Talk:Lego/Archive 6

Name

The name should be in all caps, per http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=fairplay

Also, I hate to toot my own horn but I have tried to make sure LEGO is always written in all caps in this article. --LEGOman77 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As stated in other topics below, Wikipedia prefers to follow normal formatting. Nixill (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

Why don't we just rewrite the entire Trivia section? Since Wikipedia generally does not approve of Trivia sections, why doesn't someone attempt to take this trivia facts and turn them into an actual paragraph or something to that extent? And that way there would be room to elaborate more on this one piece of trivia. And if not... why don't we just eliminate this fact considering it's causing so much controversy. Even if the fact is coming from the company's website, the fact is still rather misleading. And from a LEGO stand point, the company wants everyone to think that so much LEGO brick is owned and it's so popular, when really the case is that there are a certain amount of people that own just one lego set and then there are those that own a lot of sets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.175.130 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Motto

I'd like to back up my recent change of the paragraph concerning the LEGO Group's motto. Currently, the paragraph reads:

Lego Group motto, is "Only the best is good enough." This motto was created by Ole Kirk Christiansen to encourage his employees never to skimp on quality, a value he believed in strongly. The motto is still used within the company today. However, the Danish translation is little different which is 'Det bedste er ikke for godt'.

I changed it to read:

Lego's motto is "Only the best is good enough", translated from the Danish phrase, Det bedste er ikke for godt. This motto was created by Ole Kirk to encourage his employees never to skimp on quality, a value he believed in strongly. The motto is still used within the company today.

The main problem with the current version is that (no offense intended) it sounds like it was written by a 5 year old. I was mostly just trying to clean up the grammar and punctuation, but I also made it more factually correct. The motto "Only the best is good enough" was translated from the Danish phrase "Det bedste er ikke for godt." The direct translation is "The best is not too good," but that phrasing doesn't quite convey the same meaning in English as it does in Danish. The meaning of the motto is translated as "Only the best is good enough." Furthermore, page 10 of The Ultimate LEGO Book says the motto translates to "only the best is good enough." In conclusion- the two translations of the LEGO Group's motto are fundamentally the same, so please do not revert my revision again. -HotWheels(53) ^Talk 18:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First it shouldn't say 'Lego's' which is incorrect. Yes, there is a slightly different translation between the Danish and English of the meaning. This is the reason why both sides are mention, because someone (who might be Danish) kept changing the motto in the section. If you check the past wiki 'history' regarding to section, you will understand. I am aware of the book "The Ultimate LEGO Book" states the motto is "only the best is good enough." However as mention Danish phrase "Det bedste er ikke for godt" the direct translation is "The best is not too good." Is the reason why there is a slight difference in the meaning? I have no problem with the statement now. But, If someone changes it to "The best is not too good" because of the Danish meaning is "Det bedste er ikke for godt." The section will have to reflect both difference and meanings to be fair. Both translations are not fundamentally the same in meaning. GoTLG 19:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually in this usage "Lego's" is correct because it's being used as a possessive noun, not plural. If we were saying "A handful of Legos" it would be incorrect, but this is different. I see someone has changed it to not say "Lego's" now anyway. So, let's get back on topic. I asked someone who speaks Norwegian (a language which is extremely similar to Danish) to translate "Det bedste er ikke for godt" for me and he said it directly translates to "The best is not too good," however he also said that what it is trying to say is closer to "Only the best is good enough." You need to realize that because Danish and the other Scandinavian languages developed separately from English, the same phrase can mean different things in the different languages. The English phrase "Only the best is good enough" is much closer in meaning to the Danish phrase Ole Kirk Christiansen coined in the 1930s than "The best is not too good" is. Am I making sense? HotWheels53 (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I notice it has been change. I don't disagree with you regarding to the motto. I was stating someone was changing translation to "The best is not too good". If you check the 'wiki' history, reverting back and fourth and so on, I thought to be fair, show both translations both Danish and English. The use of 'Lego's' is not proper even though it is a possessive noun. You don't call, Ebay: Ebay's, Microsoft: Microsoft's, and others. GoTLG 18:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we would use phrases such as "Ebay's logo" and "Microsoft's budget" in English. "Lego's" is perfectly grammatical. --McGeddon (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is 'we'? And its the fault of American English to say "Lego's" where as Internationally its "Lego". Both eBay and Microsoft were just two small examples. There is no need to list every product or company name. To say "Ebay's logo" ...how many logos does eBay have? I believe only one type of logo. GoTLG 23:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there is only type of logo for eBay. The fact is it belongs to eBay, so it would be "eBay's logo". LEGO's is proper because it is possessive. The motto belongs to the company. That's the point. It's not plural. And it is written in English, so it should follow English grammar rules. Other languages have different ways of displaying possession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.99.2 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"We" are English speakers; I'm assuming from the context of this talk section that you're Dutch, and are unfamiliar with plural/possessive distinctions in English. Please be careful about correcting the grammar in Wikipedia articles if English is not your first language. --McGeddon (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now clarified it:

The Lego Group's motto is "Only the best is good enough", a free translation of the Danish phrase Det bedste er ikke for godt.

