Talk:Lego/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Request for more references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Early figures and other things.

How about mentioning the original Lunar Landing set? It had the large headed figures with jointed arms. At some later date it was re-released with a different baseplate that had "craters" instead of the all flat one of the original.

Edit: Set 565-1 Moon Landing http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/565-1?showpic=1877 Originally released in 1975. Re-Released with the crater baseplate ???

As for weapons, I used to have an early Police set with the original figures and I'm positive that when assembled in their "standing" mode, the figures had pieces making up a "belt" with a 1x2 poking out the side, to which another block was attached to represent a pistol holster.

The original, non-poseable, minifigs used a standard 1x yellow cylinder for a head and had small hats or hairpieces to snap on top.

There are even more companies making LEGO compatable sets. I've seen Transformers and TONKA sets with blurbs like "Compatable with most major building sets." on the boxes.

There's also a LEGO Star Wars videogame, as if the Episode III merchandising hasn't gone far enough...

Unnecessary supplication to corporate demands for trademark treatment

It is not necessary for us to use the ® symbol if we say in the text that the name Lego is a registered trademark. In fact, including it seems like unnecessary commerical support for the company. Furthermore, we are under no obligation to accede to their demands for how to refer to Legos. We are, however, obligated to follow the Manual of Style and other Wikipedia policies. In particular I think the linguistic contortions this article goes through to avoid using the word Lego as a noun are ridiculous. We use English here, not corporate-ese. Nohat 18:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I admit responsibility for most of the linguistic contortions. You're probably right about the use of all-caps, so I'll back off from my previous position and agree that we should follow the manual of style, with "Lego" instead of "LEGO" in all instances.

But even though the LEGO brand name has been genericized in common usage, I don't think it'd be right to use "Legos" as a plural noun in the article. The manual of style prefers "Rolex watches" to "Rolexes." -- Wapcaplet 20:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wholly agree "Legos" and "Rolexes" are not appropriate--not because it's an "improper" use of a trademark, but because it's ambiguous. More than just toy bricks are called "Lego" and more than just watches are called "Rolex". The reason to say "Rolex watches" instead of Rolexes is precision. Similarly with Lego bricks instead of Legos.

However, in some cases, when the referring to all toys called Lego, it may be appropriate to use "Lego" as a noun. For example the sentence "Godtfred saw the immense potential in LEGO bricks to become a system for creative play..." would be arguably more natural-sounding as "Godtfred saw the imense potential in Lego to become a system for creative play...".

As for capitalization, I find the LEGO in all caps to be unnecessarily distracting. It's also potentially misleading, because people expect the letters in all-caps words to stand for something, and they don't in this case—it's either a clipped form or a bastardized Latin word, depending on whose Kool-Aid you drink. I recently dealt with a similar problem on Petronas. We can use LEGO in the first sentence and in the section that discusses the trademark, but in all other cases, I would prefer Lego. I will avoid stepping on any more toes, though, now, and let you or someone else do it. Nohat 22:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nohat, you're letting your personal preferences get in the way here. LEGO _does_ stand for something, it's an acronym for LEg GOht... The fact that it's an acronym for Danish words rather than English doesn't change the fact that it does stand for something. It is also a trademark.

It specifically says at [1] that the name is a "combination" of the words leg and godt. It is not an acronym at all: such a combination is called a portmanteau. There are plenty of other examples of portmanteaus, such as smog, brunch, and Interpol, and their standard form in English is never in all capitals. The same applies to Lego. The only way that Lego would be capitalized would be if each letter stood for a separate word. Since it is not the case that each letter stands for something, there is no justification in the standard rules of capitalization in English for spelling the name LEGO. It is not just my "personal preference"; this is the standard for capitalization of words in English. Nohat 09:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note the proper use and correct way of the company name is LEGO Group 'not' Lego Group. This way is the correct english capitalization of the company name. Just an example you wouldn't say 'Ebay' when the correct way is 'eBay'. Also note discarding or misuse of a title of a book without the '®' is incorrect. Don't mislead the users/views or confuse them with the information. This is not a demand more like respect the name, as if you would run you're own company name.

