Talk:Lego

Specifically state which year ABS replaced Cellulose Acetate in the bricks

The article currently reads as follows under the 'History' section:

"In 1958, the modern brick design was developed; it took five years to find the right material for it, ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) polymer."

As phrased, this could imply that ABS was incorporated into the modern brick design in 1958. However, this is incorrect, as Cellulose Acetate was the main material used until 1963, which is when ABS replaced it. I'd recommend that the article is updated to prevent confusion.

Source: Lipkowitz, Daniel (2009). The LEGO® Book - Volume 1 (1st ed.). London: Dorling Kindersley. p. 21. ISBN 9781405341691. BenTedds42 (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done ‍ Masterofthebrick ^{‍ talk} 09:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Evaluating the article

Lead Section

The lead includes an introductory sentence which presents a concise overview of the product. The lead however, does not include a brief description of all the article's main sections. Overall, the lead section is clear and to the point by giving readers a brief introduction to the article.

Content

Everything in the article appears to be relevant to the topic. I was surprised to learn about the Robotics themes section which was a facet of the company I hadn't heard about prior to evavlutating this article. There was some missing content such as broken links to sources and an excerpt at the bottom of the article which is missing a citation necessary (shown as ^{[citation needed}). This article does not address topics related to historical underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone

The article tone is neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased. All groups seem to be equally represented, including clone businesses.

Sources and References

The sources support the claims within the article. Most links are active, but some are broken and the citation can no longer be accessed. The sources come from a wide array of authors and publications, however not all sources seem to be entirely reputable.

Talk Page

The conversations on the talk page are both respectful and helpful. There is a small stream of conversation about small changes to the article as well as enhancement suggestions. The article is rated C-class and is a level-4 vital article; Additionally it is of interest on multiple WikiProjects.

~~~~ Efl4ora (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

There ought to be a section entitled Cultural Impact, or something similar, as a place to group Lego movies along with Fan film productions like Death Star Canteen (an animated version of Eddie Izzard's standup routine).

This might also be the appropriate site for an exploration of how in UK and Commonwealth English, Lego is considered a mass noun with no plural form (the singular being Lego brick); whereas in US English, pieces of Lego collectively are known as Legos.

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024

Change the line in second paragraph that states the following old information: As of July 2015, 600 billion Lego parts had been produced.

LEGO has been producing about 60 billion Lego parts per year, and the latest information should be reflected. It should be changed to:

As of April 2024, over 1 trillion Lego parts had been produced.

Bricks1000 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. All the sources I can find about this seem to be quite spammy, to the extent where they appear to be "hey, lego hit 1 trillion parts, what about this other company recycling them?" in the headline. Not reliable to me. --Ferien (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Lego is NOT LEGO (Capitalization is MANDATORY)

We need to change every article on Wikipedia right now to LEGO. Lego is not referring to a brand, but LEGO is a brand. Capitalization of a proper noun is a mandatory because every proper noun (e.g Microsoft) needs a first capital. If it isn’t, it would end up looking weird (e.g micorsoft).

As you can see, every logo have to relate to the name of the company, so even if every proper noun needs first letter capitalization, it also needs to look the same as the logo. So, ‘Lego’ is the first step. Now we need to match it up to the logo. On every LEGO a product you see, you can see the distinguished red-box logo. This is how LEGO stands out from the clones one. And then you can the bolded, white bubble letters of all-capitalized of ‘L E G O” clearly marked and outlined by black.

Many people confuse this wrong as well. LEGO as referring to the bricks is never LEGOs or legos, as the LEGO Group says it is not mandatory to add the extra “s”, since it is a proper noun.

It is very okay to make major mistake on Wikipedia. But it is NOT okay to leave it like that because lots of people comes to read and once we make a mistake worldwide, the people worldwide begins using this. We are the main source of news, so when the power is down, Wikipedia stays on. It is why Wikipedia is the source we all know and love for the century. Thank you.

For more information, please visit the following sources:

1. [1]https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/legal/assets/blt1a4c9a959ce8e1cb/LEGO_Fairplay_Nov2018.pdf (Pg. 7 of 14, “Policing our Rights”)

2.https://x.com/LEGO_Group/status/842423564829618177

3. https://x.com/LEGO_Group/status/842115345280294912 2601:249:1A81:536E:C23:24F1:A9F9:8E65 (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and also I can see many previous responses to this discussion in the past. It is not just funny “rules” all these corporations use these days. Actually, Wikipedia will faced copyright issues when they aren’t using the exact pronouns correctly. If it a pronoun, we have no rights over it.

For example, the singer Pink (singer) (which actually have to be P!nk; that is how she created her name and her desire) created a stage name because it was HER desire to create that herself, but we changed it so now everyone is using whereas we could have easily typed in her real stage name.

It is good that in the description saying “stylized as LEGO” but it is better when people can see the logo and the word being the same.

Bionicle is okay but when people see BIONICLE, it stays out so we identify it easily as a product line of LEGO, rather than just basic word we don’t know. Also, it is way cooler and takes up the same character space if we wrote it lowercase or how Wikipedia does it.

I don’t care how Wikipedia does it but still, if I were you, I wouldn’t write Wikipedia wikipedia, but it would also be cooler if Wikipedia logo could add uppercase. Anyway, it needs a revamp. 2601:249:1A81:536E:C23:24F1:A9F9:8E65 (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Lego's use of allcaps is a stylisation - which Wikipedia's guideline says to ignore. See MOS:TMRULES (particularly the ASUS and SONY examples) and MOS:ALLCAPS (particularly bullet point 7).  Stepho  talk  07:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Well, whatever it says, I still secretly disagree. What is the cause of this mishap that requires all Wikipedia title to be normally uppercased?

Actually, even better, the Wikipedia’s guidelines STILL DOESN’T say we have to use normally uppercase in titles, as the references Stepho included is undeniably correct. It doesn’t says we can change the title, and I totally agree it is better to write without having uppercase letters, but we must make it relate as LEGO letters are posted uppercase everywhere, even on its websites, whereas Sony and similarly other companies prefer to have them normally capitalized but have their logo as they are.

Makes sense? 2601:249:1A81:536E:D19F:EC3A:787A:15BF (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

As said above, using all-caps is a stylistic choice by the Lego company. And just like all stylistic choices involving fonts, sizes, colours, italics, underlining, (tm), (R), etc the style can be removed completely and we then use the standard rules of English (ie Capitalise the first letter of a proper noun for a company name). We do this because so many companies try to make themselves stand out from the crowd using non-standard forms. Wikipedia is not here to advertise the company or to promote it in anyway. So we put it back to the common denominator and treat each company on common ground. It also means that arguments over which form to use become a non-event when we point to the style guide (these have been protracted arguments in the past).

If Lego was sufficiently worried about the form that we use then they would have contacted us a long time ago. So we can safely assume it doesn't bother them enough.  Stepho  talk  02:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)