Talk:LUGNET

Untitled
I took out the bit about Lugnet editting user posts for vulgarity, etc. This is untrue. - Lenny Hoffman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.24.77 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 12 April 2005


 * They do have a system called "murfling" that provides a warning about posts which contain offensive language. It doesn't censor, it just warns. I think it's kind of neat. Would that be worth mentioning in the article?Elliot Pratt 03:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be worthy of note as it is a relatively infrequently seen feature of a conferencing system. Not sure how to source it, though. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins
As Lenny resigned from his position, I took him off the list, and then a while later changed the text so that it read "Five admins" instead of six. - Kevin Blocksidge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.95.214 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 May 2005

Edited names of admins once again, to match info here: http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12976   - Kevin Blocksidge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.95.214 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 May 2005

Link issues
This sentence reads sort of funny: "The website also features a database of LEGO sets and provides links to other major LEGO sites such as LDraw.org (http://www.ldraw.org), distributor of popular LegoCAD programs; Brickshelf (http://www.brickshelf.com), free image hosting site for LEGO fans; Peeron (http://www.peeron.com), a LEGO parts inventory site; MOCpages (http://www.mocpages.com), providing web site hosting for LEGO fanatics; and a variety of themed forum sites."

Not sure how to fix it, but it sort of leaves the impression on first reading that all those other things are part of LUGNET. Maybe if the list of links were bulletized? I do have to ask, is linking to other sites important enough to warrant a paragraph larger than many of the rest? I don't know the right answer. ++Lar 05:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's ok, I didn't get the impression that those sites are part of LUGNET from reading that. I agree that the list of linked sites probably isn't necessary.  HotWheels (53) Talk 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert war?
Examine the history and you will see that there appears to be a bit of a slow running (not 3RR violating, mind you, but there nonetheless) revert war going on about Lego vs. LEGO as the proper capitalization. The current Manual of Style clearly says that here at Wikipedia, Lego is the proper usage, despite company preference. (note that BrickWiki usage guidelines are different but that's there not here). May I suggest that some sort of warning or comment (if there's a template already, great!) be placed at the top of the article to cut back on the wasted effort of the reverts? Changing capitalization policy cannot be done here, better to argue it on the MoS talk page... ++Lar 23:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

AFOL redirects to this page
"AFOL" redirects to this page, which is not very informative about what does AFOL mean.

Either a section about how the word means Adult fan of LEGO or making it redirect to new page might be a good idea.

Vexorian (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange style
This article doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. It sounds more like a blog or something. Could someone who knows more about LUGNET fix it? The article also is rather skeletal; any other information out there that could be added? - Lord Vargonius (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

BrikWars
Hi,

I heard about LUGNET through my investigations into BrikWars. BrikWars is played primarily with Lego minifigures and other Lego pieces. My understanding is that BrikWars is one topic that might plausibly be discussed via LUGNET. See. Therefore it seemed natural to me, that the LUGNET page should have a "See Also" link to BrikWars. I put one in, but someone reverted it. I do not want to get into any sort edit war, so I won't touch the LUGNET page again. But I would appreciate gaining a little more understanding on why my edit was reverted. Slimy asparagus (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)