Talk:Lego

Name Change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to propose that this page, as well as any other page with the name "Lego", be changed to LEGO. LEGO is incorrect, while LEGO is correct. DHninjaman (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's been proposed before. We don't capitalise LEGO per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. --Goodsmudge^(Talk) 12:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is an invalid counterargument, as the name LEGO is an acronym (leg godt); see WP:CAPSACRS two slots above the rules on trademarks. Compare the relevant examples RAND Corporation and NATO; both of these are commonly written as "Rand Corporation" and "Nato" by many publications ("Nato" is especially common outside of the United States), but the Wikipedia style rules require capitals. --Nessunome (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not an acronym that I am aware of. Lego is derived from it, but not intended as an acronym. Яehevkor ✉ 19:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not an acronym, but it's also unlikely to have been derived from the Danish, more likely from the Latin. Unless there's some proof for the Danish derivation that should be removed. 69.158.143.43 (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not an acronym. The name is derived from the Danish words "leg godt", but the name isn't an acronym of such, just trademarked in all-caps. See this YouTube video created and released by the LEGO Group as a source for the name being derived from "leg godt". --George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 20:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes, I know it's not an acronym, that's why I said "It's not an acronym." If I thought it was, probably I'd have said "It's an acronym." I'm not sure why you think that video by Lego is proof of anything - "It was derived from these words because we said so." That video has other lies in it - they say nothing about how they stole the idea of Lego from another company (Kiddicraft) which invented something identical to Lego (though apparently not as well made) ten years earlier. You need to work on your reading skills - does your mind wander a lot? Maybe the internet itself is to blame. 69.158.167.5 (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2013

Please create a section called Museum in main section and updated the following content. Visvesvaraya Industrial and Technological Museum (VITM) in association with Edutech India held a demonstration for students of classes 8 to 10. The event was organised as part of International Museum Day celebrations. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/when-a-museum-became-an-exciting-place/article4729097.ece

Edutechwiki (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be directly related to Lego.. article doesn't even mention Lego by name. Unless it was some kind of official Lego run event I don't think it warrants a mention here. Яehevkor ✉ 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - "museum uses some Lego during an open day" is trivial.  Not done --McGeddon (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fan presence

I suggest that we add a section to this article about the notable fan presence, including AFOLs, a strong online community, worldwide LUGs, and conventions and exhibitions. Most if not all of the lego convention articles that currently exist are also not mentioned anywhere else in Wikipedia's main space. I have a feeling that the LUG pages aren't either.

The information doesn't really fit in "The Lego Group", nor the page "Lego in popular culture", but a section in this article may be appropriate.--ɱ (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Lego store image

I rather agree with Raysonho on the inclusion of the image. The only other image like it on the page is the 'Lego at MoA' image, which doesn't tell you much, and doesn't look like the legoland parks, discovery centers, or lego stores that you see today. Raysonho's photo does present a depiction of the typical lego store, and that's worthy of inclusion along with or certainly over that of a photo of an old store, where it's hard to make out what that small photo depicts, being a very small and visually cluttered image.--ɱ (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ɱ, I was going to leave a message here, but you have pretty much summarized what I wanted to say!

Just want to add 1 more point: A physical store does have value to most people, and that's why Apple (see my 17 photos of Toronto 4 Apple Stores), Google, and Microsoft (and my 9 photos of the Toronto Microsoft Store) are opening physical stores everywhere. One can't visit a "Brick and Mortar" store on Wikipedia, but a photo of a physical store is the next best thing. Raysonho (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is overuse or additional images or some like the same images on the Lego page which has been a problem in the past. Thats why there are a lots of Lego related pages. Adding additional image Lego store on the page does not make sense. GoTLG (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your wording doesn't make sense. I have no idea what you're trying to say.--ɱ (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I understand my wording might not make sense. What I am trying to get across is that one image showing a 'Lego store' should be fine. I don't think having additional image of a Lego store is needed on the Lego page. It is just an example of a Lego store, not 'all' Lego stores look the same. GoTLG (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case, would you be okay if we removed the Mall of America Lego Imagination Center store image, and added in the Fairview Mall, Canada store image?--ɱ (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The first brand retail 'flagship' Lego store open in 1992 was the Lego Imagination Center or known at the Lego Company as 'Store #1'. It's okay just 'add back' the Fairview Mall, Canada image and not remove the 'flagship' store. GoTLG (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:GoTLG's earlier comment that the article only needs one image of a store, and I'm of the same opinion as User:Ɱ that File:LEGOStoreFairviewMall10.JPG is a much clearer one than File:Lego at MoA.JPG (from the thumbnail I assumed the latter was a close-up of a jumble of Lego in a shop window). --McGeddon (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. And when I first saw the thumbnail, I had no idea what it was depicting and had no idea how it could depict a store. People at TLG must have thought similarly, because the remodeled MoA store looks much 'cleaner' in design, not nearly as jumbled as the old design was.--ɱ (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to Italian article

Please create a link to the Italian wikipedia page for Lego. I have unable to do it as it gives me an error: "Site link LEGO is already used by item Q1063455. Perhaps the items should be merged and one of them deleted? Request deletion of one of the items at Wikidata:Requests for deletion, or ask at Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts if you believe that they should not be merged." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.42.243 (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Carniolus (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Full-sized LEGO Car?

Hey there, I remember that recently there was a full sized LEGO car which actually ran - built sometime at the end of 2013. This seems relevant to the section discussing the full-sized LEGO X-Wing. How about we add that? dwmc (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here is a relevant link to a description: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173167-worlds-first-full-size-lego-car-can-hit-20-mph-powered-by-insane-1048-piston-compresed-air-engine

dwmc (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)