Talk:The Lego Group

"The" in front of "____ Group"

I recently edited the Legoland section of this article, and among other things added "the" in front of Blackstone Group in this sentence: All four parks have recently been sold to Blackstone Group, although the Lego Group retains a 30% interest and voting rights. GoTLG removed it with the explanation: "There is no need of 'The' in front of Blackstone Group" [1] I think in this situation it makes the sentence read better and should stay. If 'the' isn't needed, why is "the Lego Group" always written out instead of just "Lego Group"? I find this slightly amusing, as GoTLG's name stands for "Go The LEGO Group." Input? -HotWheels(53) ^Talk 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

By not getting into a agrument or a heated debate about it. Yes, TLG stands for 'The LEGO Group' where once upon a time before there was 'LEGO Group' it was called 'LEGO Company' for a couple years or known as TLC- The LEGO Company and before that just LEGO. 'TLG' or 'TLC' was a short way to used in posts/fourms on LEGO fansites about LEGO. What I have notice not only on LEGO page, but other pages is The OVERUSE of The at the beinning of a page. It is becoming a problem. Since people are reading and using Wikipedia as a source to get information. However the information can change and can not always be trusted.

Simple you don't call companies like: Mattel: 'The Mattel', IBM: 'The IBM', Ebay: 'The Ebay', Coke Cola: 'The Coke Cola', Sony: 'The Sony', and others. Bottom line is when The is use. There is the right way and the wrong way. In fact LEGO Group page at the beginning sentence 'The Lego Group', 'The' should be removed. GoTLG

First off, I'd like to apologize for bringing an old debate back to the surface and also say that this is not a personal attack against GoTLG. I still feel that in most cases, writing out 'The' Lego Group improves these articles and removing it makes the articles sound poorly written. I agree, one doesn't refer to companies as "The [company name (proper noun)]," however, the LEGO Group asserts that LEGO is not a noun, but an adjective, am I right?[2] In fact, LEGO actually uses the phrase "The LEGO Group" almost every time they mention the company's name.[3] "LEGO" is describing the group. The full name of the company is "The LEGO Group of Companies," or "The Group of companies that is LEGO" so to speak. -HotWheels(53) ^Talk 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

LEGO Group, in their publications, pretty much always refers to itself as the LEGO Group. But note that's with a lower-case T. --Mrcolj (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization

now, i don't know if this has been previously debated and resolved here or elsewhere, but much like there is the question of whether "LEGOs" is proper (it isn't, see [4]), if we're simply following standard wiki for capitalizing only the first letter of trademarked names that aren't acronyms, there (irritatingly) a good bit of inconsistency in just about every related article. oddly enough, i've personally somehow always said/written it properly before knowing that i was actually doing it the right way. see also [5] and [6]. while it's mentioned at Lego#Trademark, i feel like it's even more applicable here, given that it's their preferred self-referencing, as well. Impasse 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cause for financial crisis?

I'd like to know why the Lego Group is not doing well. I heard some rumours that kids no longer play with lego, because they prefer computer games. Is this the case? 84.177.254.223 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. The one child I'm currently well-acquainted with loves to build houses and families with The Sims. She'd never consider playing with Lego.

If someone can find some reputable sources for the reason for Lego's problems, it should be included in the article. --RenniePet (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

MLN

My lego network is redireced here. there is no mention of MLN here though. MLN should have it's own psge. 20:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)68.3.191.130 (talk)

Lego in latin

Lego in latin doesn't mean put together it means I read or I choose. I study Latin as well, I've just learnt this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.181.66 (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you knew the verb 'legō, legere, lēgī, lēctum' well enough, you'd know that it means all of these things. Wiktionary even cites twelve definitions, five unique. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lego#Latin --ɱ (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that 'Lego' is not even a proper word in Danish, how are Latin and Italian translations even relevant? Ryan8374 (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Legoheadquarters.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Legoheadquarters.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

