user32: In order to help with descriptions of pieces especially, should we define a standard for descriptive nomenclature?
eg Length x Width x Height of the basic shape followed by additional identifiers
this could give us examples such as a block 8 x 2 x 1, a 16 x 1 x 1 with 15 holes (technics), or a plate 8 x 2 x 1/3

user99: If you actually know the part, the best strategy is to use the exact same name as another site, possibly linking to it or even inserting a picture when practical.
No need to reinvent our own naming conventions when there are already so many in use. I prefer to align on LDraw names which can be found via Peeron.

user56: Generally, elements are described by the number of studs, and then height is defined by them being a plate or brick.
It's then mostly the "specials" or over/under sized bricks that are given a height:



32: <p>In order to help with descriptions of pieces especially, should we define a standard for descriptive nomenclature?</p>

<p>eg Length x Width x Height of the basic shape followed by additional identifiers</p>

<p>this could give us examples such as a block 8 x 2 x 1, a 16 x 1 x 1 with 15 holes (technics), or a plate 8 x 2 x 1/3</p>
 99: <p>If you actually know the part, the best strategy is to use the exact same name as another site, possibly linking to it or even inserting a picture when practical.</p>

<p>No need to reinvent our own naming conventions when there are already so many in use. I prefer to align on LDraw names which can be found via <a href="http://www.peeron.com" rel="nofollow">Peeron</a>.</p>
 56: <p>Generally, elements are described by the number of studs, and then height is defined by them being a plate or brick.</p>

<p>It's then mostly the "specials" or over/under sized bricks that are given a height:</p>

<p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/o8Zcs.png" alt="Roof Tile 1X2x3/73°"></p>

<p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/OJYmy.png" alt="Roof Tile 1X1x2/3, Abs"></p>
