Talk:Lego

---

Various Discussions

Just in case anyone cares, the two edits:

• (cur) (last) . . 21:55, 17 Aug 2003 . . 68.64.161.39 (rest of 1970s hacked out)
• ... and ...
• (cur) (last) . . 22:36, 16 Aug 2003 . . 68.64.161.39 (more (1960s) history. Still need 1970-2003)

were me. Worked too long, got logged out. :-) -- Wapcaplet 02:57, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Would it be worthwhile to mention The White Stripes video? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:35, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sure! Anything that has been part of the LEGO phenomenon is fair game, in my book. -- Wapcaplet 01:13, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

This article is going to need to be split up. Most of what should be written about LEGO is not in there yet; the portion about the history of the LEGO company could fairly be given its own article History of LEGO. LEGOLAND is probably important enough to have its own article, especially considering there are, as of this writing, four LEGOLAND parks, each with their own events and attractions. Volumes could be written about the cultural impact that LEGO toys have made. Much could also be said about the LEGO enthusiast culture, who have developed thousands of amazing and interesting creations, from clocks to harpsichords to six-foot high Technic mecha. It may be possible to get photos for many original creations like those; I don't have any of my own that are of interest, but we could e-mail the creators of some of the better ones to see if they'll give permission for a GPLed photo or two. Any suggestions about how the article may be split up? -- Wapcaplet 01:13, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Apologies if the answer to this is well known, (I am a newbie) but is the idea that the word 'Lego' means "I put together" or "I assemble" in Latin actually a myth, or was the inventor himself mistaken (in which case perhaps it shouldn't be stated as fact)? The online dictionaries that I consulted don't give translations that are close to this at all. Rb 19:17, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That is a good question. My source for it was the 1987 book "The World of LEGO Toys"; the LEGO official website also claims the translation is true. I checked the online Notre Dame Latin dictionary and their translation is nothing of the sort. The closest definition seems to be "lego: to gather, choose, collect, pass through, read / appoint, select". I know next to nothing about Latin, so it could well be a myth. Perhaps there is some alternate spelling that would yield the "I assemble" definition in Latin? Since the original Danish was "LEg GOdt", maybe some variation on that was meant, but it apparently doesn't translate to anything in Latin. -- Wapcaplet 22:46, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Style issue: Spelling of LEGOLAND-LEGOland-Legoland needs to be standardized...

That's easy - all caps, according to the company. -- Wapcaplet 01:19, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe not as straight-forward as you might think: companies seem to like capitalising their trademarks, I guess it makes them less word-like or something; but more often than not, it just looks silly to do so. There has been discussion over whether Nintendo GameCube should be NINTENDO GAMECUBE, for similar reasons. Personally, I think it just looks ugly and strange, but I suppose it's best to go with the "correct" version. - IMSoP 14:56, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. We have always tended to go with "correct" versions for lots of other problematic names whenever possible; the LEGO Group is the only real authority on the issue, so I think it's best to stick with their preference, especially since it's a trademark. For the Nintendo GameCube, even Nintendo's official website uses mixed case in some situations; I don't think the LEGO Group has ever used anything other than "LEGO" and "LEGOLAND." -- Wapcaplet 16:28, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Beginnings

"Despite initial criticism, the Kirk Christiansens persevered." Is the first sentance of the last paragraph in the "beginings" section. I was wondering if anyone had any information as to what sort of criticism there was, and if they could be so good as to add mention of such specifics to the article? I'm quite curious. Great article, BTW Sam Spade 01:18, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I've clarified it a bit. -- Wapcaplet 03:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quantities of bricks produced

Annual production of LEGO bricks averages approximately 20 billion (2 × 1010) per year, or about 2.3 million per hour.

Totally frivolous musing, but I wonder how many of those are the 2 x 4 red bricks which seem to me to be somehow the most "basic" bricks of all...how many millions of them must there be in the world? --Sewing 05:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Lego is beautiful. Sigg3.net 11:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As a child (and again as an adult...), I built LEGO models by following the numbered, illustrated instructions. As an adult, I build Ikea furniture by following numbered, illustrated instructions. Has anyone ever explored the similar simplicity of the two systems, their shared Scandinavian origins, or their similar success as market-dominating brands around the world? --Sewing 18:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've not had any experience with Ikea, though did assemble a lot of Sauder furniture at my last job. Sauder's instructions are phenomenally good, especially in comparison with those from other DIY furniture brands (several of which I've had the displeasure of experiencing). I've seen instruction manuals where the part illustrations were so small and/or indistinct that a black speck could be a nail, screw, bolt, or piece of lint on the photocopier. I've seen diagrams showing the six different kinds of fasteners included in the box in which none of the six resembled their real-life counterparts, and which looked like they were Xeroxed from a doodle on a napkin by a five-year-old. Instructions which essentially consisted of one step: put all this stuff together. Ta-daa! Instant furniture. It would be interesting indeed to know what kinds of academic studies have been done on the subject. I imagine that any company with ambitions of selling their products worldwide have put more effort into making friendly, intuitive instruction manuals. Marketing products to young children has to be a strong motivating factor as well. If a child can't undertand it, chances are an adult won't either. The LEGO company's are certainly among the best, ever. -- Wapcaplet 19:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I've removed some bits about LEGO being accused of racial bias in the yellow skin tone used for minifigs. A google search didn't reveal any such accusations, aside from occasional statements posted on newsgroups and the like; if anyone knows of actual claims of racism against LEGO, please provide a source. I've rephrased the paragraph in question. -- Wapcaplet 22:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LEGO trademark dilution