---

The LEGO Group → The Lego Group – The article was moved to the current title with the cryptic comment "Copyright Laws". Capitalization has absolutely nothing to do with copyright, though, so this should be moved back per our guidance at MOS:TM and related articles such as Lego and Legoland. Powers ^T 16:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The mover must have meant "trademark" rather than copyright, but we don't have to follow the trademark either. The Wall Street Journal gives the name of this company as "Lego Group" (no "the"). Kauffner (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner, see my responses to Z, below. What do you now say about your evidence concerning Wall Street Journal? I am ready to be persuaded to change my own vote, by what I read here. I hope that evidence counts for others here, too. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 23:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The WSJ articles that use "LEGO Group" are press releases. Look at the bottom: "LEGO and the LEGO logo are trademarks of The LEGO Group. (c)2011 The LEGO Group". Putting brand names in all caps is a common style in business press releases. Even Kodak does it. There are numerous cases where a company gives its name or brand using some odd orthography. It is common to conventionalize such spellings in independent formal writing. See Chicago Manual of Style §8.68 "Names with unusual capitalization". Kauffner (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now that's interesting. Still, the company's name is also styled that way in those releases, not just the trademark. Why are you talking about trademarks? I have pointed out below (did you read, as I asked you to?) that the company name and the trademark amount to separate issues. As for Chicago, how nice for them. They give the example of "RAND Corporation", and want it to be altered to "Rand corporation". (Do they want "NAND gate" to be "Nand gate" – now a redirect – for consistency?) Note the Wikipedia article RAND Corporation, and the derivation of "RAND" as an acronym (Research ANd Development). (See also a 2010 RM for that article to its present title.)

What style guideline on Wikipedia do you appeal to concerning the styling of the title under discussion here? Once again (see below): if the company were still called "lego group" (with any styling), but did not possess the trademark "lego" (in any form), WP:MOSTM would be irrelevant in considering the title of the represent article. See my argument concerning a hypothetical different spelling also ("leggo group"), below. How do you answer that? WP:MOSTM cannot be relevant; show us what guideline is relevant, in this matter of style.

Noetica^Tea? 05:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least till I see decisive argument to the contrary. Whatever inadequate justification was given at the last move, Google ngram evidence strongly favours the present title: "LEGO Group,LEGO group,Lego Group,Lego group". See also the company's own usage ("The LEGO Group is a privately held company based in Billund, Denmark"; and so on). Noetica^Tea? 04:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. A number of editors have cited WP:MOSTM in support of the RM. I have now worked to ensure that the scope of that guideline is clear; it now does cover non-trademarks like "The LEGO Group" (the name of a company, not of a trademark that it owns). Thanks to those who took part at WT:MOSTM. The change in a way "legitimises" those support votes. But there is still a problem. WP:MOSTM does not require that an acronym be reduced to initial-cap form. The wording:

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official".

Well, the normal capitalisation rule for an acronym is that it should be in full caps. This rule is articulated at WP:CAPS (the normal point of Wikipedia style reference for RMs that involve capitalisation):

Do write in all capitals for acronyms and initialisms, unless the acronym gains common usage as an ordinary, lowercase word (such as scuba and laser, but not NATO).

"LEGO" is an acronym from the first parts of two words: le- + go-. The company's website uses the word "abbreviation":

The name "LEGO" is an abbreviation of the two Danish words "leg godt", meaning "play well".

It therefore is an acronym by standard definitions, which include cases such as "radar" (radio detection and ranging) even though more than word-initial letters are used (see both OED and MWCollegiate). Compare also SQUID (superconducting quantum interference device) and Benelux (SOED's etymology: "Acronym, f. Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg.") Unlike "radar" and "Benelux", it is not obviously one that has full caps removed in the context of the trade name "The LEGO Group" in published use, as ngram evidence shows: LEGO Group,Lego Group; see also the company's own consistent usage in legal and official documentation (linked from its website).

So from the provisions of our two most relevant MOS pages and from dominant published usage for "The LEGO Group", I am not persuaded that the title should be changed. I have no attachment to this case; if anything, I prefer lower case according to the first principle at WP:MOSCAPS. But I vote according to the evidence and our policies and guidelines. Because there are a couple of further complications, too long to go into here, I withdraw my oppose vote. I want to withdraw from this process. I expect that the RM will pass on the numbers (though the arguments and evidence do not, as I say, support it). I am far too busy in the real world now, but when time permits I will seek further clarifications for both WP:MOSCAPS and WP:MOSTM so that similar RMs will be more straightforward. I'm sure things will be fine without my participation here ☺.

When things have been further clarified in those MOS pages, another RM may be called for here.

Noetica^Tea? 22:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you should be ready to change to support, now that the clarification of MOS:TM has been negotiated to the satisfaction of all? Dicklyon (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[Dicklyon's question came earlier, before I posted the comment immediately above it.–N] No. See above. It's not politics; it's rational application of clear principles – if we have them. Noetica^Tea? 22:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners" – not based on the company's own usage, not per "copyright laws", and not solely based on how Google Ngram formats it. Also per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), "Whenever possible, common usage is preferred". We have reliable sources like the Wall Street Journal and USA Today that also spell it as "Lego Group" without the full capitalization. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Z:

1. We are to favour sources in print as reliable sources, right? Nevertheless, note these statistics for the very sites you have just linked:
   • USA Today uses both "LEGO Group" and "Lego Group".
   • Wall Street Journal uses both "LEGO Group" (11 of 21 hits) and "Lego Group" (10 of 21 hits).

