Talk:Lego/Archive One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Various Discussions

There is waaay too much information on this one page, I propose and unless there are significant objections splitting it into several parts, with the existing page serving as a highlight and links article, I'm going to try it out. The parts I'm proposing splitting it into are;

  • LEGO - BRIEF history, Legos today (combine with Economy Difficulties), trademark, and trimmed links
  • LEGO history - This is where the huge blurb on LEGO history will go
  • LEGO pieces - This is a subject which people might like to know about
  • LEGO creations - This is where all the really cool examples of lego creations go
  • LEGOLAND - retail stores, trivia, and other lego attractions

Yeah, unless there's any major objections, I might start in a bit, probibly with the history section first.

Cyberguy34000 03:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Before you edited everything, I read the article from beginning to end and didn't find that it was too much, yet I can see how others might. One thing I would move is the line "The above selection is a paraphrase of the History of LEGO, and the LEGO timeline" to the top of the section, as more of a warning. I would be quite annoyed to read the section to find there is more and re-reading some parts in the full history. In fact, I'll make that small change right now. Zhatt 01:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added a little bit of info on FIRST Lego League, but there's still a lot that needs to be in there. It's one of the major orginizations that lego is involved in these days, and there needs to be more in there about it. At the championship event, the lego president/ceo attended to say about how much more involved LEGO was, and was going to be, so at the top there's quite a lot in this.

I'll try to add some info later, but until then...

Cyberguy34000 18:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

There are two links to the Brick Testament, one under Projects and one under Creations. If article length is still considered a problem, one of these links should be sacrificed. TECannon 03:59, 20 October 2005 (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)

[edit] 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)
The sentance likely refers to initialy cold reception and poor sales LEGOs had as a plastic product. -- 207.224.122.151 00:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


The company can be called The LEGO Group.

