Talk:Lego/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Lego. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Point of View

This article seems to be slanted in favor of the LEGO Company. In the "LEGO trademark" section, shouldn't there be mention of the LEGO company's failed attempt to trademark their brick design (the "Lego Indicia Mark") and sue Mega Bloks? Furthermore, there is no mention of the "KIDDICRAFT brick construction sets with cylindrical knobs [...] designed, manufactured and sold by Mr. Harry Fisher Page" (see here and here). BuilderQ 21:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right; I wrote the bulk of the article based on information culled from LEGO publications, web sites, and a few LEGO fan sites; I also happen to be a big fan of LEGO myself, so there is likely to be some bias. There's probably some subtle bias in my choice of words, too: "Consumers on a budget are sometimes willing to forego the LEGO brand in favor of a cheaper alternative" was my attempt at neutrally saying "some customers don't mind cheap knockoffs", but looking at it now, strikes me as still subtly offensive to the companies (Tyco, Mega blocks, etc.) trying to sell different, but compatible, building blocks. Good website references! It might also be good to mention a recent occurrence in Finland in which LEGO destroyed 54,000 imitation products. In the light LEGO puts on it, their act was benevolent, in that it helped prevent brand confusion and build customer trust. But it could also be seen as a very selfish act, an attempt to prevent lawsuits against LEGO, and an opportunity to crush the competition, no matter whether the competition was blatantly ripping off Lego's packaging. Feel free to rework the article for neutrality, to include some of the negative or controversial things about the company. I'll pitch in where I can. -- Wapcaplet 17:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"in which LEGO destroyed 54,000 imitation products." I heard about that. Seems like a huge waste to me, and selfish. I like Legos and used them a lot growing up (and it probably improved things like motor skills and spatial perception) but those could have been given to poor children or something so that they could learn, too. - Omegatron 18:05, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

LEGO publications? Whatever these are (The World of LEGO Toys, per chance?), could they be listed in a "References" section? As for LEGO destroying the 54000 Enlighten products, can more information be found from some other reference (preferably one not affiliated with the LEGO company)? And seeing how the LEGO article is getting so long, perhaps some of the data about Lego's interaction with its competitors could be moved to said competitors' pages? By the way, would a "Category: LEGO clone brands" be justified? Also a fan of LEGO, BuilderQ 00:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good point; you are correct, it was The World of LEGO Toys (1987), which is why the official chronology since 1987 mentions mostly new series releases, contests, etc. I will put it in the references, though, and work on your other suggestions. As for extracting part of this article into another article, there's some discussion of that above. The best I can think of is to extract some of the more trivial tidbits from the chronology (second-generation train release, upgraded DUPLO, Technic getting pneumatics, Guinness records, etc.) and put them in a LEGO timeline article or something similar; that would (I hope) let this article concentrate more on the narrative of the company's development, success, and later difficulties. I don't think the competitor conflicts should have a separate article, unless the section becomes much lengthier; leaving the conflict in this article helps to balance the neutrality a little, since so much of the company's prior history is weighted positively. I should also note that I'm glad you've brought these matters up; the article has been in need of reworking for a while, but I haven't known quite where to begin until now. This has already been a Featured Article, but now we can make it even better! -- Wapcaplet 17:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Minifig" to "Minifigure"

I don't think I agree with changing "minifig" to "minifigure" ([1] [2] [3], etc.) The term I've seen most frequently is "minifig"; the article should reflect the more common usage. A quick Google test shows over 40,000 hits for "LEGO minifig"[4], but only 4,000 for "LEGO minifigure."[5] Anyone else care to comment? -- Wapcaplet 02:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "proper" term is minifigure. Originally, they were known as "Mini-Figures" (in the LEGO literature), but the linked-to article (from this entry) on the LEGO Company site uses the all-lowercase, non-hyphenated version. "minifig" is a net.term, invented in alt.toys.lego, then carried to rec.toys.lego, LUGNET, etc. As this is an encyclopedic entry, the proper term should be used, rather than the colloquial shortening, IMHO.

Discontinued colors?

If you want to understand fans of LEGO (rather than the product itself), understanding why this color change has caused so much discussion and concern is a key part of that understanding process. Dismissing it as "trivial" or "not major" misses the point of the intensity of fan feeling about this (and arguably there are not many factoids "of equal significance"...) It's the most divisive thing to happen in the community that I can remember since emerging from my dark ages in 1997. It may not be the focus of this particular article though. Take that as you like, hope it's helpful -- Larry Pieniazek 28 Feb 2005

The reason for the intensity of feeling amongst AFOL's is that some people have truly VAST collections of parts in some (now discontinued) colors. If you want to build one of those huge and impressive Lego sculptures - and find that you don't have enough grey bricks - then you might have $1000 worth of bricks in a certain shade of grey that you've been painstakingly collecting for 20 years - but need another $100 worth to build your sculpture. If Lego discontinue that shade of grey then you might have a $1000 investment that's useless in your next project. That's no small matter!

Request for more references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Request temporary page protection

User:205.188.116.14 continues to vandalize this page pretty much every minute. I request this page be temporarily protected from editing until the kiddies find something more worthwhile to do, such as watch Jackass on TV. — JIP | Talk 28 June 2005 10:20 (UTC)

I have unprotected this article because the vandal seems to be gone now. Nohat 28 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)

The page is sill being vandalized under different IP addresses. The vandal has also added a link to Lego's fair play information. I have looked at this information and nowhere do I see it mention that Lego must be written as all uppercase. What it does quote is this:

the trademark should appear in the same typeface as the surrounding text and should not be isolated or set apart from the surrounding text. In other words, the trademarks should not be emphasized or highlighted. Finally, the LEGO trademark should always appear with a ® symbol each time it is used."

In this document it does not have a ® after each occurrence of LEGO. I believe they are asking that the symbol be used after the trademark alone, not any reference to Lego. ·Zhatt · 23:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

War toys?