   Care to revise your stance, or at least to withdraw your web evidence as misleading?

2. You may also like to review your take on WP:MOSTM. The trademark "LEGO" is one thing (and your comments may well apply to the trademark, yes: as used in naming a product like "iPhone"); the official form of the name of the company is another. All of the company's references to itself use "LEGO Group" (see the print documents shown in PDF form at the website I link above). The name of the company is not a matter of trademarks; they do not call themselves "LEGO^® Group". Compare "eBay".
3. Last, I am concerned about this: "not solely based on how Google Ngram formats it". The whole point about those ngrams is that they faithfully report formats (punctuation and case), unlike other Google searches which ignore them. Ngrams do not "format" anything. Your response to this point, please?

Noetica^Tea? 23:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support for the same reason that the Lego page is not at LEGO.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

But the topics are quite different. One is about a product line: "a line of construction toys", as the article has it. This article is about a company. The trademark form (and its treatment on Wikipedia) is a separate matter from the topic of this article. See my responses to Z, above. Noetica^Tea? 23:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. WP:MOSTM is clear-cut on this - we don't use stylistic all-caps. --DAJF (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

But that's about trademarks, DAJF; not official names of companies. See my answers to Z, above. Noetica^Tea? 23:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support – WP style does not include copying the all-caps stylings of trademarks. Dicklyon (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

But as I have pointed out, the styling in the name of the company is a separate issue from the styling of a trademark. What if "lego" in whatever form were not a trademark? The company could still call itself "LEGO Group", and any argument from WP:MOSTM would not affect the title of the present article. If this line of argument is sound, how can it be that WP:MOSTM is relevant now? The fact that the trademarked form is in full caps is not relevant to the official name of the company that owns or uses the trademark. If the company chose to call itself "Leggo group" or "LEGGO group", no appeal to the form of its trademark "lego" (with four letters, and with whatever case) would be relevant. Noetica^Tea? 00:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the dissonance within single articles between differently formatted versions of the same letter-name is becoming increasingly obvious, at least to me. This occurs when Chief Mechanical Engineer attempts to be about the generic role/status of a CME (which should be downcased when expanded), and specific job slots within, say, railway companies; it's not uncommon for editors to have only a vague idea of this distinction when they create and expand an article, but the title stays as originally formatted, with unfortunate consequences. WP:TITLE hasn't dealt with it properly because they approach the issues from the perspective of the title alone, not the angle of the article; MOSCAPS hasn't dealt with it because it approaches the issue in terms of the local context of an item (e.g., whether generic or titular). We need better guidelines for handling this problem. Sometimes it seems to me that an article needs to be split into two—one for the generic, one for the titular—or in this case, one for the company, one for the product line or branding (all caps). Or it needs to explicitly handle both generic and titular, choosing (probably) the generic (here, company) form as the title (Lego) and clarifying the dual angles in a way that is clear for the reader (possibly a section on the titular—here, produce-line, branding—meaning). Tony (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, capitalisation of names carries meaning, which makes it a matter of information, not purely style. Wikipedia's policies on verifiability govern how we convey information, and they trump the MOS in matters like this. Secondly, LEGO is a portmanteau an acronym of two Danish words "leg godt", and as Noetica demonstrated, it is acceptable in English for some portmanteaux to be capitalised (edited: the word LEGO is in fact an acronym, and per our own style guide we do capitalise acronyms). Thirdly, it appears the majority of reliable sources support the capitalised form of the name. It's my view that Wikipedia's down-casing style guidelines should not be used to cause Wikipedia's representation of a name to be at odds with dominant real world use. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

TS, you write as if there were a conflict of principles involving WP policies for titles and WP style guidelines. There is not; certainly not for the present case, because the company would be identified unambiguously with either use of case. You are also using "style" in a particular one of its several senses. In Wikipedia usage, "style" covers the meaningful use of case, spelling, punctuation, and more, as a reading of WP:MOS (and the larger MOS) will show. This matches the usage of all style guides and manuals (like CMOS, New Hart's). A primary motivation of our MOS and all those others is to recommend usage that conveys meaning efficiently and with certainty. In another sense, style as mere styling concerns Times New Roman versus Courier, italics versus non-italics, straight versus curly apostrophes, and the like. Those choices have less to do with meaning, and some have nothing to do with it. MOS deals with those matters also.