You can say "free translation" in English (too), right? And yes, I do think it's necessary to make it factually accurate. — Emil K. ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth pointing out the following things? "The best is not too good" falls foul of the English idiomatic usage not too good to mean no good at all. A more literal translation in the intended sense might be the best isn't too much to ask

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

LEGO

Shouldn't the title be in all caps? ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 10:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia uses "standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'". It's explained further in MOS:TM. --McGeddon (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 13:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lego

Lego `System` is a system that made Lego /sets/ such as castle, cars, tractors, and more... Lego `Technic` is pieces of lego bricks with "holes" in them and "snap" pieces that you push in the holes which is how you connect the pieces to eachother... Technic anso has `sets` like the Technic tractors, cars, and even dinasors!!! 03:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Treepop (talk)

Was there once rubber lego

I remember playing with all-brown Lego blocks at school around 1953 which seemed to be very like the current ones, but made of a more rubber-like material (hardly cellulose acetate). Can anyone confirm what exactly this was? --Memestream (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lego article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. LUGNET is the perfect place to ask that question. -ErinHowarth (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This could have been relevant to the article. Relax the sphincter a little so your head can come out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:LEGO_brick.png

It's better than the previous, low-quality image, but does anybody else feel that the computer-generated image we're using in Image:LEGO_brick.png isn't particularly well illustrative? The sides of the brick appear to be sloping inwards, and it's not entirely obvious that this is actually a solid, rectangular block. --McGeddon (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Way too much perspective, in my opinion. I keep meaning to re render this in POVRay with the camera settings changed so that while it's still a perspective, the vanishing points are much "farther away"... or even just render it in isometric. I seem to recall commenting on this previously, a long time ago. :) I think the person who rendered it maybe did't know how to change camera settings? (basically you pull the camera back and then narrow the field of view). (The preceding was a very long winded variant on "yes" :) ) ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK lego Manuals are rendered isometric, so i suggest we use that also here... 86.80.219.48 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry Lar, that was me. I meant to but never found time, then forgot about it. I'll still try to get it done again, but if you or someone else gets to it first that's great too. If we render it in isometric it won't look like a photo, we need a tiny bit of perspective to make it look real. I guess if we do want an isometric view we could just take a screenshot of a brick in MLCAD or Bricksmith and forget rendering altogether. -HotWheels53 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The image of the orange brick is not very good looking, nor is a improvement to the page. I don't see how the computer graphic of the Lego brick is distorted and misleading? As for my statement "the red Lego brick is fine". I feel that the red brick image is better looking, than the orange brick on the page and to the users eyes. If the orange brick image is put back. Might as well, don't have a 'image' of a Lego 2x4 brick on the page. Also the Lego red 2x4 brick (with 'Lego' on the studs) is recognize pretty much everywhere around the world. GoTLG (User talk:GoTLG) 23:07 20, January 2009 (UTC)

The problems with the computer image are discussed further down this talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

lego

Lego is a building toy but not for children under 3 years.This is how to stick them:put a brick on top of another and press it.Lego mans are for making lego games or creating something with it.Legomans also have something on top of there head fir puting wigs,hats,or other stuff on it or make it wear something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolol (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? Are you suggesting a change to the page? Paperbullet (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For children under 3 years, I would suggest Duplo.

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"commonly referred to as "Lego bricks""

Lego means "I put together" in Latin. It is nonsense to add an s to the end to make "I put togethers". Please stop the Americans destroying our language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.149 (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel that statement is wrong. Apparently this has been discussed before, but I am not going to go through 5 archives from the last 4 years to find one discussion. (If someone feels like summarizing the previous discussion for me that would be great). For now, though, I need to make my point. Saying that LEGO's flagship product is commonly referred to as Lego bricks is basically saying that the most common term for the brick is Lego bricks. I cannot believe that this is true. In the U.S. the most common term, by far, is Legos. Legos is even the term used by major news sources (for example see: [1] for all instances of the word "legos" on the New York Times website). Even if this is technically wrong and not what the company wants, it is the most common term. Therefore, I do not think it is proper to state "commonly referred to as Lego bricks." I am not saying the line should be changed to "commonly referred to as legos" as that would imply that that is the proper term. I am saying, however, that the line should not say anything about commonality at all since it is apparently a touchy subject. My most recent edit, "The company's flagship product, "Lego bricks", consist ...", seems, to me, to fix the problem. The statement eliminates any problems when it comes to debating whether or not legos or lego bricks is the most common and does not imply anything against the company's wishes. According to the edit summary, GoTLG reverted my edit because I changed the word consists to consist. I only did this because Lego bricks,the new subject, was changed to be plural. If that is actually the case and I did not misinterpret GoTLG's summary, my edit should stay and the sentence should read "The company's flagship product, Lego bricks, consist of colorful interlocking plastic bricks..." Should it be changed, or am I just wrong?--Kyle_(talk) 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the grammar in Microsoft word and I was wrong about consist versus consists, however, my issue with the word common still stands.--Kyle_(talk) 03:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not gonna into this huge debate over this problem. The only thing base on the edit summary I removed is 'simply legos' statement. Also, I did not change 'consists' to consist only Kyle did. If you are not gonna read through 5 archives, and rely only on 'Google' or US newspaper such as New York Times as your source of information that is a problem. There are many other newspapers besides the New York Times in the world. TV media, websites and newspapers in the US have made the mistake of saying or typing 'Legos'. It is not the most common term to say 'legos' in the world. It is however more of a American problem and not the rest of the world. You have to look at the big picture when it come to information and adding to this site. Since everybody seem to use 'Wikipedia' and 'Google' as a source for writing a report for work or school. It is also a trademark problem both in the business and writing world, when typing or saying 'Legos'. ~~ GoTLG

