Talk:Lego/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Request temporary page protection

User:205.188.116.14 continues to vandalise this page pretty much every minute. I request this page be temporarily protected from editing until the kiddies find something more worthwhile to do, such as watch Jackass on TV. — JIP | Talk 28 June 2005 10:20 (UTC)

I have unprotected this article because the vandal seems to be gone now. Nohat 28 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)
The page is sill being vandalized under different IP addresses. The vandal has also added a link to LEGO's fair play information. I have looked at this information and nowhere do I see it mention that Lego must be written as all uppercase. What it does quote is this:
"...the trademark should appear in the same typeface as the surrounding text and should not be isolated or set apart from the surrounding text. In other words, the trademarks should not be emphasized or highlighted. Finally, the LEGO trademark should always appear with a ® symbol each time it is used."
In this document it does not have a ® after each occurrence of LEGO. I believe they are asking that the symbol be used after the trademark alone, not any reference to Lego. ·Zhatt· 23:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three bricks: 1060 or 1560 ways?

81.236.22.44 changed 1060 to 1560 in the following sentence:

Six eight-stud Lego bricks of the same color can be put together in 915,103,765 ways, and just three bricks of the same color offer 1,560

But the reference cited there doesn't seem to address the three-brick problem. Does anyone know if the new value (1560) is correct?

Atlant 19:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I just added a table for one through seven, and references. The reference On the Entropy of LEGO gives 1560, and I'm fairly certain that is correct. Bubba73 (talk), 04:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I am Søren Eilers, the author of 'On the Entropy of LEGO' and was responsible for changing 1060->1560 which indeed is the right number. I have now added the count of 8 blocks. Computing a count for 9 blocks would take me, I estimate, 50000 CPU hours, so I think I'll call it quits here! Just corrected the number after somebody had altered it. I have a wiki profile now: Soren.eilers in case somebody wants to discuss these numbers.

[edit] Is "LEGO" an acronym? Or is "Lego" a word?

Given the long discussion about this in the "Unnecessary supplication to corporate demands for trademark treatment" section, I figure it warrants it's own section so folks don't have to sift through that long line of talk. To the point, is LEGO an acronym? Going by definition at face value, it is. But given the way LEGO is formed it may not 'officially' count in so far as capitalization is concerned. Searching on the 'net, I managed to find www.acronymfinder.com, which has LEGO (in caps) listed as an acronym. I don't think certain individuals would except this as 'official' (*cough* Nohat *cough*), and I'm usure if I even accept this source, but it makes you think that they had to have gotten their info from somewhere. Does anyone have any info or insight into this subject. And I'll bluntly say, no making stuff up. Filibustering with assumed or even made-up info doesn't do anyone any good.Dannybu2001 13:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation Page

I moved the LEGO (disambiguation) page to Lego (disambiguation) to match Dannybu2001's move of the main page and re-linked it. Is this undesirable, since there are only three meanings currently, two of which are discussed on this page and one that's linked? I added the disambiguation page in the first because I was hoping the 'trademark' and 'language use' issues might move to and perhaps be appropriately disambiguated on the disambiguation page, freeing up space here for discussions about content. Jethero 04:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought about doing that myself before, but found that the only really different thing was the Sun Microsystems LEGO, everything else basically is this article or can be accessed from this article. I don't think it's needed to have a disambiguation page for 3 meanings, 2 of which reference virtually the same thing (i.e. LEGO Bricks, legos, etc.) The only other thing the old disambiguation page had was reference to "Lego my Eggo", which wasn't even accurate cause I've always seen it as "Leggo my Eggo" or something like that in ads. I'd recommend editing back to the single reference to Sun Microsystem and just forget about the disambiguation page. It may be more organized if there's a central place for all wiki-LEGO pages to discuss issues like "LEGO" vs. "Lego" vs. "legos", but honestly I don't anticipate people going along with that. I could be wrong, but I think it would add to the confusion more than anything. Dannybu2001 20:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense caption