Nothing trumps anything in this case. MOS and policy like WP:TITLE are not in conflict. They work together. But there are indeed cases in which MOS trumps common usage, where common usage is chaotic and confusing, and unregulated by any uniform style regime – given that there are diverse regimes "out there". We are writing and editing "in here"; we do not have to bend to every wind or whim of fashion. Just some ☺; and not in style matters.

That's all to be discussed elsewhere. The present case is not affected.

Noetica^Tea? 23:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We disagree on that point, as has been made clear elsewhere, and I don't intend to turn this into another extension of a discussion I indicated I wouldn't continue with you. Our content policies do trump our guidelines in all cases where they're in conflict, and it's my assessment that capitalisation is one area where the two clash on occasion. What other style guides do is somewhat academic, in contrast to the practical application of Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia. In this particular instance, however, my point on that matter was supportive of the (later discovered) main argument that LEGO is an acronym, and in almost all cases without controversy we capitalise acronyms. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you gave up on that other discussion. I did not, though it was certainly tedious. I didn't initiate it. Anyway, we don't disagree here. So far. I may yet change my vote, depending on what turns up in the discussion. I don't know why you insist on this point of policy trumping guidelines, here or any time. I see no discord; and it is most reasonable to interpret policy and guidelines in a way that has them not at odds. Such an interpretation is available, and reasonable, and clearly intended – so I adopt it, not any interpretation that finds conflict unnecessarily. Many editors are unclear about this. I wish they would think more on the matter. If there were such conflicts, we should be working zealously to remove them. That is not happening, for a good reason. Still, that's all a broader conversation. Let's leave it. Noetica^Tea? 04:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I am extremely puzzled by the insistence that MOS:TM doesn't apply to company names. While admittedly, the text of the guideline is specific to trademarks, I don't think that distinction has ever been made in actual practice here on Wikipedia, nor can I imagine that excluding the names of corporations was ever the intent. Powers ^T 04:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It does seem backwards to argue that a word's lack of legal status is a reason to follow a company's unconventional capitalization. To give the company name in all caps, but not the corresponding trademarked brand name, is quite arbitrary. We could end up claiming that Legos are manufactured by the LEGO Group. Kauffner (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know that is not the case for the MOSTM. For example there was a consensus to move NVIDIA to Nvidia and while there were some oppose votes I don't believe any were based on the argument that the guideline in question does not apply to company names. That was over 3 years ago and I am not aware of any changes since then that would have changed the existing consensus that company names are NOT exempt from the WP:MOSTM.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion on the proper interpretation of WP:MOSTM. (Please see the orderly continuation at WT:MOSTM.)

