Template talk:Lego

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Lego (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Lego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lego on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Toys (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Good work[edit]

Awesome job AMK152 on this template. Could use a little better formatting, but I'm no expert... Agian, nice job. -ReuvenkT C E 04:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be trying to improve the format soon. -AMK152 12:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Awesome! -ReuvenkT C E 17:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Very nice template[edit]

... but I question the use of the LEGO logo, which is a copyrighted logo. Under fair use guidelines, this usage may not qualify as it is on articles which are not directly related to the company itself. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Technic[edit]

I'm surprised Technic isn't linked to on this template. Personally, I would replace the Pneumatics link with Technic, since to my mind, pneumatics is a subset. Any thoughts? Hertzsprung 13:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I second the motion. However, I believe that both should be in the template, as pneumatics has sort of grown into its own little sub-whatever sort of thing, rather than replacing it.

Lego House[edit]

Does the "Lego House" link to Skanskaskrapan really belong on this template as its not actaully anything to do with lego.... --Dean Earley 21:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess not, someone removed it while I was adding this comment.. :o) --Dean Earley 21:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Modulex[edit]

Why was Modulex removed?

Mindstorms and Spybotics[edit]

I edited the template to include these two products. They show up when I look at the template directly but not on various Lego pages. What did I miss? Also, will need to create WeDo page and links soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.225 (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Spybotics is no longer being made. Its been a few years since Lego drop Spybotics. Also, Spybotics are listed or part of 'Themes'. There is no need extend or expand the Template. (GoTLG)

Template /External links[edit]

I am seeing that the Template for LEGO Group is becoming more of an excuse of a External links or just a list. There are some pages or links listed in the Template are just fansites or have very little of information. The Template should be more of a 'guide' for the user . There is a reason why there is a 'Search' box on the left side. GoTLG 21:27, 26 April 2007

Color?[edit]

I think the color should be more varied; id est, using blue and yellow and white and black (and maybe green) as well as just red, to echo the colors lego uses in their 2x4 bricks (not the plates, the bricks) that are in almost every basic lego system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.36.118.62 (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

I came here fom the batman lego page. The red used in the template is jarring. Tempalte colors should try to be more passive. Watning it to be noticed is good, blinding folks, is not. Perhaps the yellow closest to lego people that HTML allows? ThuranX 16:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The text is difficult to read with the red background and when there are wikilinks, its worse since the colors don't contrast well. Ǣ0ƞS 07:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The yellow that it has been changed to, on the other hand, is just plain, plain weird. Doesn't look at all right. Perhaps a royal blue? Not sure, but to be honest prefered the red to that... TheIslander 00:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, royal blue is a more soothing color. Although the red one would be more inline with LEGO color scheme, its just not usable. If this was on a specialized LEGO website, then it might have passed (Maybe whole site could be red!), but wikipedia caters to a wider audience and as such, it may not be possible to make things that are usable by only a minority of readers. I've tried my own design here: Alternative design. For more colours, try this: Web colors. Ǣ0ƞS 08:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I quite like that - perhaps using Azure or even LightCyan instead of WhiteSmoke, though? I still like the idea of Royal Blue, but having just tried that, it masks the title, which is a blue hyperlink. My knowledge doesn't stretch far enough to know how to change the colour of that text, or even if it's possible - can anyone enlighten me? TheIslander 12:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
What text? The wikilinks? You can try this wiki markup:[[LEGO|<font color="red">LEGO</font>]], which gives LEGO. Use sparingly though. Most readers are accustomed with "normal" wikilinks (LEGO), and as such, may not infer that its a wikilink. Other color candidates: LightSteelBlue, LightCoral (For those with red nostalgia). Ǣ0ƞS 20:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've tried what I wanted to, and my eyes are still recovering - I think I'll quietly forget that idea. I have, however, tried my own take on your design - similar, but different. Take a look - I quite like it. TheIslander 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Ya, this color scheme is pleasant and readable, although I favor a thinner exterior border (1px). So, what do others think? Should this design replace the current one (Current as at 18:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) )? Or is there room for more improvements? Ǣ0ƞS 18:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I quite like the 2px myself. With 1px, the horizontal bar in the middle looks disproportionally fat. Bearing in mind that someone calmly changed it to yellow without asking, I'll change it to this design now - it's much better than the yellow, which as I've said is weird. We've been talking for a couple of days, anyhow. If anyone objects, before changing it back, discuss here. Cheers! TheIslander 23:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. No problem. If you want to make the horizontal bar appear thinner, use this: <div style="border:0.5px solid blue"/>. Ǣ0ƞS 07:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tried that, seems to make the bar disappear altogether. To be honest, I really like the lines the thickness they are now. However, if you think they look better thinner, feel free to change them ;) TheIslander 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If its so, then let it be. Different screens, settings and browsers (IE is the worst offender) really make it hard to get the right thing for everyone. Ǣ0ƞS 05:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Lego Soft[edit]

Lego Soft is missing.

http://www.electricbricks.com/lego-education-soft-9020-lego-soft-starter-set-lego-education-p-220.html http://www.amazon.com/Lego-Soft-Brick-Starter-Set/dp/B00005IBXQ http://www.thefind.com/family/browse-lego-soft-brick-starter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.246.220 (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Lego Soft is a product which is part of the 'Lego Educational' section and not a toy theme. There is a difference between the two. GoTLG (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)