Talk:Lego/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Nonsense caption

I couldn't make sense of this - "A detailled and complex Lego-City as it would be very difficult to build it with nowadays offered Lego-Sets".--Tatty 13:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not "nonsense"; rather it refers to something which is not mentioned in the article - the fact that most current Lego sets in shops (as opposed to those available online, which are more aimed at the "serious" AFOL) use large, juvenile elements which cannot be "reused" for other purposes as easily as the old-fashioned blocks. I'll see if I can work some kind of reference into the article without getting too controversial. ;) FiggyBee 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is confusing. Also, it's incorrect. I believe you could build that exact city with current sets. You might need a lot of them - but I don't see many parts that aren't still made. Your point that modern Lego sets have some pretty terrible parts in them is certainly well taken but: (a) It doesn't belong in a caption for a photograph. (b) It's not neutral point of view. In my humble opinion, the caption should be simplified to something like "A City made from Lego parts taken from a number of different sets". The person looking at the photo can make up their own minds as to whether it's detailed or complex - and if something needs to be said about the poor part distribution in modern sets then let's find a neutral way to say it in the main body of the article. How about something like:

In modern Lego sets there is a tendency for the designers to include a greater percentage of specialized parts that are less useful for making other things than those for which the set was designed. Some Lego fans lament this trend.

SteveBaker 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I failed in my quest for incontrovertibility. :) I agree certainly with the changes you made to the caption. I do think it's worth mentioning the trend towards large specialized parts in the article though (and the contrast between what's available on shelves and what's available through shop at home. I'll have another look at it tomorrow when I'm not falling over and see if I can put it in a more nuetral way. FiggyBee 11:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My original criticism was aimed at the unfathomable grammar. However, recently one of the first sets I bought for my kids, after a thirty-year break from Lego, was a 1200 piece set of standard bricks, which seems to have been in Australian shops for the last year. I also intend to buy more standard bricks and plates from the Lego website. In this way it would be much easier to recreate the photo than ever before. And thirty years ago, I would have swapped my bike for some of the pieces in today's kits. I'm not convinced your lament is valid. -Tatty 10:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

This article has about 10x too many external links. Can someone familiar with this subject please do some pruning? ike9898 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I'll go thru them sometime and see what most are. It looks like some are just fan sites someone added.

Lego and Stomach Ulcers

I reverted a paragraph about swallowing Lego's to cure stomach ulcers. This seems really unlikely - and a Google search failed to turn up even a single reference to this. At the very least we need a convincing reference - but the paragraph said this was a common practice - and if it was, I'm sure we'd see something from a Google Search. SteveBaker 22:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of the word lego

I seem to recall reading an old Lego Magazine that said it was Danish for "play well", but the article states Lego says it means "I assemble" in Latin. -Wulf 22:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It does in fact stand for "play well". LEGO is a contraction of "LEg GOdt" meaning, literally, "play well". -- Nwinther 15:55, 10 March 2006 (CET)

Links to Competitors

Links to Megabloks and other Lego quasi-compatible competitors keep being added and removed over and over. There should be some discussion here about whether they should be included (because they have relevance to Lego) - or excluded (because they are not strictly about Lego). In my humble opinion, links to any and all Lego competitors most certainly belong here. I understand that there are plenty of Lego fanatics out there who would very much like to see those 'other' blocks wiped from the face of the planet (and I'm most definitely one of them) - but this is an encyclopedia and it's supposed to contain a richly linked set of facts. It's not about likes or dislikes - and it's not about promoting one company over another even if their product is better. If you feel a need to deprecate the opposition's products, then let's write a section giving a dispassionate explanation of WHY Lego bricks are better. Things like factual data about the quality of plastic and the precision with which they are molded - things that we can find indisputable references for. So - I'm going to revert the deletion of those links - but to prevent a revert war, I think we should discuss it here rather than messing with the article all the time. SteveBaker 23:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a question who is a better construction blocks toy company. By listing Megabloks or any other toy competitors on the Lego page confuses or mis-informs the public or the everyday reader. In other words it gives the idea that Megabloks is part of the Lego Group. The everyday 'joe public' does not know that. In an interview with the CEO of Lego he mention that 42% of the public assumes or thinks MegaBloks is owned by Lego. This is information from a podcast interview with the CEO of Lego in 2005 at Brickfest. MegaBloks already has their own page on Wikipedia. The other toy competitors should have their own page too 'not' link to Lego. The 'See also' sections are links related to Lego fan sites or Lego products, not met to be a list of compatible or competitors. Let's not have the 'gray area' to get bigger or blend toy competitors to be listed. Each company needs their own page on Wikipedia. This is reason why the idea of having an encyclopedia is to find the right and correct information. Not to mention the 'see also' and 'external links' list is getting long and out of control. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.116.196 (talk • contribs) .