Whether or not anyone can remember a distinction being made is immaterial; the distinction is well-founded. WP:MOSTM does not address company names, but trademarks. Trademark defines trademarks like this: A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark[1] is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities. It is not reasonable that the form, or even the existence, of any trademark should constrain the style applied in referring to a company. Wikipedia guidelines do not make that unreasonable provision. To put the matter yet another way, suppose that a company had no trademarks registered, and called itself "PARSNIP Brokerage", and all sources respected that use of case. Its Wikipedia article title must be decided without recourse to WP:MOSTM, since there is no trademark involved. It is strange and arbitrary then to make WP:MOSTM relevant when PARSNIP Brokerage does get around to registering "PARSNIP" as a trademark. The choice of wording and form for the trademark is related to the wording and form of the company's name for convenience and recognition, not to constrain the treatment or use of the name in non-commercial references to the company. Why not look up the provisions at WP:MOSCAP? They apply to the present case. I find it remarkable that people have started with their opinions here, and no critique of strong evidence (from ngrams, for example) and no corrective exegetical point about Wikipedia's guidelines so far makes any difference to those initial opinions. In Kauffner's words, this "does seem backwards"; we are to here to discuss and decide a matter, not to promote our views regardless of evidence and argument. If the evidence and guidelines unexpectedly work against your opinion, might you not change your opinion? NoeticaTea? 23:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC) If there's a flaw in the guidelines, we should fix the guidelines. Company names are routinely considered to be subject to MOSTM, regardless of the literal wording, so perhaps the documentation has fallen behind regular practice. But remember, they are just documentation; they are descriptive, not prescriptive. Powers T 19:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC) MOS:TM always has applied to company names (and includes several as examples). You've misinterpreted "trademark" to mean "registered trademark" (a term not used on the page). The Collins English Dictionary defines "trademark" is as "the name or other symbol used to identify the goods produced by a particular manufacturer or distributed by a particular dealer and to distinguish them from products associated with competing manufacturers or dealers," noting that "a trademark that has been officially registered and is therefore legally protected is known as a registered trademark." (As you can see, the other sources' definitions are similar.) Technically, the brokerage example pertains to a service mark, but "the term 'trademark' is often used to refer to both trademarks and service marks" (as we do at MOS:TM, with "REALTOR"/"Realtor" as a relevant example). —David Levy 22:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Well, I don't care a lot about the result of the present RM. I just want it to be decided according to established policy and guidelines. David, you assert that "company names are routinely considered to be subject to MOSTM"; but we would need to see evidence for that. A discussion has been opened at WT:MOSTM, and that is appropriate. It will not be appropriate to decide the matter briskly. There should be an RFC before the guideline is changed. I will answer some specific points here, though. The dictionary you cite has this exact wording (and I underline): the name or other symbol used to identify the goods produced by a particular manufacturer or distributed by a particular dealer and to distinguish them from products associated with competing manufacturers or dealers. A trademark that has been officially registered and is therefore legally protected is known as a Registered Trademark "Registered trademark" is not contrasted with a company name, but with a trademark that is unregistered. That would be like the contrast between LEGO products, and the Leeego line of products that I might choose to make and promote, without registering the trademark "Leeego", while my company is called "Geeelo Enterprises". I do not immediately see at WP:MOSTM any company names that are not trademarks. Perhaps someone will point them out, here or in the other discussion. The technical point about service marks is interesting; but here is the wording at the source given: A service mark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination thereof, that identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than goods. The term "trademark" is often used to refer to both trademarks and service marks. So let's be clear: "service mark" is no more obviously associated with a company that uses or registers it than "trademark" is. (The wording that defines "trademark" on that page is parallel.) NoeticaTea? 00:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC) David, you assert that "company names are routinely considered to be subject to MOSTM"; 1. That was LtPowers, but I concur. but we would need to see evidence for that. 2. As noted above, several company names (Rolex, Macy's and Toys "R" Us) are cited as examples. If company names were excluded, why would that be the case? Off the top of my head, DirecTV (DIRECTV) and National Association of Realtors (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION of REALTORS) are other examples. Why would company names be excluded? What material distinction exists? There should be an RFC before the guideline is changed. 3. The guideline needn't be changed. I suppose that it could be clarified to prevent further confusion, but I don't recall such a situation arising before. The dictionary you cite has this exact wording (and I underline): the name or other symbol used to identify the goods produced by a particular manufacturer or distributed by a particular dealer and to distinguish them from products associated with competing manufacturers or dealers. A trademark that has been officially registered and is therefore legally protected is known as a Registered Trademark "Registered trademark" is not contrasted with a company name, but with a trademark that is unregistered. 4. Exactly. My point is that you're mistakenly interpreting "trademark" as "registered trademark." For the purposes of MOS:TM, it doesn't matter whether a trademark is registered, nor does it matter whether it's a company name or some other type of trademark. The guideline applies to all trademarks. That would be like the contrast between LEGO products, and the Leeego line of products that I might choose to make and promote, without registering the trademark "Leeego", while my company is called "Geeelo Enterprises". 5. Again, registration is irrelevant. If you were to operate a company called "Geeelo Enterprises" and market a product line under the brand "Leeego," those would be trademarks. I do not immediately see at WP:MOSTM any company names that are not trademarks. Perhaps someone will point them out, here or in the other discussion. 6. Who said anything about "company names that are not trademarks"? My point is that some of the trademarks listed are company names, which refutes your assertion that the guideline doesn't apply to company names. The technical point about service marks is interesting; but here is the wording at the source given: A service mark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination thereof, that identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than goods. The term "trademark" is often used to refer to both trademarks and service marks. So let's be clear: "service mark" is no more obviously associated with a company that uses or registers it than "trademark" is. (The wording that defines "trademark" on that page is parallel.) 7. Exactly. My point is a material distinction doesn't exist (and when we say "trademark," we mean "trademark or service mark"). —David Levy 01:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC) David, this is a discussion on a general topic, so it should be conducted at WT:MOSTM. Obviously I have not been rigidly accurate in all that I have said above (who has?). But you have missed the main line of the argument. Let me answer you on each point just made. I hope you don't mind my numbering them, for clarity. Sorry, right. It was Powers. I disagree with you both, if you both think that "company names are routinely considered to be subject to MOSTM" even when they are not trademarks (registered or otherwise). At least, we would need to see evidence that this is a soundly established practice on Wikipedia; then we would need to consider whether it is desirable. Rolex, Macy's, and Toys "R" Us are indeed mentioned on that page: but as trademarks, not as company names. If they are also company names, that is a separate role for them. For example, "I always buy Rolex, never Omega" means I buys certain watches, not a company. The trademark "Rolex" (qua trademark) identifies the product. And of course, a company name may be a trademark even if it is not used to name any product (or service), as a matter of registration or of usage (like Toys "R" Us). But not all company names are. What is the situation with "The LEGO group"? Is it a trademark? If