Talk:Lego/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Paragraphs 2 List of Basic Block Types, Colors, and Dimensions 3 LEGO vs. Lego 4 Lego Manuals 5 Parent company 6 Tire Tyre 7 new legos 8 Lego Eggos 9 Evolution of LEGO figures 10 Wikiproject 11 LUGNET 12 "Media buzz" regarding removal of trademark use at legos.com 13 LEGO in animation 14 Picture Placement and Category 15 WikiProject California?

[edit] Paragraphs

I was just wondering if the second paragraph of the introduction is necessary, given that it's a single line. The article would look better if it had one larger intro paragraph I think, and imho readability would still be fine if the two were merged. Just an idea, I'll leave it with you. --kingboyk 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Basic Block Types, Colors, and Dimensions

I think it would make the article more comprehensive if there was a list of all the standard sizes of blocks (for example 2x4), as well as the standard colors. Or at least a separate article might be suitable. Gordeonbleu 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess the problem is to know where to stop. Do you also list 1/3rd height bricks? Bricks with decals on them? Plates? Slopes? ...it would pretty soon become a L-O-N-G list. Since there are already very good repositiories of this kind of information that is maintained fanatically - I think we should just link to that and let someone else do all of that. If you don't already know about (for example) http://www.peeron.com/ - check it out...then imagine how we could do as good?!? SteveBaker 00:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should certainly link to sites with comprehensive lists. I actually meant to name the most standard of the pieces. The 2x4 rectangular prism, the 2x2 cube, the 1x2 thin piece, and the 2x4 thin piece would seem like the most basic sizes. Decals, plates, and slopes are things I would not consider to be the core pieces of the Lego set. As for colors, I believe that the basic brick colors only include red, yellow, blue, white, and black. (Green, transparent, gray, and any other colors don't seem to qualify as the most basic colors.) Gordeonbleu 07:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I really think that's a bad idea - there is no good place to draw the line. You'd want to list the 2x2 and 2x4 - but I use more of the 1x6's and 6x10 plates...whatever YOU think is the 'core' set - someone else will come along and want to add some more - then before you know it we'll have a MASSIVE and uncontrollable list - which will never be even close to complete. I don't think this is worth adding to the encyclopedia. Let's just link to www.peeron.com or one of the other parts listing sites and call it a day. This article is already too long. Also, note that a LOT of new Lego sets are coming out (eg the NXT) which don't have even a single brick with a stud on it anywhere! Given that situation, you really can't say that the 2x4 brick is a "standard" part. SteveBaker 14:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is such a good idea either. In addition to the "slippery slope" problem, I'm not sure how useful it'd be. Comprehensive databases of all Lego parts already exist. What would be the practical use of a limited collection of "standard" bricks, even if the limits of such a collection could be determined to everyone's satisfaction? Kiolden 01:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LEGO vs. Lego

Shouldn't this article be located at LEGO and a redirect placed on Lego, since, even as the article states, the proper name is LEGO? 71.124.6.74 20:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) stipulates that only companies whose names are acronyms shall appear in all caps. We follow the rules of standard written English on Wikipedia, and do not kowtow to corporate demands to treat trademarks any differently from other proper nouns. Nohat 22:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like for Ebay? If LEGO is Lego, eBay should be Ebay.

No. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). It has a section "Trademarks which begin with a lowercase letter" that pertains specifically to names like 'eBay'. Nohat 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

id Software gets to use their preferred capitalization, but LEGO doesn't? That doesn't seem consistent. (personally, I would prefer "LEGO" for the company and "lego" for the brick) -134.10.24.245 05:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, since it has no internal capitals "id software" should be capitalized according to the manual of style. So the fact that it's not is a matter to take up on its own page, not here. --Stellmach 19:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lego Manuals

I'm 95% certain this article once talked about LEGO's high quality manuals. The notible quality of the manuals, generally being very easy to follow, almost certain deserves a mention on this page. 67.77.116.191 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parent company

A friend pointed out to me that LAGO is a sub company of Samsonite Corporation

Reference link found from Google http://www.chem.sunysb.edu/msl/LEGO/samsonite.html

Is this correct? and if so shouldn’t it be added to the main page?

The page claims "Prior to 1973 in the USA for marketing purposes" or something to that extent, today probably not anywhere. If you think it's interesting, you could add it, but it's mostly a tidbit today. 惑乱 分からん 09:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tire Tyre

Both Tire (US) and Tyre (UK) Are Correct Spellings. If Somebody Changes it Back or Fourth once let it slide. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable. A revert is a revert.

The best we can do is include both to fix any ambiguity so people who speak both languages know what we are talking about. I Admit, because I speak American English and had no clue what a tyre was. so it took me a while to find the right link. This Tire article is about the wheel and this Tyre article is about the place. It took me a while to create a link so people would know what it meant but if somebody in Good faith changes it don't sweat. If an individual repeatedly changes things like this they risk being blocked. To wrongs do not make a right. Justice doesn't matter. Just don't make it so hard to view changes in the history of the page.--E-Bod 20:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

1. It was Written as Tyre
2. (Without changing the spelling) I added a link to tire so people would know the 2 words were the same (It took me a while to find out tyre = tire)
3. It was changed to American spelling
4. It was changed back to British spelling
5. some person changed it back to US spelling thinking it was a typo
6. I add Both US & UK and leave a comment Do not edit it back and fourth