Well, let's take these points in turn: (1) Confusing the public: This is easily fixed - add a section "Lego competitors" - and discuss them (with links) there. I agree that we must not add to the confusion - but our mission here is to educate - so it behooves us to work to dispel confusion by making things explicit. We can say things like "The following companies make blocks that work with Lego - but are not Lego...." (2) It's good that MegaBloks has it's own page - but unless it's linked to the Lego page (and vice-versa), few people will find both of them. I don't understand why there should be no linking - Wiki isn't here to provide neat little adverts for each company - it's here to educate people - and the more cross-linking to similar products there is, the better informed the population will be. (3) I agree there are vastly too many links at the bottom of the page. Some of those need to be woven into the main body of the article - many of the rest need to be blown away. I think the set of links to competitors belongs in a section of the article listing the competitors and perhaps discussing the various legal ramifications and manufacturing differences. SteveBaker 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(Also: Whoever 70.59.116.196 is - you need to read the rules about reversions in Wiki. You should not have done that last re-re-revert without discussion here. It's exceedingly rude. SteveBaker 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Greek Lego stuff

That's interesting but not relevant to the company history. The word "Lego" means lots of things in many different ancient languages, I'm sure. The Latin word is only relevant because the company makes a claim about it. The Greek word might be relevant if it actually meant, "I put together", but it doesn't. It is true that you pick up Lego's, but you pick up a lot of things. It's also true that you must gather stones to build a wall, but that doesn't mean that "gather" means "put together". You have to gather stones to throw them too, but "gather" doesn't mean, "throw". And "pick up" is not the main meaning of legein. If you want to add it under "Trivia", that's fine with me. Pfalstad 21:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the Greek, I corrected it. Since the Greek does, and the Latin does not, have a sense involving construction, it seems clearly relevant. It is perfectly possible that whatever Lego Group flack came up with the stately account of the word's origin was confused. Please don't destroy useful edits. Septentrionalis 22:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Latin/Greek stuff to trivia. After reading the Lego company web page here, which says that Lego "coincidentally" means "I assemble" in Latin, it seems clear that the company is not seriously claiming that the word Lego comes from Latin; they just state it as an interesting coincidence. So it's trivia; I moved it to that section. The Greek stuff seems appropriate there too. Pfalstad 00:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lego Technic

I just wanted to call attention to the fact that Lego Technic is still a stub... Especially with the announcement that Mindstorms NXT will be based on Technic, I think it is a fairly important article, which needs our attention. --Wulf 03:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Excessive links?

There are currently 48 external links in this article! Are they really all necessary? Joyous | Talk 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No - they aren't. In truth, we see a lot of 'vanity' links where people want to show off their own Lego creations. One good link to such a site would suffice (in an encyclopedia) to show the existence of impressive, large scale, clever creations - but how does one choose which of so many great sites? One way to resolve this would be to create a 'List of Lego Creations' someplace and just link to it from here. That way we don't care how long that list gets because it doesn't clutter up this article - and if someone attempts to add more links, we can just say "Please put them on the list" without offending anyone. SteveBaker 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps only links to reference sites and discussion forums should be included, as opposed to sites showing of individual creations? I'm new to Wikipedia and thus not entirely acquainted with its mission, but it doesn't seem very "encyclopedic" to include such pages. Example: Instead of the link to Andrew Lipson's page of Lego sculptures (as cool as they are), a link to lugnet.build.sculpture would be more appropriate (though in this case redundant since a link to Lugnet already exists) Hopefully this makes sense. Also, I feel sites like FBTB.net, Classic-Castle, and Classic-Space should be moved to the community section instead of creations. Kiolden 05:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say the list of external links is getting long. Few of the links are from other countries such as Japan, Hong Kong, and Europe. However some links to sites are not in English, if someone does not understand Danish, Dutch or any languages. I do think a few of the sites should be move to their own site or to the correct language. I think there should be one main external link to show all of the 'international Lego sites'. I did notice the 'in other languages' list on the sidebar. Both Classic-Castle and Classic-Space are 'creations' sites, since both have there own community or discussion board. I think the list of links is more about 'attention'. Then again some sites have good information and have links on their sites to other sites for example LUGNET.com, Brickset.com and BrickWiki. I guess the area should be cleaned up and cut the list to serious and helpful sites? User:70.59.116.196 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly we are in violation of the WP:MOS(Wikipedia:Manual of Style). (Specifically WP:EL (Wikipedia:External links)) To summarize what it says:

What should be linked to

1. Articles about any organization...should link to their official site...

   So a link to the official Lego site is justified.

