Talk:Lego/Archive 5

Inexpensive?

I disagree with the statement in the beginning of the article.

Lego bricks are noted for their precision and quality of manufacture, resulting in an inexpensive yet uniformly high-quality product.

I agree that they are a precise and high-quality toy, but inexpensive, no. Everyone that I know agrees that they're expensive, and worth the money, but nevertheless expensive. I think it should be changed. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Granpire Viking Man (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, anyone? I'm getting impatient. If no one protests or agrees I'm just going to go ahead and do it.--Granpire Viking Man 18:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I do think LEGO bricks are worth paying for, but I wouldn't say they're inexpensive. HotWheels53 20:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

O.K. good, but what will we put instead? The problem is that part of the article has a neat sound to it, like it belongs there. We need to find a way to replace it.--Granpire Viking Man 17:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe replace it with "Legos are inexpensively made but are sold quite expensively"? Well, that language sounds a bit too simple, and the LEGO Group does not like them to be called Legos, especially not capitalized. I don't believe they are made inexpensively, either. It simply isn't good business to sell something for much more than it cost to make. All we need to do is find a way to omit that part, without anyone noticing a change. Its tricky to work with the opening statement, especially for that of a former featured article.--Granpire Viking Man 01:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, what about:

Lego bricks are noted for their precision and quality of manufacture, resulting in an inexpensive yet uniformly high-quality product.

or rewrite it as:

Lego bricks are noted for their precision and quality of manufacture, resulting in an easy-to-use, yet uniformly high-quality product.

惑乱 分からん 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But that just says they're noted for their precision and quality of manufacture, resulting in their being precise and high quality. It's a bit like saying something is painted red so it exhibits a red finish. Perhaps "Lego bricks are noted for their precision and quality of manufacture, and as a result enjoy a reputation as an easy-to-use product." Elliot Pratt 11:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Err, something can be precise and have excellent quality of manufacture and be bloody difficult to use: certain machines that I can think of, say, a jumbo jet? Ease of use is not determined by its precision or quality of manufacture. Ease of use is determined by the design. Precision, quality manufacture and brain-dead design add up to hard, or impossible, to use. So, "Lego bricks are noted for their clever design, precision and quality of manufacture, and as a result enjoy a reputation as a fun and easy-to-use product." Can I get a job at Lego Marketing now? ThreeVryl 16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Corporate History

I've added some trivia regarding the average number of Lego bricks per person on the planet - referenced from a Economist article, but there's lots of other stuff in the article regarding Lego's recent financial fortunes too - perhaps some of this should be incorporated in recent history?
Neilster 11:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lego or LEGO?

I was under the impression that the "correct" format for LEGO was all caps, is there any proof otherwise? Jorrel Fraajic 06:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Nohat 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you... Jorrel Fraajic 19:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although the company prefers references to be 'LEGO', this is a case of 'when in wikipedia, do as the wikipedians do'.Elliot Pratt 13:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jorrel. There should be mention in the opening statement that the company uses the official spelling LEGO (all caps). Also the 'Lego Group' article should technically be called the 'The LEGO Group' (prefix The, LEGO all caps) as this is how they refer to themselves legally and internally.

Just how many combinations can you make with 6 blocks?

The article says "Six eight-stud Lego bricks of the same color can be put together in 915,103,765 ways" But the chart beside it says: "915,103,766". And I don't have a clue which one is right or how to figure it out. So umm someone who is better at math than I am at midnight figure it out. Thanks Mystic eye 05:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

An even number makes more sense to me. 惑乱 分からん 00:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the references clearly states that 915,103,765 is the answer. Therfore, I edited the page to include this. Sector X 15:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

SNOT

I just added a definition of SNOT to the Snot page. There is no snot (lego) or Studs Not On Top page - does anyone think that it is worthwhile to create? There are whole pages about it and stuff... ie - http://www.holgermatthes.de/bricks_us/index.htm?http://www.holgermatthes.de/bricks_us/snot.htm ThreeVryl 11:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too much detail to have it's own page on Wikipedia, so I have linked it to the BrickWiki page instead. But because the interwiki map is not currently correct, the link won't work until it is fixed (which I've also requested and should be done soon!) RoscoHead 20:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! I did not know about a) the BrickWiki, or b) interwiki links. This is a good solution, thanks! ThreeVryl 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lego in Art

