Talk:Lego/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Popular Culture

I dont understand the relevance of the bit in the popular culture section about Lego being "inducted in the Toy Hall of Fame".

To my understanding, this is some naff American nonsense that has little meaning or value outside America so I question its validity and inclusion. It lets down an otherwise good article and could lead to the crticism of more Americentric wikiwork in an excellent article about an excellent European/DK product. I would suggest it gets deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.176.186 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Name of founder

According to the official website the name of the founder is spelt differently (Ole Kirk Kristiansen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knut the bear (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

US English vs. International English vs. LEGO Group policy on use of Lego as a noun

Shouldn't there be a note about the differing ways English speakers have of referring to this toy? in U.S. English each piece of Lego is an object called "a Lego", which is pluralized as "Legos". Outside the USA (including Canada), Lego is a mass noun, with pieces referred to either simply as "Lego" regardless of number, e.g. "a handful of Lego"; or, more rarely, as a "piece of Lego" or "Lego piece". And, as I understand it, the Lego Group would prefer that people only use LEGO in all caps as an adjective, but no-one seems to follow that rule. Although it's really more about the culture surrounding the product rather than the product itself it seems like this is likely to be something a lot of people would visit this page to find out about, as it often causes confusion among casual fans. --86.171.23.24 (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not written as "LEGO", because per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, all-caps shouldn't be used. If you can find a reliable source proving the other stuff you wrote, then feel free to add the info. David1217 ^{What I've done} 02:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is an official source from the LEGO website.

http://aboutus.lego.com/en-us/~/link.aspx?_id=1BF5B4A7C6CA421685D20755EC7F0EB7&_z=z

on that page is a link to a pdf called Fair Play Brochure that specifically mentions how the word LEGO is to be used.

"ALWAYS write our trademarks in capital letters. ALWAYS use a noun after the trademark, e.g. LEGO toys, LEGO values. NEVER add a possessive “s”, plural “s” or hyphen, e.g. LEGO’s design, more LEGOs to play with, LEGO-bricks."--Kevgallacher (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think MOS pretty much overrides that. However the other suggestions sounds sound...--Τασουλα (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

wrong

It's LEGO not Lego. --122.108.147.28 (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, normal capitalization should be used, even if the company says it should be all-caps. David1217 ^{What I've done} 01:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I say vote. End of story. 75.111.46.7 (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No, we won't vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Zarcadia (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pronounciation

There should be an entry including talk of the popular debate on how to pronounce Lego. There is the two most common, where you would say 'Lay-Go' or 'Leg-Oh'. this can be backed up with specific sources from the LEGO main site. This would be a speculative article however, but as most know this should be included as per its popular and universal source of debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.101.243 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC) I totally agree!--PinkieAngela (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

To not make misleading the history section

It's true that the basic shape of LEGO bricks was a retooling of original Kiddicraft bricks, but you need to consider two fact:

• 1 - Mister Page DID NOT invent the concept of interlocking brick, because there were already interlocking construction toys on sale like the Minibrix and other ones at the time - simply Mr Page did put the stud on the top of the block and used plastic instead of wood or rubber
• 2 - Automatic Binding Bricks were marketed not only by LEGO, but also by Danish Primo, Swedish Geas Konstharts or Austria Wundersteine (among others): http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8336/8143920176_00b679e5b3_b.jpg (they're not KC or ABB!). But modern LEGO brick is almost different and incompatible with early Kiddicraft and also ABB (just try!)
• 3 - heavily inspirated where? http://www.legos.tabacaria.com.pt/clones/images/Kiddy/cubes.JPG (left Kiddicraft block, right LEGO brick, yes, very similar like a bull compared to a cattle)

So, I'm going to correct the POV infos.--Olbia merda (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Add the following paragraph to the end of the section on Lego#Manufacture

Please add the following new paragraph to the end of the section on Lego#Manufacture:

In December 2012, the the BBC's More or Less programme asked the Open University's engineering department to determine "how many Lego bricks, stacked one on top of the other, it would take to destroy the bottom brick?" Using a hydraulic testing machine, the engineering department determined the average maximum force a Lego brick can stand is 4,240 newtons; since an average 2×2 Lego brick has a mass of 1.152 grams (0.0406 oz), according to their calculations it would take a stack of 375,000 bricks to cause the bottom brick to collapse, which represents a stack 3,591 metres (11,781 ft) in height.