2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of an article.

   But these should be linked from the text and placed in the References section - so this doesn't count.

3. An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media,..

   None.

4. On articles with multiple Points of View...

   None.

5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.

   This is the only way to justify the majority of the links - but it's pretty tenuous in some cases.

6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

   None.

Occasionally acceptable links

1. For albums, movies, and books: one or two links to professional reviews...
2. Web directories: ...a link to one web directory listing can be added...
3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fan sites, including a link to one major fan site is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fan sites can replace this link. (Note: fan listings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)

   This is our problem. We have dozens and dozens of fan site links. We should point to an external site with lots of fan site links...or pick one (yes one) fan site to link to.

4. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis...

   Don't link to large pages? I don't understand this rule.

5. External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page.

   This is a really tough criteria that I don't think any Wiki pages pay close enough attention to.

So - what this boils down to is that there should be:

• One link to the official Lego site.
• Some links to content that should be in the article but isn't.
• One link to a fan site - or one link to a directory of Lego sites.

We have vastly more links than is normally considered reasonable. SteveBaker 16:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Allright, so how about this:

• link to Wiki-Brick-Links
• link to Lugnet?
• link to Lego.com

Any thing else either doesn't need a link on this page (fansites...), or should be incorporated directly into the article (Brickfest?). Time to start cutting? Kiolden 03:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this is what the manual of style demands of us - although I think that if we make this change, there will be howls of anguish and a revert war. Still - "Be Bold". SteveBaker 03:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, I deleted the majority of the external links. Before everyone starts throwing stuff at me, try to see if the link you want included fits in the article. This could be an opportunity to expand the Lego article in a meaningful way. I think that a section in the article discussing mathematical applications of Lego would be far more desirable than a list of Lego and Math related sites, for example. If you can't fit it into the article, it probably doesn't belong on the page. Also remember that any links that don't work out in this article can be added to the Wiki-Brick-Links compendium. Also, I'm new to Wikipedia, so if I have breached some protocol by doing this, please let me know. Kiolden 05:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a chop-shop. I have to say a lot of 'external links' should have 'not' been deleted. Without checking to see if 'any' or 'all' of the external links are listed on the other sites 'Wiki-Brick-Links' or 'brickwiki.zapto.org'. However, Wikipedia has no relationship with those two sites. Also, some of the 'external links' may or may not be on those other sites. There are some links should be listed for example: Brickset.com, EuroBricks.com, Peeron.com, Brickshelf.com or MocPages and few others. Because, if someone goes to other sites they will see that there are links to other Lego 'fan sites'. I would re-think and add some of the links back. It really looks bad without some the other links such as database, educational, Lego on PC, creations, community. Lego is becoming more than just a toy company. If any of you have not check out any of the sites or links I would suggest to do so. User:70.59.116.196 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense - I originally simply deleted strictly according to the guidelines SteveBaker posted from the manual of style above. However, since many sites such as Peeron are not truly fan sites, perhaps they should be included. I'll go back and perhaps add a couple more. But again, if possible I think it would be better to include important sites directly into the article (though for some this may not be possible) Kiolden 14:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here can external links be added

There are two sites, which allow external Lego links to be add, here is the right place for adding many external links. The problem is if adding a one user group why should the other 60 not been in list. Solution: add them in external directories.

• [Wiki-Brick-Links] a Wiki for many of the Lego links with over 300 Links
• [Bricklink] Link directory for all Lego links with over 250 Links
• [del.icio.us/tag/lego] Is a social bookmarker, which has hundreds of Lego links.