Why not have modern weapons in LEGO? I use many parts to make fighter planes and armored personnel vehicles. They have only made guns within the last 10 years or so one of the most difficult things to make is a tank turret even before guns there were swords you can use those blow horns and flashlights as guns you can use those inch long black antennas as clubs Dudtz 02 Aug 2005 8:09 PM EST

LEGO trademark dilution

The company can be called The LEGO Group. Is there anyone that could fix or upload the updated image or verison of the company logo? The current one is the old one not the updated one. I'm looking for one on and off. Problem is they changed it in 1999 and all the catalog scans with large logos that I can think of offhand are before then, or are skewed (like the 1999 "Star Wars" catalog is). I'll replace it sooner than later, but I just couldn't stand the ugly one seen at LEGO Group. Blech. Garrett^Talk 06:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Three bricks: 1060 or 1560 ways?

81.236.22.44 changed 1060 to 1560 in the following sentence:

Six eight-stud Lego bricks of the same color can be put together in 915,103,765 ways, and just three bricks of the same color offer 1,560

But the reference cited there doesn't seem to address the three-brick problem. Does anyone know if the new value (1560) is correct? Atlant 19:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I just added a table for one through seven, and references. The reference On the Entropy of LEGO gives 1560, and I'm fairly certain that is correct. Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am Søren Eilers, the author of 'On the Entropy of LEGO' and was responsible for changing 1060->1560 which indeed is the right number. I have now added the count of 8 blocks. Computing a count for 9 blocks would take me, I estimate, 50000 CPU hours, so I think I'll call it quits here! Just corrected the number after somebody had altered it. I have a wiki profile now: Soren.eilers in case somebody wants to discuss these numbers.

Is "LEGO" an acronym? Or is "Lego" a word?

Given the long discussion about this in the "Unnecessary supplication to corporate demands for trademark treatment" section, I figure it warrants it's own section so folks don't have to sift through that long line of talk. To the point, is LEGO an acronym? Going by definition at face value, it is. But given the way LEGO is formed it may not 'officially' count in so far as capitalization is concerned. Searching on the 'net, I managed to find www.acronymfinder.com, which has LEGO (in caps) listed as an acronym. I don't think certain individuals would accept this as 'official' (*cough* Nohat *cough*), and I'm unsure if I even accept this source, but it makes you think that they had to have gotten their info from somewhere. Does anyone have any info or insight into this subject? And I'll bluntly say, not making stuff up. Filibustering with assumed or even made-up info doesn't do anyone any good. Dannybu2001 13:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

I moved the LEGO (disambiguation) page to Lego (disambiguation) to match Dannybu2001's move of the main page and re-linked it. Is this undesirable, since there are only three meanings currently, two of which are discussed on this page and one that's linked? I added the disambiguation page in the first because I was hoping the 'trademark' and 'language use' issues might move to and perhaps be appropriately disambiguated on the disambiguation page, freeing up space here for discussions about content. Jethero 04:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought about doing that myself before, but found that the only really different thing was the Sun Microsystems LEGO, everything else basically is this article or can be accessed from this article. I don't think it's needed to have a disambiguation page for 3 meanings, 2 of which reference virtually the same thing (i.e. LEGO Bricks, Lego's, etc.) The only other thing the old disambiguation page had was reference to "Lego my Eggo", which wasn't even accurate cause I've always seen it as "Leggo my Eggo" or something like that in ads. I'd recommend editing back to the single reference to Sun Microsystems and just forget about the disambiguation page. It may be more organized if there's a central place for all wiki-LEGO pages to discuss issues like "LEGO" vs. "Lego" vs. "legos", but honestly I don't anticipate people going along with that. I could be wrong, but I think it would add to the confusion more than anything. Dannybu2001 20:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Early figures and other things

How about mentioning the original Lunar Landing set? It had the large headed figures with jointed arms. At some later date it was re-released with a different base plate that had "craters" instead of the all flat one of the original. Edit: Set 565-1 Moon Landing http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/565-1?showpic=1877 Originally released in 1975. Re-Released with the crater base plate? As for weapons, I used to have an early Police set with the original figures and I'm positive that when assembled in their "standing" mode, the figures had pieces making up a "belt" with a 1x2 poking out the side, to which another block was attached to represent a pistol holster. The original, non-pose able, minifigs used a standard 1x yellow cylinder for a head and had small hats or hairpieces to snap on top. There are even more companies making LEGO compatible sets. I've seen Transformers and TONKA sets with blurbs like "Compatible with most major building sets." on the boxes. There's also a LEGO Star Wars videogame, as if the Episode III merchandising hasn't gone far enough...

Unnecessary supplication to corporate demands for trademark treatment

It is not necessary for us to use the ® symbol if we say in the text that the name Lego is a registered trademark. In fact, including it seems like unnecessary commercial support for the company. Furthermore, we are under no obligation to accede to their demands for how to refer to Lego's. We are, however, obligated to follow the Manual of Style and other Wikipedia policies. In particular I think the linguistic contortions this article goes through to avoid using the word Lego as a noun are ridiculous. We use English here, not corporate-ese. Nohat 18:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I admit responsibility for most of the linguistic contortions. You're probably right about the use of all-caps, so I'll back off from my previous position and agree that we should follow the manual of style, with "Lego" instead of "LEGO" in all instances. But even though the LEGO brand name has been generic zed in common usage, I don't think it'd be right to use "Legos" as a plural noun in the article. The manual of style prefers "Rolex watches" to "Rolexes." -- Wapcaplet 20:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wholly agree "Legos" and "Rolexes" are not appropriate--not because it's an "improper" use of a trademark, but because it's ambiguous. More than just toy bricks are called "Lego" and more than just watches are called "Rolex". The reason to say "Rolex watches" instead of Rolexes is precision. Similarly with Lego bricks instead of Legos. However, in some cases, when the referring to all toys called Lego, it may be appropriate to use "Lego" as a noun. For example the sentence "Godtfred saw the immense potential in LEGO bricks to become a system for creative play..." would be arguably more natural-sounding as "Godtfred saw the immense potential in Lego to become a system for creative play..." As for capitalization, I find the LEGO in all caps to be unnecessarily distracting. It's also potentially misleading, because people expect the letters in all-caps words to stand for something, and they don't in this case—it's either a clipped form or a bastardized Latin word, depending on whose Kool-Aid you drink. I recently dealt with a similar problem on Petronas. We can use LEGO in the first sentence and in the section that discusses the trademark, but in all other cases, I would prefer Lego. I will avoid stepping on any more toes, though, now, and let you or someone else do it. Nohat 22:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nohat, you're letting your personal preferences get in the way here. LEGO _does_ stand for something, it's an acronym for LEg GOht... The fact that it's an acronym for Danish words rather than English doesn't change the fact that it does stand for something. It is also a trademark.