I do not think that you understood everything that I said.

First off, my problem was with your second revert (see my edit and your revert). You removed the simply legos statement in the first revert. In my second edit, I had only changed the line to not say anything about commonality and I changed the word consists to consist. I never accused you of changing consists to consist. Besides, I have already said that I was wrong to change consists in the first place.

Second, it is perfectly reasonable for me not to read through 5 archives of this talk page to find one discussion about whatever we are talking about. I do not have that kind of time.

Third, I am aware that there are other newspapers in the world besides the New York Times. I was only using them as an example of how, in the U.S., legos is the most common term. Do a quick search on nearly any news website in the U.S. and you will see that legos is the most common, I only used the NY Times as an example due to their prominence. I never said that legos was the most common term in the world. I was only saying how legos is the most common in the U.S. even if it is wrong. The only thing I was disputing in my statement was the use of the word 'common' since, the fact is, it is not the most common everywhere. I will be happy as long as the word common is not there, I don't care whether or not it says Lego bricks or legos.--Kyle_(talk) 23:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This can be a relatively easy fix. Just mention that in the US (using NY Times and various other sources) they're commonly called "legos" and in other parts of the world "lego bricks" (using proper sources).

Note this is not specific to the U.S. In English and French Canada, the common term is also "Legos", regardless of what the company wishes people would use. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Which may be true, however there needs to be a citation indicating that that's what they're called in Canada. They could call them "ping pongs" in Hamilton, but unless there's verifiability, then it shouldn't be in the article. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 08:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that they are commonly called 'legos' and not 'lego bricks' is already attested to by the Lego Group itself. See, the very fact that they have gone to efforts to try and repair trademark dilution inherently indicates said dilution does, in fact, exist. In other words, when TLG says "Don't call them legos" they are, in fact, acknowledging that people commonly do. TLG has never asked people not to call them "Lobster Fudd" because this is not a problem.75.62.111.88 (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

only five year olds and americans call them "legos". One brick is a lego brick. Multiple bricks is just "lego". It's a resource, like sand. You don't get "sands". --86.135.120.224 (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by Lego bricks being "a resource, like sand"? That makes no sense. One Lego element is an object. Multiple Lego elements are multiple objects. In English we refer to multiple objects using the plural form, which absent specific grammatical exceptions is formed by adding an s to the end of the word. While TLG would prefer that the word "Lego" be used only as an adjective, the fact is that in American English "Legos" is a valid plural noun referring collectively to multiple Lego elements of any sort, just as "logos" is the plural of "logo". It's good that this article has a section for describing TLG's position on trademark usage, and TLG's opinion certainly deserves consideration, but any claims about "Legos" being grammatically incorrect on some objective level have no basis.

So do you refer to "sheeps"?82.6.1.85 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Amezuki (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To say "Legos" just doesn't make any sense. Lego what? Lego bricks? Lego houses? Cars? 86.135.120.224 was absolutely right. It is referred to as an uncountable substance, just like sand. If it's an argument to anyone, we've never put the word in plural in Danish, either. There is no "one Lego", that's just the name of the company. — Emil K. ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, "Lego" is what is known as an uncountable noun or mass noun, like "snow", "rice" or "sand". I have never heard anyone use it as a count noun before. You don't have "a snow", "a rice" or "a lego". You have a snowflake, a grain of rice, or a lego brick / a piece of lego. It's a question of grammar, not of whether they are individual objects. — Chameleon 06:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, no, you do, in fact, have "A lego" which is one brick. Or, as I clearly recall from growing up in Erlangen, "ein Lego". Still one brick. So, guys, no matter how you stamp your little self-absorbed purist "we do what the company tells us" feet, it is, in fact, quite common to call a lego a fucking lego. Now deal with it and stop trying to redefine common based on what you prefer, and seriously, think about how your little "you can't call it that" tempter tantrums look before you call people five-year-olds. Oh, and for the record, even IF only 5-year-olds and Americans call them Legos, half a billion people is still pretty damned common.75.62.111.88 (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