  • Is there anyone that could fix or upload the updated image/verison of the company logo? The current one is the old one not the updated one.
    • I'm looking for one on and off. Problem is they changed it in 1999 and all the catalog scans with large logos that I can think of offhand are before then, or are skewed (like the 1999 "Star Wars" catalog is). I'll replace it sooner than later, but I just couldn't stand the fugly one seen at LEGO Group. Blech. GarrettTalk 06:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The popularity of using the word "Lego" as a mass noun, and the facts that many fans consider any other usage grating and many other fans disagree, are not "POV speculation". They're trivially verifiable with a Google search on "lego "mass noun"". These should be mentioned in the article somewhere; now that Dannybu2001 has reverted my edit, the article incorrectly presents "adjective" and "count noun" as the only sides in the discussion. I'm going to attempt to find as authoritative a reference as possible illustrating the mass noun usage - the first few Google results are all blog entries - and add it.129.97.79.144 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Except for the fact that such 'discussion' is not generally acceptable on the main page of an article, that's what the Talk page is for, case in point why I removed it, user 129.97.79.144. Making an addition based on Google results of blog entries is most certainly "POV speculation" since you did not back it up with any non-odd-fan-use sources (it became your opinion that is was an acceptable usage based on the search, but you did not go to the effort to 'prove' it as a fact.) Use of phrases like "...may be the underlying reason that the plural "Legos" is regarded as particularly grating." is the epitome of 'speculation'. Not only that, the way is was written was cheeky, "which is primarily of interest to the company's lawyers"? Further, the use of Lego as a mass noun is so shockingly grammatically incorrect I doubt any reputable source would back up the claim that it's okay. I would imagine LEGO would rather folks say, "I need to buy more Legos," than, "I need to buy more Lego" if they aren't going to say "I need buy more Lego sets/pieces". A less POV and involved mentioning of this may be in order if it's a common as you claim, but adding it for what looks like the sake of discussion or debate is out of place. Dannybu2001 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Tim Morris, professor of English at the University of Texas at Arlington, writing for Ball State University's "English Studies Forum", is the closest thing I can find to a reputable source: http://publish.bsu.edu/esf/1.3/Morris.htm 129.97.79.144 23:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Congrats on finding this source, but I'm afraid Morris' theory (and that's what it is despite his confidence in declaring it fact) is grammatically and logically flawed, pretty sad for a professor of English. First of all, 'water', if one does not specify what receptacle in which they wish to receive more than one 'water', they say something to the effect of, "I'd like two waters." not "I'd like two water." Now, if they do specify, thay say, "I'd like two glasses (or bottles, etc.) of water." There's no 's' on the end of water, but there is on the end of whatever receptacle the person says, in this case glasses, and that creates the plural. Then take into account the fact that LEGO bricks, are exactly that, bricks. One does not build a house with an amount of 'brick', they build with a number or amount of 'bricks'. Be they clay, stone, or plastic, if you have more than one, you say 'bricks'.
Now, once the house is built, it is acceptable to say, "I built a brick house," which in turn makes it okay to say, "I built a Lego house," but not, "I built a house out of Lego." When referencing the use, viewing, or possession of more than one LEGO element or set, you cannot de-pluralize it (i.e. drop the 's' or 'es' depending on preference) and still be speaking correct English. You either have to pluralize the word itself, 'Legos', or (as is LEGO Group's preference) pluralize the word that Lego is the adjective to, 'Lego sets', 'Lego pieces', etc. Would you say, "I played with Lego all day"? "Somebody stole a lot of Lego"? "I sure own a lot of Lego"? You might, but it wouldn't be correct.
Overall, this is one of those cases when people say, "So-and-so and I," when, "So-and-so and me," is actually correct, but they think 'I' is a more correct, one-size-fits-all word and say it anyway. It's all about the context of what you're saying, and the use of Lego as mass noun in the examples given by you and prof. Morris are not in the right context to be accurate English grammar. In fact, he actually referenced that 'book', 'egg' and 'lentil' were 'countable' nouns, which in turn makes them not mass nouns. Yet you can say, "I have egg on my face (not eggs)", "I'm eating lentil soup (not lentils)" and "I own a bookstore (not booksstore)". You can do the same with Lego, "I went the Lego store", "Toy's "R" Us is having a Lego sale", "I'm building a Lego set"; does this make Lego a mass noun? No. Dannybu2001 18:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The argument above might be better made on Talk:mass noun than here, because it appears to be about the general concept of mass nouns rather than anything specific to Lego. I also recommend that anyone participating in this discussion read mass noun, which addresses the question of whether items that can in principle be counted (like bricks or "waters" [sic]) can still be denoted by mass nouns. Usage of "Lego" as a mass noun is popular, considered by a significant fraction of the users of the word to be the only correct usage, and documented by academic authority. As such, it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to document when discussing usage of the word "Lego", regardless of individual opinion as to whether the mass noun usage is "shockingly grammatically incorrect". 129.97.79.144 21:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Since when are academic facts an opinion? I agree mentioning of the use is appropriate (however grammatically incorrect it may be) if it's as common as you claim (if you recall, I said that before), but your attempts at addition were littered with POV and unsourced claims, rendering the blurb virtually uneditable and more than worthy of removal. Then you source your claims with general mentioning of Usenet discussions (which is hardly a reputable source) and an English professor from out of nowhere that doesn't know English! Beyond that, the links didn't go anywhere, making it impossible to verify the info (if you hadn't put the link to the prof. in your post, I wouldn't have even been able to check it.) And now that you have made working links, the info is very weak (one link still doesn't work, but at least I get a "Page not found" message) and frankly doesn't make this concept any more convincing (Google groups? Come on now!)
Sorry, if my opinion that facts are facts is a problem, but this is such a weak addition, it still doesn't bear mentioning as written and sourced. Please stop adding it until you can find more than what what are basically blogs (and poorly formatted at that, like reading through a bunch of >>'s is any less 'grating') to source your info. Further, the point of the section it's in is not really about the uses of the word per se, as it is more about LEGO Group's wishes and how a grammatically correct use of their word has take precedence over corporate wishes. Mentioning a grammatically incorrect version that is basically like shoving a square peg into a round hole, has no place as it's written. I'm not saying it's unwarranted, it's just poorly proven and if the sources you used are the best you can find, then you're going to be hard-pressed to prove it. Dannybu2001 21:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
My second and third versions included full citations in the references section, in accordance with the Wikipedia documentation. The internal links in the second version didn't work because I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles for how to create them - instructions which turned out to be incorrect. The internal links in the third version did work, though that is hard to demonstrate now that that version is only visible through "history" and its internal links point at the current version. The external links have always worked for me, and evidently worked for Nohat because s/he made edits involving them. The claim that Morris "doesn't know English" appears to be based entirely on the fact that Morris says Lego is a mass noun, which is the point on which he's being cited - an argument along the lines of "He's wrong, therefore he's wrong." That's amusing, especially in combination with the standard of English usage shown in some comments above, but it's not important enough to fight over. I'm not going to make further edits until someone other than Dannybu2001 comments. 67.158.79.24 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh - and the use of > characters to mark quotation is standard on Usenet, and the cited message uses them exactly according to the standard Usenet convention. The Usenet quoting convention is mentioned in Zen and the Art of the Internet, widely regarded as an authoritative source, and all introductory guides to Usenet . Any other quoting convention would be regarded as a sign of illiteracy on Usenet. Usenet is not a blog; it predates the World Wide Web let alone blogs by many years. 67.158.79.24 23:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry for making a comment about the prof. related to the subject at hand, let me clarify: he doesn't know what he's talking about regarding mass nouns in relation to the word 'Lego' and said use in the English language. In other words, that went without saying since no other topics of discussion were at hand. I actually did try to find more nuggets of wisdom from Prof. Morris to determine his grasp of the English language outside of arbitrarily (and incorrectly) declaring Lego a mass noun, but apparently he isn't popular enough to get more than one back-door web page to share his expertise. Further, just because you can find a citation doesn't automatically make it an adequate one. I'm not trying to be a revert-happy jerk here, but your reasoning and methods for including this info is still very weak. Also, I don't recall commenting on your personal use of the English language on this Talk page, so I would ask that you not resort to personal comments like that. Especially without clarifying what you're referring to and then leaving it at that with an 'I'm not going to say it' tone, yet you already did. I find that kind of adolesecent tactic less than 'amusing'. <point being made>And "He's wrong, therefore he's wrong"? What kind of left field comment is that? If he's wrong, he is wrong. But I won't say anything....</point being made> Dannybu2001 23:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lego or Legos ?