It specifically says at [6] that the name is a "combination" of the words leg and godt. It is not an acronym at all: such a combination is called a portmanteau. There are plenty of other examples of portmanteaus, such as smog, brunch, and Interpol, and their standard form in English is never in all capitals. The same applies to Lego. The only way that Lego would be capitalized would be if each letter stood for a separate word. Since it is not the case that each letter stands for something, there is no justification in the standard rules of capitalization in English for spelling the name LEGO. It is not just my "personal preference"; this is the standard for capitalization of words in English. Nohat 09:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note the proper use and correct way of the company name is LEGO Group 'not' Lego Group. This way is the correct English capitalization of the company name. Just an example you wouldn't say 'Ebay' when the correct way is 'eBay'. Also note discarding or misuse of a title of a book without the '®' is incorrect. Don't mislead the users and views or confuse them with the information. This is not a demand more like respect the name, as if you would run you're own company name.

Wikipedia guideline on trademarks is to "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment", but to not invent new uses. "Lego" is certainly not a new capitalization of it; it's likely the most common one. It is in no way misleading, as this article in fact has a section on the Lego trademark addressing, among other things, capitalization. --Mairi 22:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Common? Not exactly. As someone who has moved in fan circles I can tell you that anyone who is truly serious about LEGO uses the all-caps form absolutely exclusively. Remember, our goal here is to write a professional-level article (well, duh), and the professionals in this field, that being the absolute fanatics, always capitalize the name. Now I agree with tossing out the ® and the rule of always saying "(the) LEGO something" as those get in the way of comfortable sentences, but the sheer weight of fan usage of the all-caps forms indicates that it is most assuredly the way to go. And it's not like LEGO takes up any more physical room than Lego does. To anyone familiar with the official and fan circles, "Lego" would look awfully wrong... and indeed had I not seen this discussion beforehand I would have boldly and faithfully fixed each and every non-example occurrence to the correct usage. But anyway that's just my opinion as someone "in the know". :) Garrett^Talk 23:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If we want the article to appear professional, we are better off following the standards of written English than the "standards" of Lego fanbois. Nohat 19:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

oooh, good comeback! hehe. But yes that's true too. Hm. Garrett^Talk 03:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of LEGO fanboys 'deciding' that it should be spelled that way, it's the way it's supposed to be and is officially registered that way. While 'LEGO' isn't an acronym, it isn't a real word either; as such it is not subject to the standard rules of English (especially considering the origins of it aren't English.) LEGO is technically in the 'eBay' crowd of specialized word styling; you do it the way the company has registered it. Someone gave the example of the Nintendo Gamecube being capitalized. Gamecube is a compound word and it is subject to the rules, LEGO is not by definition a compound word (perhaps compound prefixes?) Frankly, I was shocked that all the LEGO articles used 'Lego'. Everyone talks about having a 'professional' page, yet not capitalizing LEGO isn't professional in and of itself. You wouldn't see an article about LEGO in the paper that says 'Lego' would you? (Except maybe from an uninformed reporter) In fact, I don't believe if you looked up LEGO in an actual encyclopedia they would spell it 'Lego', Wikipedia shouldn't be any different. Going by common and official usage, actual English language rules, and even by Wiki-rules LEGO is supposed to be capitalized. Spelling it any other way is technically a violation of Wiki-rules since it borders on point of view (people think it shouldn't be capitalized), and the rules are for companies that just decide to capitalize their real word name, not for companies where the specialized or all caps made-up word is their name. As far as 'portmanteau', that's actually a form of acronym, and is actually not subject to rules as stated. Spelling it 'normally' perverts the meaning, and there are other Wiki-articles with portmanteau titles that preserve the all caps because that's how they are supposed to be. This squarely applies to LEGO. And on a legal note, LEGO could possibly charge Wikipedia with delving out misinformation about their company if it's not spelled the official way. Wiki may have all their 'we're an open community, self-edited blah, blah, blah', rules but they're still a website with information about a company, and if that info is consistently incorrect (i.e. not obviously vandalized) that could be reason for concern.Dannybu2001 16:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This response is convoluted and long winded, so I will reply in pieces:

it's the way it's supposed to be and is officially registered that way. Neither of these points are relevant. Wikipedia is beholden to no external authority in matters of English usage. The only authority is the conventions and guidelines of Wikipedia, all of which favor using Standard English.
While 'LEGO' isn't an acronym, it isn't a real word either, as such it is not subject to the standard rules of English (especially considering the origins of it aren't English.) 'Lego' most certainly is a word. If it weren't a word, then you wouldn't be able to say it or write it. It is very much an ordinary word in that it is pronounced using the standard rules of English pronunciation without considering any "exceptions". Words like that are never presented in all capitals in standard English unless it is an acronym and each letter stands for a separate word, which is not the case in Lego.
LEGO is technically in the 'eBay' crowd of specialized word styling; you do it the way the company has registered it. It is true that that eBay is unusual, but it is not analogous to 'Lego' because there is only one capitalized letter in eBay and eBay is not pronounced using unexceptional rules of English pronunciation. This is a flawed analogy, and thus inapplicable.
Someone gave the example of the Nintendo Gamecube being capitalized. Gamecube is a compound word and it is subject to the rules, LEGO is not by definition a compound word (perhaps compound prefixes?) Frankly, I was shocked that all the LEGO articles used 'Lego'. Everyone talks about having a 'professional' page, yet not capitalizing LEGO isn't professional in and of itself. You wouldn't see an article about LEGO in the paper that says 'Lego' would you? (except maybe from an uninformed reporter). Many style guides require that Lego be spelled as such, and that's not being unprofessional, that's just following the rules set down by the publications' editors. A quick search at Google News shows that spelling of Lego is decidedly mixed: some do spell it LEGO, but many spell it Lego. The argument that spelling it 'Lego' is unprofessional is not borne out by any facts, and saying that any reporter who uses 'Lego' is uniformed is not only begging the question, but false.
In fact, I don't believe if you looked up LEGO in an actual encyclopedia they would spell it 'Lego', Wikipedia shouldn't be any different. Well, Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have a 'Lego' entry, but it does have an entry on Godtfred Kirk Christiansen, which reads:
Christiansen, Godtfred Kirk, Encyclopædia Britannica Article, Danish toy manufacturer who engineered the growth of Legos into an international sensation and made Legoland, a theme park built out of the tiny, brightly coloured plastic building blocks, into one of Denmark's leading tourist attractions (b. July 8, 1920--d. July 13, 1995).
It seems that Britannica does follow the rules of standard written English and that your assumptions were false. Also, the Columbia Encyclopedia has an entry on Windsor, England, which says "The town is a popular tourist destination; the Danish toymaker Lego opened a Legoland amusement park there in 1996." So, even if Wikipedia style did rely on that of other encyclopedias (which it does not, as a policy), it seems the usage of other encyclopedias points to spelling it 'Lego'.
Going by common and official usage, actual English language rules, and even by Wiki-rules LEGO is supposed to be capitalized. Spelling it any other way is technically a violation of Wiki-rules since it borders on point of view (people think it shouldn't be capitalized), and the rules are for companies that just decide to capitalize their real word name, not for companies where the specialized or all caps made-up word is their name. In fact, just the opposite is true. It is point of view to spell it 'LEGO' because rather than applying the rules of written English fairly across the board, it is creating exceptions for no apparent reason other than appeasing the Lego Group Corporation and its capitalization fetishist fans.
As far as 'portmanteau', that's actually a form of acronym, and are actually not subject to rules as stated. This is incorrect. Portmanteaus are not acronyms. Portmanteaus are spelled normally in lowercase or title case, depending on whether they are proper nouns.
Spelling it 'normally' perverts the meaning, and there are other Wiki-articles with portmanteau titles that preserve the all caps because that's how they are supposed to be. The claim that the meaning is in any way perverted is unsubstantiated. I'd like to see some examples of similar articles that use the all-caps spelling, if only so they can be fixed.
This squarely applies to LEGO. And on a legal note, LEGO could possibly charge Wikipedia with delving out misinformation about their company if it's not spelled the official way. I'm certain that Lego's legal team is fully aware that they have no actual authority over how other people use the English language, and would never be so foolish as to try to sue Wikipedia, as they would surely lose.
Wiki may have all their 'we're an open community, self-edited blah, blah, blah', rules but they're still a website with information about a company, and if that info is consistently incorrect (i.e. not obviously vandalized) that could be reason for concern. The article clearly states what Lego's official stance on what the spelling and usage should be without supplicating to it. This is the very essence of neutral point of view. In sum, none of these points have any merit, and this article should continue to use the capitalization scheme it currently does. Nohat 18:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

If all that is true, then why is the article title itself capitalized? And just because you can say and pronounce, or physically write a word doesn't make it a 'real' word. LEGO is an original (a.k.a. 'made up') word and exists, yes, but it's not like they're called bricks, which is a real word and would then be subject to being spelled 'Bricks'. On a personal note, none of my points have any merit? Thanks. Blanket statements like that make me question just how neutral you're even being. I thought I had some pretty good points, all from a neutral perspective I might add, not to mention based on facts (though the other encyclopedia's usage is rather disturbing.) While I would prefer the all caps spelling, I stepped back and tried to see if it was just LEGO being picky or if it was a proper thing. In the end I came to pretty much the same conclusion. Although, it seems that to be fair 'Lego' is more the proper term for referring to playing with 'Legos' or buying a 'Lego' set or building with 'Lego' bricks, despite LEGO's objections. 'Common usage' is a fact of the English language, as such; 'Lego' or 'Legos' is linguistically acceptable when referring directly to the products or playing with them. Whereas, if you're referring to LEGO as a company, 'LEGO' is in fact the proper, official term, legally and in common usage, and I had updated the article as such and will be reverting it back. Don't re-revert it back unless you can come up with something better than your (ironic) personal opinion about the English language. It's funny you should talk about LEGO not having authority over how people use the English language because Wikipedia (or should I say it's users?) doesn't either. Oh, and I better wrap this up, I wouldn't want to be long-winded or anything so it takes you 20 seconds longer to read my comments than it did me to read yours. Dannybu2001 18:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The article itself is capitalized because there hasn't been a proposal to move it yet. That fact is merely a historical anomaly, and has nothing to do with policy or correctness.
All words are original and made up. Lego is just as much a word as "bricks"--the only difference is that Lego is a proper noun and so gets written in title case. There is no reason to treat it differently.
Despite your claims to the contrary, you have not presented any actual facts to support why Wikipedia should violate its own standards for this article. Please point to the policy, guideline, or rule that says that Lego should be spelled with all capitals. The "common usage" is decidedly mixed, so we can't really use that as a final guide to what usage here should be. We instead look to the Standard English rules for capitalization, which say that only acronyms should be written in all capitals. And if we want to look to our peers for some ideas on how to spell 'Lego', we see that both EB and the CE spell it properly, that is, in titlecase, not in capitals. Further, I would say that even worse than always spelling Lego in all capitals would be only sometimes spelling it in all capitals, which is the current state of the article, and quite atrocious. Nohat 19:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The treatment of "LEGO" going by the guideline on trademarks seems more ambiguous than as cut and dry as you make it. While it says to capitalize trademarks normally and to: Follow Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:

