Talk:Construction set
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Construction set article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from Psychological benefits of construction toys was copied or moved into Construction set with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Deletion vote in 2005
editFor the 1 July 2005 Vote for deletion resulting in move (keep), see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Constructions set. -- Jonel | Speak 03:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Major revision
editMy major revision was prompted by my realization that I have never seen a strut system based on a D6h node. Eassin 21:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Explaining the notation
editI think it would be worthwhile to explain what the notation in the examples means, e.g. C2v (*22) nodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.192.101 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Add Cleversticks
editPlease consider adding Cleversticks to the list of construction toys Arlington row (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Split between industrial and toys
editSomeone should divide the article content between "toys" and industrial components. --70.142.41.253 (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Construction Set Comparison
editCould someone please make a graph which compares:
- What each set does or does not have
- The size of each of the units it has
I want to buy the best set I can for some novice practise engineering but am not sure what is the best novice option
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.73.132 (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it is useful to list sets by category like that. Most systems have components in more than one category - for example Technical Lego is listed separately from Lego, althhough it is compatible with the Lego brick-and-stud system. Similarly Fischertechnik is listed only as a brick-and-stud system, but it also has panels and struts held together by plastic twist fasteners in a similar manner to the Meccano nuts and bolts. So I agree we need a matrix to say what features each system has and doesn't have, rather than the division into (somewhat arbitrary) categories. Philbelb (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Bayko
editI would add Bayko, but I don't know how best to describe its connection method. Maproom (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
First picture not a photo
editThe first image, labeled "Kiddicraft and Lego building blocks in different colors" is obviously a 3D model. I believe it should be removed or replaced by a real photograph. Leosdad (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- There isn't another commons image comparing Kiddicraft and Lego bricks. Although this one is a 3d model, it appears to accurately show the difference, so I don't see a reason to remove it. (Hohum @) 14:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)