Talk:History of Lego

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


As most of this history article has great material, but isn't exactly an easy read, I'll be simplifying it a bit, making it easier to read. I plan on just taking out the examples of cool creations and then moving things around when I modify the main page. Until then, I'm aiming on making this thing easier to read, with relevant stuff.

Mabye organizing things by year?

So anyways. Here it goes!

Cyberguy34000 03:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing most of the factory info as it's not really relevant info. If there is a dire need for that kind of history, we could create a factory openings page.

Cyberguy34000 22:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bleh... This isn't working, dividing it into timeline style doesn't make it any more readible. Ahhh. I wish I had realized this an hour ago :p. Oh well. Guess I'll just import the existing history section, and make a summary placehold on the main page.


Cyberguy34000 01:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Erm, i was wondering whether this was a case of vandalising of the article.Its in the "Expansion" part.

"Legos are a serious waste of money!!!! By 1970, the Lego Group had a staff of more than 900. The coming decades marked considerable expansion into new frontiers of toy making and marketing. "


KingOfNoob 5:20AM, 27 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The financial loss?[edit]

I don't recall when it was, but sometime in the late 1990s, I am fairly sure LEGO suffered its first significantly large annual finanical loss, which caused them to reconsider what they were doing, and changing some marketing to adjust from a more classical LEGO, to more 'modern', and introducing their Adventurers lines, as well as starting to sign liscences with Star Wars and Harry Potter, and what eventually led to their Bionicle line. I think it's well worth mentioning, considered the way it affected the company.

Incorrect Date?[edit]

Slightly confused by this quote, I think the first date is wrong- anyone know what it should be?

 "....In 1974, Christiansen purchased a woodworking shop in Billund ........
His workshop burned down in 1924....." 

Responce first date should be 1917 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Chris Bradshaw 14:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Name of educational division?[edit]

In paragraph 5 (Lego bricks had always...) of the Expansion section this is listed as "Lego Dacta", but in paragraph 10 (In August of 1988...) it shows as "Lego Dakta". Are the 'c' and 'k' interchangable or is one correct?

Dancehallwraith (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncritical timeline[edit]

As I stumbled across this (neglected, heavily pro LEGO POV) page I cleaned up a bit. ɱ cleaned up after me, thank you, with plenty impatient editorial summary advise, like next time use [dead link] etc which is patronizing, no thank you. I put the up to date link in, and dead link was a temp note to self before I got to it. If you see someone is productively editing, leave space.

What really irks me though is the NPOV warning and immediate sanction /deletion of my well sourced ref for the lego movie, that ɱ doesnt agree with. At the very least, you leave it standing, and add your pro Lego movie ref from the LA times. Thats what I did.

