Talk:Lego Modular Buildings

Pictures

The lone picture in the article is a relatively "unflatering" picture of Cafe Corner. If anyone has a better pricture of Cafe Corner or any other sets in the series, we should add/replace them in the article. I'll be trying to take better pictures of the sets later if no one provides better pictures. --Skotywa^Talk 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded a newer, better picture, but still, I'm no digital image master. This is better but if anyone has a better picture, please feel free to suggest an update. --Skotywa^Talk 06:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this article would benefit from individual pictures of each set. It certainly needs a picture of the Fire Brigade. Thanks,--T20a1h5u23 (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I think I will start adding Lego's official images of the sets. I plan to use the box images, but if anyone thinks I should use any other image, please contact me. Thanks,--T20a1h5u23 (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the images. I think this article would be much improved if there were images of each set, but the rules about images and copyright confuse me no end. If I take a photo of my sets and add them, would that be "legal?" -ErinHowarth (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Since early December, I've put some effort into creating (what I believe to be) a well formed, well referenced article on an interesting grouping of Lego products. My hope is to provide a "good" example of a Wikipedia article on something to do with Lego since most of the Lego related articles have turned into laundry lists of Lego sets rather than approaching encyclopedic content. At this time I have depleated all known resources to further improve the article (maybe one more picture though) so I'm going to give it a shot to get it promoted to a Good Article. One can dream! --Skotywa^Talk 05:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sold Out

Market street is sold out in the lego shop. can someone rework that sentence that says they are all avilible? Thanks, --T20a1h5u23 (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the sentence altogether. It sounded like some marketing sales pitch anyway and didn't belong. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 08:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed original research

I've removed the paragraph about the reception of the Fire Brigade set because it appeared to be original research. While there were many sources cited, none of them drew the conclusions being claimed in the article prose, specifically that AFOLs first reject new sets and then later embrace them. It may be true that on news groups there are comments that appear to be a mixed reaction to the set, and then there are other comments (possibly later) that show more acceptance, but unless a source can be provided that draws this conclusion, it is not acceptable to arrive at this conclusion on Wikipedia. Another problem with the sources in this paragraph were that most of them are examples of self published sources which are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia. If you disagree with the points I'm making, please lets discuss. I'm certainly open to other's point of view, my only goal here is to keep the article encyclopedic in nature. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

mid vail (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)midvailmid vail (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I tried changing this again, I hope you like it more. It is less opinionated and more factual. I love that you are quite sweet and I am SO excited for this set, I made it more positive. The only part I would like to include yet I have not because it is not 100% factual, yet accurate, is the fact that it may foreshadow more unique buildings, for they made a Grocer, and now a fire house, so I feel that garnering all of the feedback from the community this is true. I hope you take a look at this and see I made it much more factual. I would like to work with you on getting this perfect. mid vail (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)midvailmid vail (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

90% of the links are dead!

You can delete 14 of 16 links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.20.53.46 (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Title needs to be changed!

The title to the article needs to be changed from "Lego Modular Houses" to "Lego Modular Buildings" This would need the article to be moved! (I don't know how to do this) Also these two images should be used to update the Image which is out of date! Picture of CC,GG,FB Picture of GE,PS,TH

Someone with knowledge on how this is done please edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.205.100.252 (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. And I also am not able to do it. But nobody calls them anything but "Modular Buildings" - I cannot even guess where "Modular Houses" came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.78.238 (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved to "Lego Modular Buildings"

I moved this to Lego Modular Buildings" as per request. For the record this is what LEGO also refers to them (ie the search for "modular buildings" give all of them) As well as [[ http://brickset.com/sets/theme-Advanced-Models/subtheme-Modular-Buildings%7Cbrickset]], and the lego wikia.
Case in point the description from http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Grand-Emporium-10211: "The LEGO® Modular Buildings series continues with this spectacularly detailed..." --CatCat (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lego Modular Buildings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217022712/http://shop.lego.com/Product/?p=10182 to http://shop.lego.com/product/?p=10182
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218140822/http://shop.lego.com/Product/?p=10190 to http://shop.lego.com/product/?p=10190
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217022717/http://shop.lego.com/Product/?p=10185 to http://shop.lego.com/product/?p=10185
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514153311/http://shop.lego.com/product/?p=10218&LangId=2057&ShipTo=US to http://shop.lego.com/product/?p=10218&LangId=2057&ShipTo=US

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Community Reassesment

Lego Modular Buildings

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Not Listed The article is clear to not have references. Illustration and up-to-date information is also lacking. Major contributors and nominatees are also inactive. FredModulars (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This article was rewarded its status back in January of 2009. Since then it has barely been updated other than new products and minor edits and has been extremely less active than it used to. Only one image is included in this article and has only minor importance to the article displaying only 3 products. References are extremely lacking, with over half of the products and features of this article being unsourced and most likely based off of original research. No references are mentioned in these product descriptions or explanation sections. Also, the two sections, "Challenges" and "Reception" lack up-to-date information and are very old source material. FredModulars (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Delist: I agree, there are missing sources all over the article. The information here cannot be verified - that is enough to fail a GA! Lizzy (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Lego Modular Buildings

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lego Modular Buildings's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sets":

• From Lego Fusion: "LEGO Fusion Sets Now Listed on Shop@Home". thebrickfan.com. 2 July 2014.
• From Lego Adventurers: "LEGO Adventurers: Explorers of the Wild and the Unknown". firestartoys.com. 17 June 2020. Retrieved 17 June 2020.
• From Lego Monster Fighters: "LEGO Monster Fighters now available!". thebrickblogger.com. Retrieved 23 May 2012.
• From Ben 10: Alien Force: "LEGO 8409 8410 8411 8517 8518 8519 Ben 10". toysnbricks.com. Retrieved October 9, 2009.
• From Lego DOTS: "LEGO DOTS product images and set numbers revealed". Brick Fanatics. 28 January 2020.

Reference named "PRNewswire":

• From Lego Monster Fighters: "LEGO Systems Unveils 2012 Collection at American International Toy Fair". PR Newswire. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
• From Lego Fusion: "LEGO Systems Blends Physical and Digital Play with New LEGO® FUSION". PR Newswire. June 19, 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Lego Modular - Set 10197 Fire Brigade (6817666638).jpg (discussion)
• Lego Modular - Set 10211 Grand Emporium (7115022143).jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• LEGO - 10260 - Downtown Diner.jpg (discussion)
• Lego Modular - Set 10218 Pet Shop (8028854165).jpg (discussion)
• Lego Modular - Set 10224 Town Hall (8310511639).jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Modular-allowed buildings

Some modular buildings are not designed specifically for a modular series, but come with bases that allow them to be connected with other modular buildings. One example of this is the Daily Bugle set. 2603:7081:1C46:4000:C15F:6837:CCB6:B582 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Ninjago and Marvel modulars

Shouldn't this article at least mention the Ninjago City line of sets as well as Daily Bugle/Sanctum Sanctorum Marvel sets? While not officially modulars or under the Creator/Icons line, they're explicitly meant to be compatible (using the same system of technic pins to attach them) and share many building techniques. Crazylittlefrog (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)