Wikipedia guideline on trademarks is to "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment", but to not invent new uses. "Lego" is certainly not a new capitalization of it; it's likely the most common one. It is in no way misleading, as this article in fact has a section on the Lego trademark addressing, among other things, capitalization. --Mairi 22:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Common? Not exactly. As someone who has moved in fan circles I can tell you that anyone who is truly serious about LEGO uses the all-caps form absolutely exclusively. Remember, our goal here is to write a professional-level article (well, duh), and the professionals in this field, that being the absolute fanatics, always capitalise the name. Now I agree with tossing out the ® and the rule of always saying "(the) LEGO something" as those get in the way of comfortable sentences, but the sheer weight of fan usage of the all-caps forms indicates that it is most assuredly the way to go. And it's not like LEGO takes up any more physical room than Lego does. To anyone anyone familiar with the official and fan circles, "Lego" would look awfully wrong... and indeed had I not seen this discussion beforehand I would have boldly and faithfully fixed each and every non-example occurance to the correct usage. But anyway that's just my opinion as someone "in the know". :) Garrett^Talk 23:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If we want the article to appear professional, we are better off following the standards of written English than the "standards" of Lego fanbois. Nohat 19:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

oooh, good comeback! hehe. But yes that's true too. Hm. Garrett^Talk 03:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of LEGO fanboys 'deciding' that it should be spelled that way, it's the way it's supposed to be and is officially registered that way. While 'LEGO' isn't an acronym, it isn't a real word either, as such it is not subject to the standard rules of English (especially considering the origins of it aren't English.) LEGO is technically in the 'eBay' crowd of specialized word styling; you do it the way the company has registered it. Someone gave the example of the Nintendo Gamecube being captialized. Gamecube is a compound word and it is subject to the rules, LEGO is not by definition a compound word (perhaps compound prefixes?) Frankly, I was shocked that all the LEGO articles used 'Lego'. Everyone talks about having a 'professional' page, yet not capitalizing LEGO isn't professional in and of itself. You wouldn't see an article about LEGO in the paper that says 'Lego' would you? (except maybe from an uninformed reporter) In fact, I don't believe if you looked up LEGO in an actual encyclopedia they would spell it 'Lego', Wikipedia shouldn't be any different. Going by common and official usage, actual English language rules, and even by Wiki-rules LEGO is supposed to be capitalized. Spelling it any other way is technically a violation of Wiki-rules since it borders on POV (people think it shouldn't be capitalized), and the rules are for companies that just decide to capitalize their real word name, not for companies where the specialized or all caps made-up word is their name. As far as 'portmanteau', that's actually a form OF acronym, and are actually NOT subject to rules as stated. Spelling it 'normally' perverts the meaning, and there are other Wiki-articles with portmanteau titles that preserve the all caps because that's how they are supposed to be. This squarely applies to LEGO. And on a legal note, LEGO could possibly charge Wikipedia with delving out misinformation about their company if it's not spelled the official way. Wiki may have all their 'we're an open community, self-edited blah, blah, blah', rules but they're still a website with information about a company, and if that info is consistenly incorrect (i.e. not obivously vandalized) that could be reason for concern.Dannybu2001 16:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This response is convoluted and long winded, so I will reply in pieces:

it's the way it's supposed to be and is officially registered that way.

Neither of these points are relevant. Wikipedia is beholden to no external authority in matters of English usage. The only authority is the conventions and guidelines of Wikipedia, all of which favor using standard English.

While 'LEGO' isn't an acronym, it isn't a real word either, as such it is not subject to the standard rules of English (especially considering the origins of it aren't English.)

'Lego' most certainly is a word. If it weren't a word, then you wouldn't be able to say it or write it. It is very much an ordinary word in that it is pronounced using the standard rules of English pronunciation without considering any "exceptions". Words like that are never presented in all capitals in standard English unless it is an acronym and each letter stands for a separate word, which is not the case in Lego.

LEGO is technically in the 'eBay' crowd of specialized word styling; you do it the way the company has registered it.

It is true that that eBay is unusual, but it is not analagous to 'Lego' because there is only one capitalized letter in eBay and eBay is not pronounced using unexceptional rules of English pronunciation. This is a flawed analogy, and thus inapplicable.