Cite the following reference:
<ref name="bbclego">{{cite web | url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20578627 | date= 3 December 2012 | title= How tall can a Lego tower get?| first= Ruth |last=Alexander|publisher= [[BBC News]] | accessdate=2012-12-04| quote= The average maximum force the bricks can stand is 4,240[[Newton (unit)|N]]. That's equivalent to a mass of 432kg (950lbs). If you divide that by the mass of a single brick, which is 1.152g, then you get the grand total of bricks a single piece of Lego could support: 375,000. So, 375,000 bricks towering 3.5km (2.17 miles) high is what it would take to break a Lego brick.}}</ref>

Thanks. 72.244.206.25 (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done, and clarifying that the tested brick was a 2×2 --McGeddon (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 November 2012

1st paragraph, colourful is spelt incorrectly Dupers (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Colorful is correct for U.S. English. See WP:ENGVAR RudolfRed (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the hidden notes at the top of the article is written: "This article is in Commonwealth English." And the dates are also (mostly) in the British format.--Carniolus (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done I changed to British spelling. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was this article change to British words and spelling? When the article was written by American English writers? This article was to be to written in Commonwealth English. As for the 'dates', it doesn't really matter if it written in American format or British format. Why with the change? Seriously? Are all 'Article is in Commonwealth English' gonna have change on Wikipedia. This just reinforce this page and generally speaking Wikipedia cannot be a trusted site for facts or information. GoTLG (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As Carniolus says, the article has "{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2011}}<!--This article is in Commonwealth English-->" in hidden notes at the top. Despite this, though, the article has (as far as I can tell) been using US spelling all this time. Given that the original dmy-dates template may have been added by mistake (an editor cleaned up the dates but didn't change any spelling), it looks like we should just drop the template and go back to using the US spelling. --McGeddon (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel that since the company is based in Denmark, it is better using British English. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 22:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Since it's unclear, we typically look at the first version to display an ENGVAR bent, and lo-and-behold, the very first edit here had "realised" which is clearly not USEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge ELEKHH^T 21:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

---

I propose that The Lego Group be merged into Lego. First, because Lego is also the name of the company, second, because the article The Lego Group is too small and can be easily merged into this article, and third, because The Lego Group is universally known as the producer of the Lego bricks.Tomcat (7) 22:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Both pages should not be merged. Lego and The Lego Group Wikipedia pages were once merged together. However, it became more confusing to identify between the two. Lego is the toy brand or toy name which is under the umbrella company name which is The Lego Group. By merging both pages would create again a 'long scrolling page' for any reader who views the page. This was one of the main reason both Lego and The Lego Group pages were separated. Lego is the product and The Lego Group is the company name. By looking back few years or checking the archive 'if' it is easy to find. Also reading through the 'about us' on their website would provide the The Lego Group information. The Lego Group company is a complex and global worldwide brand. I don't think The Lego Group Wikipedia page is small or short. If it does seem that way, then it just needs additional general company information. Again Lego is the toy brand name of The Lego Group which is the company name or to be 'technical' is 'Lego Systems, A/S' and using the Lego logo sign outside their headquarters in Billund, Denmark. Don't get confused with 'Lego Systems, Inc.' which is the USA Lego headquarters name. I Oppose this idea. GoTLG (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not support this proposal. The Lego Group is a company, and as a subject is notable enough for an article separate from its main line of products. What might seem small now as an article has the potential to be a better article. An editor or editors could easily compile the necessary source material to build it. Rather than merge, be bold and build it. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: One is a company, the other is a toy it produces. Stephenb (Talk) 13:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. They are fairly distinct subjects, while there is some overlap there is plenty to be covered in individual articles. Яehevkor ✉ 09:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The Lego Group is a company, distinct from the toy it makes and contains legal and company information that should not be discussed within the context of LEGO. --Goodsmudge (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose obviously, Lego is the product and The Lego Group is the company that runs Lego. The Lego Group shouldn't be merged with Lego as also per above. Mediran (t • c) 08:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Lego is also the name of the company, actually. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Factory in China