With specific reference to user Atlanta: Just now updated the Lego in Art section, which was quickly reverted under the pretence that it was 'self promotion'. While I was indeed adding information about my own company, I was also correcting and disambiguating various other inaccurate or vague information in that section. Reference to my work already existed in the section (and has now been reverted) that is vague or inaccurate, which was primarily why I edited it. Additional information was also valid, accurate, and of broad interest. I removed various irrelevant points and links that were not, and also improved the grammar or, and clarified the content of, other material covered under that section. I also clarified or corrected numerous inaccuracies (now reverted) with reference to terminologies used and to technical processes. All of these improvements can be verified by following the associated links etc. I am letting you know this because I intend to reinstate the corrected information and consider it would be in peoples best interest if it essentially stayed there. My apologies for not discussing it first, this was my first wiki edit. Also, I hope I'm using this talk page correctly. My apologies if I am not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spiteyourface (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

The problem, of course, is that Wikipedia generally frowns pretty strongly on self-promotion. But I'll wait to hear what others have to say about this. Atlant 16:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I was only correcting information about myself and my company that already existed, and added a few salient points to clarify common ambiguities and misconceptions about how our relationship to The LEGO Group does and doesn't work. Meanwhile, the version restored DOES have various irrelevant instances of blatant self promotion in it from other people, which I removed, specifically, the reference to their O-Zone and Ram stein videos. There are literally thousands of people who could add links to their brick films, and it doesn't seem particularly democratic that those should get particular mention above anything else. My information, meanwhile, concerned LEGO funded corporate projects that are not only a relevant part of history, but highly influential within the community. The mention of Romeo and Juliet which I tried to remove also seems particularly irrelevant. Also, the changes I made regarding the popular terminologies was more accurate - and I clarified the information about brickfilms.com Beyond that, the grammatical and factual edits I made to the subsections about Michel Gondry and Little Artists, respectively, were also for the better.

Perhaps we should delete the entire section as fancruft? Atlant 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a very well constructed section. The hand full of subjects it does cover is valid enough, but it covers them badly. I can understand what it's referring to well enough, because I know Lego culture, but it's not written in a way that is wholly accessible to the average reader - which is rather the point. I would be up for a rewrite personally if people agreed?

Lego Brick Image

Is it possible for someone to make a clearer Lego brick photo? The current one is full of artifacts. I would do it, but can't find any Lego bricks! --Tomhannen 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No LEGO bricks? That's really sad ;). I made a pretty good looking digital render of the red 2x4, located here. Do you think I should upload it and replace the current photo? I could make the background transparent too. HotWheels(53) ^Talk 13:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lego over Time

<b.ockquote>Since it began producing plastic bricks, the Lego Group has released thousands of play sets themed around space, robots, pirates, Vikings, ninjas, medieval castles, dinosaurs, cities, suburbia, holiday locations, wild west, the Arctic, airports, boats, racing cars, trains, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Batman, SpongeBob SquarePants, Avatar: The Last Airbender, and more. There's no mention that the themes have changed over time. Back in the early 90s all Lego was originally designed, with generic space/pirate/robot Lego, but through the nineties there was more 'franchise' Lego, or whatever the word is, such as Harry Potter, Star Wars etc. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Thedreamdied 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.^[?]
• Please reorder or rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 15 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Green and Brown bricks?

I seem to half-remember from somewhere (possibly from the Lego fan club of which I was a member when I was a kid) that Lego produced very few green or brown bricks in their play sets so that kids couldn't build tanks or other machines of war with camouflage. Can anyone confirm, deny or expand on this? I'm talking 1980's here as this policy clearly seems no longer current. Incidentally, having no green or brown bricks didn't prevent me from creating a veritable armada of space-faring craft bristling with weaponry XD 82.42.98.242 00:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The user Hayden murray replaced the page with "lego is for the homos who have know life and live with there mum". I have already reverted it but just letting you know. Unknownlight 00:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Competitors

There doesn't seem to be any information in this article about companies making Lego "knockoffs" or bricks that look similar to Legos but may or may not be compatible. Wouldn't that be a good thing to have here? I understand that Lego's patents have run out, so it's perfectly legal for people to make similar blocks as long as they don't clash with Lego's trademarks.