Someone gave the example of the Nintendo Gamecube being captialized. Gamecube is a compound word and it is subject to the rules, LEGO is not by definition a compound word (perhaps compound prefixes?) Frankly, I was shocked that all the LEGO articles used 'Lego'. Everyone talks about having a 'professional' page, yet not capitalizing LEGO isn't professional in and of itself. You wouldn't see an article about LEGO in the paper that says 'Lego' would you? (except maybe from an uninformed reporter).

Many style guides require that Lego be spelled as such, and that's not being unprofessional, that's just following the rules set down by the publications' editors. A quick search at Google News shows that spelling of Lego is decidedly mixed: some do spell it LEGO, but many spell it Lego. The argument that spelling it 'Lego' is unprofessional is not borne out by any facts, and saying that any reporter who uses 'Lego' is uniformed is not only begging the question, but false.

In fact, I don't believe if you looked up LEGO in an actual encyclopedia they would spell it 'Lego', Wikipedia shouldn't be any different.

Well, Encyclopaedia Britannica doesn't have a 'Lego' entry, but it does have an entry on Godtfred Kirk Christiansen, which reads:

Christiansen, Godtfred Kirk

Encyclopædia Britannica Article

Danish toy manufacturer who engineered the growth of Legos into an international sensation and made Legoland, a theme park built out of the tiny, brightly coloured plastic building blocks, into one of Denmark's leading tourist attractions (b. July 8, 1920--d. July 13, 1995).

It seems that Britannica does follow the rules of standard written English and that your assumptions were false.

Also, the Columbia Encyclopedia has an entry on Windsor, England, which says "The town is a popular tourist destination; the Danish toymaker Lego opened a Legoland amusement park there in 1996."

So, even if Wikipedia style did rely on that of other encyclopedias (which it does not, as a policy), it seems the usage of other encyclopedias points to spelling it 'Lego'.

Going by common and official usage, actual English language rules, and even by Wiki-rules LEGO is supposed to be capitalized. Spelling it any other way is technically a violation of Wiki-rules since it borders on POV (people think it shouldn't be capitalized), and the rules are for companies that just decide to capitalize their real word name, not for companies where the specialized or all caps made-up word is their name.

In fact, just the opposite is true. It is POV to spell it 'LEGO' because rather than applying the rules of written English fairly across the board, it is creating exceptions for no apparent reason other than appeasing the Lego Group corporation and its capitalization fetishist fans.

As far as 'portmanteau', that's actually a form OF acronym, and are actually NOT subject to rules as stated.

This is incorrect. Portmanteaus are not acronyms. Portmanteaus are spelled normally in lowercase or titlecase, depending on whether they are proper nouns.

Spelling it 'normally' perverts the meaning, and there are other Wiki-articles with portmanteau titles that preserve the all caps because that's how they are supposed to be.

The claim that the meaning is in any way perverted is unsubstantiated. I'd like to see some examples of similar articles that use the all-caps spelling, if only so they can be fixed.

This squarely applies to LEGO. And on a legal note, LEGO could possibly charge Wikipedia with delving out misinformation about their company if it's not spelled the official way.

I'm certain that Lego's legal team is fully aware that they have no actual authority over how other people use the English language, and would never be so foolish as to try to sue Wikipedia, as they would surely lose.

Wiki may have all their 'we're an open community, self-edited blah, blah, blah', rules but they're still a website with information about a company, and if that info is consistenly incorrect (i.e. not obivously vandalized) that could be reason for concern.

The article clearly states what Lego's official stance on what the spelling and usage should be without supplicating to it. The is the very essence of NPOV. In sum, none of these points have any merit, and this article should continue to use the capitalization scheme it currently does. Nohat 18:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

