Talk:Lego

Competitors

I have reinstated the short section below, as the overthrow of Lego's patent protection is a very significant devlopment in the product's life cycle. The content is:

For over 40 years Lego succeeded in protecting its market through patent and trademark law. However in 2004 its monopoly was broken in the German courts by Best-Lock Construction Toys, which markets cheaper but compatible construction set.

Information regarding patent, trademark and competitors was reorganize to be moved to the 'Lego Group' page. There is a difference between 'Lego' as the toy product and the company which is 'Lego Group'. The reason was that some information was being cross posted twice in the past and was decided to separate the information. GoTLG (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2011

Lego's are awsome

24.147.31.210 (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but this won't be added to the article. ;-) AstroCog (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation required that there is no pluralisation of LEGO. "I played with Legos" is wrong. As with Fish, Sugar and Deer, it is one piece of LEGO AND nine pieces of LEGO. This seems to be a media epidemic in the US.12.189.32.36 (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction: LEGO "is" awesome, or LEGO's awesome, NOT: Lego's are awesome.70.41.96.39 (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

````Feb 9,2012 James "Nanoforge" Evans

I just wanted to make the owners aware that the LEGO page is missing a set under its discontinued items list. Galidor had a LEGO License during its run on television back in the early 2000's. There remains some of the products pages at LEGO dot com that can be found through the link on the Wikipedia Galidor page in the external links sector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanoforge (talk • contribs) 06:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:DowntownDisney-Lego-TRex-2008.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DowntownDisney-Lego-TRex-2008.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:DowntownDisney-Lego-TRex-2008.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

wat is the plural of lego

i mean for a collection of bricks. lego or legos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.2.187 (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Lego bricks". "Legos" is a common usage, but "LEGO" is the name of the brand, and the pieces themselves are called "bricks". If you're a kid, then other kids probably won't tease you for saying "legos", but if you're an adult LEGO enthusiast, then other enthusiasts will take issue with the term. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

LEGO is definitely treated as a count noun in American English and as a mass noun in British and Hiberno-English. I don't know about Australian, New Zealand and Canadian English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.16.99 (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The ton is not a unit of pressure...

Re: "It is then injected into the molds at pressures between 25 and 150 tons", the ton is a unit of mass or force, but not pressure. To wit, 100 tons per square inch is very different to 100 tons per square foot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.16.99 (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Lego

Hi, I seem to have opened a Wikipedia can of worms by embarking on an edit to clarify that the origins of what we now know as Lego bricks lie not in Denmark but in England.

The current Lego page only makes oblique reference to this by mentioning an English patent.

However, the Wikipedia entry for Lego states:

"Lego bricks ... The toys were originally designed in the 1940s in Denmark" with the clear implication that the design/innovation was Danish.

This inference is misleading, and is made in the first paragraph of the Lego page.

My understanding, following quite a bit of research, is that Hilary FIsher Page invented the interlocking bricks concept which was then copied by Lego, who did not go on to acquire the rights to the concept until 1981.

I suspect Lego will be very interested in maintaining at least the misunderstanding that the concept was invented in Denmark, and the way the Lego page is written and edited is very carefully consistent with such a goal.

I merely seek to introduce some balance and recognition for Page as the original inventor/innovator.

I would be interested in comments, thoughts and views in respect of the above, and how I might correctly go about correcting what I consider to be a mistake at best, and a deliberate PR initiative at worst.

Clearly, there are editors out there who are willing to (maybe justifiably, given the Wikipedia requirements/guidelines) jump on my initial edit(s) but the current page appears to neatly skirt around the truth and maintain the myth about the origin of the concept.

Thank you.

Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pohutukawa (talk • contribs) 10:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Above editor filed a request here: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Please assist with edits that others - in particular one editor - keeps on reverting ("Lego" Wikipedia page). Their request includes a rationale of sorts, with sources. Яehevkor ✉ 10:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the Kiddicraft-angle is already in the article (In the Early History section), may I suggest a simple compromise: Simply changing the sentence in the lead: "The toys were originally designed in the 1940s in Denmark" to "The toys were originally designed in the 1940s". Period. Based on current available sources, however, I cannot support including any mention of Kiddicraft in the lead itself (again, it is already mentioned in the History section), but this compromise would be the most neutral solution I think. Danmuz (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Danmuz for your constructive comments and suggestions. Before we embark on this consensus-centric process, I would like to clarify participant's interests in the issue so we can avoid any conflicts in arriving at as accurate an outcome as possible. I have no connection with Lego or any aspect of the Danish design industry. I am not Danish nor do I have any commercial or otherwise connections with the toy industry whatsoever. I do not have any interests that are in any way dependent/connected to the material under discussion. Further, I am interested in why you state " I cannot support including any mention of Kiddicraft in the lead itself" without qualifying this. It appears to be an entrenched, absolute position that is non-negotiable, and I'm interested in knowing why this is the case. Based on the research I have undertaken I can see clear evidence to the contrary. Anyway, before we go down that route we need to establish the neutrality of editors. If you have any questions concerning my motivations or similar, please let me know and I will do my best to answer your question(s). Regards, --Pohutukawa (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all I strongly recommend you read Wikipedia's principle about assuming good faith and do not try to make this a person-debate (and no, I have no affiliation with Lego). Back to the topic: This is an article about Lego, not Kiddicraft. Based on the currently available sources, to the best of my knowledge, including a mention of Kiddicraft in the lead would be a case of giving undue weight. There is not enough support for giving such weight from reliable sources. Danmuz (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, it seems that the good faith principle wasn't applied in the case of my original, somewhat (process-ignorant) edits where the reason given for reverting was vandalism. Anyway, if you are completely unconnected with Lego then that is something. Turning to the topic, which is an article about Lego: the term "Lego" came to mean - and this belief persists - the actual blocks/bricks that the company Lego produced, marketed and sold globally. As you probably know, Lego famously sued Tyco, and continues to vigorously assert their IP rights, so this is central to what Lego is: an IP-owning, marketing and sales business. So Lego is a business that first and foremost is built on IP. The original invention and initial development of their "flagship product" is therefore completely relevant to this page. Indeed, given the IP nature of the company, it is a central and fundamental issue. You state that mentioning Kiddicraft would give undue weight to this issue. Not at all. In fact, the current page gives completely undue weight to the incorrect notion that Lego somehow invented the interlocking brick concept. I can tell from your writing that you are relatively fluent in English and obviously have a good analytical grasp. You therefore must know what I am talking about. The current page clearly seeks to gloss over the origins issue, and mentions Kiddicraft obliquely some way down the page. Concerning the issue of "currently available sources", are you aware of the original Page patents for the invention and ongoing development of interlocking plastic bricks, and the marketing of the same from 1939 under the name of "Bri-Plax Interlocking Building Cubes"? For example, from the European Patent Office, here is an example of one of Page's patents, from April 1939, concerning improvement in the building blocks system he invented. There are multiple patents asserted by Page in respect of the building blocks that the world, in the main, attributes the invention of incorrectly to Lego. In the Tyco (Interlego A.G. v. Tyco Industries [1989]) case, action was launched following the obtaining of the building brick patents from Page's window in 1981 for 45000.00 UK pounds. In summary: if it can be shown that the original inventor of the plastic, coloured building-block concept was Page, as I believe it can, then the origin of the "flagship product" of the Lego business absolutely deserves to be given significant and chronological prominence on Lego's page. Without the plastic blocks, Lego may indeed never had been known outside Billund. --Pohutukawa (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Saddhiyama and Danmuz: you are both all over the place, so I am introducing some structure to the discussion so that we may focus on specifics (denoted by numbers/letters), instead of broad-brush, general dismissals and unjustified intransigent positions. --Pohutukawa (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the Kiddicraft connection is already mentionend in the proper section, and since you have yet to provide any reliable secondary sources, but only a primary source an unreliable fan-homepage as well as personal conjecture, there is no reason why this should be includeded in the lead of the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Saddhiyama: 1. I don't accept that Kiddicraft is mentioned in the proper section. Please explain why you consider it to be in the correct location. 