists "dead" web pages with redirects from the titles to it? Tedward 22:32, 2 August 2012 (CDT)
This article was created by an IP address that did nothing else here but create the article. I can't find anything that indicates this ever got off the ground. Things like AuctionBrick and iBricks, I think are worth recording for posterity, because they are notable. But It wasn't notable when promoted here (likely by its creator)... and now it's gone - and we aren't even sure exactly what it was or what it did. I think it would be better to remove it entirely. Claude Bombarde 00:54, 3 August 2012 (CDT)
As an afterthought, if an article such as this is deleted (as I believe it should be), and it later turns out to be notable, then a new article, with the same name, can be created with that notable information. Deletion need not be forever. Claude Bombarde 02:09, 3 August 2012 (CDT)
In general, I would prefer to not delete, but just mark it as historic, which I believe Claude Bombarde accomplished by changing the verbs to past tense. In this particular case, it seems the site may never have been more than an idea, and I can accept deleting it. --ALITTLESlow: t/c 19:03, 4 August 2012 (CDT)
Personal tools