avoid: REALTOR®
instead, use: Realtor

it also says:

but, don't invent new formats: MCI is standard, not "Mci". MCI is a corporate acronym and is supposed to be all caps, here and elsewhere. I've looked up "acronym" and it's as follows:

"A word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for Women's Army Corps, or by combining initial letters or parts of a series of words, such as RADAR for RAdio Detecting And Ranging." (source: dictionary.com, word emphasis my own.)

LEGO is an acronym (Leg Godt) by the definition of the word 'acronym', which makes my earlier statements about LEGO not being an acronym incorrect but that portmanteau is a form of acronym correct, and in turn, LEGO is subject to treatment as an acronym, not a proper noun. Sadly, even the Wiki-article for RADAR is in error. I'd like to know how many of these errors are the 'real' rules and how much can be attributed to misinterpretation or misunderstanding of English and Wiki rules by Wiki-users. Short of dictionary.com having a faulty listing, I don't see how LEGO still doesn't count. As I also stated before, it seems that Wiki-standards are actually being violated by NOT capping LEGO. In fact, my own statements regarding not capping in reference to the toys just the company also seem to be in error in light of these facts. I'll defer re-updating if you can come up with more English 'rules' proving otherwise, but please try and cite them, frankly, you seem to be pulling stuff out of the air yourself; the stuff you've used is clearly from a personal perspective as they are either negated by actual English rules or are not even applicable in the first place ("begging the question"?) Yet, I've cited the dictionary (again assuming dictionary.com has the same or similar listing as a 'real' dictionary) and the vagueness of Wikipedia's own rules! Tell me again where I'm wrong. Dannybu2001 19:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Lego" is not presented as an abbreviated form, so arguments that it should be capitalized because it is an abbreviation are inapplicable. It would never be correct to say that you are playing with "Leg Godt toys" toys or that the "Leg Godt Group" makes them. Therefore, "Lego" cannot really be considered to be an abbreviation (or acronym) at all, and rules that define how abbreviations should be capitalized just do not apply. It is simply a new word invented by the Lego Group as a name for their company and products. Even the Lego Group doesn't say it should be capitalized because it's an abbreviation. They say it should be capitalized because it's their trademark and they want it capitalized. Wikipedia policy is clear on this matter: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". Furthermore, assuming for the moment that we accept that "Lego" is an acronym, it is still the case that abbreviations (or acronyms) that include more than one letter of each constituent word are not spelled in all capitals--cf. Gestapo, Interpol, radar, etc. They are spelled like normal words. The rule for capitalization of acronyms doesn't apply to abbreviations that are formed from non-initial letters, regardless of whether or not they can be considered acronyms. Nohat 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Your first point re: "Leg Godt" makes sense, we wouldn't really say that, however the examples given in your second point are in error. First of all, Gestapo and Interpol are not the same kind of forged word as LEGO: "Gestapo" is formed from Geheime staatspolizei, which, if not for the 'po' part, is not the same as using the initial letter or letters of separate words as LEGO does. Although, CONMEBOL uses the same technique and is apparently supposed to be all caps. "Interpol" is a strange one since it only uses the first few letters of only two of the four words it represents, it seems more like a portmanteau than an acronym; which it is officially, I am unsure. RADAR on the other hand is a full-fledged acronym and is officially supposed to be capitalized by the rules of the English language, which state that acronyms are to be capitalized (with rare exceptions, of course.) Though, 'RADAR' is often 'radar' according to the rules of 'anachronism'. And no, it is not "still the case that abbreviations (or acronyms) that include more than one letter of each constituent word are not spelled in all capitals", even if words use more than just the first letter, it is still by definition an acronym, not some special new version. Your statements also seem to relay some doubt in your mind whether LEGO is even an acronym or not given your "assuming for the moment that we accept that "Lego" is an acronym" comment. There's no assuming, "LEGO" is an acronym. Acronyms are to be capitalized (again, with exception, which I can find no reason that 'LEGO' spelled as 'Lego' is an appropriate exception with or without LEGO Group's preferences.) I'll still defer updating the article, but you're not being any more convincing yet. Dannybu2001 22:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

All the dictionaries and encyclopedias that I've checked, including Merriam-Webster, The American Heritage Dictionary, The Oxford English Dictionary, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Columbia Encyclopedia, use radar in lowercase or title case. None use all capitals. The argument that RADAR is somehow correct is not borne out by any actual evidence of usage. None of this, of course, matters, because Lego is not an abbreviation. Nohat 00:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No, 'LEGO' is not an abbreviation, I never said it was, and neither is 'radar'. They're acronyms. If you're using the terms synonymously, that could be part of why you're not getting my points. Aspects of them are similar (i.e. portions of words), but their definition and usage are quite different. And yes, originally RADAR was all caps but has since be demoted to 'andanacronym' just like 'laser', 'scuba', etc. LEGO however is still a full-fledged brand name and has not yet been demoted or even been officially deemed a generic term like 'radar' or like what happened to "Aspirin". Otherwise Mega Bloks and other competing products could describe their product as 'lego blocks'. What's needed here is reasoning for an exception to the rules of capitalizing acronyms, otherwise LEGO does need to be all caps. Much of everything else you've stated regarding rules of English technically support LEGO being all caps, not the other way around. Dannybu2001 04:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Acronyms are abbreviations. They are a subset. That is, all acronyms are abbreviations, but not all abbreviations are acronyms.Lego is not and has never been an acronym or an abbreviation—it is a novel word used as a trademark. Many such novel words are formed from parts of other words. "Nabisco" was formed from "National Biscuit Company". "Pepsi" was formed from "dyspepsia". "Gatorade" was formed from "gator" and "lemonade". "Popsicle" is from "pop" and "icicle". "Clamato" is from "clam" and "tomato". And so on. It doesn't matter which part of the word was used to form the trademark: the "Lego" trademark is not different from these trademarks in any fundamental way and there is no reason for it to be treated any differently than them.