UPDATE: After more careful reading of the Lego article, I found Clone Bricks in the links at the bottom under "other". It was not immediately clear to me from the title that "Clone Bricks" was what I was looking for. It could have easily been a line of Legos dealing with the Clone Wars from Star Wars or something. At any rate, it seems to me that this could stand more mention or explanation in the body of the article. -- Skyfaller 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, maybe a short paragraph in the "Trademark" section? HotWheels(53) ^Talk 17:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to get into a whole complex, confusing and heated debate. One thing to make clear 'all' LEGO patents have not run out. Yes, the well known 2x4 LEGO brick and some other LEGO bricks and elements patents have ran out. However not all bricks and elements patents have ran out. It is very hard to know what patents have run out, because LEGO redesigns current elements and applies for a patent extension. Also I believe a patent can last for 17 years in US and if the company wants to pay or reapply for an extension, they can. So when you see a new 'element' in a new set such as 2007 you don't know if LEGO got the patent this year or few years ago. I believe there are currently over 3,000 LEGO elements. It is one of the toughest things for LEGO and any other company to find and go after clones and knockoffs around the world. The "Trademark" section is about the proper use of the company name. There was a discussion about the issue in one of the archives. - GoTLG 10:42, 13 July (UTC)

Adding another link to the LEGO Links

How would I go about getting approval to add a link to the LEGO Links area? I own a LEGO Forum, iBricks, and after we have been operating for a while, I believe we are established enough to have a link here. We offer an environment that is defined by being family-friendly at all times, and I cannot say that any other general LEGO website fills that need. I will respect the decision of whoever is in charge of this. Thank you for reading! -conductorjoe

If you read the discussion of 'Archive #3' it explains why external links section was cutback or reduced. The section was becoming extremely too long and a lot of sites were taking advantage of the page. Wiki-brick-links and Brickwiki are the two well known sites to add external links that are LEGO fan sites. There are a lot of other LEGO related fan sites that are family-friendly and very knowledgeable. However there are sites that offer the same forums or topics such as, LEGO news, themes, chat, off-topic and other things. It doesn't make sense to offer copy of a copy or a repeated version of a fan site besides having a different name. Both LUGNET and EUROBRICKS have been around for many years, and have links to other sites which are very helpful for a newbie. – GoTLG 03:39, 30 July (UTC)

Removal of LUGNET from see also section

I have reverted the removal of LUGNET Lego Users Group Network from the See Also section.User:AMK152 removed it with the edit summary "rmv". It seems a perfectly valid reference to me rather than vandalism. Am I missing something? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Those links are already in the template. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 21:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Average Amount of Legos people own

62 Lego block per person on average? That sounds like a load of crap. Not really claiming it's vandalism, but it sounds wrong.Claycrow 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not vandalism, but it's badly phrased. I think what it means is there have been enough LEGO bricks produced over the years for everyone in the world to have about 62 if they were distributed evenly. HotWheels(53) ^Talk 14:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For the Trivia

In Danish Lego came from Leg Godt, having this in mind and going to a Dutch translation where "leg" means also to put or to drop something somewhere. I always have thought about the Danish translation as of God put something somewhere, where god of course is equal to a creation being. I just found out it didn't mean that, but well it's a funny translation which I thought as for real (until reading wiki here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC) legos are coooool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.52.230 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures?

I feel as if some of the pictures don't really add anything useful to the article. I'm speaking of the LEGO City and the LEGO Loch Ness monster. Sure, cool pics, but they don't really compliment the article itself. In my opinion, a picture of LEGOLand or one of the LEGO Shops would be much more "wiki-friendly". Pcboy 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ILTCO Link

I think the link to ILTCO should be left there. LEGO Trains get very little mention in the article. HotWheels(53) ^Talk 03:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive #3, explains why it shouldn't be added. Since ILTCO is already listed on 'BrickWiki' and 'Wiki-Brick-Links'. This is a way to avoid to having the 'External Link' section to grow. This is still a big problem even though 'BrickWiki' was created. Also there is a 'LEGO Trains' page on Wikipedia. GoTLG 02:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

AFOLs

This is apparently an acronym standing for something related to Lego. There are at least fifty links throughout the wikiproject (not just main space) that lead to AFOL, which is currently a redirect to this article. I would recommend that either AFOL receive its own page or the Lego article somewhere explain what an AFOL is and how it relates to Lego as a whole. Thanks, Deltopia 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AFOL stands for Adult Fans Of Lego, there is a bit of info about it at Brickworld and My Own Creation. I second the suggestion that they need their own page. At the very least, AFOL should be defined on this page! I'd do it myself but I don't know enough about wikipedia editing. 121.45.32.224 (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe there used to be an AFOL article but it was deleted out of lack of notability or something stupid like that. I would re-create the article myself, but every time I try to make even a slightly major change to a LEGO article I get in trouble for it. It really doesn't make sense to have something redirect to an article that doesn't mention anything about it! HotWheels(53) ^Talk 03:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

