Talk:Rebrickable

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that users on Rebrickable design their own Lego sets and sell instructions for them?

• Source: Multiple; check secondary sources on article

• • Reviewed: [[]]
  • Comment: Users may review the article and give their opinions on it, but I've gone ahead and nominated this for now. If the hook isn't suitable we could think of another one.

Moved to mainspace by NewAccount7295 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC).

• New enough, just long enough, overly cited if anything. No QPQ needed. GTG! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Please add an icon to indicate whether you're passing this or not. I wouldn't, but you're the reviewer.--Launchballer 12:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Notes for GA review

I believe this article meets the GA criteria as it is reasonably complete (even if it is a bit short), is illustrated by two images, and all parts of it are sourced except for the lead section, which only repeats information already found in the article. The article summarizes information available from the sources without going into too much detail.

While the article does contain six primary sources, I consider them to be reliable. One of them is an interview from Brickset (the authors on the website are subject-matter experts), and rest are from Rebrickable.

The Rebrickable blog is reliable for use in this article since it is written by Nathan Thom himself regarding information about his own website. One other primary citation in the article is simply the website's homepage. This is used for information about the number of creations and users on the website, which can be seen at the very bottom. Popular Mechanics noted there were 15,000 creations in 2020, which is recorded in the article, but that number is now outdated, so it is best to also include to the primary source for current information. NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rebrickable/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NewAccount7295 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Johnson524 (talk · contribs) 08:21, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello @NewAccount7295:! I'm a huge fan of reading new GAs and loved your article for Lego Life. I think I've heard of Rebrickable before, so this should be a fun review 😄 Johnson524 08:21, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 Quite a bit of work already went into the article, and in my opinion it can probably be passed quickly. Read Talk:Rebrickable#Notes for GA review if you haven't already and tell me your opinions on the article. Thanks for taking the review! NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Preliminary review

@NewAccount7295: Sorry for the delay in reviewing this nom, but I'm having a lot of trouble on seeing the notability of the topic through the sources present, raising WP:SIGCOV concerns. A rule of thumb I follow when reviewing articles is WP:THREE, which essentially states that three good sources (i.e. non-primary, neutral, and in-depth) that provide non-trivial coverage of a subject is almost-always the bare minimum for notability. Going through each source:

•  1 What it's like to be a Lego widow (non-significant coverage)
•  2 How We Can All Be Like Lego Master Builders (fantastic source!)
• 3 The 10 Best LEGO Sets for Alternative Builds (I'd argue non-significant coverage as the primary topic of the article is alternative builds, but Rebrickable does have a lot of mentions. Could be passable if really needed.)
•  4 Rebrickable Website Helps You Combine Your LEGO Sets To Build New Things (non-neutral advertisement, sourced from a blog linked at the bottom of the page)
•  5 Lego creations (non-neutral advertisement)
•  6 How Lego bricks went from five colors to nearly 200 (non-significant coverage)
•  7 One Man's Epic Quest to Build a 20,000-Piece LEGO Star Destroyer (non-significant coverage)
•  8 Brickognize: Applying Photo-Realistic Image Synthesis for Lego Bricks Recognition with Limited Data (almost entirely unrelated)
•   The rest of the sources are primary, which are well-separated and used appropriately, but don't count towards SIGCOV.

If more good sources aren't available to meet WP:THREE, I will unfortunately have to fail this nomination. I know this isn't much consolation, but an excellent example on what an article made entirely of sources that don't meet WP:THREE can be seen at Draft:Durrr Burger, which I wrote and nominated for GA sometime back, but got draftified for nearly identical concerns. If additional good sources can be found, the nomination can proceed. Johnson524 21:13, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 If you feel the article is not notable, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion so we can discuss the sourcing there and hear the opinions of other editors. I'd argue it is a subject of "borderline" notability. NewAccount7295 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@NewAccount7295: I really hate deleting articles and would rather draftify when possible. This way, if more sources are found, the progress already made on the article isn't lost to deletion. However, if you'd rather bring it to AfD, we can do that. Johnson524 21:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 Despite the name, AFD isn't necessarily for deleting articles, as it is now used or mergers as well. I do believe it is the best venue to discuss this. The nomination can just be placed on hold in the meantime. NewAccount7295 (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

An AfD has been started. Johnson524 23:30, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 The AFD has been closed as keep, with the consensus at the time being that the article is notable. I believe we can continue with the review now. NewAccount7295 (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@NewAccount7295: I'm sorry for the delay in reply, but can you expand the article to include at least some of the citations which show notability provided by Cunard in the AfD? The article has clear notability, but unless you read the AfD, you wouldn't know it by reading the article yet. Once this is done, the actual review of the article should be fairly quick as you pointed out early on. I again apologize for my delay in reply, last week unexpectedly proved to be quite busy, and hopefully should not happen again. Johnson524 07:48, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 To me it looks that the information from those sources is already in the article, just using different sources. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@NewAccount7295: Could you please still put in at least two of those sources? Sources in a GA should at minimum demonstrate the article’s notability, and while I suppose optional, I can almost guarantee they have more information to add. Johnson524 17:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 As a start I readded the Blocks Magazine source to the article. It was previously there but I removed it since I was trying to back away a bit from over-sourcing since I consider it could count as a semi-primary source anyway. NewAccount7295 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 I've gone ahead and addressed most of your comments. NewAccount7295 (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   @NewAccount7295: Overall a fine article! Your talent in writing was already evident based on your other Lego-related GAs 😄 Copyvio turns up nothing of concern, the citations are very well formatted, neutral wording, etc.. All the citations in the article and brought up in the AfD were assessed for their reliability, with a few comments below. One last comment, unless I'm mistaken, was this your first article? If so, I'm extremely excited to get this to GA for you!

