Talk:Lego

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lego article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Former featured article Lego is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 11, 2004.
Flag of Denmark
Portal:Denmark
 Denmark Portal
Lego falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!

Satellite Image of Denmark
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
The Lego article is part of WikiProject Lego, an attempt to expand, update, and improve all articles relating to Lego on Wikipedia. You may edit this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives for the project.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Lego is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] SVG Logo

Why do people keep reverting the change to the LEGO logo in SVG format (Image:Lego_logo.svg) to the old JPG (Image:LEGO-logo.jpg)? GoTLG keeps reverting it with the explanation "the correct 'todays' Lego logo image." How is the JPG version any more correct than the SVG? Shouldn't we use the cleaner, more attractive version? HotWheels53 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of would be the fact that perhaps there are a couple users who can't see SVG images. If this is the case, another image should be found regardess: The JPG logo is significantly darker and blotchier than the actual LEGO logo. 151.151.21.105 20:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


The image of LEGO logo in the SVG format is the wrong image or in other words is the outdated Lego logo. LEGO redesign their logo few years ago. If you look at 'today's Lego logo on a Lego set or even on Lego.com you can see the difference. Take an example of AT&T, they redesign their logo or updated their logo from AT&T to at&t. Today's Lego logo is different from the SVG format. The JPG image is the correct or the updated image of the Lego logo. GoTLG

While that's true about the design, the color of the red background in the SVG one is closer to the color of the current logo (atleast based on the logos on the website). The logo on the frontpage (upper left) uses FF0000 for the red background, as does the logo on the bottom right of most pages; the logo on shop.lego.com and other pages (such as Products) uess EE2224. The SVG logo uses ED1C24 while the JPG uses CD0135, which is further from either Lego logo. Mairi 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention about the 'font' or letters of LEGO on the logo have also change. Even though the change is small, it is still a change. In which the current Lego logo 'jpg' is the correct logo not the 'svg' image. Lego did not just only change their font or letter design, but even the red they use in logo. By comparing the old and new logo of 'at&t' and old 'AT&T' the everyday 'joe public' might not care. However it is still a new logo or image. This also applys to the Lego logo. No matter how big or small the change is, the design/image of the 'jpeg' is the updated Lego logo. GoTLG

I've created a PNG version of the LEGO logo from the JPEG. I changed the red to #FF0000 and cleaned up the JPEG artifact. I don't have the ability to create SVG pictures, so I guess if someone else wants to they could use the PNG to make an SVG, but the PNG should be good for now. HotWheels53 15:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LEGO in modern times: Losing track?

It appears to me, by watching the LEGO brand toys on the shelves, that the brand has somehow lost its track. Many small kits, and even the bigger ones, are made of a few "traditional" (and versatile) pieces which interlock with huge, custom-made pieces in order to fit a scenario such as Star Wars or Racing. I could go back perhaps 15 years, when even the smallest kit had lots of small "standard" pieces and no more than two or three "custom made" ones. Thus, it could be disassembled and turned into something enterely different. As of today, this is seems to be no longer possible. There's many asian brick options, but they get nowhere near the quality LEGO pieces have. I think this issue should be stated in the article, but I don't know how to make it fit the Wikipedia standards. --81.9.156.63 09:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately to include it in the Lego article you'd have to find an article or essay elsewhere which discusses this trend AND meets WP:V & WP:N.
I have noticed this trend, however, and it does make it harder for me to enjoy Lego. As an AFOL I see the blocks themselves as a large puzzle to be enjoyed, more like a blank sheet of paper than the paint-by-numbers of the instructions. 151.151.21.101 14:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 capitalised. 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)
Errrr... 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 braindead 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)

[edit] Lock Blocks?

Does anyone know anything about a competing brick toy called Loc Blocks or Lock Blocs? I had a zillion of them when I was a kid. They were way cheaper than Legos, both in price and quality, but because they cost less, you could have thousands of basic bricks. I cannot find any info on the internet about them. I would like to start an article on the subject, but with no references and without the correct spelling I don't know where to begin. 66.151.81.244 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer my own question they are Loc Blocs. I will begin an article. This article should mention competing similar toys. Bytebear 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 solutiong, thanx! ThreeVryl 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for 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)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • 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/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) 20:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/g/Talk%7ELego_8c71.html"