I couldn't make sense of this - "A detailled and complex Lego-City as it would be very difficult to build it with nowadays offered Lego-Sets".--Tatty 13:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not "nonsense"; rather it refers to something which is not mentioned in the article - the fact that most current Lego sets in shops (as opposed to those available online, which are more aimed at the "serious" AFOL) use large, juvenilised elements which cannot be "reused" for other purposes as easily as the old-fashioned blocks. I'll see if I can work some kind of reference into the article without getting too controversial. ;) FiggyBee 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the wording is confusing. Also, it's incorrect. I believe you could build that exact city with current sets. You might need a lot of them - but I don't see many parts that aren't still made. Your point that modern Lego sets have some pretty terrible parts in them is certainly well taken but: (a) It doesn't belong in a caption for a photograph. (b) It's not NPOV. IMHO, the caption should be simplified to something like "A City made from Lego parts taken from a number of different sets". The person looking at the photo can make up their own minds as to whether it's detailed or complex - and if something needs to be said about the poor part distribution in modern sets then let's find an NPOV way to say it in the main body of the article. How about something like:
  "In modern Lego sets there is a tendancy for the designers to include a greater percentage of specialised
   parts that are less useful for making other things than those for which the set was designed.  Some Lego
   fans lament this trend."

SteveBaker 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I failed in my quest for uncontrovertability. :) I agree certainly with the changes you made to the caption. I do think it's worth mentioning the trend towards large specialised parts in the article though (and the contrast between what's available on shelves and what's available through s@h). I'll have another look at it tomorrow when I'm not falling over and see if I can put it in a more NPOV way. FiggyBee 11:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My original criticsm was aimed at the unfathomable grammer. However, recently one of the first sets I bought for my kids, after a thirty year break from Lego, was a 1200 piece set of standard bricks which seems to have been in Australian shops for the last year. I also intend to buy more standard bricks and plates from the Lego website. In this way it would be much easier to recreate the photo than ever before. And thirty years ago, I would have swapped my bike for some of the pieces in todays kits. I'm not convinced your lament is valid. --Tatty 10:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

This article has about 10x too many external links. Can someone familiar with this subject please do some pruning? ike9898 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 08:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extenal Links

I'll go thru them somtime and see what most are. It looks like some are just fansites someone added....

[edit] Lego and Stomach Ulcers

I reverted a paragraph about swallowing Lego's to cure stomach ulcers. This seems REALLY unlikely - and a Google search failed to turn up even a single reference to this. At the very least we need a convincing reference - but the paragraph said this was a common practice - and if it was, I'm *SURE* we'd see something from a Google Search.

SteveBaker 22:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of the word lego

I seem to recall reading an old Lego Magazine that said it was Danish for "play well", but the article states Lego says it means "I assemble" in Latin... --Wulf 22:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


It does in fact stand for "play well". LEGO is a contraction of "LEg GOdt" meaning, littraly, "play well". -- Nwinther 15:55, 10 March 2006 (CET)

If that's so, what's up with this quote:

""Legot" (or "leegot"), plural form of "lego" (or "leego") is used as a Finnish slang term for human teeth, because of the rectangular shape of the teeth" --Thaddius 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Competitors

Links to Megabloks and other Lego quasi-compatible competitors keep being added and removed over and over. There should be some discussion here about whether they should be included (because they have relevence to Lego) - or excluded (because they are not strictly about Lego).

IMHO, links to any and all Lego competitors most certainly belong here. I understand that there are plenty of Lego fanatics out there who would very much like to see those 'other' blocks wiped from the face of the planet (and I'm most definitely one of them) - but this is an encyclopedia and it's supposed to contain a richly linked set of facts. It's not about likes or dislikes - and it's not about promoting one company over another EVEN IF THEIR PRODUCT IS BETTER.

If you feel a need to deprecate the opposition's products, then let's write a section giving a dispassionate explanation of WHY Lego bricks are better. Things like factual data about the quality of plastic and the precision with which they are molded - things that we can find indisputable references for.

So - I'm going to revert the deletion of those links - but to prevent a revert war, I think we should discuss it here rather than messing with the article all the time.

SteveBaker 23:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


It is not a question who is a better consruction blocks toy company. By listing Megabloks or any other toy competiors on the Lego page confuses or mis-informs the public or the everyday reader. In other words it gives the idea that Megabloks is part of the Lego Group. The everyday 'joe public' does not know that. In a interview with the CEO of Lego he mention that 42% of the public assumes or thinks MegaBloks is own by Lego. This is information from a podcast interview with the CEO of Lego in 2005 at Brickfest.

