Bad name/focus[edit]

This article is a possibly WP:TNTable essay-ish and WP:SYNTH mess. It tries to talk about 1) the single-piece 'gun' LEGO brick 2) larger guns made from several lego bricks, both as parts of official sets and fan-made - that's the artifact of the terrible first version of this article [1] and 3) the controversy about 'violent' themes in LEGO sets. It's possible there is something encyclopedic here, as the topic of violent-themed lego sets could be notable ([2], [3], [4], [5]) but the article is fatally flawed with its ORish title 'Lego gun', and simple renaming won't fix everything as the article needs a major rewrite from it's 'lego gun' narrow focus and essay/or style (like the tabloid clickbait style section of 'News incidents'). Is anyone willing to fix this? Ping User:Fieryninja . Ps. In the meantime, let's think about the better titles: LEGO and violence? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, thanks for bringing this up. When I came across this article, it was indeed a shocking mess and seemed to be filled with spam promoting YouTube videos about making Lego guns. I attempted to transform it into something worthwhile based on references, but I agree what the entire subject of the article is a mess. I'm not clear why this article is even here - maybe to serve the spammers? I can help clean this up, or as you say repurpose into a different article. Fieryninja (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fieryninja, I thought about nominating this for AfD but I think this could be rescued. Any ideas about a better title? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Piotrus I have been giving some thought about what would be the notable topic here. There is the subject of the Lego gun as an element, but I doubt that there is enough information to support an article. Secondly there is the aspect of violence in Lego toys. Do you think this is a notable subject and worthy of an article? I will point out that most of the content in the article at the moment is based on the 2016 report published in PLOS One, which created an amount of publicity in the media. It is mainly based on a single report so I would ask, is this WP:UNDUE? It is noted for example that the level of violence has risen in other toy lines, but whether there are any sources about this is a different question. Therefore is this notable as a subject about "Violence in Lego" or is this a wider topic? I can't really offer any other title suggestions. Happy to hear your thoughts. Fieryninja (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fieryninja, It would be good to look for more sources indeed. But to be honest - I tried, and I am not pretty good at finding them, and I am really surprised that I can't find almost anything besides the PLOS study (which only has 3 citations?) and its media coverage.I was aware of the LEGO's policy and I thought it surely must have been written about earlier. It's a tough call since I "feel" this topic should be notable, but yes, the coverage we get is pretty borderline for determining whether this meets WP:GNG. Still, the topic might not have been notable few years back, but I'd like to think it is rescuable. This book seems to discuss related topics for at few pages and is reliable [6]. This is short but reliable refs for controversies the topic stirs in the LEGO community. There may be something here but I don't have a good preview: [7]. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Piotrus, Thanks for the additional resources. I am familiar with some of them. So to clarify, are we going to repurpose this article under the title Violence in Lego or LEGO and violence or should I look for sources on a more general topic about "Violence in toys"? (I can research this if necessary). I want to be clear before I do any more work on this. Also, what is the procedure for changing the title? I have never done this before, so if you could help arrange this, that would be really helpful. Thanks Fieryninja (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fieryninja, Violence in toys is likely a better parent concept (and related to existing Violence and video games), but writing one would certainly take more effort. For now, I'd be happy to settle on renaming this. Violence and LEGO? Still sounds off but... title can be changed by a simple move if we agree or we can ask for community input by initiating a vote through WP:RM (I can take care of this if necessary). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Piotrus I can see that Violence in toys is probably a more balanced topic, but would require a lot of research. I'm happy to start working on Violence and Lego, so I will leave it up to you about how you want to proceed in terms of the move. When this has been renamed, I will attempt to repurpose the content. Thanks Fieryninja (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fieryninja, Move done :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Piotrus Thanks that was really fast! Hopefully we can now turn this into something that makes sense! Fieryninja (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Since the introduction of the first Lego gun in the mid 1940s"?[edit]

Can we find a source for this claim? I've been browsing [8] and it doesn't seem to have such a claim. Instead, it says plainly "The first weapon bricks—a sword, a halberd, and a lance—were released in the year 1978. " and "In 1989 the Pirates theme, which included handguns and cannons, was introduced." So unless we have a source to the contrary, this needs to be changed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Piotrus I came across another published source while researching Ole Kirk Kristiansen, which clearly states that the first Lego patent was for a wooden toy gun. The company produced a wooden pistol in 1945 and then reproduced it in plastic four years later. It was available in black, green and blue. Take a look inside the book here. [1] So, in terms of the PLOS one report, I'm not really clear what they mean by stating that the first weapon bricks were released in 1978. Clearly this source needs citing in the text with a clearer explanation. Fieryninja (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to this, the claim is supported by a copy of the actual patent - an exhibit at the Brighton Toy Museum. (See reference 1 in the text) Fieryninja (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fieryninja, I see it (Google Books: [9]) but it seems the wooden gun was not made of plastic bricks. It was a Lego company product but not a Lego-brick toy. The company dates to 1932 but the plastic bricks themselves, to 1949. So assuming our topic here is about bricks and not the company, I think the info on the 1945 gun is mostly trivia (it was a Lego-company made gun but it wasn't a gun made from lego bricks, nor a lego-component brick gun). I'd suggest removing it from the lead (but this curio can be mentioned in the body, I guess). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PiotrusIt appears that I am getting confused by the topic. I had mistakenly believed that this was about the company rather than the brick product. So if that is the case, then yes the lead needs revising. Fieryninja (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fieryninja, Ah. Well, we can discuss the topic, since it's not like it's defined by someone else. We, the writers here, get to make the choice. And that should depend on what the sources say. My understanding is that they generally talk about the issue of violence in relation to the plastic bricks, and few people know or care about the pre-brick history of the company. But what's your take on what you've seen during your reading? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Piotrus Thanks for continuing this discussion. I have been giving this article some thought and I have to be honest and say that I have a real issue with the topic as a whole. Although I worked on this article, I can now say that I feel it is unfairly focused on one toy line. The title itself seems to me to be suggestive before a reader even engages with it. I do feel this should be merged with a new article about Violence and toys. I came across this report the other day which may be helpful here. (http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/play/according-experts/young-childrens-play-fighting-and-use-war-toys) What do you think? It's just my opinion so you are of course free to disagree. Fieryninja (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fieryninja, As we discussed above, there are big missing articles (also violence and games, violence and children). We should be able to at least start something decent in one of those topics. Nonetheless, I do think that the subtopic of violence and LEGO (bricks, not the company) is fine per WP:GNG (even if not as well written as I thought, there are a few sources, that's enough), and I think the current version of the article is good enough not to warrant any major rewrites. Thanks for fixing this topic! If I start any related article, I'll be sure to notify you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Herman, Sarah (2012). Building a History: The Lego Group. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Books Ltd.
Categories