Talk:Lego

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lego article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
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.
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.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Trivia

Why don't we just rewrite the entire Trivia section? Since Wikipedia generally does not approve of Trivia sections, why doesn't someone attempt to take this trivia facts and turn them into an actual paragraph or something to that extent? And that way there would be room to elaborate more on this one piece of trivia. And if not... why don't we just eliminate this fact considering it's causing so much controversy. Even if the fact is coming from the company's website, the fact is still rather misleading. And from a LEGO stand point, the company wants everyone to think that so much LEGO brick is owned and it's so popular, when really the case is that there are a certain amount of people that own just one lego set and then there are those that own 239048239048239048 million sets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.175.130 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

I'd like to back up my recent change of the paragraph concerning the LEGO Group's motto. Currently, the paragraph reads:

Lego Group motto, is "Only the best is good enough." This motto was created by Ole Kirk Christiansen to encourage his employees never to skimp on quality, a value he believed in strongly. The motto is still used within the company today. However, the Danish translation is little different which is 'Det bedste er ikke for godt'.

I changed it to read:

Lego's motto is "Only the best is good enough", translated from the Danish phrase, Det bedste er ikke for godt. This motto was created by Ole Kirk to encourage his employees never to skimp on quality, a value he believed in strongly. The motto is still used within the company today.

The main problem with the current version is that (no offense intended) it sounds like it was written by a 5 year old. I was mostly just trying to clean up the grammar and punctuation, but I also made it more factually correct. The motto "Only the best is good enough" was translated from the Danish phrase "Det bedste er ikke for godt." The direct translation is "The best is not too good," but that phrasing doesn't quite convey the same meaning in English as it does in Danish. The meaning of the motto is translated as "Only the best is good enough." Furthermore, page 10 of The Ultimate LEGO Book says the motto translates to "only the best is good enough." In conclusion- the two translations of the LEGO Group's motto are fundamentally the same, so please do not revert my revision again. -HotWheels(53) Talk 18:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First it shouldn't say 'Lego's' which is incorrect. Yes, there is a slightly different translation between the Danish and English of the meaning. This is the reason why both sides are mention, because someone (who might be Danish) kept changing the motto in the section. If you check the past wiki 'history' regarding to section, you will understand. I am aware of the book "The Ultimate LEGO Book" states the motto is "only the best is good enough." However as mention Danish phrase "Det bedste er ikke for godt" the direct translation is "The best is not too good." Is the reason why there is a slight difference in the meaning? I have no problem with the statement now. But, If someone changes it to "The best is not too good" because of the Danish meaning is "Det bedste er ikke for godt." The section will have to reflect both difference and meanings to be fair. Both translations are not fundamentally the same in meaning. GoTLG 19:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually in this usage "Lego's" is correct because it's being used as a possessive noun, not plural. If we were saying "A handful of Legos" it would be incorrect, but this is different. I see someone has changed it to not say "Lego's" now anyway. So, let's get back on topic. I asked someone who speaks Norwegian (a language which is extremely similar to Danish) to translate "Det bedste er ikke for godt" for me and he said it directly translates to "The best is not too good," however he also said that what it is trying to say is closer to "Only the best is good enough." You need to realize that because Danish and the other Scandinavian languages developed separately from English, the same phrase can mean different things in the different languages. The English phrase "Only the best is good enough" is much closer in meaning to the Danish phrase Ole Kirk Christiansen coined in the 1930s than "The best is not too good" is. Am I making sense? HotWheels53 (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I notice it has been change. I don't disagree with you regarding to the motto. I was stating someone was changing translation to "The best is not too good". If you check the 'wiki' history, reverting back and fourth and so on, I thought to be fair, show both translations both Danish and English. The use of 'Lego's' is not proper even though it is a possessive noun. You don't call, Ebay: Ebay's, Microsoft: Microsoft's, and others. GoTLG 18:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we would use phrases such as "Ebay's logo" and "Microsoft's budget" in English. "Lego's" is perfectly grammatical. --McGeddon (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Who is 'we'? And its the fault of American English to say "Lego's" where as Internationally its "Lego". Both eBay and Microsoft were just two small examples. There is no need to list every product or company name. To say "Ebay's logo" ...how many logos does eBay have? I believe only one type of logo. GoTLG 23:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if there is only type of logo for eBay. The fact is it belongs to eBay, so it would be "eBay's logo". LEGO's is proper because it is possessive. The motto belongs to the company. That's the point. It's not plural. And it is written in English, so it should follow English grammar rules. Other languages have different ways of displaying possession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.99.2 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
"We" are English speakers; I'm assuming from the context of this talk section that you're Dutch, and are unfamiliar with plural/possessive distinctions in English. Please be careful about correcting the grammar in Wikipedia articles if English is not your first language. --McGeddon (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LEGO

Shouldn't the title be in all caps? ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 10:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia uses "standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'". It's explained further in MOS:TM. --McGeddon (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 13:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was there once rubber lego

I remember playing with all-brown Lego blocks at school around 1953 which seemed to be very like the current ones, but made of a more rubber-like material (hardly cellulose acetate). Can anyone confirm what exactly this was? --Memestream (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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. LUGNET is the perfect place to ask that question. -ErinHowarth (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LEGO_brick.png

