Tag implication: ninjago -> lego

create implication ninjago -> lego

Link to implication

I thought lego was for the toy bricks. Don't know why it's a copyright tag.

Either way, if it's not drawn in a style like the toys, this implication doesn't help anyone. I already see several examples in ninjago where it's not the case.

-1

The ambiguity comes from the fact that along with making toys based on popular copyrights like Star Wars or Harry Potter, the Lego company also has its own original copyrights, such as Ninjago and Bionicle. Right now, the lego tag is being used to tag both "lego bricks" and "fanart of Lego's original series that doesn't necessarily depict them as lego bricks." Maybe these two meanings should have separate tags.

fossilnix said:

Maybe these two meanings should have separate tags.

We could go:
copyright: the_lego_group
general: lego
And implicate all lego owned copyrights to the_lego_group, and use lego for any depictions of the actual bricks.

Alternatively:
copyright: lego
general: lego_bricks
This should be self-explanatory

I like the first suggestion, as the_lego_group is unambiguous and encompasses every IP, whether it's spinoff toys or the movie.

Second suggestion is bad due to said ambiguity; people will still use lego for the bricks and it'll need frequent cleanup. However, once the_lego_group is established, we can alias lego_bricks to lego.

The tag implication ninjago -> lego has been rejected.

create implication the_lego_movie -> the_lego_group
create implication ninjago -> the_lego_group
create implication bionicle -> the_lego_group

Link to request

Should be all the LEGO intellectual properties.

The bulk update request #401 has been approved.

The tag implication bionicle -> the_lego_group has been approved.

The tag implication ninjago -> the_lego_group has been approved.