Before adding links to WP check out after other LEGO articles in subject and check this rules for those two sites and add to them if the link is missing. Klasbricks 20:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs

I was just wondering if the second paragraph of the introduction is necessary, given that it's a single line. The article would look better if it had one larger intro paragraph I think, and in my humble opinion readability would still be fine if the two were merged. Just an idea, I'll leave it with you. --kingboyk 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Basic Block Types, Colors, and Dimensions

I think it would make the article more comprehensive if there was a list of all the standard sizes of blocks (for example 2x4), as well as the standard colors. Or at least a separate article might be suitable. Gordeonbleu 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess the problem is to know where to stop. Do you also list 1/3rd height bricks? Bricks with decals on them? Plates? Slopes? It would pretty soon become a L-O-N-G list. Since there are already very good repositories of this kind of information that is maintained fanatically - I think we should just link to that and let someone else do all of that. If you don't already know about (for example) http://www.peeron.com/ - check it out, then imagine how we could do as well? SteveBaker 00:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should certainly link to sites with comprehensive lists. I actually meant to name the most standard of the pieces. The 2x4 rectangular prism, the 2x2 cube, the 1x2 thin piece, and the 2x4 thin piece would seem like the most basic sizes. Decals, plates, and slopes are things I would not consider to be the core pieces of the Lego set. As for colors, I believe that the basic brick colors only include red, yellow, blue, white, and black. (Green, transparent, gray, and any other colors don't seem to qualify as the most basic colors.) Gordeonbleu 07:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I really think that's a bad idea - there is no good place to draw the line. You'd want to list the 2x2 and 2x4 - but I use more of the 1x6's and 6x10 plates. Whatever you think is the 'core' set - someone else will come along and want to add some more - then before you know it we'll have a massive and uncontrollable list - which will never be even close to complete. I don't think this is worth adding to the encyclopedia. Let's just link to www.peeron.com or one of the other parts listing sites and call it a day. This article is already too long. Also, note that a lot of new Lego sets are coming out (e.g. the NXT) which don't have even a single brick with a stud on it anywhere! Given that situation, you really can't say that the 2x4 brick is a "standard" part. SteveBaker 14:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is such a good idea either. In addition to the "slippery slope" problem, I'm not sure how useful it'd be. Comprehensive databases of all Lego parts already exist. What would be the practical use of a limited collection of "standard" bricks, even if the limits of such a collection could be determined to everyone's satisfaction? Kiolden 01:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Discontinued colors?

I love Lego and always have, but the current article addresses the "color" issue adequately for NPOV and general readership purposes. All that other stuff about fans getting upset is bullshit--63.245.172.9 21:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You think the fans didn't get upset - or that there getting upset was irrelevant? If it's the former - I can assure you that you are horribly wrong - they got MASSIVELY upset. If you think it was irrelevant then that is at least as POV as saying that it's very relevant. I personally believe it deserves a mention. SteveBaker 23:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Lego or Legos ?

I added a comment in the main article, saying that it seems to be an American-English practice to pluralize 'lego' to 'legos', before reading some of the comments in Talk (under, for some reason, the Trademark topic). I still stand by my edit, and by way of evidence, I did a search on ebay.com and got "13217 items found for legos" and "14925 items found for lego"; on ebay.co.uk I got "13443 items found for lego" and "6 items found for legos". Personally, I think that the plural of lego should be just lego, both because it is customary, and because this is not an uncommon style in English for things that come in quantities or heaps. In the UK, no-one would ever say "How many legos do you have ?", they would say "How much lego do you have ?". Nor would someone say "How many legos are there in that model?" - normal usage would be "How many lego bricks are there in that model?" But I also think that 'legos' is so commonplace in the US as to be impossible to eradicate. What do they say in Canada?-Mark 19:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

LEGO vs. Lego

Shouldn't this article be located at LEGO and a redirect placed on Lego, since, even as the article states, the proper name is LEGO? 71.124.6.74 20:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) stipulates that only companies whose names are acronyms shall appear in all caps. We follow the rules of standard written English on Wikipedia, and do not kowtow to corporate demands to treat trademarks any differently from other proper nouns. Nohat 22:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like for Ebay? If LEGO is Lego, eBay should be Ebay.

No. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). It has a section "Trademarks which begin with a lowercase letter" that pertains specifically to names like 'eBay'. Nohat 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

id Software gets to use their preferred capitalization, but LEGO doesn't? That doesn't seem consistent. (personally, I would prefer "LEGO" for the company and "lego" for the brick) -134.10.24.245 05:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, since it has no internal capitals "id software" should be capitalized according to the manual of style. So the fact that it's not is a matter to take up on its own page, not here. --Stellmach 19:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lego Manuals

I'm 95% certain this article once talked about LEGO's high quality manuals. The notable quality of the manuals, generally being very easy to follow, almost certain deserves a mention on this page. 67.77.116.191 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Parent company

A friend pointed out to me that LAGO is a sub company of Samsonite Corporation. Reference link found from Google http://www.chem.sunysb.edu/msl/LEGO/samsonite.html Is this correct? And if so shouldn’t it be added to the main page?