If "Lego" were an acronym, you could in some cases substitute the words that the acronym stands for. In this case, it is never correct to replace "Lego" with "leg godt". In fact, it's not even "kinda sorta" correct, or even "technically correct". Lego's "about us" page quite clearly says that the name comes from "leg godt", and not that the name stands for "leg godt". If they meant for Lego to be some kind of abbreviation or acronym they would have said so. I am certain that if you were to ask the Lego Group, they would tell you that "Lego" is decidedly not an acronym or abbreviation of any kind, and that it is a unique name for their company products. It is completely wrong and totally inaccurate to substitute the words "leg godt" for "Lego". Therefore, "Lego" cannot be an acronym, and any special rules concerning the capitalization of acronyms do not apply.

However, if we assume for a moment that "Lego" be an acronym from Leg Godt, then, like radar, it would be one of the type of acronyms that includes non initial letters. The standard capitalization treatment for abbreviations that include non-initial letters is the same as for non-abbreviations—that is, all lowercase for ordinary words, and title case for proper nouns. This is borne out by the facts of usage: there is no evidence that radar was ever spelled with all capitals. The reason for this is self-evident: an initialism, that is, an acronym formed only from initial letters, is in fact a form which comes from a series of abbreviations. Each word is abbreviated to a single letter, and then the single letters are combined together to make a single string of capital letters. This is not the case in "Lego". The E and O are not the initial letter of any word and thus there is no reason for them to ever be capitalized, even in abbreviated form. However, I reiterate that none of this is relevant to the case at hand because Lego is not in fact an acronym.

The Lego Group wants their trademark to be spelled with all capitals not because it is an acronym but because they believe having it always spelled in all capitals draws attention to the "special ness" with which they would like to imbue their trademark, and that this will help ensure that their trademark does not become diluted. However, this is not necessary, as is evident by the fact that the vast majority of trademarks are capitalized like ordinary proper nouns (that is, in title case), and continues to be valid, non generic trademarks. Consider Coca-Cola, Kleenex, Xerox, Band-Aid, etc. It is true that some companies prefer their trademarks to be treated specially, such as Lego, Realtor, Beer Nuts, and so on, but failing to abide by the special treatment requested by the trademark owner does not constitute generic use of the trademark. It is not necessary to spell "Lego" with all capital letters to protect its trademark status, and in fact doing so is contrary to Wikipediy policy, which states "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." That portion of the policy was written with exactly this type of situation in mind, and I think it is quite evident that it applies here. Arguing that "Lego" is some kind of acronym is quite transparently a disingenuous attempt to push the capitalization fetishist-preferred "LEGO" into this article despite the presence of a policy that clearly precludes it. Furthermore, although "Lego" is simply a novel word used as a trademark and acronym, if it were an acronym, it would not be the kind of acronym that is spelled in all capital letters. Nohat 05:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

While one never says 'leg godt', I can find no evidence that an acronym actually has to directly mean something or the full term or meaning must be insert able as a longer substitute. Just because a word uses more than just the first initial letters does not necessarily exempt it from capitalization; by definition an acronym can include more that just the first letter (every definition I can find either says "letterS" or even specifies the use of more than the first initial letter), though it must generally be the subsequent letters (i.e. APple not AppLe.) Furthermore, the term acronym wasn't even officially coined until around 1943, which one can assume also means that any existing 'acronyms' of the day didn't follow exact rules yet and may not have ever been officially labeled as such due to oversight or other reasons. Which doesn't necessarily change their grammatical status as an acronym.

LEGO was founded in 1932 and dubbed "LEGO" in 1934, roughly nine years prior to the term 'acronym'. Also to consider is the fact that LEGO is Danish in origin, which may or may not exempt it from the rules of the English language. Of the other brand names you gave as examples, only Nabisco uses a similar method as LEGO. The rest are portmanteau (except Pepsi), which I have correctly stated earlier are a form of acronym; however, they are not acronyms per se in the truest sense of the word. Further, the brands: Coca-Cola, Kleenex, Xerox, Band-Aid, HAVE been diluted by generic usage ("Let me xerox some copies." (with Staples brand paper?), "Give me a coke." (They only have Pepsi), "I need a kleenex." (to which they're offered a box of Puffs), and "I need a Band-aid." (so they grab a Curad))

I don't believe the Wiki-policy on this matter is as directly clear as you believe it to be (despite the presence of a policy that clearly precludes it?) I can find no hard evidence, including this policy that states LEGO should not be capitalized. However, in light of some of the facts you've presented, I can find no hard evidence that it should be either. I've tried to search for other words like LEGO that use the exact same methodology, and if they exist, I cannot find them. Which would make LEGO a one-of-a-kind word whose usage could 'clearly' be dictated by those that created it; Wiki-policy or not.

On a personal note, I said from the beginning that this wasn't about 'fan-boy' or LEGO Group preference, it was about proper word use, so I don't appreciate your comment that "Arguing that "Lego" is some kind of acronym is quite transparently a disingenuous attempt to push the capitalization fetishist-preferred "LEGO" into this article...", when my intentions were specifically stated otherwise. I even favored common-use as reasoning to not capitalize it when not referring to the company itself. Beyond that, my understanding of the English language actually exceeds that of the average person, so your use of the term "disingenuous" is nothing short of rude and is ironically disingenuous itself.