it is, in the proper legal definition of the term, then that's fine: our guidelines for trademarks apply to it. How do we determine this matter of fact? The guideline would need a change to clarify its meaning; and that would have to be determined in discussion toward a consensus understanding. You write "My point is that you're mistakenly interpreting 'trademark' as 'registered trademark.' " But no, I am not. Like others, I have fallen into some loose use of terms here. But nothing in my argument rests on the matter of registration. You have not grasped what I wrote in your comment. Set aside the loose wording "without registering" and substitute "without using"; I disagree with your ruling that both "Leeego" and "Geeelo" would equally be trademarks. If I never used the name "Geeelo" in the marketplace (nor ever registered it, of course), I do not think it would qualify as a trademark. But of course it is a matter of legal definition; I would like an expert ruling on that. You have not followed. There is a semantic distinction between "company name" and trademark. WP:MOSTM makes that distinction: "Distinguish clearly between the trademark and the company name when, as with Dell, it is customary to do so." I hope that citation, and the comments I now make, serve to explain. If they do not, I will take it further – but not here. You seem not to have read what I wrote. Read again, in the light of these new comments. It is inefficient to treat this general topic here any more, so I will not. I will be happy to continue at the more appropriate talkpage. NoeticaTea? 03:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC) I disagree with you both, if you both think that "company names are routinely considered to be subject to MOSTM" even when they are not trademarks (registered or otherwise). Again, any name used by a manufacturer, dealer or service provider to identify its goods or services and distinguish them from those of other companies is a trademark or service mark (both of which are commonly referred to as "trademarks," including at MOS:TM). At least, we would need to see evidence that this is a soundly established practice on Wikipedia; then we would need to consider whether it is desirable. Why wouldn't it be desirable? Why would it make sense to treat company names differently (e.g. to state that a manufacturer called "BIG GIANT TOYS" markets a product line called "Big Giant Toys")? Rolex, Macy's, and Toys "R" Us are indeed mentioned on that page: but as trademarks, not as company names. You're drawing a distinction where none exists. If they are also company names, that is a separate role for them. For example, "I always buy Rolex, never Omega" means I buys certain watches, not a company. That contextual difference has absolutely no bearing on how the names are styled. The trademark "Rolex" (qua trademark) identifies the product. ...via its manufacturer's name. You're referring to a watch from the Rolex company. And of course, a company name may be a trademark even if it is not used to name any product (or service), as a matter of registration or of usage (like Toys "R" Us). Did you overlook the phrase "or distributed by a particular dealer" in the cited definition of "trademark"? A retail operation's name is a trademark by virtue of its existence, with or without registration. What is the situation with "The LEGO group"? Is it a trademark? Yes, it's a registered trademark. (You acknowledged this at WT:MOS!) And if it weren't registered, it would be a common law trademark. If it is, in the proper legal definition of the term, then that's fine: our guidelines for trademarks apply to it. How do we determine this matter of fact? By reading and comprehending the straightforward, readily available information. The guideline would need a change to clarify its meaning; and that would have to be determined in discussion toward a consensus understanding. No offense intended, but there is a consensus understanding (your non-participation therein notwithstanding). A discussion to confirm this is fine by me. You write "My point is that you're mistakenly interpreting 'trademark' as 'registered trademark.' " But no, I am not. Like others, I have fallen into some loose use of terms here. But nothing in my argument rests on the matter of registration. You wrote the following: To put the matter yet another way, suppose that a company had no trademarks registered, and called itself "PARSNIP Brokerage", and all sources respected that use of case. Its Wikipedia article title must be decided without recourse to WP:MOSTM, since there is no trademark involved. It is strange and arbitrary then to make WP:MOSTM relevant when PARSNIP Brokerage does get around to registering "PARSNIP" as a trademark. In actuality, as soon as the hypothetical "PARSNIP Brokerage" enters existence, its name becomes a service mark (and therefore is subject to MOS:TM). Set aside the loose wording "without registering" and substitute "without using"; I disagree with your ruling that both "Leeego" and "Geeelo" would equally be trademarks. If I never used the name "Geeelo" in the marketplace (nor ever registered it, of course), I do not think it would qualify as a trademark. You referred to a hypothetical "Leeego line of products that [you] might choose to make and promote, without registering the trademark 'Leeego'." You've now amended this to a hypothetical "Leeego line of products that [you] might choose to make and promote, without using the trademark 'Leeego'," which doesn't make sense. (How can you make and promote the "Leeego" line without using its name?) In the same scenario, "[your] company is called 'Geeelo Enterprises'." If that's the name under which you operate (thereby distinguishing your products from those of other toy manufacturers), it's a trademark. There is a semantic distinction between "company name" and trademark. WP:MOSTM makes that distinction: "Distinguish clearly between the trademark and the company name when, as with Dell, it is customary to do so." You've quoted the section titled "Use of graphic logos," the subject to which the text in question appears to apply. In any case, its meaning is far from clear. (I assume that we agree can on that.) —David Levy 04:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC) David, I bring some order into the discussion by numbering, and you ignore this convenience so that I again have trouble commenting on what you say. Please be more considerate. I will give only two clarifications here, and then I must send you to WT:MOSTM. There you will find me citing one source among the huge number that is available to show that you are mistaken about the relation between company names and trademarks. The two clarifications: First, I have been attempting to extricate myself in this winding conversation from anything to do with registration of trademarks. We agree entirely: that is not a relevant distinction. I wrote this above, at 5: Set aside the loose wording "without registering" and substitute "without using"; I disagree with your ruling that both "Leeego" and "Geeelo" would equally be trademarks. If I never used the name "Geeelo" in the marketplace (nor ever registered it, of course), I do not think it would qualify as a trademark. But of course it is a matter of legal definition; I would like an expert ruling on that. I meant, rather than the underlined: "Dismiss anything that hinges on registration, and talk about use"; and indeed, I had earlier made a mistake in writing "without registering the trademark 'Leeego' ". It should have come after the mention of the company name "Geeelo", and been "without registering the trademark 'Geeelo' ". It is very hard to keep track of all this if we are not orderly, and if the discussion is not in one place only. The second clarification (from you actually, I hope): "You acknowledged this at WT:MOS!" Where exactly? I don't think I did that at all! I do not have an opinion on the matter. Please answer at the other location, not here. Can we stop this strand of it here, and move to WT:MOSTM? It's growing there. I will not answer anything here, even if I find it exceptionable and answerable. NoeticaTea? 05:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC) I used the style to which I'm accustomed, which was intended to improve clarity, not to make things more difficult for you (for which I sincerely apologize). I apologize also for allowing this thread to get out of hand. It's clear that we've both made mistakes along the way, and I agree that it's best to move on to WT:MOSTM and work toward consensus. I'll see you there. —David Levy 05:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Fine, David. In response to your approach at my talkpage, I am sealing this now and hoping others will join in at WT:MOSTM. NoeticaTea? 06:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons discussed above. —David Levy 22:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Article was moved from The Lego Group without discussion so unless there is a consensus that the current name is preferred, it should be moved back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:TM. Article was boldly moved and no one can blame that editor for that, but its time the article is restored to the MOS version.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. MOS:TM is applicable here. Gr1st (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What's up with "the"?