If all that is true, then why is the article title itself capitalized? And just because you can say and/or pronounce, or physically write a word doesn't make it a 'real' word. LEGO is an original (aka 'made up') word and exists, yes, but it's not like they're called 'BRICKS', which is a real word and would then be subject to being spelled 'Bricks'. On a personal note, none of my points have any merit? Thanks. Blanket statements like that make me question just how NPOV you're even being. I thought I had some pretty good points, all from a NPOV perspective I might add, not to mention based on facts (though the other encyclopedia's usage is rather disturbing.) While I would prefer the all caps spelling, I stepped back and tried to see if it was just LEGO being picky or if it was a proper thing. In the end I came to pretty much the same conclusion. Although, it seems that to be fair 'Lego' is more the proper term for referring to playing with 'Legos' or buying a 'Lego' set or building with 'Lego' bricks, despite LEGO's objections. 'Common usage' is a fact of the English language, as such, 'Lego' or 'Legos' is linguistically acceptable when referring directly to the products or playing with them. Whereas, if you're referring to LEGO as a company, 'LEGO' is in fact the proper, official term, legally and in common usage, and I had updated the article as such and will be reverting it back. Don't re-revert it back unless you can come up with something better than your (ironic) personal opinion about the English language. It's funny you should talk about LEGO not having authority over how people use the English language because Wikipedia (or should I say it's users?) doesn't either. Oh, and I better wrap this up, I wouldn't want to be long-winded or anything so it takes you 20 seconds longer to read my comments than it did me to read yours.Dannybu2001 18:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The article itself is capitalized because there hasn't been a proposal to move it yet. That fact is merely a historical anomaly, and has nothing to do with policy or correctness.

All words are original and made up. Lego is just as much a word as "bricks"--the only difference is that Lego is a proper noun and so gets written in titlecase. There is no reason to treat it differently.

Despite your claims to the contrary, you have not presented any actual facts to support why Wikipedia should violate its own standards for this article. Please point to the policy, guideline, or rule that says that Lego should be spelled with all capitals. The "common usage" is decidedly mixed, so we can't really use that as a final guide to what usage here should be. We instead look to the standard English rules for capitalization, which say that only acronyms should be written in all capitals. And if we want to look to our peers for some ideas on how to spell 'Lego', we see that both EB and the CE spell it properly, that is, in titlecase, not in capitals. Further, I would say that even worse than always spelling Lego in all capitals would be only sometimes spelling it in all capitals, which is the current state of the article, and quite atrocious. Nohat 19:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The treatment of "LEGO" going by the guideline on trademarks seems more ambiguous than as cut and dry as you make it. While it says to capitalize trademarks normally and to: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:

   * avoid: REALTOR®
   * instead, use: Realtor

it also says:

   * but, don't invent new formats: MCI is standard, not "Mci".

MCI is a corporate acronym and is supposed to be all caps, here and elsewhere. I've looked up "acronym" and it's as follows:

"A word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for Women's Army Corps, or by combining initial letters or parts of a series of words, such as RADAR for RAdio Detecting And Ranging." (source: dictionary.com, word emphasis my own.)

LEGO is an acronym (Leg Godt) by the definition of the word 'acronym', which makes my earlier statements about LEGO not being an acronym incorrect but that portmanteau is a form of acronym correct, and in turn, LEGO is subject to treatment as an acronym, not a proper noun. Sadly, even the Wiki-article for RADAR is in error. I'd like to know how many of these errors are the 'real' rules and how much can be attributed to misinterpretation or misunderstanding of English and Wiki rules by Wiki-users. Short of dictionary.com having a faulty listing , I don't see how LEGO still doesn't count. As I also stated before, it seems that Wiki-standards are actually being violated by NOT capping LEGO. In fact, my own statements regarding not capping in reference to the toys just the company, also seem to be in error in light of these facts. I'll defer re-updating if you can come up with more English 'rules' proving otherwise, but please try and cite them, frankly, you seem to be pulling stuff out of the air yourself; the stuff you've used is clearly from a personal perspective as they are either negated by actual English rules or are not even applicable in the first place ("begging the question"?) Yet, I've cited the dictionary (again assuming dictionary.com has the same or similar listing as a 'real' dictionary) and the vagueness of Wikipedia's own rules! Tell me again where I'm wrong. Dannybu2001 19:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Lego" is not presented as an abbreviated form, so arguments that it should be capitalized because it is an abbreviation are inapplicable. It would never be correct to say that you are playing with "Leg Godt toys" toys or that they are made by the "Leg Godt Group". Therefore, "Lego" cannot really be considered to be an abbreviation (or acronym) at all, and rules that define how abbreviations should be capitalized just do not apply. It is simply a new word invented by the Lego Group as a name for their company and products. Even the Lego Group doesn't say it should be capitalized because it's an abbreviation. They say it should be capitalized because it's their trademark and they want it capitalized. Wikipedia policy is clear on this matter: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment".