License

The LEGO Company has accepted way too much sponsorship. They've even gone so far as to rename the LEGO Driver's school in LEGOland California the Volvo Drivers School. They've also created entirely new themes, such as the LEGO Spongebob SquarePants. LEGO should fix the old themes before creating new ones. They could easily have gone on with the original Knight's Kingdom instead of creating that rip-off Knight's Kingdom 2. For me, the Johnny Thunder sets, the Rock Raiders, and the original Alpha Team were the best LEGO sets. Now, none of them, not even the Alpha Team spin-offs, are still on the shelves. I'm also disappointed to find that LEGO Magazine has discontinued their LEGO Legend feature, where they offer an classic, not in stores LEGO set for mail-order every issue. However, I've noticed a new trend. LEGO seems to be reviving the old sets, with the new Aqua Raiders (similar to the Aquanauts), the new LEGO Mars Mission (similar to the original), and the new LEGO Castle. If this trend continues, we might even see the return of Pepper Brickolini! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.98.247 (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia statistic

I am continuing to delete the factoid regarding everyone having 62 bricks each. I realize that this is an 'average' and that not everyone on the planet must have Legos for this to be true. Indeed, this is why I continue removing the sentence. The statement is poorly written as it implies that Legos are so common that damn near every human has some in his or her possession. In order to sound less ignorant, the statement would need to be rewritten as "If all the Lego blocks in existence were distributed amongst the entire population of the world, everyone would have an average of 62 blocks each", or something to that effect. I would have rewritten the sentence myself, but I feel like this is nothing more than a stupid factoid not warranting inclusion in Wikipedia. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we are safe to assume that most people who read wikipedia are capable of understanding the term "average". It does not imply what you say it implies at all. Thedreamdied (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thedreamdied, it makes perfect sense the way it is. I think it does warrant inclusion, because it helps the reader grasp just how popular LEGO is. HotWheels(53) ^Talk 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the statement gives the reader a false sense of how popular LEGO is (from a global perspective). The way it is presently written, the statement implies that LEGO bricks are so common that nearly everyone has a few of them. This is not the case. Globally, only a small percentage of the human population own any LEGO bricks at all; but given the tremendous number of individual pieces that a typical set of LEGO bricks contains, it is no surprise that the global 'per capita' LEGO average is so high. If one were to take the average of the number of LEGO bricks owned by a given group of 100 people, 10 of whom have 500 pieces each and 90 of whom have zero, the result would be 50. While this number would be statistically accurate, it would be misleading to state that members of that population have an average of 50 blocks each when 90% of them have zero. It is this with which I take issue. If the community does want this statement to be kept, surely it could be reworded in some form that is less misleading about the popularity/penetration of LEGO toys throughout the world's population. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everyone who thinks the fact is misleading. I checked the source that the fact was sitting and even the original source is careful to make sure it does not imply that everyone owns LEGO. So I reworded it to see if that would work better. Because it is an interesting fact that does point out how much LEGO exist in the world, but it does need to be made clear how the statistic works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.175.130 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It may seem like it is misleading to some people, depending how you view it. This is becoming like the issue of 'tire' and 'tyre' trivia. No need to change or rewrite the trivia, when the original source of information is from the company profile website. It is fine as it is. The problem is a lot of people still view LEGO is a toy. It's more than just a toy. You would be surprise that it's not just in people homes, even some business have LEGO elements. GoTLG —Preceding comment was added at 07:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The assertion made by 'GoTLG' that "the original source of information is from the company profile website. It is fine as it is." is itself misleading. In fact, the actual verbiage from the company's website states "...enough LEGO bricks have been manufactured to give each of the world’s six billion inhabitants an average of 62 LEGO bricks," 'which written in a much less ambiguous manner than is the dumb-down sentence in this article. The difference between the two statements should be obvious to everyone--the statement from the Lego website emphasizes the huge number of bricks in circulation (or existence), while the wiki article statement is worded such that it emphasizes (inaccurately) the number of people who own LEGO bricks.

As for GoTLG's statements that "The problem is a lot of people still view LEGO is a toy. Its more than just a toy. You would be surprise that its not just in people homes, even some business have LEGO elements, this information is pointless and irrelevant. This is not 'the problem' as nobody is attempting to denigrate or disparage LEGO by categorizing it as 'a toy'. Whether or not LEGO bricks can be found in businesses is also totally irrelevant. 'The problem' is that the sentence, as it is presently written, violates wikipedia guidelines stating that information should be written in an encyclopedic manner. The sentence is decidedly unencyclopedic, even for a piece of trivia. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)