The page claims "Prior to 1973 in the USA for marketing purposes" or something to that extent, today probably not anywhere. If you think it's interesting, you could add it, but it's mostly a tidbit today. 惑乱 分からん 09:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tire Tyre

Both Tire (US) and tyre (UK) are correct spellings. If somebody changes it back or forth once let it slide. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable. A revert is a revert. The best we can do is include both to fix any ambiguity so people who speak both languages know what we are talking about. I admit, because I speak American English and had no clue what a tyre was, so it took me a while to find the right link. This Tire article is about the wheel and this Tyre article is about the place. It took me a while to create a link so people would know what it meant but if somebody in good faith changes it; don't sweat. If an individual repeatedly changes things like this they risk being blocked. To wrongs do not make a right. Justice doesn't matter. Just don't make it so hard to view changes in the history of the page.--E-Bod 20:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

1. It was Written as Tyre
2. (Without changing the spelling) I added a link to tire so people would know the 2 words were the same (It took me a while to find out tyre = tire)
3. It was changed to American spelling
4. It was changed back to British spelling
5. some person changed it back to US spelling thinking it was a typo
6. I add Both US & UK and leave a comment Do not edit it back and fourth

Please do not change it back. The current word is OK whatever it is. If somebody changes it back let it stay. If somebody changes it forward again let it stay. Don't edit it more than once because you will be engaging in a revert war and may be banned.--E-Bod 20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This issue is solved - Tyre' now is a redirect to Tire. The article about the Lebanese city can now be found at Tyre. Additional disambiguation and redirects have been added, along with moving all (numerous!) links. Widefox 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

New Legos

Anybody notice that the Legos that young kids play with these days are really quite different? They seem to have a lot more "one-piece" big plastic pieces that kind of take the creativity away from it. But anyways, any comments? — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What are 'Legos'? If you mean LEGO, well that is a different story. ;-) LEGO has to think new ideas and elements since some of the patents have ran out or expired. Currently there are over 2,800 elements within the whole LEGO system line (Primo, Duplo, Technic, etc. And lets not forget the choices of different color. It's endless! Thousands and thousands!

Lego Eggos

Just saw a commercial for them today, but no mention of them in the article. I'm too tired to do it myself.--SeizureDog 07:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of LEGO figures

There's the original "maxi" figures as seen in this set http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/565-1?showpic=1877 and 256 The articulated arms were made of segments which could be snapped apart and joined into very long arms. The hands were 1x rounds with a hole through the middle. Other blocks could snap onto either side of the hands. A small ball on the edge snapped into the end piece of the arm. The special blocks, to which the arms mounted had a rotating piece on two sides for the shoulder joints and a socket in the top for the large, ball shaped head. The head had a single stud on top for attaching hats and hairpieces. Note that to fit the 'helmets' in the Moon Landing set, the round heads had to be removed. See 200 for more examples. The original mini figures had no articulation at all, being made of two slightly sculpted 1x2 blocks with the upper section having a single, centered stud to which a yellow, faceless head was attached. (Looks identical to the piece for the articulated mini figures.) Here's an example. 615 And another. 659 The very simple mini figures were short-lived. The articulated style still in production was released the same year, 1975. 255 I've found sets released in 1976 with the simple mini figures and with the 'maxi' figures. How long were the two earlier figure styles continued?

Roughly -77 and -82, Talk:Minifigure (By the way, at Peeron you could look through the inventory of pieces for nearly all sets released, so it's possible to look up such matters, yourself). 惑乱 分からん 12:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject

I just started a Wikiproject, Wikipedia:Wikiproject Lego in which we can all improve the LEGO articles. -AMK152 20:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool baby! I pledge my sword (keyboard). Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 09:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of the word lego

What's up with this quote: ""Legot" (or "leegot"), plural form of "lego" (or "leego") is used as a Finnish slang term for human teeth, because of the rectangular shape of the teeth" --Thaddius 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Joke

How do you out-run Lego? Run diagonaly! And that's original. Sorry, I just can't help myself. Dfrg.msc User talk:Dfrg.msc 09:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 08:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

LUGNET

I have removed this link twice as a violation of WP:EL and it's back. My arguments for removing.