I added a comment in the main article, saying that it seems to be an American-English practice to pluralise 'lego' to 'legos', before reading some of the comments in Talk (under, for some reason, the Trademark topic). I still stand by my edit, and by way of evidence, I did a search on ebay.com and got "13217 items found for legos" and "14925 items found for lego"; on ebay.co.uk I got "13443 items found for lego" and "6 items found for legos".

Personally, I think that the plural of lego should be just lego, both because it is customary, and because this is not an uncommon style in English for things that come in quantities or heaps. In the UK, no-one would ever say "How many legos do you have ?", they would say "How much lego do you have ?". Nor would someone say "How many legos are there in that model ?" - normal usage would be "How many lego bricks are there in that model ?" But I also think that 'legos' is so commonplace in the US as to be impossible to erradicate. What do they say in Canada ?

--Mark 19:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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/
Impressive, but not it exactly. It might not be classified with the minifig parts. The bottom is a cylinder, unlike the "level small," and the part sticking out is wide enough for minifig hands to grab on to it. Krupo 03:36, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
The closest one to what I'm describing is the "4349 Minifig Loudhailer,", except the handle on the side of the loudhailer is the same width as the body of this piece I'm trying to describe. Does that help? Krupo 03:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
194 Minifig Tool Hose Nozzle with Handle[2]? --ZeroOne 05:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/theme/space/ [3]? 3959 Space Gun? Me and my brother used to put together "3959 space gun", "4349 Minifig Loudhailer" and "3062b Brick 1 x 1 Round" to build bazookas... Alternatively, one could have a "4589 Cone 1 x 1" at the other end of the bazooka, connected to the back of the space gun.

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.

Why not have modern weapons in LEGO I use many parts to make fighter planes and armoured personell vehicles they have only made guns within the last 10 years or so one of the most difficult things to make is a tank turret even before guns there were swords you can use those blowhorns and flashlights as guns you can use those inch long black antennas as clubs Dudtz 8/2/05 8:09 PM EST


[edit] 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)

The LEGO Group has gone from 106 to 56 colors used. They expect to save 10% in costs by doing this. It IS a significant change.

  • If you want to understand fans of LEGO (rather than the product itself), understanding why this color change has caused so much discussion and concern is a key part of that understanding process. Dismissing it as "trivial" or "not major" misses the point of the intensity of fan feeling about this. (and arguably there are not many factoids "of equal significance"...) It's the most divisive thing to happen in the community that I can remember since emerging from my dark ages in 1997. It may not be the focus of this particular article though. Take that as you like, hope it's helpful -- Larry Pieniazek 28 Feb 2005
  • The reason for the intensity of feeling amongst AFOL's is that some people have truly VAST collections of parts in some (now discontinued) colours. If you want to build one of those huge and impressive Lego sculptures - and find that you don't have enough grey bricks - then you might have $1000 worth of bricks in a certain shade of grey that you've been painstakingly collecting for 20 years - but need another $100 worth to build your sculpture. If Lego discontinue that shade of grey then you might have a $1000 investent that's useless in your next project. That's no small matter!