2. I don't see how a series of patents from the European Patent Office fails to qualify as reliable secondary sources. I provide a link above to one of Page's patents. What is your issue with such sources, and what would you accept as a reasonable source? It seems that you are prepared to dismiss anything as a fan-homepage/extreme content/etc. in order to promote your views. 3. Have you read or even seen a copy of this book that is referenced by the current claim that the blocks were developed in Denmark? Surely you will be concerned as to the veracity of that claim? I am beginning to conclude that you are just an intertia troll, and not really interested in the truth of the matter. Come on! Make some constructive suggestions and do a bit of research. Have a sense of what's right and wrong! Please convince me you are interested in accurate information (you have not challenged the claim that the blocks were developed in Denmark). --Pohutukawa (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Pohutukawa, I do not contest that "These bricks were based largely on the patent of Kiddicraft Self-Locking Bricks", an information that is already mentioned in the right place in the article. It is your conclusion that it makes Lego first and foremost "an IP-owning, marketing and sales business" and the implications thereof, something which would indeed warrant a mention of Kiddicraft in the lead (and which would implied by the addition of such mention), that I disagree with. Such a conclusion is not for Wikipedia to draw, but must - not least given how defining it is - be backed up by an abundance of reliable sources demonstrating that to be the case and not just a fringe theory backed by few sources. I have seen no such evidence. Hence, my original proposal of modifying the sentence in the lead still stands, as do my opposition to mentioning the Kiddicraft-connection in the lead. --Danmuz (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Pohutukawa, please stop with the personal attacks and assumption of bad faith, I am not going to say it again. The patents are primary sources, and can be used only to source that the fact Kiddicraft at one point had the patent on a specific kind of interlocking blocks. The rest of your claims are not supported by anything else than your own interpretation and the Kiddicraft fansite (which is not a reliable secondary source). --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Danmuz: A. The origins of the building blocks was important enough to mention in the lead previously. Now, assuming I can show that the original development of the blocks was not in Denmark, and not in fact Lego, as is implied, you deem this information of the page to be not important enough to mention in the lead? In other words, if it doesn't suit to perpetuate and promote the misunderstanding that Lego invented what we know know as Lego bricks/blocks, then you wish it relegated to a section lower in the article. Please explain clearly why you accept the current version yet the "correct" location for what I'm proposing, which deals with the same question, is elsewhere. This is pure hypocrisy. Indeed, the existing text cites a BOOK (no more or less accurate than any website) as a reference for the claim that the blocks were developed in Denmark. B. I am not proposing that the Lego page include my conclusions about Lego (your use as Straw Man). C. Why are you so adamant that Kiddicraft not be mentioned in the lead? I am proposing that it is important to mention because it was the entity that invented, produced and sold the interlocking blocks - a fact that is widely misunderstood globally. It seems only correct and fitting that this fact be given prominence. --Pohutukawa (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC) (P.S. på engelsk, kan man ikke sige "an information". Det er bedre at bruge "a fact" eller "something" i steded for).

Pohutukawa, since you have not brought forth any reliable sources nothing has changed, and I will repeat myself as closing remarks on my part: "Based on the currently available sources, to the best of my knowledge, including a mention of Kiddicraft in the lead would be a case of giving undue weight. There is not enough support for giving such weight from reliable sources." Danmuz (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Danmuz: Demonstrate that you're not simply being obstructive and are as interested as I am in a neutral, balanced entry for Lego in Wikipedia. I've separated out some questions below to make it easy for you. So let's boil this down: We agree that what are now known as "Lego bricks" are based largely on the patent of Kiddicraft toy bricks. Further, you agree that Kiddicraft should be mentioned.

So we just disagree with where and how, correct?

We agree that the current "The toys were originally designed in the 1940s in Denmark" is not correct. Your suggested "The toys were originally designed in the 1940s." is not correct either, as the interlocking blocks were invented in the late 1930s, with further development patented patented in 1939.

So what would be acceptable to you?

You are willing to give prominence to the current version of the origins of Lego that you find acceptable by supporting its inclusion it in the lead, yet not my version, which you demand must stay further down in the entry.

Please explain your position here, as it seems hypocritical to me.