1. This is a forum.
2. The forum is not a unique resource to the topic.
3. Is being promoted by a member or moderator of the forum in violation of WP:SPAM.

I would like to hear any arguments for keeping this link? -- MakeChooChooGoNow 00:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually that forum is a unique resource. The actions of its members directly affected the way LEGO does business, and its set reference database is unequalled anywhere. The whole reason we can buy LEGO parts by the piece now is due to that group. I am no longer a member but it and its members are entwined with the recent history of the company. If you don't believe me, ask User:Lar. It isn't spam. It isn't selling anything. There is no more complete reference for LEGO topics on the web. In fact, if you don't know about LUGNET, then you don't know crap about LEGO. pschemp | talk 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

LUGNET has been around for a long time. Its one of the first LEGO web base forum sites talking about LEGO before there were any other LEGO fan sites. The LEGO employees do read, watch and even exchange some information through LUGNET. The same goes with EUROBRICKS, however its based in Europe for the European market and fans. Both sites do help in bringing fans all over the world to link up and talk about LEGO. Both links have been discussed in the discussion section in the past. However the 'external links' section was too long, and was not giving the information people were look for. The idea of the sites is to provide the resource anything that has to with LEGO. Such as, elements, history, data of sets, information, meeting new people and a lot of other areas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.181.240.24 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In order:

1. Even were it merely a forum, LUGNET passes WP:WEB and has its own article here, and is more than just a forum. It is almost always legitimate to provide a link to another article.
2. It is widely held (including by LEGO employees up to and including the CEO) to be a unique resource on the topic.
3. I see no sign of promotion, but I do see signs of non consensus based edit warring over this on your part MakeChooChooGoNow. That would not be a good idea to have continued.

I think that addresses all the arguments. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're linking to the article (LUGNET) it's no longer an external link, so it should probably instead go under See Also. However, the arguments for keeping it as an external link seem more compelling than those for removing it. Mairi 21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to see also. No reason not to reference other wikipedia articles. pschemp | talk 22:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, pschemp! do you think Brickwiki should be moved too? It's an external link, since it's a different wiki, but it is an interwiki link not a regular link (it has no article, probably would not pass WP:WEB on its own) I have no opinion but I did notice it. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Media buzz" regarding removal of trademark use at legos.com

I would like to know more about the so-called "media buzz" that I found when reading this article yesterday. Peter O. (Talk) 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

LEGO in animation

I'm starting a section on this, as we don't seem to have one. When there is enough information I'm going to move it all to a new article, as Lego Stop animation is a pretty important aspect. Feel free to help.
center
This is a LEGO Stop animation which my friend and I made. Thanks, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 06:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Oh, and this page needs an Archive.

Should some of the new information and .gif be moved to Brickfilms? I just feel it takes up too much space on the Lego page. Also Lego animation is no longer part of the system of Lego. I believe it would be better if the .gif and any new Lego animation was move to Brickfilms. Any thoughts?

I think the section should stay, even though LEGO discontinued the Studios line years ago. LEGO Stop-Motion ("Brickfilming" as it is commonly called) is a very big thing, just check out Brickfilms.com to see what I mean. By the way, the proper term is "Stop Motion," not Stop Animation. Also, there's already an article on Brickfilming, so don't move anything to a new article please. :) Hotwheels53 02:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The .GIF and some of the information should be moved or link to Brickfilms.com. I know about 'Brickfilms and about the page about it on Wikipedia. So, there is no reason to have repeated information on the Lego page or have the .GIF on the Lego page. Stop motion is not part of the Lego System anymore even though Brickfilming is growing. It would be 'better' if the .GIF was move to Brickfilm page since there is no .GIF or example on the Brickfilm article on Wikipedia.