Non-prose

• |logo_alt= should be added to the infobox to describe the logo. Y
• Break the section History and features into a Features section first (made up of the first and fourth paragraph), and a History section following (made up of the second and third paragraphs). Y Although I think the article flows better with only one section
• Either write out all of the dates used in citations (i.e. 12 January 2026) or abbreviate them (i.e. 2026-01-12). Right now the article is a combination of both, and especially going from dmy to ymd can be confusing. I personally think the former looks cleaner, but whichever version you choose is up to you. Y
• Add the parameter |url-access=subscription to references [1] by Australian Financial Review and [6] by The Washington Post. Y
• Remove ref [5] by c't from the article entirely. This only reference without an author, reads as an ad, and currently add nothing to the article as its only used once as part of sentence cited by several other sources. Y I'll go ahead and remove it, however, I don't know if it is an advertisement and I personally think it could count as at least partially significant coverage. c't is a well known German computer magazine.
• Similar to the above, ref [4] by The Mary Sue should be removed from the article entirely. Besides already reading as an ad with just boilerplate info about the company already found and cited by [2] and [3] in the article, there is a separate reason for its removal. While The Mary Sue is a reliable source, at the end of their article it states the info used comes from an article by Technabob, which when visited, says their info used comes from an article by Brother Brick, which when visited, say THEIR info used comes from an article by Bricks Down Under, which in the first sentence claims to be a blog, which is not reliable. Honestly I found this more humorous then anything, but yeah, because its info is ultimately cited to a blog it should be removed. Y I've gone ahead and removed it but keep in mind when it comes to Lego-related sources the authors are often subject matter experts, so being a blog doesn't make it automatically unreliable.
• The citations Brick Wheels: Amazing Air, Land & Sea Machines to Build from Lego, On my radar: Danny Robins's cultural highlights, and especially Rebrickable: Have you amassed a large collection of LEGO bricks, but have no idea what to do with them? There's a website for that should be added to the article. For a soon-GA so few citations, these three sources found in the AfD were amazing finds. Respective to how they're listed above, they could add at least one sentence to the article each, regarding 'parsing 3D CAD files', the 'brick ideas' feature, and so so much info about their timeline of history. I don't think the two sources found by The Week Junior offer any new info, but you're welcome to add them if you'd like.
  • Any chance you could still add info from these three citations? The article is particularly short, and if more good information exists it really should be added to meet the focused requirement 3b. Johnson524 20:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Johnson524 The first two sources don't really add anything not covered in the article. The Blocks magazine source looks great, but I have yet to look through it to expand the article. I don't think that should be enough to prevent this from being a GA as is. NewAccount7295 (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  They add at least a sentence each (the 1st about 'parsing 3D CAD files', the 2nd about the 'brick ideas' feature, and the 3rd about history), and for an article with a 12 sentences of prose total, I still think these should be included to meet 3b. (This is kind of an aside, but The Guardian is a great source to establish notability. I only bring this up as you expressed concern for with the removal of c't above). Johnson524 23:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Johnson524 3b requires it "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", but it doesn't have to cover as much as an FA. I'll try to work on expanding it a bit like you suggest though. Shall we move on to the prose now? (Thank you for your work by the way, you have done a very efficient job reviewing this article) NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  @NewAccount7295: I appreciate the complement, though, I'm not sure I deserve it 😅 If it wasn't already apparent I've really only been able to work on this review on the weekends, as during the week midterms are really killing me. That being said, I'm truly sorry for any and all delay. I've gone through and done a whole bunch on minor copyediting and added those two citations, so that only the more notable prose suggestions below are left before passing. Thank you again for your patience and your hard work on this article. Johnson524 21:06, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Idk where else to out this this really is more of a comment, but I don't think the Blocks Magazine article should be listed as primary. It's definitely in the gray zone as half it is an interview with Rebrickable's creator, which would be primary, but the other half seems like pretty reliable secondary coverage. I'll leave this up to you. Response: I listed it as primary since I consider Blocks Magazine and similar sources primary for Lego subjects.
  • Sounds good with me! Johnson524 20:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Optional: Especially for a GA, I would remove all citations from the infobox by writing them as prose and citing them in the body. This only needs to be done for two items.Reponse: Already done for lead prose. I think it is best to leave the citations there as adding them to the prose might be giving it too much detail.
  • Sounds good with me! Johnson524 20:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Optional: I would wikilink the remaining citations whose publishers aren't already wikilinked.
• Optional: Can archived urls be added for the few sources on the page?