With the matter of whether or not "Legos" can be considered grammatically correct or not, remember that Legos/Lego/Lego bricks are, well, bricks, a word that gets an "s" added to it to make it plural (though brick is also used depending on the context). This may be the reason they are called Legos in the U.S. This is NOT to say that it's the only correct answer, but merely that Lego does not automatically fall under the same category as snow or sand. Different rules apply to different things, and there are always exceptions. Of course, the real reason the debate exists is because different countries have grown hearing the different uses of the word and it sounds ridiculous to hear it any other way...to the point that it becomes "correct" to hear it your own way. This isn't the only case where plurals are different among cultures. I've mostly just stated the obvious of course. I just wanted to point out that it really doesn't follow under any one rule. Nagaoka (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't say how representative this is, but in my experience, in England, I have only ever heard "Lego brick" used for single elements, and either "Lego bricks" or "Lego" (as a mass noun) for multiple elements. "Legos" (which IMO looks like it should be a Greek Island) was not a term I had ever seen or heard, until I encountered its use recently on the internet by American users, and has always struck me as looking/sounding very strange. (But that's probably just due to lack of familiarity, and while I've always been a very big fan of Lego, the company does strike me as being quite obsessivly pedantic in their insistance that YOU MUST USE LANGUAGE THE WAY WE TELL YOU! (Appologies for the caps, but I think it represents their attitude quite well). 62.172.108.23 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In their magazines and on their website, The LEGO Company has referred to the bricks explicitly as both "Legos" and "Lego bricks". The issue is whether the term "Lego" should be used as a plural noun, although the company seems to consider the above terms interchangeable. Vertigo893 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In a discussion of the most commonly used term for lego bricks, a newspaper (NY Times or any other) is not a reasonable reference point. They report news, not use and purchase Lego. Even the LEGO company doesn't decide. They try to, but as with the adopted generics 'hoover' and 'xerox', what the company wants is often very different from reality. If one buys 'a box of Lego' or 'a Lego set', then 'Lego' would seem to be an mass noun. 'Legos' might be used, but I'm treating the issue as Vertigo893 above. Centrepull (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

All the pictures are of impressive custom display models. Wouldn't it make more sense to lead with represenative pictures of the actual Lego toy sets?

While I'm sure most readers are familiar with Lego, someone who is not may have difficulty making the mental leap from the picture of a single block to the wide angle picture of the Empire State model. Suggest there might be represenative pictures of simple sets which show the block construction, as well as the more complicated models from Lego. 64.171.162.74 (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Trademark section

Needs to be trimmed or deleted completely per WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. I've reviewed the past discussions and don't see where either policy was addressed. --Ronz (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What's POV about it, and which aspect of WP:NOT are you concerned about? --McGeddon (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This section has been discuss many times in the past. The information is correct from the Lego Group website and other media sources long before there was 'Google' or 'Wikipedia'. It explains in simple terms the proper use of 'LEGO trademark. There is no reason to delete or change the 'trademark' section when it provides information for the reader to understand the history. If the section is deleted, it will create some problems again in the past on 'Wikipedia' which has been mention in past 'Archives'. It is more common for American kids to say or write 'legos' but for the rest of world its different. It could cause a ripple affect to other company names or brands listed on the site. Not to forget the rest of the other Lego pages, such themes and products listed or mention on Wikipedia. The reason behind the trademark section is to explain why it is incorrect to use 'legos' or 'Lego's'. In fact, pretty much all companies, brands or products on Wikipedia should have a 'Trademark' section.

To add what I already stated. Every single company, regarding to Airlines, Movie studios, software, products names, brands or person(s) and even people mention on Wikipedia would have to be re-written or removed from Wikipedia. For example, Walt Disney, Star Wars, Rolling Stones and many others. In other words Wikipedia would no longer not be a reliable site of information. Its not just a business information, its more of providing the correct information. By having the section it solve a lot of problems, as people were incorrectly typing Lego's Group, Lego's bricks, etc. it just made the page look bad. (Generally speaking, ... I can see why Wikipedia is becoming more and more less respected, because the information cannot be really trusted.)

I have read over both WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, as McGeddon mention I am not sure what is the concern is? GoTLG (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

POV - there are no independent sources at all, let alone to demonstrate it's importance or that it should be treated in such detail. See especially WP:UNDUE.

NOT - WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHOWTO, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it as being fundamentally unencyclopedic and unimportant per WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Distorted photo

I would recommend getting rid of the LEGO_brick.png photo. It's artsy but it doesn't give an accurate visual representation of the brick due to the strong distortion. It doesn't belong in an enclopedia. -Rolypolyman (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bad model; the distortion allows a greater area of the "brick" to be seen than otherwise. Steve ^{T • C} 22:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed further up the talk page back in February - the CGI image is cleaner than the old, blurry photo, but the distortion is extremely misleading to anyone who's never seen a Lego brick.