I'm certainly as much at fault as anyone for this, but I've just replaced numerous occurrences of "LEGO" being used to refer to the toy itself, rather than the company producing that toy. For example, "LEGO as artists' material" became "The LEGO system in art." It got me thinking, though: it's sort of astonishing that in all these years, the LEGO company hasn't come up with an actual name for their flagship product, so it's pretty hard to refer to it except by calling it "LEGO bricks", "the LEGO system", "LEGO sets", etc. Phrases like "LEGO creations" are sort of problematic; it implies that they are creations of the LEGO company, when in reality they're creations using the unnamed plastic toy that the LEGO company produces. I'm hoping we can keep the article free of any kind of trademark dilution and genericization of the word "LEGO", but it can be cumbersome to keep having to distinguish the company from the toy. Something to keep in mind, for future edits... -- Wapcaplet 22:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Surely, the toy is called "LEGO"? Andy Mabbett 23:06, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By many it is (including myself, in informal use); by the LEGO company, it is not. They have, for as long as I can remember, vehemently opposed the use of the word "LEGO" to refer to their products. From their website:

• Please be sure to spell the brand name "LEGO" in capital letters and use it as an adjective and not a noun. For example you should write "Models built of LEGO bricks" and not "Models built of Lego".

Also, why was the word "standardised" reverted? According to the manual of style, either usage (British or U.S. English) is fine, as long as it's consistent throughout the article. Most of the existing text was written with U.S. English: "motorized", "minimize", "color", and so on, so "standardized" should replace "standardised". -- Wapcaplet 01:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

War toys?

LEGO avoided making green bricks for a long time, fearing they would be used to build military vehicles and use LEGO bricks as a war toy, but that fear seems to have abated.

I found that sort of ironic, considering the 'Robin Hood' line of archers and such (bow and arrow type weaponry; knights), not to mention the space ships (more subtle, but as a kid, who wouldn't imagine the laser weapons and such?). Still, LEGO has been consistent about avoiding present-day military gear. Perhaps a slight clarification may help? I'll try. Krupo 21:41, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

• I'd be interested to see some references on the above reasoning for not producing green bricks. That seems like a pretty weak excuse not to make green bricks, especially considering the abundance of green pieces we have today. When were the first green pieces made, anyway? Green baseplates go way back, of course, but other green pieces seem more recent. Also, while LEGO for the most part avoids modern warfare sets, as you point out there are plenty of examples of weaponry - bows, swords, lances (castle sets) rifles, pistols (pirate sets), myriad warfare-related stuff in the Star Wars series, etc. The translucent red antennas that came in abundance with space sets were obviously lasers. I don't think LEGO Police have ever had guns, though. I suppose the distinction is that fantasy warfare is acceptable, while I would be shocked if they made, say, a new LEGO Police series "LEGO War On Terrorism." -- Wapcaplet 22:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to Peeron, the first time a 2x4 brick was made in green was 1997. Zigdon 14:09, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I recall building stuff with green bricks when I was small. And I'm older than that. --Phil | Talk 08:51, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it was clone bricks? Or duplo, or baseplates? It was a pretty big thing (in the AFOL community) when they did come out with the green bricks. See this post from 1998, to see the level of excitement. --Zigdon 14:00, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

On a non-Wiki note but LEGO-police note, it's funny how those little "wrench" pieces (round end on the bottom, with a handle) often could serve as a nightstick/club/baton-type weapon, eh? Anyway, I suspect we may want to remove that sentence - after all, you can use black/grey/brown bricks to make different types of camo anyway! A quick google search also turned up some interesting things www.ericharshbarger.org/lego/crayola.html ... I suspect a quick LEGO search could turn up more similar things. Having said all this, it would be interesting to keep a note on the lack of 'modern' military vehicles. A nice touch, really - have you been to a toy store lately? It's guns guns guns... Krupo 04:11, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Wrenches? I don't understand completely... Too bad there are no pictures... http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/minifig http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/minifig/accessory/

On a side note, I saw a pirate manufacturer of military LEGO-type bricks in Poland... It looked quite dark to me...

Yeah, I couldn't find it after a brief search. The piece is reminiscent of the bats/batons/night-sticks which police carry... big round bottom (the only part which could be secured to a lego brick - the rest just slide into hands or other holders), a handle, and a smaller side handle that sticks out at a 90 degree angle... Krupo 02:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Are you perhaps talking about part #4593, Lever Small[1]? --ZeroOne 13:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3900 signal holder? http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/minifig/accessory/

There have been green bricks since the days of the CA brick days. I think they stopped making green bricks in the 70s, and re-introduced them in the 90s. I think the only reason why they were not produced before then was that the colors of LEGO bricks was gray,bed,blue, white, yellow and black. It's like saying they didn't make orange because thy were afraid of promoting pumpin models, or purple was never made because little boys might sculpt a teletubby! There were bricks in the primary colors and three shades (black, gray, white). Green is a secondary color, ergo it wasn't made.