Shouldn't the title be "Lego Group"? Here is Wall Street Journal: "Three years ago, Lego Group anointed him a Lego Certified Professional." I don't see a "the". Kauffner (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see it presented all three ways in reliable sources: "The Lego Group", "the Lego Group", and just "Lego Group". Powers ^T 22:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal from Lego Technic Test Track

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.

---

I propose that Lego Technic Test Track be merged into The Lego Group#Legoland, per WP:GNG. A recent redirect of the former to Legoland Windsor was reverted because the ride is located at multiple parks. A selective merge of the contents could be included within a new subheading entitled Lego Technic Test Track. The current table at Lego Technic Test Track#Locations seems to be already covered within the prose and it may be undue to include it as part of the proposed merge process. Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• comment without checking for sources, I would suggest this merge be directed to Legoland rather than the Lego group. I will have a look in the morning. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'd oppose merging the article with The Lego Group as Legoland would be more appropriate as a single target article. Since the ride was located at all of the parks (varying names) which all have articles (Legoland Windsor, Legoland Florida, Legoland Malaysia, Legoland Deutschland, Legoland California, and Legoland Billund), it would be better to do a six-way merge, however, for attribution this might be complicated. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The merged from template left on the talk pages serves this function, it's pretty easy. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've now placed a request for closure on this. -- Trevj (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2013 (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.