I thought that this was supposed to be a consensus-forming process, not a statement of bottom-lines and then ignoring everything else? Thanks. --Pohutukawa 06:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Pohutukawa, It appears to me that there is a possible misunderstanding. We do not agree that "what are now known as "Lego bricks" are based largely on the patent of Kiddicraft toy bricks". I said I did not contest that "These bricks were based largely on the patent of Kiddicraft Self-Locking Bricks", but I was specifically referring to Lego's original "Automatic Binding Bricks". Sorry if that was not clear. When stating what is known now it can be understood to include Lego bricks of today, or even throughout most of Lego's history, but this is strictly a matter of the earliest Lego bricks, then known as "Automatic Binding Bricks", and their origin. A lot of development happened after that by the Lego company (and that is well documented by reliable sources), which is also why I find the notion that Lego is first and foremost "an IP-owning, marketing and sales business" ludicrous. Anyhow, there is really no point to discussing that further, it would be pointless. The goal is to find out what should be in the lead, and how. Yes, we do agree that my first compromise suggestion is not an improvement after all, so I withdraw it. I will try to think of a better phrasing (without giving undue weight to the Kiddicraft-connection). For now I don't consider the current wording directly false (If The toys is understood as Lego bricks) so I think it can remain until a more neutral wording has been agreed on. Perhaps other editors could weigh in as well. --Danmuz (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Danmuz: I appreciate the clarification, but still disagree with you. Currently, the lead states The toys were originally designed in the 1940s in Denmark. I suggest you consider the definition of the words origin and design and ask yourself, even if one accepts toys as being Lego Bricks in the context of the lead, whether Lego can be the origin and/or designer of the concept of interlocking plastic toy bricks. When speaking of the origin or design of something, the reference is not to further development or refinement, it is to the initial conceptual development, the idea, of something. The start, not the remixing or reinterpretation of something else. I am not saying that Lego has not further developed the original Kiddicraft interlocking plastic toy brick concept (it would appear on the face of it that Lego has done this). It is for this reason that the place to mention the origins of the key concept of interlocking, coloured, plastic toy bricks is the lead, including the person or entity that first developed the idea. Simple. The place to talk about origins is in the beginning of the entry, not elsewhere. I do note that you do not apply the same level of critique levelled at my proposals to your own opinions about what belongs where and what would be acceptable. Briefly, it seems to me that Lego has built a business based on somebody else's idea, and that you appear to be acknowledging this on the one hand through your support of the Kiddicraft mention later in the entry, yet are effectively stalling and being obstructive about the inclusion of this in the lead - på engelsk siger man at man vil have smør på begge sider af brødet - you still haven't been clear as to why. So, if adequate sources can be found for what I am suggesting, can I take it that you (I have given up on Saddhiyama) will support, in principle (wording yet to be agreed of course), this inclusion of such information in the lead? Lego appears to be enjoying the reputation as the inventor of the innovative interlocking coloured toy brick concept yet I believe (and consider can be documented) that this reputation may very well be undeserved. Doesn't that grate against your principled Danish sensibilities? Ask anyone you know whether Lego invented the colourful little plastic bricks and they will undoubtedly say yes. Go on - try it, I dare you! --Pohutukawa 09:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Danmuz's suggestion. Pohutukawa has simply not provided a sufficient reason, nor any sources for that matter, for the inclusion of their claims in the lead. Furthermore, as has also been pointed out, there does seem to be problems of WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerning some of the claims. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Saddhiyama: Whatever. I suggest you read WP:OR and WP:NPOV carefully, especially the further reference to common sense and the inclusion on both linked guidance pages of the following: "... a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" (my emphasis). --Pohutukawa 10:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Such things can be overridden with a consensus and a very good reason. Neither of which seems to have been achieved here. Яehevkor ✉ 10:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Pohutukawa, If you can bring forth multiple (a single source will not be enough, even if reliable, considering the vast amount of reliable sources dealing with Lego, and the great significance of the claim and the "statement" made by including it in the lead. "Undue weight" should neither be given to viewpoints nor their sources) independent, and unquestionably reliable new sources that fully supports your version, of course I will in principle (wording yet to be agreed) support a mention in the lead. Danmuz (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