If you have any conflict of interest with the Lego group you shouldnt edit or declare it. The fact that you came out like a hound AS SOON as I started editing makes me suspicious. --I love lego , but I also like fair reporting.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comments on your talk page. Also, the fact that we're both editing at the same time is merely coincidental. I would've made the same changes later too, but it happens that editors are on and editing the same page. I liked most of your work on the article, thanks for that. Hopefully my comments on your talk page clear things up.
Also, I should note that an article is not a sandbox. If you want to update a link, update it. I updated that link and removed your 'dead link' comment; I hope I wasn't too upsetting. Otherwise, take the article and copy it over to a sandbox page, like I did for a few articles, to add comments for yourself like that, before making those changes.--ɱ (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clearer - you linked a NY Times review. A review by one organization shouldn't be listed on the Lego history article, those individual reviews should be listed on The Lego Movie article. I added the 'critical success' bit because it is factual and stems from multiple reviews. The LA Times didn't give an individual review - read the LAT article and you'll find it just describes the film as having "nearly unanimous positive reviews". That's why I cited it for that sentence. So please move the NYT review to the Lego Movie article and change the History of Lego article back to before your two most recent edits of it.--ɱ (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I agree with your reasoning. Your ref is still there, the "single reviewer ref" not included in teh LATimes as far as I saw, is also there. If you want, you can change the sequence of the two. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said, the NYT article (being an individual review) has no place on the History of Lego article. It belongs on the The Lego Movie article.--ɱ (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not agree. It appears as if you do not listen or do not try to understand. To write repeatedly "As I said.." is patronizing. Arguments win and you have not responded to mine. I will cut and paste this thread to the Talk:History of Lego page, it does not belong on my user talkpage.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Wuerzele: I did listen. You kept my reference, and you note that your content isn't written in my reference. How about we settle it this way - leave all critical reviews out of the History of Lego article, and move both over to the proper 'Criticism' section of the film's article. Critical commentary hardly belongs on the History of Lego article anyway. Also I should note, I'm not trying to be patronizing and am saddened that you take it that way. On Wikipedia, there are so many users with so many different levels of understanding that I'll try to be overly explanatory and the likes in order for all to understand more clearly. It may not be the best way of going about things, but it's worked well so far.--ɱ (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You wrote:
Critical commentary hardly belongs on the History of Lego article.
I don't agree with this statement at all. Why do you think someone put the infobox up that the article is written like an advertisement? I suspect that you either are a member of an older generation (>60 years old) unfamiliar with modern approaches to history or you do have an interest in this article remaining and ad-like construct, because you are affiliated with the Lego Group and one of its many business partners. History is not free of value, and critical commentary is part of it, so it stays. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Wuerzele: You know that by the term 'critical review', I mean "of/by a film critic" rather than "negative", right? Also, please stop with these personal attacks; I can assure you I'm younger than you. And I'll be clear that I have no affiliation with the company, to think that would be ridiculous. For starters, I haven't even hardly edited a page related to Lego, or made any significant contributions.--ɱ (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

() Wuerzele: Better stated - how about we settle it this way - leave all film reviews out of the History of Lego article, and move both over to the proper section for reviews of the film on the Lego Movie article. Commentary by film reviewers hardly belongs on the History of Lego article anyway.--ɱ (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