(And the distortion actually reduces the visible surface area, from this choice of angle - we're only seeing two faces, with the right-hand side being a confusingly flat line.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this image, which I note is the one the Lego Wikiproject uses for its banner. Failing that, I can knock something up in Solidworks minus the perspective in about 30 seconds, but I'm having trouble finding a version of the Lego font for the top of the brick that Solidworks is able to extrude properly. Steve ^{T • C} 12:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current picture is bad. But why do we insist on computer graphic? I'm sure someone could take a really good picture of a real brick. It's not that I'm generally against computer graphics, but for someone that has never seen such a brick it would be much better to have a picture of the real thing, possibly 'in action', i.e. put together with another brick, for example. 83.78.10.135 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we just went with the graphic because the file was already there; nobody's insisting on it, and a photo would be fine, if you have a couple of Lego blocks handy. --McGeddon (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I found this photo of a Lego block in the commons; it's not great, but it's better than the misleading computer graphic.

User:GoTLG has since reverted this change because "the red Lego brick is fine and is known worldwide icon and image" - the red Lego brick image used in this article was, so far as I'm aware, just somebody's flawed attempt to create a CGI image of a Lego brick. It is not any sort of official Lego imagery. I think we're better off with a less-than-perfect photo. Any other opinions? --McGeddon (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

From its current perspective, most people should be able to identify it as a rectangular shape. But if we can find a better, clear image of a brick, I think we should use it. Vertigo893 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The image I found seems pretty clear; I've included it at thumbnail size to the right, for comparison. I think it makes a lot more sense to have a photo of a real brick. --McGeddon (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is a good-quality image. GoTLG did point out that the red Lego brick is known as Lego's iconic image. I'm not trying to proffer any particular image, but should we aim for quality or iconic image status? Vertigo893 (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of a quality iconic image, I'd go for a quality non-iconic image, rather than a low-quality iconic one. It's more important to show the reader what a single Lego brick actually looks like, than to communicate an "icon" of the brand in a confusing way. --McGeddon (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now found this high-quality image of a pile of Lego bricks on Flickr (which shows the bricks from all angles, including the undersides), and added it to the article in place of the CGI image. --McGeddon (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks great- good job! a little insignificant (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In art

Is there any way that the "In Art" section can be written so that it correctly reflects the use of Lego in art without tempting people to use it as marketing? The section began as an authentic description of various uses of Lego toys in the mainstream and fringe art communities, but for years it has since degenerated into self-marketing. The trailing "Jason Burik" sentence is a perfect example: it has been added by Jason Burik himself (and re-added after being deleted several times) and provides no context or history. Perhaps the problem is that this section lists specific examples, which only encourages further "examples" to be added by the artists themselves? It would be nice to have an authoritative section here, not a list of portfolios. --Ken76matthews (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Ken76Matthews

Halsam

I had added a reference to the Halsam 1939 US patent. It was reverted on the ground that the patent was not about LEGOs (kind of obvious since it was prior to any LEGOs.) I note further that prior art is indeed mentioned in the article (a British example.) Is there a reason whey the Halsam prior art is not allowed? I would think it would show the nature of interlocking building blocks in the form of bricks before WW II, and would be of some interest to those interested in the actual history of such building blocks. Collect (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Collect, I saw your remarks about Halsam. I wanted to add some information in the Dutch version. That's why I looked here. Around 1955 we had Elgo at home, someone sent that to us from the US. It still is somewhere in the family. I found some information about Halsam which you might find interesting, or know already. Look here about half of the page[[2]], this is Halsam AND Lego history. I am curious about what you wanted to add. Salix2 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No mention of dublos

There should at least be a redirect at dublo & dublos to here and a mention here of the oversized legos for younger age groups named "dublos". 4.255.49.98 (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You meant duplo. Normally I wouldn't change someone else's wording, but I did this time for clarity. Awickert (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing other users' comments is needlessly confusing, particularly for a conversation purely regarding a typo; I've restored the editor's typos, so that this section makes sense again (I had to check the history to see whether or not the editor might have been talking about a regional variant, or an unofficial plastic-block product).

Either way, I've added a brief paragraph about Duplo, which was previously only mentioned in the navigation template. --McGeddon (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OK - sorry - never done it, didn't realize it was so taboo, just wanted the link to work. I did do a pretty thorough search for "dublo" before I did it, though, and didn't find anything either. Thanks for adding the info. Awickert (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Construction toys

There is no "See also" in this article. Since this is not an advertisement of Legos, shouldn't there also be some links to other popular construction toys? See the category at the bottom of the page for all possible examples. --70.142.41.253 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Lego company - change in philosophy

Lego used to have a strict criteria in its' specialised model sets: Emphasising every-day community activity and positive social roles, the minifigures in the sets featured policemen, firemen, ambulance drivers, family figures etc. Spacemen modelled on the Apollo moon-landings were the most exotic themes available. Figures were always smiling, wore uniforms or ordinary clothes, were never threatening or aggressive, and no weapons were ever shown. Some time in the 80s (I think) all this changed, and more 'savage' themes came in, together with film tie-ins. Previously also, there was more of an attempt to make the specially-moulded specific pieces in such a way that they could still be useful for other model construction. At around the same time they changed their philosophy about themes and minifigures, they started producing sets that were full of specific pieces that are useless for other models. Does anyone know the background to the companys' change of philosophy? I think it's worth mentioning in the article. Centrepull (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Brick Numbers

Number exhaustion!