After careful consideration, here is my new suggestion for a change to the sentence in the lead: The toys were originally designed in the 1940s in Denmark. I suggest changing it to: The toys were originally put into production by Lego in 1949. That is in my opinion a relevant information, as well as (and to the best of my knowledge) an undeniable fact, regardless of any Kiddicraft-connection. I am open to suggestions to changing the exact wording, but please do not try to include the Kiddicraft-connection in that sentence. Let's keep that discussion separate, please. Danmuz (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering the current lack of reliable sources, this seems like a good compromise to me. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Danmuz: OK, let's set aside the Kiddicraft connection for a moment and focus on the current wording. Your suggestion is a huge improvement on the existing. However, your suggested change in its context maintains the overall inference that Lego developed/invented the idea of interlocking, coloured plastic toy bricks ("Toy Bricks"). You are defaulting to this position where there is no evidence that this is the case. My current feeling is that this is Lego's aim: to not talk about this area of the flagship product's history and nurture the idea that Lego was the innovator without having to make this claim explicitly. Neither of Lego's Kristiansens, to my knowledge, has never acknowledged or spoken/written in any detail about this, and others appear unwilling to do so either (why is a good question). For example, neither Weincek's The World of Lego Toys nor Abrams/Kristiansen's The Ultimate Lego Book mention Kiddicraft bricks. How do you propose that we avoid the inference that Lego was the inventor of the Toy Bricks? I look forward to your further, good-faith consideration. Pohutukawa 07:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean how we are to steer away from what every reliable secondary source are claiming and accept your original research version? The patent only tells us that a patent for interlocking blocks were claimed by Kiddicraft at such a date, nothing about how they are related to Lego or exactly what the connection is. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Pohutukawa, the new sentence is correct in itself, but perhaps it can be made clearer that it refers specifically to Lego bricks. Perhaps like this: The Lego bricks were originally put into production by Lego in 1949. Only problem is that it's a slightly awkward sentence with the double mention of Lego. I'm open to suggestions for a rephrasing, but here and now I cannot support any changes to the lead other than this specific sentence. Danmuz (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Danmuz: The sentence might be correct but in my view it is wholly misleading. You are avoiding the question of the inference that Lego invented the Toy Bricks. I have the distinct impression that you and Saddhyyama, both Danes, are fundamentally against anything that isn't consistent with the myth (my opinion) that Lego invented Toy Bricks. This explains why you are only interested in messing a bit with the wording but seek only to maintain the general gist of the text. Kindly address the question of inference, as the lead does not make it clear who was responsible for the initial innovation of the interlocking Toy Bricks. If there is some evidence that Lego invented the concept then let's have it please. Pohutukawa (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"neither Weincek's The World of Lego Toys nor Abrams/Kristiansen's The Ultimate Lego Book mention Kiddicraft bricks" This is your own quote. And shows exactly why it is up to you to find strong evidence in form of reliable sources that the lead should be changed the way you want. You seem to refuse to understand how Wikipedia works, furthermore you continue to insinuate motives from both me and Saddhiyama. Question: Do you accept the change to the sentence, here and now (not necessarily permanently, if a new consensus is reached it can be changed again), in the lead as I suggested, since it is an improvement although you still think it is misleading, just less misleading, as a compromise to improve the article right now (even if it can be improved further), or do you not? If you agree to this change for which there can be reached a consensus here and now, then I will change it. If not, then there is no consensus, and the lead will stay as is. Danmuz (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Danmuz: I'm all for improvement. How about "Lego began manufacturing interlocking toy bricks in 1949."? That avoids the duplication of "Lego" issue you raised and improves the current wording very, very slightly. Pohutukawa (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Pohutukawa, Thanks for the concrete proposal. I will get back to you with any suggestions for a modification soon (just to let you know I haven't abandoned the discussion if I don't reply right away). --Danmuz (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Jolly good. ←Pohutukawa (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Saddhiyama: which part of "How do you propose that we avoid the inference that Lego was the inventor of the Toy Bricks?" do you not understand? Pohutukawa (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)