, I think this is becoming a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is non productive. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again:Critical commentary hardly belongs on the History of Lego article. I've already answered that! Look, the movie was mentioned on the page before each of us arrived, rightfully so, it's a milestone in Lego history. It needed a ref. I propped this unreferenced fact up with a source, which you happen to dislike, you said for formal reasons. On top of that, you refused my compromise. And now you want me to clear it all via the The Lego Movie thus acting as a WP:POVFORK, which is against WP policies. No.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I hope you know that the article The Lego Movie currently exists, meaning WP:POVFORK doesn't apply at all. Also, I don't recall you attempting to make a compromise, but what objection do you have to mine?--ɱ (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
My compromise was : keep BOTH refs and you can change the sequence of the refs. Remember you came in, deleted the NYT ref I had inserted and called it NPOV.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any need to quote two arbitrary reviews here, a simple summary of its critical consensus and commercial success seems enough. If anything, the paragraph could use more detail about the film itself; that it was fiction rather than a documentary, that it was an animation, etc. --McGeddon (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The LA Times article isn't arbitrary, I added it as a citation for the critical consensus. But generally I agree with you.--ɱ (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, we need to source any critical consensus; if the LA Times review seems like a strong source for that, it's fine. It looks like The Lego Movie article uses it for the quoted "nearly unanimous positive reviews", which gets summarised in the lede without quotes as "a critical and commercial success" - I don't see a problem with doing the same here. --McGeddon (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi McGeddon please read from top, the edit history, and the proposed refs and you'll understand. The compromise is to keep both refs, because they complement each other. Note my stress is on critical as in critically examining, the section heading I chose is 'uncritical timeline'. has expressed at every step of the way he doesnt want the NYT ref. he wants the "critical success" review - where critical means something completely different.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I've read the references. We're mentioning the film in the context of nearly a century of other events, so a brief summary of its reception is enough here. We're not saying "the LA Times thought it was great", we're saying "overall, the film was a critical and commercial success", the same as the lead section of The Lego Movie article. If you think the LA Times summary is wrong and the film wasn't really a critical and commercial success, then that's fine, let's discuss a better source and fix The Lego Movie article as well. --McGeddon (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Wuerzele, please respond. McGeddon and I are in agreement to do as McGeddon states above. I'd like to know if you have any objection to that.--ɱ (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
A brief summary of the films reception exists at present, with both opinions and both refs present. It is fine as it is. Nothing needs to be changed. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The LA Times article is a summary of other reviews that describes them as a "nearly unanimous positive reviews". If you think this is an opinion that needs balancing, the appropriate balance would be to add a quote from a different summary of reviews that said something else - not to pluck a single negative sentence fragment from an arbitrary review (a review which actually seems generally positive and agrees that the film received "critical praise almost across the board"). --McGeddon (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Considering I am late to the problem. I read through the changes and compared before and after. I am in a general agreement with both McGeddon and . The only issue I have is... If there is anything that has to do anything or about The Lego Movie. It should be on 'The Lego Movie' page and NOT on the History of Lego page. 'The Lego Movie' was a Warner Bros. Production with the permission and name rights to use any images or likeness by Lego Systems, Inc. USA under the watch of The LEGO Group in Billund, Denmark. GoTLG (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That is a good point, although the article is History of Lego, not History of The Lego Group. The fact that the toys spawned their own blockbuster is worth a considerable mention.--ɱ (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
McGeddon A film review by the NYT is a good source. There is zero need to tinker with it like single opinion, not on par etc. Both your and 's demands for another source aim at excluding this one, with an obvious effect, suppressing negative assessment.
The removal of a sourced statement (for the first lego movie} and replacement with an unsourced "whitewashed" statement is bad form and has the same effect as the above: suppressing negative information about the product. this is pushing POV and unencyclopedic.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I raised this at WP:NPOVN and an editor felt it was "important not to give outliers UNDUE WEIGHT". An NYT review is a fine source, and there's room for negative analysis in the full Lego Movie article, but in this article we're just trying to write a very short paragraph explaining to the reader what The Lego Movie was. Ignoring the back and forth of "reviewer X thought Y, but on the other hand reviewer P thought Q", we look for sources that say "in general, reviewers thought Y", and even the NYT review states that the film received "nearly unanimous positive reviews".
(If your "whitewash" comment is about The Lego Story, I cut the quotes because they appeared to be from a WP:SPS blog. The line about perseverance and entrepreneurship which you've now flagged as "dubious" was sourced to that blog before I got here.) --McGeddon (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
McGeddon I agree with your split of the subsection at 1998, after I added the latest time point of the History of Lego, which was flagged as outdated.
I disagree with your (second) wholesale removal of the only source for the story of Lego movie (even if it seems like self published) without offering a better source for what (someone else than me) put on the page. An appropriate way to mark minor problems is using inline flags, [better source needed] for example rather than edit warring.
GoTLG, your choice of words above that you are "late to the problem" betrays your attitude: differences of opinion aren't problems; you are merely "late to the discussion", and you still need to catch up, like read the diffs before my edits etc, to see what what YOU can do to improve. With the multiple problems this page has, adding to and improving the substance of the article WP:ACM is more important than criticizing other editors' contributions.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
note: GoTLG said he was "late to the problem", not McGeddon.--ɱ (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Ɱ Thank you for catching. I corrected the reply.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Wuerzele, yes, 'late to the discussion' would be better choice of words. There are more things to worry about than get into a argument of every page(s). To improve in one area and then being shot down or edit in another. Can be and will always be a headache in many areas. GoTLG (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

So what does User:Wuerzele think of the emerging consensus that quoting a particular line from a New York Times review is undue weight? --McGeddon (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

With no further comments in a week and a half, and only one editor being in favour of including this outlier quote while four are in at least "general agreement" that it is inappropriate, I've gone ahead and cut it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

new subsection 1992-2004[edit]

In today's edit of the section cut off Decline and recovery, 1998-present McGeddon introduced a description of decline and recovery, with which I agree. Since the decade long "recovery" (since 2005) appears to last until now, I sdivided the decade long decline (1992-2004) into a new subsection; maybe further description of the "Recovery 2005 until present" section needs to be discussed. --Wuerzele (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)