user6174: When I first saw
A technology building set that is not LEGO Technic, K'NEX, or Meccano. Can you help me with the name?
I thought that it should get the clone-brands tag but I refrained because this really doesn't seem to be cloning LEGO in any fashion.  It is a distinct building system, and just because it is also made out of plastic does not make it a clone of LEGO.  This leads me to two possibilities:

We create a new tag for non-LEGO non-clone things.  I have no idea what this should be called. Bike-shed away!  This question alone doesn't warrant a new tag, but we could get more of these.
We extend the meaning of clone-brands to include non-clone non-LEGO things like this.  The 3rd-party tag seems to overlap this same space, but that seems to be for LEGO-compatible 3rd parties, not distinct toy systems like Fischertechnik or Meccano.

What are your thoughts on this?

user56: No. Fishertechic clearly isn't a Clone Brand, and has limited if any connectivity with LEGO elements.
With regards to non-LEGO, non-Clone things, they aren't really on-topic for the site - from our tour page:

Bricks is a question and answer site for LEGO and building block enthusiasts. […] we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about LEGO bricks and compatible building systems

In my mind, and I think generally:

Clone Brand: Brands or products that uses elements predominantly based on LEGO elements, with some original parts, and often with original set designs.
3rd Party: Products that unofficially fill a gap in the LEGO catalogue in some way. Either purely unique/bespoke parts, or (more often) additional technic or mindstorms based components.


user16800: I asked the question and I had difficulty trying to find a suitable tag. I guess now that 3rd-party would have been a reasonable choice.
Why did I ask on your SE?
Because the drop-down list (top right corner of main screen) says quote:


Text version: Bricks - For LEGO® and building block enthusiasts

If the phrase had been, "For LEGO® building block enthusiasts", I would have looked elsewhere but the inclusion of the word "and" seemed to allow my participation.

My opinion?

I was very impressed by the friendliness and helpfulness of the response from everyone who contributed. Not remembering the name of the system, it was proving difficult to find the information elsewhere.

I can certainly understand that the site would change character if absolutely every type of construction set were to be included. Whether this would be for better or worse is not for me to judge.

Participating on this site has actually kindled my interest in LEGO and, as someone who has retired, I'm now considering venturing into MINDSTORMS® and Technic as a fun way of learning informally about robotics.

If you decide to limit questions strictly to LEGO and compatibles may I humbly suggest you change the site description to something like:



Bricks
For LEGO® and compatible building block enthusiasts

In any event, thanks to all on a very friendly SE.

6174: <p>When I first saw
<a href="https://bricks.stackexchange.com/q/15371/6174">A technology building set that is not LEGO Technic, K&#39;NEX, or Meccano. Can you help me with the name?</a>
I thought that it should get the <a href="https://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/clone-brands" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;clone-brands&#39;" rel="tag">clone-brands</a> tag but I refrained because this really doesn't seem to be cloning LEGO in any fashion.  It is a distinct building system, and just because it is also made out of plastic does not make it a clone of LEGO.  This leads me to two possibilities:</p>
<ol>
<li>We create a new tag for non-LEGO non-clone things.  I have no idea what this should be called. Bike-shed away!  This question alone doesn't warrant a new tag, but we could get more of these.</li>
<li>We extend the meaning of <a href="https://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/clone-brands" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;clone-brands&#39;" rel="tag">clone-brands</a> to include non-clone non-LEGO things like this.  The <a href="https://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/3rd-party" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;3rd-party&#39;" rel="tag">3rd-party</a> tag seems to overlap this same space, but that seems to be for LEGO-compatible 3rd parties, not distinct toy systems like Fischertechnik or Meccano.</li>
</ol>
<p>What are your thoughts on this?</p>
 56: <p>No. Fishertechic clearly isn't a Clone Brand, and has limited if any connectivity with LEGO elements.</p>
<p>With regards to non-LEGO, non-Clone things, they <a href="https://bricks.meta.stackexchange.com/a/42/56">aren't really on-topic</a> for the site - from our tour page:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Bricks is a question and answer site for LEGO and building block enthusiasts. […] we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about LEGO bricks and compatible building systems</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In my mind, and I think generally:</p>
<ul>
<li>Clone Brand: Brands or products that uses elements predominantly based on LEGO elements, with some original parts, and often with original set designs.</li>
<li>3rd Party: Products that unofficially fill a gap in the LEGO catalogue in some way. Either purely unique/bespoke parts, or (more often) additional technic or mindstorms based components.</li>
</ul>
 16800: <p>I asked the question and I had difficulty trying to find a suitable tag. I guess now that <code>3rd-party</code> would have been a reasonable choice.</p>
<p><strong>Why did I ask on your SE?</strong></p>
<p>Because the drop-down list (top right corner of main screen) says quote:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/KG8jn.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/KG8jn.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Text version: Bricks - For LEGO® and building block enthusiasts</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If the phrase had been, &quot;For LEGO® building block enthusiasts&quot;, I would have looked elsewhere but the inclusion of the word &quot;and&quot; seemed to allow my participation.</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>My opinion?</strong></p>
<ol>
<li><p>I was very impressed by the friendliness and helpfulness of the response from everyone who contributed. Not remembering the name of the system, it was proving difficult to find the information elsewhere.</p>
</li>
<li><p>I can certainly understand that the site would change character if absolutely every type of construction set were to be included. Whether this would be for better or worse is not for me to judge.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Participating on this site has actually kindled my interest in LEGO and, as someone who has retired, I'm now considering venturing into MINDSTORMS® and Technic as a fun way of learning informally about robotics.</p>
</li>
<li><p>If you decide to limit questions strictly to LEGO and compatibles may I humbly suggest you change the site description to something like:</p>
</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>Bricks</p>
<p>For LEGO® and compatible building block enthusiasts</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In any event, thanks to all on a very friendly SE.</p>
