Talk:Free Universal Construction Kit

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Universal Adapter Brick

• ... that the Free Universal Construction Kit (detail pictured) facilitates interoperability between ten popular children's construction toys? Source: https://www.cooperhewitt.org/2018/01/09/27951/ https://studioforcreativeinquiry.org/project/free-universal-construction-kit https://www.flong.com/archive/projects/free-universal-construction-kit/index.html
  • ALT1: ... that the Free Universal Construction Kit (detail pictured) makes Lincoln Logs work with Legos? Source: https://studioforcreativeinquiry.org/project/free-universal-construction-kit
  • ALT2: ... that the Free Universal Construction Kit (detail pictured) connects ten otherwise incompatible children's construction toys? Source: https://www.cooperhewitt.org/2018/01/09/27951/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Wisaksono Wirjodihardjo
  • Comment: Using QPQ from previous nom (which, as of this date, remains unresolved).

Moved to mainspace by Cl3phact0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: ALT1 and ALT2. New enough (moved to mainspace 8 Nov, nom 9 Nov), long enough (3370 B), EW 25.4% mostly because of two long-ish but properly cited quotes, QPC done. My first preference is ALT1 as it provides a great instant visual, or ALT2 as a back-up for its simpler verbs. I think for ALT0, 'facilitates interoperability' may seem a touch jargony for some readers. It also may need quote marks, to be consistent with the lede's use of them for that phrase. Great job on the article and the hooks! Zzz plant (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I very much appreciate that welcome outcome! Your critique of the primary (ALT0) hook is spot-on. It is indeed "a touch jargony" (and re-reading it now, it also seems overly cautious, dull, and humourless – "once bitten, twice shy" I suppose). Let's yeet it and go with ALT1 instead (assuming everyone agrees). Short, pithy, and more likely that readers will find it intriguing. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Top image

We may be able to use this photo for the top image (it might give a slightly better visual understanding of how the system works). This file is available in a number of places; the licence appears to be CC BY SA or CC BY NC SA. Expert advice regarding image rights would be appreciated. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The license is CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 which is not allowed on Commons. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: was there some site in particular that led you to believe this might be available as CC BY-SA? It is possible that they rights-holder offered more than one license. - Jmabel | Talk 23:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

This site shows a BY-NC-SA 3.0 licence. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Scrub that. It's no good either. I'll keep digging. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Acronym ("sophomoric" but factual)

@Herostratus: You recently made this edit, which presumes that "F.U.C.K is our own coinage" (i.e., WP:OR). In fact, it is the authors of the project themselves who initially used this acronym (it's in one of their video clips, some of the "promotional" material, and various other sources from the period in time when the project was first published). This may indeed have been "sophomoric", but it is a fact. While Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, I chose to omit this detail from the DYK (and indeed, the name of the article itself) for reasons probably not too different from those which led you to make this edit, however its inclusion in the article itself was historically accurate. I'm indifferent, but think that it bears mention. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

​PS: This, this, this, and this, as well as many instances on Flickr use the offending acronym (F.U.C.K.). I haven't bothered to pour heaps of time into this, but I'm reasonably certain that there are more instances of the work being referred to with both title and acronym – or there were just a brief while ago when we published this. I fairly remain indifferent, but lean towards reinserting the offending four letters. (FWIW, it does appear that someone may have sanitised a few of the other sources in the interim – perhaps the auteurs have grown out of their puerile sensibilities with the onset of middle-age?) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Another reference from about the time when this project first aired (nb. see the comments section too). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)