MegaBloks already has their own page on Wikipedia. The other toy competitors should have their own page too 'not' link to Lego. The 'See also' section are links related to Lego fansites or Lego products, not met to be a list of compatible or competitors.

Let's not have the 'gray area' to get bigger or blend toy competitors to be listed. Each company needs their own page on Wikipedia. This is reason why the idea of having an encyclopedia is to find the right and correct information.

Not to mention the 'see also' and 'external links' list is getting long and out of control.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.116.196 (talk • contribs) .

Well, let's take these points in turn:
Confusing the public: This is easily fixed - add a section "Lego competitors" - and discuss them (with links) there. I agree that we must not add to the confusion - but our mission here is to educate - so it behooves us to work to DISPEL confusion by making things explicit. We can say things like "The following companies make blocks that work with Lego - but ARE NOT LEGO...."
It's good that MegaBloks has it's own page - but unless it's linked to the Lego page (and vice-versa), few people will find both of them. I don't understand why there should be no linking - Wiki isn't here to provide neat little adverts for each company - it's here to educate people - and the more cross-linking to similar products there is, the better informed the population will be.
I agree there are VASTLY too many links at the bottom of the page. Some of those need to be woven into the main body of the article - many of the rest need to be blown away. I think the set of links to competitors belongs in a section of the article listing the competitors and perhaps discussing the various legal ramifications and manufacturing differences.

SteveBaker 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(Also: Whoever 70.59.116.196 is - you need to read the rules about reversions in Wiki. You should not have done that last re-re-revert without discussion here. It's *exceedingly* rude. SteveBaker 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek lego stuff

That's interesting but not relevant to the company history. The word "lego" means lots of things in many different ancient languages, I'm sure. The Latin word is only relevant because the company makes a claim about it. The Greek word might be relevant if it actually meant "I put together", but it doesn't. It is true that you pick up legos, but you pick up a lot of things. It's also true that you must gather stones to build a wall, but that doesn't mean that "gather" means "put together". You have to gather stones to throw them too, but "gather" doesn't mean "throw". And "pick up" is not the main meaning of legein. If you want to add it under "Trivia", that's fine with me. Pfalstad 21:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the Greek, I corrected it. Since the Greek does, and the Latin does not, have a sense involving construction, it seems clearly relevant. It is perfectly possible that whatever Lego Group flack came up with the stately account of the word's origin was confused. Please don't destroy useful edits. Septentrionalis 22:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Latin/Greek stuff to trivia. After reading the Lego company web page[1], which says that lego "coincidentally" means "I assemble" in Latin, it seems clear that the company is not seriously claiming that the word lego comes from Latin; they just state it as an interesting coincidence. So it's trivia; I moved it to that section. The Greek stuff seems appropriate there too. Pfalstad 00:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lego Technic

I just wanted to call attention to the fact that Lego Technic is still a stub... Especially with the announcement that Mindstorms NXT will be based on Technic, I think it is a fairly important article which needs our attention. --Wulf 03:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive links?

There are currently 48 external links in this article! Are they really ALL necessary? Joyous | Talk 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No - they aren't. In truth, we see a lot of 'vanity' links where people want to show off their own Lego creations. One good link to such a site would suffice (in an encyclopedia) to show the existance of impressive, large scale, clever creations - but how does one choose which of so many great sites? One way to resolve this would be to create a 'List of Lego Creations' someplace and just link to it from here. That way we don't care how long that list gets because it doesn't clutter up this article - and if someone attempts to add more links, we can just say "Please put them on the list" without offending anyone. SteveBaker 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps only links to refrence sites and discussion forums should be included, as opposed to sites showing of individual creations? I'm new to Wikipedia and thus not entirely acquainted with its mission, but it doesn't seem very "encyclopedic" to include such pages. Example: Instead of the link to Andrew Lipson's page of Lego sculptures (as cool as they are), a link to lugnet.build.sculpture would be more appropriate (though in this case redundant since a link to Lugnet already exists) Hopefully this makes sense. Also, I feel sites like FBTB.net, Classic-Castle, and Classic-Space should be moved to the community section instead of creations. Kiolden 05:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say the list of external links is getting long. Few of the links are from other countries such as Japan, Hong Kong, and Europe. However some links/sites are not in English, if someone does not understand Danish, Dutch or any languages. I do think a few of the sites should be move to their own site or to the correct language. I think there should be one main external link to show all of the 'international Lego sites'. I did notice the 'in other languages' list on the sidebar. Both Classic-Castle and Classic-Space are 'creations' sites, since both have there own community or discussion board. I think the list of links is more about 'attention'. Then again some sites have good information and have links on their sites to other sites for examaple LUGNET.com, Brickset.com and BrickWiki. I guess the area should be cleaned up and cut the list to serious and helpful sites? User:70.59.116.196 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly we are in violation of the WP:MOS(Wikipedia:Manual of Style). (Specifically WP:EL (Wikipedia:External links)) To summarise what it says:

[edit] What should be linked to

  1. Articles about any organization...should link to their official site...
    So a link to the official Lego site is justified.
  2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of an article.
    But these should be linked from the text an placed in the References section - so this doesn't count.
  3. An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media,..
    Nope.
  4. On articles with multiple Points of View...
    Nope.
  5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.
    This is the only way to justify the majority of the links - but it's pretty tenuous in some cases.
  6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.
    Nope.

[edit] Occasionally acceptable links

  1. For albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews...
  2. Web directories: ...a link to one web directory listing can be added...
  3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)
    This is our problem. We have dozens and dozens of fansite links. We should point to an external site with lots of fansite links...or pick ONE (yes ONE) fansite to link to.
  4. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis...
    Don't link to large pages?!? I don't understand this rule.
  5. External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page.
    This is a really tough criteria that I don't think any Wiki pages pay close enough attention to.

So - what this boils down to is that there should be:

  • ONE link to the official Lego site.
  • Some links to content that should be in the article but isn't.
  • ONE link to a fan site - or ONE link to a directory of Lego sites.

We have vastly more links than is normally considered reasonable. SteveBaker 16:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Allright, so how about this:

Any thing else either doesn't need a link on this page (fansites...), or should be incorporated directly into the article (Brickfest?). Time to start cutting? Kiolden 03:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    • It seems that this is what the manual of style demands of us - although I think that if we make this change, there will be howls of anguish and a revert war. Still - "Be Bold". SteveBaker 03:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, I deleted the majority of the external links. Before everyone starts throwing stuff at me, try to see if the link you want included fits in the article. This could be an oppurtunity to expand the Lego article in a meaningful way. I think that a section in the article discussing mathematical applications of Lego would be far more desirable than a list of Lego and Math related sites, for example. If you can't fit it into the article, it probably doesn't belong on the page. Also remember that any links that don't work out in this article can be added to the Wiki-Brick-Links compendium. Also, I'm new to Wikipedia, so if I have breached some protocol by doing this, please let me know. Kiolden 05:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Wow, talk about a chop-shop. I have to say a lot of 'external links' should have 'not' been deleted. Without checking to see if 'any' or 'all' of the external links are listed on the other sites 'Wiki-Brick-Links' or 'brickwiki.zapto.org'. However, Wikipedia has no relationship with those two sites. Also, some of the 'external links' may or may not be on those other sites. There are some links should be listed for example :Brickset.com, EuroBricks.com, Peeron.com, Brickshelf.com or MocPages and few others. Because, if someone goes to other sites they will see that there are links to other Lego 'fansites'. I would re-think and add some of the links back. It really looks bad without some the other links such as database, educational, Lego on PC, creations, community. Lego is becoming more than just a toy company. If any of you have not check out any of the sites/links I would suggest to do so. User:70.59.116.196 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense - I orginally simply deleted strictly according to the guidlines SteveBaker posted from the MoS above. However, since many sites such as Peeron are not truly fansites, perhaps they should be included. I'll go back and perhaps add a couple more. But again, if possible I think it would be better to include important sites directly into the article (though for some this may not be possible) Kiolden 14:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here can external links be added

There is two site wich allow external Lego links to be add, here is the right place for adding many external links. The problem is if adding a one user group why should the other 60 not been in list. Sollution add them in external directories.

Before adding links to WP check out after other LEGO articles in subject and check this rules for those two sites and add to them if the link is missing. Klasbricks 20:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/g/Talk%7ELego_Archive_3_8598.html"