Discontinued colors?

I removed the following paragraph from the article:

In 2004 the LEGO company created quite a stir among hardcore fans by changing the light and dark gray colors that had been available for years. The problem was compounded by the fact that the company didn't offer much warning, and fans were shocked to find some colors were to no longer be made available. The traditional yellow skin tone of minifigs were altered to a flesh tone. LEGO has since agreed to make some staple parts available in the traditional light and dark gray colors, and the flesh tone minifigs are only being made for licensed products such as Star Wars and Harry Potter.

While I haven't followed LEGO press releases or anything, I've heard nothing about this; a Google search turned up only what appeared (to me) to be rumor and speculation based on fuzzy photographs of upcoming sets from late 2003 and early 2004. I wasn't able to find any official announcement on the LEGO website (though it does appear the new Harry Potter sets are using more lifelike skin tones). The introduction of new colors is nothing special. Did LEGO really plan to discontinue the existing colors, though? The old light grey and brown colors are still available in bulk sets. If someone could provide any corroborating evidence for this, I'll happily re-insert it. I'm not sure what "quite a sit" means... some rephrasing might be in order. -- Wapcaplet 20:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

GASP - I'm rather shocked you haven't heard about this issue. The USENET groups were a flamefest for several months over this one (yes, I know,but the LEGO USENET is much more mellow than most USENET groups..), and it has been a discussed topic at the LUG I sporadically attend. Check out LUGNET, I think a whole new category of discussion has been added to deal with the issue. As for photographs, don't bother. The bricks are already here. Go buy a new lego set such as SW, HP or Spider-man for example, and look at the gray. You won't find much in the way of press about the issue, as that was half the problem. You will see old gray for awhile still, as they have to sell through existing stocks. Also, as I mentioned, the backlash got LEGO's attention, and they are going to have some staple elements in old colors. (One example is the 9.0v dark gray train tracks) However, the colors aren't going to be widely available last I heard. The best source of info comming out of LEGO is Jake McKee, a lego spokesperson who posts regularly on LUGNET. Sorry about the 'sit', Spell checker mangled what should have been 'Stir'. I don't have a user name yet, but I'll check back here for your reply. That section of text should go bak in, as people (such as yourself) who haven't heard the whole story should know that some colors might be completely discontinued entirely. I tried to write it in a neutral fashion, as this is topic has stirred up AFoL to no end. TTM - Sept 29

Yes, it did cause quite an uproar in the AFOL community, but really, other than hardcore fans, no one really cares, I believe, or even notice. The issue wasn't that new colors were introduced, but that old colors were very slightly changed, replacing the "classic" version. The only significant part of this was that LEGO announced that some colors are going to be considered "universal" and will never be changed in the future.

I would recommend against putting the text in the article, unless we really want to delve into the depth of LEGO colors. -- Zigdon 19:30, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Zigdon; in perspective, this seems like a relatively minor footnote in the saga of the LEGO company. An exposition dealing with the introduction of new colors (and discontinuation of some colors--has it ever happened before?) could be fairly lengthy. I'm not saying there's not a place for that information on Wikipedia; I'm just not sure this is the article to do it in. The article is getting long enough now that perhaps a separate article, History of the LEGO company or some such, is in order, but it could be difficult to extricate that story from the biography of their nameless flagship product. I'm not even certain that the note about more lifelike minifig skin colors should be there, since that also seems like a fairly minor factoid.

One possible approach would be to start another article, LEGO timeline, in which any event in the LEGO system's history could be briefly noted, including not only educational initiatives, corporate restructuring, and the introduction or cancellation of various LEGO series (all fairly major developments), but also minor events such as the introduction of new pieces or colors. Such an article is likely to duplicate some of what is here, but it would allow this article to focus more strongly on the more significant happenings in the LEGO company. -- Wapcaplet 23:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I'd say discontinuing a color that they have made for, what, 50 years is a pretty major factoid. -- anon

I don't think it's major when put in perspective. If this article included every factoid of equal significance to this possible color discontinuation, it'd be enormous and unwieldy. That's why I think a timeline of sorts would be good to have, for showing trivia such as when new colors, themes, and pieces were introduced. -- Wapcaplet 01:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bricklink.com

Is that external link acceptable? Heck, does the Wikipedia have any rules on external links? My wild guess that I've been working with until now is that if it's a straight link to a commercial page then it's little more than an ad. Is there some sort of policy? Krupo 20:38, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure - BL is definitely a commercial site, but it's also a fairly unique one, that shows the (pretty amazing) number of fans either making a living, or at least offsetting some of their costs by selling unneeded parts. I think it probably should be linked to, though perhaps with a warning that it's a commercial site? --Zigdon 17:39, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)