Talk:LEGO

From Brickwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

"Best" is not NPOV. The highest quality? Most flexibility in parts? What? --Astronouth7303 21 July 2005 22:30 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I've been trying to be NPOV, but I am getting a vibe from V that maybe NPOV isn't as important here as it is on Wikipedia. That may be a topic for another talk page... As to how to fix, you can always do the mealymouthed "many people consider it best" sort of phrasing... ++Lar 21 July 2005 23:31 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I'm sorry, but what does mean NPOV ? Didier
NPOV is a tenet of Wikipedia. It stands for "Neutral Point of View", expressing the idea that content should not be opinionated. The concept is very important for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia of all topics. I'm not sure that we need to worry about it too much here. I think that opinions are useful when dealing with Legos, especially when the opinions come from highly respected figures. I would prefer opinions on articles be backed, well. Eg, the article here. This article describes Legos as the "best". I would like some info as to the best in what. Legos are probably the best in quality and number of parts. Where I live, they are not the best in dollar per basic brick. If I were building a tower, for example, I would like to see what techniques that experts/wizards/other builders think are useful and what techniques they think are not that significant. I think opinions have their place here; just remember the Guidelines and back your opinions. --Venkatesh July 22, 2005 11:26 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Interestingly enough I was trying for a NPOV there but with that wording I agree it is not. My point was that most AFOLs use the L because they choose to use, often exclusively, Lego bricks believing them to be the 'best' (under whatever criteria they choose). I do think this needs stressing as it is a fundamental part of most AFOLs. There is not a MBUGNET, nor and IMBTCO for example. Can anyone think of how to say this? I'm afraid I am so used to writing "third-person neutrally" that I can't always frame things in the most appropriate way when I go outside that paradigm. --Tim 22 July 2005 11:47 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Footnote

I put in a footnote! How cool is that? I had to create two templates ( template:fn and template:fnb, cribbed from you know where) to do it but there you are1 ++Lar 22 July 2005 16:30 (Eastern Daylight Time)

1 - long time readers KNOW that ++Lar LOVES footnotes!...

As long as its not in-text citations, its great by me. Official policy is to use footnotes here. Nothing else stands a chance against them. --Venkatesh July 22, 2005 16:37 (Eastern Daylight Time)
But I wanted them in PRL convention... 2. --Tim 22 July 2005 16:51 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Be bold. go edit the templates! I was not sure what the <cite> tag did so I just hacked. important!

2 - Not italics or supers but square brackets.

important! - I don't care what the footnotes LOOK like, just that we HAVE them. Because... I love footnotes. Footnotes rule. Any questions?

What is the purpose of this article?

What exactly does an article titled "LEGO" refer to in an encyclopedia entirely about LEGO? Is it about the word "LEGO"? No, Leg godt covers that. The company? Shouldn't that be in a LEGO Group article? Perhaps this page should be a basic help page for someone who has no idea what LEGO is, and hence needed to look it up? BuilderQ 10:05, 13 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I'm inclined to agree with you. As it stands it says not a lot at all. Perhaps it should contain links to all those you just mentioned plus a brief description as you suggest, sort of like a quasi-disambiuation page. Tim 10:19, 13 August 2005 (Eastern Daylight Time)
I just created a The LEGO Company article, which contains most of the information this article contains. My suggestion would be to leave the word origin in place, but replace everything else with disambiguation. Perhaps I'll come back and do that later... Andrew 19:05 22 October 2005 (Pacific Daylight Time)
Okay, I changed my mind. I think the page should just be disambiguation. Feel free to hack away or roll back if anybody disagrees. Andrew 19:27 22 October 2005 (Pacific Daylight Time)
Personal tools