It's better than the previous, low-quality image, but does anybody else feel that the computer-generated image we're using in Image:LEGO_brick.png isn't particularly well illustrative? The sides of the brick appear to be sloping inwards, and it's not entirely obvious that this is actually a solid, rectangular block. --McGeddon (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Way too much perspective, in my opinion. I keep meaning to re render this in POVRay with the camera settings changed so that while it's still a perspective, the vanishing points are much "farther away"... or even just render it in isometric. I seem to recall commenting on this previously, a long time ago. :) I think the person who rendered it maybe did't know how to change camera settings? (basically you pull the camera back and then narrow the field of view). (The preceding was a very long winded variant on "yes" :) ) ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK lego Manuals are rendered isometric, so i suggest we use that also here... 86.80.219.48 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry Lar, that was me. I meant to but never found time, then forgot about it. I'll still try to get it done again, but if you or someone else gets to it first that's great too. If we render it in isometric it won't look like a photo, we need a tiny bit of perspective to make it look real. I guess if we do want an isometric view we could just take a screenshot of a brick in MLCAD or Bricksmith and forget rendering altogether. -HotWheels53 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lego

Lego is a building toy but not for children under 3 years.This is how to stick them:put a brick on top of another and press it.Lego mans are for making lego games or creating something with it.Legomans also have something on top of there head fir puting wigs,hats,or other stuff on it or make it wear something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolol (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "commonly referred to as "Lego bricks""

I'm sorry, but I feel that statement is wrong. Apparently this has been discussed before, but I am not going to go through 5 archives from the last 4 years to find one discussion. (If someone feels like summarizing the previous discussion for me that would be great). For now, though, I need to make my point. Saying that LEGO's flagship product is commonly referred to as Lego bricks is basically saying that the most common term for the brick is Lego bricks. I cannot believe that this is true. In the U.S. the most common term, by far, is Legos. Legos is even the term used by major news sources (for example see: [1] for all instances of the word "legos" on the New York Times website). Even if this is technically wrong and not what the company wants, it is the most common term. Therefore, I do not think it is proper to state "commonly referred to as Lego bricks." I am not saying the line should be changed to "commonly referred to as legos" as that would imply that that is the proper term. I am saying, however, that the line should not say anything about commonality at all since it is apparently a touchy subject. My most recent edit, "The company's flagship product, "Lego bricks", consist ...", seems, to me, to fix the problem. The statement eliminates any problems when it comes to debating whether or not legos or lego bricks is the most common and does not imply anything against the company's wishes. According to the edit summary, GoTLG reverted my edit because I changed the word consists to consist. I only did this because Lego bricks,the new subject, was changed to be plural. If that is actually the case and I did not misinterpret GoTLG's summary, my edit should stay and the sentence should read "The company's flagship product, Lego bricks, consist of colorful interlocking plastic bricks..." Should it be changed, or am I just wrong?--Kyle(talk) 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the grammar in Microsoft word and I was wrong about consist versus consists, however, my issue with the word common still stands.--Kyle(talk) 03:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not gonna into this huge debate over this problem. The only thing base on the edit summary I removed is 'simply legos' statement. Also, I did not change 'consists' to consist only Kyle did. If you are not gonna read through 5 archives, and rely only on 'Google' or US newspaper such as New York Times as your source of information that is a problem. There are many other newspapers besides the New York Times in the world. TV media, websites and newspapers in the US have made the mistake of saying or typing 'Legos'. It is not the most common term to say 'legos' in the world. It is however more of a American problem and not the rest of the world. You have to look at the big picture when it come to information and adding to this site. Since everybody seem to use 'Wikipedia' and 'Google' as a source for writing a report for work or school. It is also a trademark problem both in the business and writing world, when typing or saying 'Legos'. ~~ GoTLG

I do not think that you understood everything that I said.
First off, my problem was with your second revert (see my edit and your revert). You removed the simply legos statement in the first revert. In my second edit, I had only changed the line to not say anything about commonality and I changed the word consists to consist. I never accused you of changing consists to consist. Besides, I have already said that I was wrong to change consists in the first place.
Second, it is perfectly reasonable for me not to read through 5 archives of this talk page to find one discussion about whatever we are talking about. I do not have that kind of time.
Third, I am aware that there are other newspapers in the world besides the New York Times. I was only using them as an example of how, in the U.S., legos is the most common term. Do a quick search on nearly any news website in the U.S. and you will see that legos is the most common, I only used the NY Times as an example due to their prominence. I never said that legos was the most common term in the world. I was only saying how legos is the most common in the U.S. even if it is wrong. The only thing I was disputing in my statement was the use of the word 'common' since, the fact is, it is not the most common everywhere. I will be happy as long as the word common is not there, I don't care whether or not it says Lego bricks or legos.--Kyle(talk) 23:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This can be a relatively easy fix. Just mention that in the US (using NY Times and various other sources) they're commonly called "legos" and in other parts of the world "lego bricks" (using proper sources).
Note this is not specific to the U.S. In English and French Canada, the common term is also "Legos", regardless of what the company wishes people would use. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Which may be true, however there needs to be a citation indicating that that's what they're called in Canada. They could call them "ping pongs" in Hamilton, but unless there's verifiability, then it shouldn't be in the article. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 08:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)