Would someone make note that LEGO has (at least) one factory in China? At present, it isn't in the list of manufacturer locations on this article. I don't know if a source for this is needed (there isn't one for the present list), and I'm not sure what would constitute an appropriate source. It's no secret that some components are made in China, though - the locations of each factory involved in a set's production are listed on the set's packaging.71.81.222.52 (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger Proposal on 23/02/13

I think that the article Lego gun should be put in a new section titled 'Unlicensed Lego'. This would remove a stub, and start a section on unlicensed Lego that isn't bricks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty.007 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Lego the Lone Ranger

Hello everyone, I am new to Wikipedia, so I need all the feedback I can get. Moving on. When I first viewed the "Middle-earth Lego sets" page there was a full listing of the kits although the actual release date was still a ways off. I am wondering if there is some way someone could create a "Lego the Lone Ranger" page that could conceivably contain a list of sets, minifigures, pieces and, ( possibly) prices. The only way i can find prices is 1) by driving to the store or 2) checking on the internet. I think it would be more helpful if we had prices listed! But this is a rabbit trail. The only place where I could find any reference to these epic sets was on the Lego timeline page. And remember constructive criticism is what I need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayhemMaster (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, a page on the theme may become useful, but usually only if that theme grows successfully. Given that the Middle Earth article comprises two themes and several subthemes, all based on JRR Tolkien's books and the inspired films. In addition, the LOTR franchise is very popular, so the license may provide for more sets as related to either LOTR, the Hobbit, or even another Tolkien book. The Lone Ranger film doesn't yet appear to be something that will have sequels or a film franchise, or more than a half-dozen sets. Also, I know that the set prices are listed online in several places, one being here: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=74142&st=0 (The price in Euros is on the left, the price in USD on the right). Hope this helps. --ɱ (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 03:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Amazon.com also contains prices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayhemMaster (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2013

Please create a section called Museum in main section and updated the following content. Visvesvaraya Industrial and Technological Museum (VITM) in association with Edutech India held a demonstration for students of classes 8 to 10. The event was organised as part of International Museum Day celebrations. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/when-a-museum-became-an-exciting-place/article4729097.ece

Edutechwiki (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be directly related to Lego.. article doesn't even mention Lego by name. Unless it was some kind of official Lego run event I don't think it warrants a mention here. Яehevkor ✉ 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - "museum uses some Lego during an open day" is trivial.  Not done --McGeddon (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fan presence

I suggest that we add a section to this article about the notable fan presence, including AFOLs, a strong online community, worldwide LUGs, and conventions and exhibitions. Most if not all of the lego convention articles that currently exist are also not mentioned anywhere else in Wikipedia's main space. I have a feeling that the LUG pages aren't either.

The information doesn't really fit in "The Lego Group", nor the page "Lego in popular culture", but a section in this article may be appropriate.--ɱ (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Lego store image

I rather agree with Raysonho on the inclusion of the image. The only other image like it on the page is the 'Lego at MoA' image, which doesn't tell you much, and doesn't look like the legoland parks, discovery centers, or lego stores that you see today. Raysonho's photo does present a depiction of the typical lego store, and that's worthy of inclusion along with or certainly over that of a photo of an old store, where it's hard to make out what that small photo depicts, being a very small and visually cluttered image.--ɱ (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ɱ, I was going to leave a message here, but you have pretty much summarized what I wanted to say!