Furthermore, assuming for the moment that we accept that "Lego" is an acronym, it is still the case that abbreviations (or acronyms) that include more than one letter of each constituent word are not spelled in all capitals--cf. Gestapo, Interpol, radar, etc. They are spelled like normal words. The rule for capitalization of acronyms doesn't apply to abbreviations that are formed from non-initial letters, regardless of whether or not they can be considered acronyms. Nohat 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Your first point re: "Leg Godt" makes sense, we wouldn't really say that, however the examples given in your second point are in error. First of all, Gestapo and Interpol are not the same kind of forged word as LEGO: "Gestapo" is formed from Geheime staatspolizei, which, if not for the 'po' part, is not the same as using the initial letter or letters of separate words as LEGO does. Although, CONMEBOL uses the same technique and is apparently supposed to be all caps. "Interpol" is a strange one since it only uses the first few letters of only two of the four words it represents, it seems more like a portmanteau than an acronym; which it is officially, I am unsure. RADAR on the other hand is a full-fledged acronym and is officially supposed to be capitalized by the rules of the English language, which state that acronyms are to be capitalized (with rare exceptions, of course.) Though, 'RADAR' is often 'radar' according to the rules of 'anacronyms'. And no, it is not "still the case that abbreviations (or acronyms) that include more than one letter of each constituent word are not spelled in all capitals", even if words use more than just the first letter, it is still by definition an acronym, not some special new version. Your statements also seem to relay some doubt in your mind whether LEGO is even a acronym or not given your "assuming for the moment that we accept that "Lego" is an acronym" comment. There's no assuming, "LEGO" is an acronym. Acronyms are to be capitalized (again, with exception, which I can find no reason that 'LEGO' spelled as 'Lego' is an appropriate exception with or without LEGO Group's preferences.) I'll still defer updating the article, but you're not being any more convincing yet. Dannybu2001 22:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

All the dictionaries and encyclopedias that I've checked, including Merriam-Webster, The American Heritage Dictionary, The Oxford English Dictionary, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Columbia Encyclopedia, use radar in lowercase or titlecase. None use all capitals. The argument that RADAR is somehow correct is not borne out by any actual evidence of usage. None of this, of course, matters, because Lego is not an abbreviation. Nohat 00:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No, 'LEGO' is not an abbreviation, I never said it was, and neither is 'radar'. They're acronyms. If you're using the terms synonymously, that could be part of why you're not getting my points. Aspects of them are similar (i.e. portions of words), but their definition and usage are quite different. And yes, originally RADAR was all caps but has since be demoted to an 'anacronym' just like 'laser', 'scuba', etc. LEGO however is still a full-fledged brand name and has not yet been demoted or even been officially deemed a generic term like 'radar' or like what happened to "Aspirin". Otherwise Mega Bloks and other competing products could describe their product as 'lego blocks'. What's needed here is a reasoning for an exception to the rules of capitalizing acronyms, otherwise LEGO does need to be all caps. Much of everything else you've stated regarding rules of English technically support LEGO being all caps, not the other way around. Dannybu2001 04:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Acronyms are abbreviations. They are a subset. That is, all acronyms are abbreviations, but not all abbreviations are acronyms.

Lego is not and has never been an acronym or an abbreviation—it is a novel word used as a trademark. Many such novel words are formed from parts of other words. "Nabisco" was formed from "National Biscuit Company". "Pepsi" was formed from "dyspepsia". "Gatorade" was formed from "gator" and "lemonade". "Popsicle" is from "pop" and "icicle". "Clamato" is from "clam" and "tomato". And so on. It doesn't matter which part of the word was used to form the trademark: the "Lego" trademark is not different from these trademarks in any fundamental way and there is no reason for it to be treated any differently than them.