The Lego company estimates that... [6] Annual production of Lego bricks averages approximately 20 billion... ...divided equally among a world population of six billion, each person would have 62 Lego bricks...

All this is simply big-numberism promotion of Lego. I can't see their use in the article apart from as PR puff - not the right stuff for the article. Oh look! The citation is from the official company profile document... Can we delete this paragraph and simply add a link to the Lego profile pdf for those interested in how many times Lego bricks would stretch to the moon and back? Centrepull (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Most common LEGO brick

Which brick is the most common LEGO brick? --88.78.230.207 (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the ref desk page, define what you mean by "most common". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as though a Lego brick can't be considered part of the British underclass or such: If you don't know what most common means then you shouldn't be allowed out on your own, let alone be able to edit Wikipedia.--Kurtle (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Get off your high horse; the anon could have meant "most commonly purchased", "most commonly manufactured", "most commonly found in different sets"... Also, "most common" by color or only by shape? Most common world-wide or in the United States? Or in Denmark? There are a ton of variables which your flippant remark does nothing to illuminate. Powers ^T 15:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I know EXACTLY what it is. The 1x2 brick.--Cegalegolog99 (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Legos

Legos is not the correct term. TLC said themselves it is not the correct term. The correct term is LEGO Bricks.

Enrys (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

Toy vs Company

The Infobox on this page suggests that Lego is a company (with Lego Group as its parent company). As far as I'm aware, this isn't the case. If there are no objections, I'll update the page to better reflect that Lego is the page about the toy, and Lego Group is the page about the company (with disambiguation links between them). Frankie Roberto (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Vandalism Problem

I've noticed the "Lego" page is getting vandalised again, as soon as the semi-protection expired. I think it should be semi-protected again. This persistent vandalism is getting annoying. 86.28.171.246 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll check for vandalism starting on June 9, that is when I will have an account for 4 days (I've already made it past 10 edits). Isabella and Lego Liker 23:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Blockland

I am surprised its not in here, as the game is based off of Lego. Here's a link to the article. Nixill (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Our Blockland article clearly says "The game is not endorsed by, or affiliated with the Lego brand," right there in the lead. Powers ^T 19:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

LEGO in Futurama under In culture, Television

Futurama's first new episode of the 2010 season showed Fry with a LEGO version of himself and Leela. http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1328/4731647769_87eb893c7b_o.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.236.76 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit permission

{{editsemiprotected}} For clarity, under movies, "a number of movies" in reference to BIONICLE should be changed to "four movies". Also, all discussion concerning the production of BIONICLE products/storyline by LEGO, Papercutz, or other should be changed to past tense, as all production has ended except for the online writings Greg Farshtey is doing on his own time (as of the release of the final novels). Thank you. Kayru-kitsune (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide reference(s) for your statements. We need to make sure the information is accurate. Chevymontecarlo 15:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you find a source backing the statement that BIONICLE is out of production, feel free too add another {{editsemiprotected}} template. SpigotMap 17:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Candy

Is there a page on the candy? a>C-Son-L_Sweaters.exe 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What candy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a LEGO candy currently on the market. And no, I doubt it has a page, and I don't think it needs one. However, it could use a mention/paragraph on the LEGO page. TT Capsule (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That candy has nothing to do with LEGO or the LEGO group, other than a resemblance between them. LewisWasGenius (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

a Lego store is about to open in Canada - its first!

But I can't edit to add that.

I also can't edit to fix the word "area's" (which should be "areas"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.183.194 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Lego's "stores" website says "The first LEGO Store in Canada is opening this Summer at Chinook Centre in Calgary! Check back soon for more details." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.183.194 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I can now edit so I just fixed both of these. I'd forgotten about the areas typo so I'm glad I mentioned it here too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.183.194 (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Lego.com

Does anyone else think that the Lego.com section should either be expanded or split off to a new page? There is a lot of content on the official Lego website, and a lot of history can be found about it. Thoughts? EWikist (Talk to me) 23:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking for LEGO news in Spanish, you must visit

http://www.legosargentina.blogspot.com La página no oficial de LEGO en Castellano]

and if you want to buy LEGO in Argentina try

www.legoshop.com.ar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.18.47 (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

LEGO, not Lego!!!