Just want to add 1 more point: A physical store does have value to most people, and that's why Apple (see my 17 photos of Toronto 4 Apple Stores), Google, and Microsoft (and my 9 photos of the Toronto Microsoft Store) are opening physical stores everywhere. One can't visit a "Brick and Mortar" store on Wikipedia, but a photo of a physical store is the next best thing. Raysonho (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is overuse or additional images or some like the same images on the Lego page which has been a problem in the past. Thats why there are a lots of Lego related pages. Adding additional image Lego store on the page does not make sense. GoTLG (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your wording doesn't make sense. I have no idea what you're trying to say.--ɱ (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I understand my wording might not make sense. What I am trying to get across is that one image showing a 'Lego store' should be fine. I don't think having additional image of a Lego store is needed on the Lego page. It is just an example of a Lego store, not 'all' Lego stores look the same. GoTLG (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case, would you be okay if we removed the Mall of America Lego Imagination Center store image, and added in the Fairview Mall, Canada store image?--ɱ (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The first brand retail 'flagship' Lego store open in 1992 was the Lego Imagination Center or known at the Lego Company as 'Store #1'. It's okay just 'add back' the Fairview Mall, Canada image and not remove the 'flagship' store. GoTLG (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:GoTLG's earlier comment that the article only needs one image of a store, and I'm of the same opinion as User:Ɱ that File:LEGOStoreFairviewMall10.JPG is a much clearer one than File:Lego at MoA.JPG (from the thumbnail I assumed the latter was a close-up of a jumble of Lego in a shop window). --McGeddon (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. And when I first saw the thumbnail, I had no idea what it was depicting and had no idea how it could depict a store. People at TLG must have thought similarly, because the remodeled MoA store looks much 'cleaner' in design, not nearly as jumbled as the old design was.--ɱ (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to Italian article

Please create a link to the Italian wikipedia page for Lego. I have unable to do it as it gives me an error: "Site link LEGO is already used by item Q1063455. Perhaps the items should be merged and one of them deleted? Request deletion of one of the items at Wikidata:Requests for deletion, or ask at Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts if you believe that they should not be merged." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.42.243 (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Carniolus (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Full-sized LEGO Car?

Hey there, I remember that recently there was a full sized LEGO car which actually ran - built sometime at the end of 2013. This seems relevant to the section discussing the full-sized LEGO X-Wing. How about we add that? dwmc (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here is a relevant link to a description: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173167-worlds-first-full-size-lego-car-can-hit-20-mph-powered-by-insane-1048-piston-compresed-air-engine dwmc (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Another link: http://geekologie.com/2013/12/500000-piece-lego-car-powered-by-256-leg.php

Would any of these count as a reliable source or should I (we) find a NYTimes article on something like this? dwmc (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, Found a reference to the NY Daily News - which is certainly considered a reliable source: http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/hot-rod-built-500-000-legos-completely-powered-air-article-1.1552011 dwmc (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, both this bit and the X-wing information seems rather trivial, they doesn't seem important enough to the primary subject.--ɱ (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2014

209.212.4.173 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)there the best mini toy ever

 Not done. I'm afraid but your personal opinion is not relevant for this article. De728631 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014

Tons is not a uni of pressure in the manufacturing section. Dvarjas (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Name Change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to propose that this page, as well as any other page with the name "Lego", be changed to LEGO. LEGO is incorrect, while LEGO is correct. DHninjaman (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's been proposed before. We don't capitalise LEGO per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. --Goodsmudge^(Talk) 12:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is an invalid counterargument, as the name LEGO is an acronym (leg godt); see WP:CAPSACRS two slots above the rules on trademarks. Compare the relevant examples RAND Corporation and NATO; both of these are commonly written as "Rand Corporation" and "Nato" by many publications ("Nato" is especially common outside of the United States), but the Wikipedia style rules require capitals. --Nessunome (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not an acronym that I am aware of. Lego is derived from it, but not intended as an acronym. Яehevkor ✉ 19:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not an acronym, but it's also unlikely to have been derived from the Danish, more likely from the Latin. Unless there's some proof for the Danish derivation that should be removed. 69.158.143.43 (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not an acronym. The name is derived from the Danish words "leg godt", but the name isn't an acronym of such, just trademarked in all-caps. See this YouTube video created and released by the LEGO Group as a source for the name being derived from "leg godt". --George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 20:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes, I know it's not an acronym, that's why I said "It's not an acronym." If I thought it was, probably I'd have said "It's an acronym." I'm not sure why you think that video by Lego is proof of anything - "It was derived from these words because we said so." That video has other lies in it - they say nothing about how they stole the idea of Lego from another company (Kiddicraft) which invented something identical to Lego (though apparently not as well made) ten years earlier. You need to work on your reading skills - does your mind wander a lot? Maybe the internet itself is to blame. 69.158.167.5 (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

LEGO should be written in all uppercase because that's the way the brand/trademark is written. This is done with iPad etc., and I can't really see a reason why LEGO should be treated differently.84.48.66.195 (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As the comment says above: "That's been proposed before. We don't capitalise LEGO per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks." --McGeddon (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)