If "Lego" were an acronym, you could in some cases substitute the words that the acronym stands for. In this case, it is never correct to replace "Lego" with "leg godt". In fact, it's not even "kinda sorta" correct, or even "technically correct". Lego's "about us" page quite clearly says that the name comes from "leg godt", and not that the name stands for "leg godt". If they meant for Lego to be some kind of abbreviation or acronym they would have said so. I am certain that if you were to ask the Lego Group, they would tell you that "Lego" is decidedly not an acronym or abbreviation of any kind, and that it is a unique name for their company products. It is completely wrong and totally inaccurate to substitute the words "leg godt" for "Lego". Therefore, "Lego" cannot be an acronym, and any special rules concerning the capitalization of acronyms do not apply.

However, if we assume for a moment that "Lego" be an acronym from Leg Godt, then, like radar, it would be one of the type of acronyms that includes noninitial letters. The standard capitalization treatment for abbreviations that include non-initial letters is the same as for non-abbreviations—that is, all lowercase for ordinary words, and title case for proper nouns. This is borne out by the facts of usage: there is no evidence that radar was ever spelled with all capitals. The reason for this is self-evident: an initialism, that is, an acronym formed only from initial letters, is in fact a form which comes from a series of abbreviations. Each word is abbreviated to a single letter, and then the single letters are combined together to make a single string of capital letters. This is not the case in "Lego". The E and O are not the inital letter of any word and thus there is no reason for them to ever be capitalized, even in abbreviated form. However, I reiterate that none of this is relevant to the case at hand because Lego is not in fact an acronym.

The Lego Group wants their trademark to be spelled with all capitals not because it is an acronym but because they believe having it always spelled in all capitals draws attention to the "specialness" with which they would like to imbue their trademark, and that this will help ensure that their trademark does not become diluted. However, this is not necessary, as is evident by the fact that the vast majority of trademarks are capitalized like ordinary proper nouns (that is, in title case), and continue to be valid, nongeneric trademarks. Consider Coca-Cola, Kleenex, Xerox, Band-Aid, etc. It is true that some companies prefer their trademarks to be treated specially, such as Lego, Realtor, Beer Nuts, and so on, but failing to abide by the special treatment requested by the trademark owner does not constitute generic use of the trademark. It is not necessary to spell "Lego" with all capital letters to protect its trademark status, and in fact doing so is contrary to Wikipediy policy which states "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." That portion of the policy was written with exactly this type of situation in mind, and I think it is quite evident that it applies here. Arguing that "Lego" is some kind of acronym is quite transparently a disingenuous attempt to push the capitalization fetishist-preferred "LEGO" into this article despite the presence of a policy that clearly precludes it. Furthermore, although "Lego" is simply a novel word used as a trademark and acronym, if it were an acronym, it would not be the kind of acronym that is spelled in all capital letters. Nohat 05:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

While one never says 'leg godt', I can find no evidence that an acronym actually has to directly mean something and/or the full term/meaning must be insertable as a longer substitute. Just because a word uses more than just the first initial letters does not necessarily exempt it from capitalization; by definition an acronym can include more that just the first letter (every definition I can find either says "letterS" or even specifies the use of more than the first initial letter), though it must generally be the subsequent letters (i.e. APple not AppLe.) Furthermore, the term acronym wasn't even officially coined until around 1943, which one can assume also means that any existing 'acronyms' of the day didn't follow exact rules yet and may not have ever been officially labeled as such due to oversight or other reasons. Which doesn't necessarily change their grammatical status as an acronym.

LEGO was founded in 1932 and dubbed "LEGO" in 1934, roughly nine years prior to the term 'acronym'. Also to consider is the fact that LEGO is Danish in origin, which may or may not exempt it from the rules of the English language.

Of the other brand names you gave as examples, only Nabisco uses a similar method as LEGO. The rest are portmanteau (except Pepsi), which I have correctly stated earlier are a form of acronym; however, they are not acronyms per se in the truest sense of the word. Further, the brands: Coca-Cola, Kleenex, Xerox, Band-Aid, HAVE been diluted by generic usage ("Let me xerox some copies." (with Staples brand paper?), "Give me a coke." (they only have Pepsi), "I need a kleenex." (to which they're offered a box of Puffs), and "I need a Band-aid." (so they grab a Curad))

I don't believe the Wiki-policy on this matter is as directly clear as you believe it to be (despite the presence of a policy that clearly precludes it?) I can find no hard evidence, including this policy that states LEGO should not be capitalized. However, in light of some of the facts you've presented, I can find no hard evidence that it should be either. I've tried to search for other words like LEGO that use the exact same methodology, and if they exist, I cannot find them. Which would make LEGO a one-of-a-kind word whose usage could 'clearly' be dictated by those that created it; Wiki-policy or not.