I may not have been entirely correct in some of my arguments (and did in fact admit it when I discovered them), but that doesn't mean all my arguments were entirely wrong either. That in turn does not make me some uneducated heathen "who don't know english real good", whom you can insult like that with your 'superior' knowledge. I only ever disagreed with your opinions (and not even all of them). I never questioned your intellect. Bottom-line: I don't think there actually is a clear answer to this given all the variables. In the end, I favor an easier to read article, which would mean not capitalizing LEGO. But given the attention span of the average Internet user, I am making one change. Dannybu2001 18:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

How different is both company names LEGO and CNET? In other words Wikipedia has CNET in upper case, but LEGO is lower case. When in fact CNET should be lower case too. If you go along with the rule of English by Wikipedia on capitalize. Is it because the 'users' today are use to see CNET as uppercase? When the proper use for both business and English rule it should be Cnet Networks, Inc. If so, then LEGO should also be uppercase at least on the top of the page. As, I notice that it has gone from LEGO to Lego. The site or information shows only about 3% correct and proper way how LEGO should be use both business and English. Whereas it 97% of LEGO is to lower case. By having Wikipedia 'admins and users' telling what they can and cannot without researching about LEGO. If you are writing a book about LEGO or a lawyer filing case you would want to make sure the 't's are cross and the 'i's' are doted. I get feeling now that Wikipedia will always give a false sense of information without doing any proper research. In other words the rule and few of the Wikipedia users are on a power trip. It is common sense, if you run a business or run website you would the same respect.

"A trademark must be able to distinguish the goods of one company from those of another. If a trademark loses this ability, the owner may find that it can no longer prevent others from using the trademark. An owner must prevent the improper use of its trademarks to prevent the public from being deceived. This is why the LEGO Group is very active around the world in making sure that its trademarks are not misused." (Taken from LEGO.com 'about us' seciton)

I wonder "if" you are going to go around to other LEGO websites and e-mail them and say "You are wrong LEGO should be lower case not uppercase."

The Wiki-rules specifically cite "MCI" as an example of when not to title-case something (i.e. not typing it "Mci".) Whether or not LEGO counts under that exception is unclear (despite supposed definitive arguments to the contrary.) However you can comfortably say "Lego" as a 'real' word, you cannot say "CNET" comfortably when you really think about it, no more than you can say DNA, ATM, or similar words. Citing info directly from LEGO themselves (a method I strongly resisted with my previous arguments) is not sufficient reasoning to oppose Wiki-policy, it actually does nothing but reinforce the policy. Business-wise, LEGO should be capped, grammatically, possibly not. As far as other websites, 99% of sites outside of LEGO.com are fan sites, and it would be best if they followed LEGO's wishes; Wikipedia on the other hand is considered an official informational resource, and as Nohat cited, other similar resources title-case the name as "Lego". In practice, one should respect LEGO Group's wishes and cap it, but for what is essentially an academic writing, it is possible that it should not "bow to corporate demands" so-to-speak. I don't entirely agree with this reasoning given the most likely status of LEGO as an acronym, but for now is seems to be the status quo until someone finds some more solid evidence (or LEGO themselves step in with proper reasoning why it isn't just them asking for special treatment.)Dannybu2001 00:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

LEGO trademark dilution (November)

The popularity of using the word "Lego" as a mass noun, and the facts that many fans consider any other usage grating and many other fans disagree, are not "point of view speculation". They're trivially verifiable with a Google search on "lego "mass noun"". These should be mentioned in the article somewhere; now that Dannybu2001 has reverted my edit, the article incorrectly presents "adjective" and "count noun" as the only sides in the discussion. I'm going to attempt to find as authoritative a reference as possible illustrating the mass noun usage - the first few Google results are all blog entries - and add it.129.97.79.144 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Except for the fact that such 'discussion' is not generally acceptable on the main page of an article, that's what the Talk page is for, case in point why I removed it, user 129.97.79.144. Making an addition based on Google results of blog entries is most certainly "point of view speculation" since you did not back it up with any non-odd-fan-use sources (it became your opinion that is was an acceptable usage based on the search, but you did not go to the effort to 'prove' it as a fact.) Use of phrases like "...may be the underlying reason that the plural "Legos" is regarded as particularly grating." is the epitome of 'speculation'. Not only that, the way is written was cheeky, "Which is primarily of interest to the company's lawyers"? Further, the use of Lego as a mass noun is so shockingly grammatically incorrect I doubt any reputable source would back up the claim that it's okay. I would imagine LEGO would rather folks say, "I need to buy more Legos," than, "I need to buy more Lego" if they aren't going to say "I need buy more Lego sets and pieces". A less point of view and involved mentioning of this may be in order if it's a common as you claim, but adding it for what looks like the sake of discussion or debate is out of place. Dannybu2001 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Tim Morris, professor of English at the University of Texas at Arlington, writing for Ball State University's "English Studies Forum", is the closest thing I can find to a reputable source: http://publish.bsu.edu/esf/1.3/Morris.htm 129.97.79.144 23:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on finding this source, but I'm afraid Morris' theory (and that's what it is despite his confidence in declaring it fact) is grammatically and logically flawed, pretty sad for a professor of English. First of all, 'water', if one does not specify what receptacle in which they wish to receive more than one 'water', they say something to the effect of, "I'd like two waters." not "I'd like two water." Now, if they do specify, that say, "I'd like two glasses (or bottles, etc.) of water." There's no 's' on the end of water, but there is on the end of whatever receptacle the person says, in this case glasses, and that creates the plural. Then take into account the fact that LEGO bricks, are exactly that, bricks. One does not build a house with an amount of 'brick', they build with a number or amount of 'bricks'. Be they clay, stone, or plastic, if you have more than one, you say 'bricks'.