Picture Placement and Category

I have a couple of questions/concerns:

1. I would like to point out a problem I have been noticing with picture placement in the article: the pictures are not appearing with the section in which they are relevant at high resolutions. Specifically, the picture of the Lego Loch Ness Monster appears under "The Lego trademark" section at 1600x1200 resolution, when the image is designed to be at the beginning of the "Lego in art" section. This also disrupts the 'number of configurations' table that is at the beginning of the "Trivia" section (the picture pushes the table to the left, leaving a large white space below the picture on the right side of the screen). I have tried to adjust this by moving the picture of the Lego Loch Ness Monster to the left side of the article (which keeps the picture within it's intended section, as well as keeps the picture from disrupting the 'number of configurations' table), but it has twice been reverted. Even though I feel the high-resolution problem likely affects a minority of users, I still feel that it should be addressed.
2. I am curious about the recent addition of the Lego article to the "WikiProject California". I feel that I am likely missing something, but I don't see a meaningful relation at this time. --Everchanging02 05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For myself, I also have the need to express my curiosity over the addition to the California Project. As far as I see the only connection is the existence of a Legoland there.--Biblbroks^Talk2me 11:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject California?

Does Lego really belong in WikiProject California? I see no relation to California except the LEGOLAND.HotWheels53 21:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

SVG Logo

Why do people keep reverting the change to the LEGO logo in SVG format (Image:Lego_logo.svg) to the old JPG (Image:LEGO-logo.jpg)? GoTLG keeps reverting it with the explanation "the correct 'todays' Lego logo image." How is the JPG version any more correct than the SVG? Shouldn't we use the cleaner, more attractive version? HotWheels53 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of would be the fact that perhaps there are a couple users who can't see SVG images. If this is the case, another image should be found regardless. The JPG logo is significantly darker and blotchier than the actual LEGO logo. 151.151.21.105 20:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The image of LEGO logo in the SVG format is the wrong image or in other words is the outdated Lego logo. LEGO redesign their logo few years ago. If you look at 'today's Lego logo on a Lego set or even on Lego.com you can see the difference. Take an example of AT&T, they redesign their logo or updated their logo from AT&T to at&t. Today's Lego logo is different from the SVG format. The JPG image is the correct or the updated image of the Lego logo. GoTLG

While that's true about the design, the color of the red background in the SVG one is closer to the color of the current logo (at least based on the logos on the website). The logo on the front page (upper left) uses FF0000 for the red background, as does the logo on the bottom right of most pages; the logo on shop.lego.com and other pages (such as Products) uses EE2224. The SVG logo uses ED1C24 while the JPG uses CD0135, which is further from either Lego logo. Mairi 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention about the 'font' or letters of LEGO on the logo have also change. Even though the change is small, it is still a change. In which the current Lego logo 'jpg' is the correct logo not the 'svg' image. Lego did not just only change their font or letter design, but even the red they use in logo. By comparing the old and new logo of 'at&t' and old 'AT&T' the everyday 'joe public' might not care. However it is still a new logo or image. This also applies to the Lego logo. No matter how big or small the change is, the design or image of the 'jpeg' is the updated Lego logo. GoTLG

I've created a PNG version of the LEGO logo from the JPEG. I changed the red to #FF0000 and cleaned up the JPEG artifact. I don't have the ability to create SVG pictures, so I guess if someone else wants to they could use the PNG to make an SVG, but the PNG should be good for now. HotWheels53 15:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

LEGO in modern times: Losing track?

It appears to me, by watching the LEGO brand toys on the shelves, that the brand has somehow lost its track. Many small kits, and even the bigger ones, are made of a few "traditional" (and versatile) pieces which interlock with huge, custom-made pieces in order to fit a scenario such as Star Wars or Racing. I could go back perhaps 15 years, when even the smallest kit had lots of small "standard" pieces and no more than two or three "custom made" ones. Thus, it could be disassembled and turned into something entirely different. As of today, this is seems to be no longer possible. There are many Asian brick options, but they get nowhere near the quality LEGO pieces have. I think this issue should be stated in the article, but I don't know how to make it fit the Wikipedia standards. --81.9.156.63 09:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately to include it in the Lego article you'd have to find an article or essay elsewhere which discusses this trend AND meets WP:V & WP:N. I have noticed this trend, however, and it does make it harder for me to enjoy Lego. As an AFOL I see the blocks themselves as a large puzzle to be enjoyed, more like a blank sheet of paper than the paint-by-numbers of the instructions. 151.151.21.101 14:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lock Blocks?

Does anyone know anything about a competing brick toy called Loc Blocks or Lock Blocs? I had a zillion of them when I was a kid. They were way cheaper than Legos, both in price and quality, but because they cost less, you could have thousands of basic bricks. I cannot find any info on the internet about them. I would like to start an article on the subject, but with no references and without the correct spelling I don't know where to begin. 66.151.81.244 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer my own question they are Loc Blocs. I will begin an article. This article should mention competing similar toys. Bytebear 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10