On a personal note, I said from the beginning that this wasn't about 'fan-boy' or LEGO Group preference, it was about proper word use, so I don't appreciate your comment that "Arguing that "Lego" is some kind of acronym is quite transparently a disingenuous attempt to push the capitalization fetishist-preferred "LEGO" into this article...", when my intentions were specifically stated otherwise. I even favored common-use as reasoning to NOT capitalize it when not referring to the company itself. Beyond that, my understanding of the English language actually exceeds that of the average person, so your use of the term "disingenuous" is nothing short of rude and is ironically disingenuous itself.

I may not have been entirely correct in some of my arguments (and did in fact admit it when I discovered them), but that doesn't mean all my arguments were entirely wrong either. That in turn does not make me some uneducated heathen "who don't know english real good", whom you can insult like that with your 'superior' knowledge. I only ever disagreed with your opinions (and not even all of them), I never questioned your intellect.

Bottom-line: I don't think there actually is a clear answer to this given all the variables. In the end, I favor an easier to read article, which would mean NOT capitalizing LEGO. But given the attention span of the average Internet user, I am making one change....Dannybu2001 18:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

How different is both company names LEGO and CNET? In other words Wikipedia has CNET in upper case, but LEGO is lower case. When in fact CNET should be lower case too. If you go along with the rule of English by Wikipedia on capitalize. Is it because the 'users' today are use to see CNET as uppercase? When the proper use for both business and English rule it should be Cnet Networks, Inc. If so, then LEGO should also be uppercase at least on the top of the page. As, I notice at the it has gone from LEGO to Lego. The site or infomation shows only about 3% correct and proper way how LEGO should be use both business and English. Whereas it 97% of LEGO is to lower case. By having Wikipedia 'admins/users' telling what they can and cannot without researching about LEGO. If you are writing a book about LEGO or a Lawyer filing case you would want to make sure the 't's are cross and the 'i's' are doted. I get feeling now that Wikipedia will always give a false sense of information without doing any proper research. In other words the rule and few of the Wikipedia users are on a Power trip. It is common sense, if you run a business or run website you would the same respect.

"A trademark must be able to distinguish the goods of one company from those of another. If a trademark loses this ability, the owner may find that it can no longer prevent others from using the trademark. An owner must prevent the improper use of its trademarks to prevent the public from being deceived. This is why the LEGO Group is very active around the world in making sure that its trademarks are not misused." (Taken from LEGO.com 'about us' seciton)

I wonder "IF" you are gonna go around to other LEGO websites and e-mail them and say "You are wrong LEGO should be lower case not uppercase."

The Wiki-rules specifically cite "MCI" as an example of when not to title-case something (i.e. not typing it "Mci".) Whether or not LEGO counts under that exception is unclear (despite supposed definitive arguments to the contrary.) However you can comfortably say "Lego" as a 'real' word, you cannot say "CNET" comfortably when you really think about it, no more than you can say DNA, ATM, or similar words. Citing info directly from LEGO themselves (a method I strongly resisted with my previous arguments) is not sufficent reasoning to oppose Wiki-policy, it actaully does nothing but reinforce the policy. Business-wise, LEGO should be capped, grammatically, possibly not. As far as other websites, 99% of sites outside of LEGO.com are fan sites, and it would be best if they followed LEGO's wishes; Wikipedia on the other hand is considered an official informational resource, and as Nohat cited, other similar resources title-case the name as "Lego". In practice, one should respect LEGO Group's wishes and cap it, but for what is essentially an academic writing, it is possible that it should not "bow to corporate demands" so-to-speak. I don't entirely agree with this reasoning given the most likely status of LEGO as an acronym, but for now is seems to be the status quo until someone finds some more solid evidence (or LEGO themselves step in with proper reasoning why it isn't just them asking for special treatment.)Dannybu2001 00:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)