Prose

• users to post and sell instructions for Lego designs, including alternate builds of sets. → users to post and sell instructions for alternative builds of Lego sets and other original designs What do you think about this to mentioning their most notable aspect first? Response: It should be left as is. We also have to be accurate. Alternate builds are only one part.
  • Sounds good with me! Johnson524 22:41, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Overview and features

• This section mentions a crowdsourced "database with information about different Lego sets and parts", but also an AI-powered "RebrickNet" which according to the prose sounds like it serves the same purpose. I was curious, is this information crowdsourced anymore, or is this done by AI? If they're still separate, how does this sound as a clarification for the second paragraph: Rebrickable's data on Lego sets is crowdsourced, with a team of administrators attempting to ensure its accuracy and reliability. Among the projects developed by them is RebrickNet, an artificial intelligence system for detecting Lego parts in photos. → Rebrickable's database of Lego sets and parts uses crowdsourced data, which a team of administrators oversee to maintain its accuracy. Separately, Rebrickable also developed RebrickNet, an artificial intelligence system designed to identify Lego parts in photos. Response: RebrickNet and the part database are two different things. The database is a list of parts Lego has produced which is updated manually be the administrators (crowdsourced because users can help contribute to it). RebrickNet on the other hand was a program which could be used to identify which part was in a photograph. I don't think anything needs to be changed as the article makes this clear enough.
  • Is this not a more clear sentence though? Data → database for consistency, detecting → identifying imo is more accurate, etc.. I still feel like these two sentences would benefit from some of these. Johnson524 22:41, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I've gone ahead and changed "data" to "information" in the one sentence and changed "detecting" to "identifying" in the other. NewAccount7295 (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

History

• How would you feel about swapping out the rebrickable v2 and v3 sources for the Blocks Magazine #68 source? This not only could consolidate primary sources into a kinda-sorta less primary source. This sentences could even be elaborated on in the form of something like The website went through major updates in 2014 and 2017, respectively. → The website has since undergone two major updates: in 2014, "Rebrickable Version 2" was launched which saw a redesign of building features to account for the variations and relations of different pieces, and in 2017, "Rebrickable Version 3" was launched which saw mobile version and subscription plans added among other features. Response: Johnson524, does the source mention the two updated versions? If so, it might be a good idea to use it instead. However, the statement about the mobile app is inaccurate. There has never been a direct Rebrickable mobile app. Rather, there was a shopping assistant app created by Nathan
  • It mentions both versions on the second page of the piece in the box on the left! That's an interesting catch with the mobile app though, it says v3 added "mobile support", so I guess that should be reworded, but otherwise do you think this sentence + citations could be added? Johnson524 22:45, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think the sentence is good as is but I've swapped the citation. NewAccount7295 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Can the sentence Bricksafe, a sister website for file hosting, was created in 2013. be removed? It seems pretty extraneous to me, especially as it's only mention comes from a primary source. Response: I've gone ahead and removed it for now, but I have no issue with adding it back.
  • Is there a reason you removed the CAD file sentence? Furthermore, do you think you draft up and add a BrickLink Studio sentence? Johnson524 22:48, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Johnson524 The reason I haven't added a BrickLink Studio sentence is because none of the sources mention it, so I think discussing how the MOCs are uploaded would be going into too much detail. NewAccount7295 (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds good with me! Johnson524 03:01, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the website Rebrickable lets users create new builds using the parts from existing Lego sets?

• Source: Herz, J. C. (2015-04-29). "How We Can All Be Like Lego Master Builders". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2026-01-10.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Carrot jam
  • Comment: Previously nominated and ran on February 25 after it was created. Decided to nominate it again with a new hook now that it is a GA.

Improved to Good Article status by NewAccount7295 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2026 (UTC).

• @NewAccount7295: Not eligible. Please read WP:DYKNEW.--Launchballer 06:54, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Lead section needs to stay short

@Johnson524 Since this is a short article it doesn't need a long lead section, which is why I've kept it short. Otherwise, it risks becoming a repeat of the rest of the article. An article doesn't have to be long to be a Good Article. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @NewAccount7295! 😄 I completely agree, but also believe it should at very least mention MOCs and database they run. These are both pretty key, and since 90% of readers only read the lead of an article, I feel like these should be mentioned. I'm definitely self aware I'm not the best at being brief though, so how do you think would be best to talk about these in the lead/what the major updates did in the body? Cheers! Johnson524 23:17, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I added "The website also contains a database with information on different Lego sets and parts" to the lead, which I think solves that. NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I like it, but reordered it and added just a little more info. How's this sound? Also, what were you thinking for that part of the lead about major updates? Cheers! Johnson524 23:28, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I reworded your edit a little bit since the meaning of the term "alternate builds" wasn't really made clear, but it is good now. I don't think the updates should be mentioned in the lead. That is the kind of detail you'd mention the in the main part of the article, and those aren't uncommon for most websites. NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I like it! Oops, I’m sorry, I totally misspoke, I meant to say what do you think about adding the ‘major update’ additional info to the body where I put it originally, not the lead. Sorry for that, cheers! Johnson524 01:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)