Please do not change it back. The current word whatever it is is OK. If somebody changes it back let it stay. If somebody changes it forward again let it stay. Don't edit it more than once because you will be engaging in a revert war and may be banned.--E-Bod 20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This issue is solved - Tyre' now is a redirect to Tire. The article about the Lebanese city can now be found at Tyre. Additional disambiguations and redirects have been added, along with moving all (numberous!) links. Widefox 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new legos

Anybody notice that the Legos that young kids play with these days are really quite different? They seem to have a lot more "one-piece" big plastic pieces that kind of take the creativity away from it. But anyways, any comments? — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What are 'legos'? If you mean LEGO, well that is a different story. ;-) LEGO has to think new ideas and elements since some of the patents have ran out or expired. Currently there are over 2,800 elements within the whole LEGO system line (Primo, Duplo, Technic, etc. And lets not forget the choices of different color. Its endless!!! Thousands and thousands!!

[edit] Lego Eggos

Just saw a commerical for them today, but no mention of them in the article. I'm too tired to do it myself.--SeizureDog 07:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution of LEGO figures

There's the original "maxi" figures as seen in this set http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/565-1?showpic=1877 and http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/256-1

The articulated arms were made of segments which could be snapped apart and joined into very long arms. The hands were 1x rounds with a hole through the middle. Other blocks could snap onto either side of the hands. A small ball on the edge snapped into the end piece of the arm.

The special blocks to which the arms mounted had a rotating piece on two sides for the shoulder joints and a socket in the top for the large, ball shaped head. The head had a single stud on top for attaching hats and hairpieces. Note that to fit the 'helmets' in the Moon Landing set, the round heads had to be removed. See http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/200-1 for more examples.

The original mini figures had no articulation at all, being made of two slightly sculpted 1x2 blocks with the upper section having a single, centered stud to which a yellow, faceless head was attached. (Looks identical to the piece for the articulated mini figures.) Here's an example. http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/615-2 And another. http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/659-1

The very simple mini figures were short-lived. The articulated style still in production was released the same year, 1975. http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/255-2

I've found sets released in 1976 with the simple mini figures and with the 'maxi' figures. How long were the two earlier figure styles continued?

Roughly -77 and -82, Talk:Minifigure (By the way, at Peeron you could look through the inventory of pieces for nearly all sets released, so it's possible to look up such matters, yourself). 惑乱 分からん 12:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject

• I just started a Wikiproject, Wikipedia:Wikiproject Lego in which we can all improve the LEGO articles. -AMK152 20:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool baby! I pledge my sword (keyboard). Dfrg.msc 09:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Joke How do you out-run lego?

Run diagonaly! And that's original. Sorry, I just can't help myself. Dfrg.msc 09:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LUGNET

I have removed this link twice as a violation of WP:EL and it's back. My arguments for removing.

1. This is a forum.
2. The forum is not a unique resource to the topic.
3. Is being promoted by a member or moderator of the forum in violation of WP:SPAM.

I would like to hear any arquments for keeping this link? -- MakeChooChooGoNow 00:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually that forum is a unique resource. The actions of its members directly affected the way LEGO does business, and its set reference database is unequalled anywhere. The whole reason we can buy LEGO parts by the piece now is due to that group. I am no longer a member but it and its members are entwined with the recent history of the company. If you don't beleive me, ask User:Lar. It isn't spam, it isn't selling anything. There is no more complete reference for LEGO topics on the web. In fact, if you don't know about LUGNET, then you don't know crap about LEGO. pschemp | talk 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

LUGNET has been around for a long time. Its one of the first LEGO web base forum sites talking about LEGO before there were any other LEGO fan sites. The LEGO employees do read, watch and even exchange some information through LUGNET. The same goes with EUROBRICKS, however its based in Europe for the European market and fans. Both sites do help in bringing fans all over the world to link up and talk about LEGO. Both links have been discuss in the discussion section in the past. However the 'external links' section was too long, and was not giving the information people were look for. The idea of the sites is to provide the resource anything that has to with LEGO. Such as, elements, history, data of sets, information, meeting new people and a lot of other areas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.181.240.24 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In order:

1. Even were it merely a forum, LUGNET passes WP:WEB and has its own article here, and is more than just a forum. It is almost always legitimate to provide a link to another article.
2. It is widely held (including by LEGO employees up to and including the CEO) to be a unique resource on the topic.
3. I see no sign of promotion, but I do see signs of non consensus based edit warring over this on your part MakeChooChooGoNow... That would not be a good idea to have continue.

I think that addresses all the arguments... ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're linking to the article (LUGNET) it's no longer an external link, so it should probably instead go under See Also. However, the arguments for keeping it as an external link seem more compelling than those for removing it. Mairi 21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to see also. no reason not to reference other wikipedia articles. pschemp | talk 22:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, pschemp! do you think Brickwiki should be moved too? It's an external link, since it's a different wiki, but it is an interwiki link not a regular link (it has no article, probably would not pass WP:WEB on its own) I have no opinion but I did notice it. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Media buzz" regarding removal of trademark use at legos.com

I would like to know more about the so-called "media buzz" that I found when reading this article yesterday. Peter O. (Talk) 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LEGO in animation

I'm starting a section on this as we don't seem to have one. When there is enough information I'm going to move it all to a new article; as Lego Stop animation is a pretty important aspect. Feel free to help.

This is a LEGO Stop animation which my friend and I made. Thanks, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 06:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)