Shouldn't Lego always be written on Wikipedia in all caps, like it is written in all (or at least the vast majority of) LEGO-related books?!?CegaLEGOlog9^9! 18:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this ought to be the case as well. Kayru-kitsune (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see MOS:TM concerning Trademark capitalization. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is my first day on Wikipedia, so I hope I didn't screw anything up when I did this - anyways, I copied the article from this page ("Lego") and put it on the "LEGO" page, which normally redirects to here. Then, I changed this page to redirect to "LEGO". Hope I didn't cause any trouble... JamessterBot (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Belville

I have noticed that the LEGO line "Belville" is unmentioned in this article. I believe it deserves to be. It is a line mostly geared towards girls, with approx. 3"-high articulated characters and animals. In 2006 (I think) they released a series of Belville sets featuring Hans Christian Andersen stories, in honor of his 200th birthday. These may or may not have been only released in Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TT Capsule (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Colors of some horses not specified

I noticed a minor problem in this article. In the mini figure section of each set, the colour of horses are specified in some places but not in others. It would be nice if someone skimmed through the article to search for this error. Place the colour of the horse in parentheses after the word "horse" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtheone21 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lego micro sets?

I'm sure I've seen some micro sized LEGO sets, with blocks about 1/4 normal size. Perhaps they weren't LEGO, but Mega Bloks? Bizzybody (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Quoted tolerance of 2 µm is misleading

The Design section states that LEGO elements are manufactured with a 2 µm tolerance, when in reality the reference only says that the molds used in production are accurate to 2 µm. I'm reasonably certain that the tooled steel molds they use to manufacture LEGOs are far more precise than the plastic toy itself. 2 µm is 10 - 20 times smaller than a human hair, one scratch and the brick would be out of spec. If anyone can find the appropriate tolerance, that figure ought to be replaced. Otherwise the sentence should be reworded to refer to the mold instead of the toy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanielcolson (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This article acts as if using µm would be controversial. What is 2µm relative to millimetres? --82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

From my extensive experience with LEGO, most pieces have "flex" well over 2 µm, but they ARE extremely precise when new and flex back to this precise position. Every new 2x2 LEGO brick fits with every other with the same grip, and it takes an extraordinary amount of abuse before there is any perceptible difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisWasGenius (talk • contribs) 22:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Tolerance in molding is not the same as tolerance in construction. They do have a very tight tolerance in molding (although if the mold is to 2 µm I would indeed expect the tolerance of the brick to be larger). However, the bricks are designed to be not perfectly tight with each other. Check out this technique, for example: [3]. You can make a curved wall from regular 1x2 bricks, because they are designed with a tolerance for fitting with each other, to account for damage, bending, etc. -Ellisthion (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lego Board Games

I posted information on the new lego board games, and I noticed there were only 2 other sentences about it before I added info. How about everyone pitches in and adds a sentence or two! People might want to learn about lego board games. Wschlitz (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Image Copyright?

Lego specifically forbids ANY use of their logo off of their official site. Have they granted some kind of special exception for wikipedia? Maybe we should replace it with an image of bricks, or something similar. Lego's Fair Play Policy

I think that we can probably use the logo anyway, as "fair use", per WP:Logo#Uploading non-free logos. However I notice that File:LEGO_logo.svg does not include "... the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed non-free use rationale", and it probably should. We should probably also replace the image with a lower resolution one. (This is a layman's opinion - I am not a lawyer.) Mitch Ames (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that both of those things should be done. I brought this up because I don't know if companies like Coca-Cola (which was the fair use example) have gone to as much trouble as Lego to expressly forbid ANY use of their logo on non-official websites. They are very clear about this and I'm unaware of any exceptions that have been made. LewisWasGenius (talk)

I don't think Lego have the legal authority to override the fair use provisions of the copyright laws, no matter how explicitly they may forbid use of their logo. Quoting Fair use#Common misunderstandings: Fair use rights take precedence over the author's interest. Thus the copyright holder cannot use a ... notification, to revoke the right of fair use on works. But again, I am not a lawyer. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's odd that they would reject what amounts to free advertising. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The LEGO logo isn't a copyrighted work, it is a famous registered trademark. Lego encourages unofficial sites, and has granted permission for their trademarks to be used in such sites for reasonable purposes, but they absolutely insist that the red LEGO logo remain exclusively the mark of official LEGO products, to avoid "allowing the distinctiveness of this symbol to be diluted". LewisWasGenius (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, since this site is about the product line, and not the company, it would probably be better to use a different image. LewisWasGenius (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Santanda ad

I've just removed the sentence about the Santander ad again. The ad does not appear to use Lego bricks:

1. The cited reference says "Lego-style", not "Lego" - implying that it was NOT Lego.
2. The bricks used to build the bridge in the ad are obviously far too big to be real Lego bricks.
3. The logo on the studs in the bridge bricks is not the Lego logo.