Now, once the house is built, it is acceptable to say, "I built a brick house," which in turn makes it okay to say, "I built a Lego house," but not, "I built a house out of Lego." When referencing the use, viewing, or possession of more than one LEGO element or set, you cannot de-pluralize it (i.e. drop the 's' or 'es' depending on preference) and still be speaking correct English. You either have to pluralize the word itself, 'Legos', or (as is LEGO Group's preference) pluralize the word that Lego is the adjective to, 'Lego sets', 'Lego pieces', etc. Would you say, "I played with Lego all day"? "Somebody stole a lot of Lego"? "I sure own a lot of Lego"? You might, but it wouldn't be correct.

Overall, this is one of those cases when people say, "So-and-so and I," when, "So-and-so and me," is actually correct, but they think 'I' is a more correct, one-size-fits-all word and say it anyway. It's all about the context of what you're saying, and the use of Lego as mass noun in the examples given by you and Professor Morris are not in the right context to be accurate English grammar. In fact, he actually referenced that 'book'; 'egg' and 'lentil' were 'countable' nouns, which in turn make them not mass nouns. Yet you can say, "I have egg on my face (not eggs)", "I'm eating lentil soup (not lentils)" and "I own a bookstore (not booksstore)". You can do the same with Lego, "I went the Lego store", "Toy's "R" Us is having a Lego sale", "I'm building a Lego set"; does this make Lego a mass noun? No. Dannybu2001 18:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The argument above might be better made on Talk:mass noun than here, because it appears to be about the general concept of mass nouns rather than anything specific to Lego. I also recommend that anyone participating in this discussion read mass noun, which addresses the question of whether items that can in principle be counted (like bricks or "waters" [sic]) can still be denoted by mass nouns. Usage of "Lego" as a mass noun is popular, considered by a significant fraction of the users of the word to be the only correct usage, and documented by academic authority. As such, it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to document when discussing usage of the word "Lego", regardless of individual opinion as to whether the mass noun usage is "shockingly grammatically incorrect". 129.97.79.144 21:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Since when are academic facts an opinion? I agree mentioning of the use is appropriate (however grammatically incorrect it may be) if it's as common as you claim (if you recall, I said that before), but your attempts at addition were littered with POV and un sourced claims, rendering the blurb virtually un editable and more than worthy of removal. Then you source your claims with general mentioning of Usenet discussions (which is hardly a reputable source) and an English professor from out of nowhere that doesn't know English! Beyond that, the links didn't go anywhere, making it impossible to verify the info (if you hadn't put the link to the professor in your post, I wouldn't have even been able to check it.) And now that you have made working links, the info is very weak (one link still doesn't work, but at least I get a "Page not found" message) and frankly doesn't make this concept any more convincing (Google groups? Come on now!)

Sorry, if my opinion that facts are facts is a problem, but this is such a weak addition, it still doesn't bear mentioning as written and sourced. Please stop adding it until you can find more than what are basically blogs (and poorly formatted at that, like reading through a bunch of >>'s is any less 'grating') to source your info. Further, the point of the section it's in is not really about the uses of the word per se, as it is more about LEGO Group's wishes and how a grammatically correct use of their word has take precedence over corporate wishes. Mentioning a grammatically incorrect version that is basically like shoving a square peg into a round hole has no place as it's written. I'm not saying it's unwarranted, it's just poorly proven and if the sources you used are the best you can find, then you're going to be hard-pressed to prove it. Dannybu2001 21:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My second and third versions included full citations in the references section, in accordance with the Wikipedia documentation. The internal links in the second version didn't work because I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles for how to create them - instructions which turned out to be incorrect. The internal links in the third version did work, though that is hard to demonstrate now that that version is only visible through "history" and its internal links point at the current version. The external links have always worked for me, and evidently worked for Nohat because he or she made edits involving them. The claim that Morris "doesn't know English" appears to be based entirely on the fact that Morris says Lego is a mass noun, which is the point on which he's being cited - an argument along the lines of "He's wrong, therefore he's wrong." That's amusing, especially in combination with the standard of English usage shown in some comments above, but it's not important enough to fight over. I'm not going to make further edits until someone other than Dannybu2001 comments. 67.158.79.24 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh - and the use of > characters to mark quotation is standard on Usenet, and the cited message uses them exactly according to the standard Usenet convention. The Usenet quoting convention is mentioned in Zen and the Art of the Internet, widely regarded as an authoritative source, and all introductory guides to Usenet. Any other quoting convention would be regarded as a sign of illiteracy on Usenet. Usenet is not a blog; it predates the World Wide Web let alone blogs by many years. 67.158.79.24 23:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry for making a comment about the professor related to the subject at hand, let me clarify: he doesn't know what he's talking about regarding mass nouns in relation to the word 'Lego' and said use in the English language. In other words, that went without saying since no other topics of discussion were at hand. I actually did try to find more nuggets of wisdom from Prof. Morris to determine his grasp of the English language outside of arbitrarily (and incorrectly) declaring Lego a mass noun, but apparently he isn't popular enough to get more than one back-door web page to share his expertise. Further, just because you can find a citation doesn't automatically make it an adequate one. I'm not trying to be a revert-happy jerk here, but your reasoning and methods for including this info is still very weak. Also, I don't recall commenting on your personal use of the English language on this Talk page, so I would ask that you not resort to personal comments like that. Especially without clarifying what you're referring to and then leaving it at that with an 'I'm not going to say it' tone, yet you already did. I find that kind of adolescent tactic less than 'amusing'. <point being made>And "He's wrong, therefore he's wrong"? What kind of left field comment is that? If he's wrong, he is wrong. But I won't say anything....</point being made> Dannybu2001 23:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)