Capitalization

"Lego" is supposed to be "LEGO"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFYo (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Latin translation of "Lego"

The latin word "lego" (lego legere) can't, as far as I'm aware, mean "to put together." Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary (the scholarly standard for the 19th and most of the 20th century) has a complete listing of definitions here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dlego2 Perhaps the closest meaning is "to gather together." I would have edited the main page but I wondered whether Lego Corp might claim this meaning, in which case the entry should reflect that they claim it but are, I think, wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtisdozier (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the Gender Equality section too minor?

For all the years that the LEGO company has been operating for, why is Gender Equality deserving a section on the main page instead of, say, a subpage? All it says is that "Some considered one of their line of products sexist", "A girl wrote a letter that the media reported on a lot", and some details about literally a single set. They was all news at the time, but why are they all significant enough for the Wikipedia page? 86.40.228.148 (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, after saying that, I just noticed that the source for "Lego friends was considered sexist and targeted by social media campaigns" doesn't actually say that at all. And since I can't find a source that DOES say that (only some occasional articles as a personal opinion of the author), I'm going to remove that line.86.40.228.148 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Lego Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111031052715/http://mdn.mainichi.jp:80/arts/news/20111028p2g00m0et132000c.html to http://mdn.mainichi.jp/arts/news/20111028p2g00m0et132000c.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Lego Group. 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/20120707025218/http://www.ccpit-patent.com.cn/News/2003041001.htm to http://www.ccpit-patent.com.cn/News/2003041001.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=pressdetail&contentid=2484&countrycode=2057&yearcode=2003&archive=true&bhcp=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=pressdetail&contentid=13026&countrycode=2057&yearcode=&archive=false
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120407074235/http://www.marquedor.com/telemarque/archives/02-06-01b_en.htm to http://www.marquedor.com/telemarque/archives/02-06-01b_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120407072927/http://www.marquedor.com/telemarque/archives/vol10no8c_an_detail.html to http://www.marquedor.com/telemarque/archives/vol10no8c_an_detail.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cfo-insight.com/human-capital-career/interviews/the-disguised-dane/

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) 20:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Niels Christiansen

Lordtobi : Sorry, but : Les Échos, 24 heures, La Tribune. Tyseria (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see he is CEO now. I thought Bali Padda was placed CEO just earlier this year, it appears he is longer with the company. Key people has been updated. Lordtobi (✉) 16:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks you, Tyseria (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Swap with The LEGO Group

The LEGO Group redirects to The Lego Group. The redirect should be in the other way and the content located at The LEGO Group.

Controversies

On the Nestle page, you can see several different controversies under a special 'controversies' section. On this page, you can't see any and there is no controversies section. I'm sure LEGO has controversies, please provide more info. 172.58.121.40 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Danish or Danish-American

Can contributors come to a consensus about whether Lego is Danish or Danish-American? The continual edits relating to this is becoming unconstructive. Thanks Fieryninja (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to make this clear about ownership - "The LEGO Group is owned by KIRKBI A/S (75%) and the LEGO Foundation (25%). KIRKBI A/S is the holding and investment company of the Kirk Kristiansen Family" (Danish family who originally founded it). This information was taken from the Lego website. Any edits changing Danish to Danish-American should therefore be reverted. Fieryninja (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Their star

Lego owns a star, maybe add some info about it. Fun fact, it’s near Polaris aka the North Star 46.69.185.26 (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

MALL

LEGO CITY MALL 2001:56A:7974:3C00:49B4:BA51:4F92:F8E9 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No Indonesia?

why this page didn't mention indonesia, despite having their first store located in cilandak town square, south jakarta? well this page ended up india only being available mentioned and nothing else. 182.253.54.73 (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

LEGO not Lego according to LEGO Company

From LEGO site: Write our trademarks in capital letters. Use a noun after the trademark, e.g. LEGO® toys, LEGO values. Never add a possessive “s”, plural “s” or hyphen. CosCap (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Lots of corporations have silly "rules" like that. We don't follow those here, MOS:TMRULES. Ringtail Raider (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

New Legoland locations wording

In the Legoland section of the article, I got confused by the sentence:

"Legoland Water Park Gardaland in Castelnuovo del Garda, Italy and Legoland New York in Goshen, New York, the largest of ten Legoland parks as of 2024, was opened in 2021."

Could there be a better way of re-phrasing it so that it's definitive which Legoland is the largest and which one opened when? (maybe as multiple sentences?) Escha7 (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)