The boy in the car has some bricks in his lap, but the resolution is not good enough for me to see if they are Lego or not (ie if they have a Lego logo on the studs). It is possible that they are Lego, but I don't think that qualifies as sufficient to rate a mention in the article given that the bridge - the main feature of the ad - is definitely not Lego. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Please stop putting this back in. LewisWasGenius (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Molds encased in foundations of buildings

The article says that worn-out molds are encased in the foundations of buildings in order to keep them from falling into competitors' hands. Really! What does Lego do? Wait until there is a suitable building project until they can throw their mold into the wet concrete? What does the civil or structural engineer of such a project think about having the integrity of a building foundation compromised by garbage having been thrown into the concrete molds? What is to keep any competent practitioner in the world from simply buying a set of Lego bricks in a store and reverse-engineering them, even without ever having seen an original Lego mold? This statement is just so much outrageous bulls***, even if there is a cite with a book that has an ISBN classification, that I've removed it "on sight".—Quicksilver^{T @} 11:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I usually use the term "nonsense" when such is added to Wikipedia articles. In this instance the material was so egregious that it warranted a much stronger descriptive term.—Quicksilver^{T @} 15:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture on 'Licensed themes' section on main page

I see no harm or ditraction to the main page by having an example of a licensed theme, in picture, in the section on the main Lego page. I have added it twice, but I do not want to start an edit war with User:GoTLG, as he has removed it both times. I would say the pic helps, because there is not an example of a licensed theme, so a novice could be in need of a pic. It's not like the article is overcrowded with pictures, why not? A picture is worth a thousand words... QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 01:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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: Not moved (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 20:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Lego → LEGO —

• The name LEGO should be capitalized every time it appears. Source: I am an employee of the company. 71.235.168.196 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• I read that the name 'Lego' started as a modified form of Danish language leg god = "play good", "play well", and is not an acronym. That leaves us with merely "importance capitalization". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - MOS:TM says to "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'", both for article titles and body text. --McGeddon (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose:McGeddon explains this clearly--our style guideline does not allow this capitalization, even though that is how the company writes it themselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose As explained, we generally do not use "incorrect" stylings just because the company likes to; I don't see any reason Legos should be an exception. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Mild oppose on the grounds that it's simply branding. Twitter and Facebook like to spell them all in lower case, and Time (magazine) likes to spell it all in upper case. Current wikipedia guidelines are to use normal English spellings. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it is the consensus position. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - the employee is mixing up Lego's internal branding requirements with an encyclopaedia and its stated conventions (as noted above); and as it is not an acronym, capitalisation is not required. Warren (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As a combination of words, it's rather similar to Citgo, which is styled CITGO by the company. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above comments that per WP:TM guidelines this is already correct. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose—it's a word, not an acronym. I'd be willing to bet almost every print source spells it Lego.86.6.193.43 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Not an acronym, so inappropriate per Manual of Style. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:39, 17 February 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.

Lego vs LEGO

This seems to come up regularly. Every time the result is the same:

"LEGO" is indeed the correct spelling, as dictated by the LEGO group and used in all LEGO-affiliated books and websites, but "Lego" is the form that should be used on Wikipedia per WP:Trademarks.

Is there a way we can we put a notice to this effect where overzealous fans will see it before raising the issue again? LWG ^{I done wrong? Let me know!} 21:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is not overzealous fans. Bottom line is Wikipedia users will never respect the LEGO name or even understand. This debate has be going for a long time on Wikipedia. Even though LEGO name was around before Wikipedia shown up. This applies to other brand/company names mention on Wikipedia. It is known in corporate world and news media Wikipedia can't be reliable. Since anyone can add or change the information. It is even bad enough when anyone say "LEGOS". Until anyone owns a company or make a product. You are gonna want to defend the name. I am not gonna list all or mention other products/companies names. Ranging from facebook/FaceBook, at&t/AT&T, Bing/bing, Ebay/eBay, GAP/Gap, iPad/Ipad, eToys iphone, Foursquare/fourquare and so on. Again, I am not gonna list all of thousands of companies mention on Wilkipedia. I know some of Wikipedia users will response to the company names I just listed with reasons and examples. However, that is just a very small list of examples. If any of the users ever work for LEGO or AT&T or any other strange company brand names, then maybe Wikipedia users would understand. Until then the WP rule of trademarks cannot is not a reliable. Just like when the news media show a Airbus plane, but talk about a Boeing 737-800 or can't tell the difference between a LEGO and Mega Bloks. I am sure there are some other company/brand names on this site are not respected. GoTLG (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, just take a chill pill and go play with your legos instead of getting so worked up over it.00:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.127.75 (talk)

FYI, the correct pluralization is "LEGO bricks", not "legos"! I'm just saying!JoshE3 (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured Status Removed

Why was the article's featured status removed? I would very much like to know so that I can fix the problem(s) and return the article to its featured state.JoshE3 (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Section Move

I propose that the section "In Popular Culture" be moved to its own page ("Lego in Popular Culture," perhaps?), and still have the section in this article but only include the part that says, "Lego's popularity is demonstrated by its wide representation and usage in many forms of cultural works, including books, films and art works." Like many other Wikipedia articles, it could have a link to the page under the section heading. Please indicate whether or not you agree.JoshE3 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)