I love Lego and always have, but the current article addresses the "color" issue adequately for NPOV and general readership purposes. All that other stuff about fans getting upset is bullshit--63.245.172.9 21:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You think the fans didn't get upset - or that their getting upset was irrelevent? If it's the former - I can assure you that you are horribly wrong - they got MASSIVELY upset. If you think it was irrelevent then that is at least as POV as saying that it's very relevent. I personally believe it deserves a mention. SteveBaker 23:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] POV

This article seems to be slanted in favor of the LEGO company. In the "LEGO trademark" section, shouldn't there be mention of the LEGO company's failed attempt to trademark their brick design (the "Lego Indicia Mark")and sue Mega Bloks? Furthermore, there is no mention of the "KIDDICRAFT brick construction sets with cylindrical knobs [...] designed, manufactured and sold by Mr. Harry Fisher Page" (see http://isodomos.com/technica/history/1940/1949.php and http://www.marquedor.com/telemarque/archives/02-06-01b_en.htm). BuilderQ 21:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • You're right; I wrote the bulk of the article based on information culled from LEGO publications, web sites, and a few LEGO fan sites; I also happen to be a big fan of LEGO myself, so there is likely to be some bias. There's probably some subtle bias in my choice of words, too: "Consumers on a budget are sometimes willing to forego the LEGO brand in favor of a cheaper alternative" was my attempt at neutrally saying "some customers don't mind cheap knockoffs", but looking at it now, strikes me as still subtly offensive to the companies (Tyco, Mega blocks, etc.) trying to sell different, but compatible, building blocks. Good website references! It might also be good to mention a recent occurrence in Finland in which LEGO destroyed 54,000 imitation products. In the light LEGO puts on it, their act was benevolent, in that it helped prevent brand confusion and build customer trust. But it could also be seen as a very selfish act - an attempt to prevent lawsuits against LEGO, and an opportunity to crush the competition, no matter whether the competition was blatantly ripping off LEGO's packaging. Feel free to rework the article for neutrality, to include some of the negative or controversial things about the company. I'll pitch in where I can. -- Wapcaplet 17:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"in which LEGO destroyed 54,000 imitation products."
I heard about that. Seems like a huge waste to me, and selfish. I like legos and used them a lot growing up (and it probably improved things like motor skills and spatial perception) but those could have been given to poor children or something so that they could learn, too. - Omegatron 18:05, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
LEGO publications? Whatever these are (The World of LEGO Toys, per chance?), could they be listed in a "References" section? As for LEGO destroying the 54000 Enlighten products, can more information be found from some other reference (preferably one not affiliated with the LEGO company)? And seeing how the LEGO article is getting so long, perhaps some of the data about LEGO's interaction with its competitors could be moved to said competitors' pages? By the way, would a "Category: LEGO clone brands" be justified? Also a fan of LEGO, BuilderQ 00:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point; you are correct, it was The World of LEGO Toys (1987), which is why the official chronology since 1987 mentions mostly new series releases, contests, etc. I will put it in the references, though, and work on your other suggestions. As for extracting part of this article into another article, there's some discussion of that above. The best I can think of is to extract some of the more trivial tidbits from the chronlogy (second-generation train release, upgraded DUPLO, Technic getting pneumatics, Guinness records, etc.) and put them in a LEGO timeline article or something similar; that would (I hope) let this article concentrate more on the narrative of the company's development, success, and later difficulties. I don't think the competitor conflicts should have a separate article, unless the section becomes much lengthier; leaving the conflict in this article helps to balance the neutrality a little, since so much of the company's prior history is weighted positively. I should also note that I'm glad you've brought these matters up; the article has been in need of reworking for a while, but I haven't known quite where to begin until now. This has already been a Featured Article, but now we can make it even better! -- Wapcaplet 17:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Minifig" to "Minifigure"

I don't think I agree with changing "minifig" to "minifigure" ([4] [5] [6], etc.) The term I've seen most frequently is "minifig"; the article should reflect the more common usage. A quick Google test shows over 40,000 hits for "LEGO minifig"[7], but only 4,000 for "LEGO minifigure."[8] Anyone else care to comment? -- Wapcaplet 02:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "proper" term is minifigure. Originally, they were known as "Mini-Figures" (in the LEGO literature), but the linked-to article (from this entry) on the LEGO Company site uses the all-lowercase, non-hyphenated version. "minifig" is a net.term, invented in alt.toys.lego, then carried to rec.toys.lego, LUGNET, etc. As this is an encyclopedic entry, the proper term should be used, rather than the colloquial shortening, IMHO.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/g/Talk%7ELego_Archive_One_6704.html"