Talk:Lego Life

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). The page was never intended to be promotional in nature and is no more promotional than a page about Facebook. The only difference between the two pages existing on Wikipedia is that Facebook has much higher coverage in the media. The content was intended to provide essential information that could potentially be useful to the 9 million children and their parents who are already using the app and may have concerns about its child safety issues. Further to NPOV, the page includes a variation of viewpoints from media sources, not all of which are positive, e.g. "Christy Matte for Common Sense Media also responded positively to the child safety functions within the app but also noted that, “there's no escape from the commercial nature of this experience”. I do not agree that the page should be nominated for speedy deletion because it has notability backed up by the citations provided. If the content is considered to be unintentionally written in a promotional way, then it can be rewritten rather than deleted. Fieryninja (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

lordeleganteagle100

Creator on lego life,Over 400 friends,Does photography,Sometimes Comics,Memes 12.190.236.42 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn’t relate to the article Ned1a Wanna talk? 15:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Kinda does ~2026-16305-15 (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Kind of. But stil he is not notable. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk me 00:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Does this website qualify as an independent source?

https://lego-life.fandom.com/wiki/LEGO_Life_Wiki CraftyPuppet093 (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Something went wrong with the link. CraftyPuppet093 (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

? The link works all right for me. But it can't be used as a source because it's a wiki (=it's user-generated). That's never reliable. Bishonen | tålk 18:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC).

Okay, but I would like to point out that literally every source listed in the references is probably outdated. CraftyPuppet093 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Lego Play

Lego Life has now been changed to Lego Play. Please add that information. Ned1a Wanna talk? 15:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Notes for GA review

@Vacant0 or @Bgsu98, would you be interested in reviewing this? Anyway, I'd like to leave this note for the reviewer: There may be a few Lego fansites cited, but those are reliable primary sources for the subject matter they cover. They are sometimes essential to use as information is not always reported in other sources. I don't think the article is 100% ready yet (I cleaned the old article's copyright violations), but it is close enough to list for review. NewAccount7295 (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Driveby comment: There are several spots where we vaguely allude to something in a way that feels unfinished:

• with the plan to incorporate more features in the coming months - What features?
• The app's senior director Robert Lowe later discussed the challenges of continuing to update and market it after the initial release - What did he say in the discussion?
• At launch, the app was described as being similar to Instagram or Pinterest - Which parts? What did the app actually do?
• Lego Play, whilst retaining some original features from Lego Life, contains other features incorporating minigames as well as allowing users to design virtual creations - Which features?
• Common Sense Media gave the app a mostly positive review - What did they say that was positive?

~ A412 ^talk! 17:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lego Life/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NewAccount7295 (talk · contribs) 21:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: WhaleFarm (talk · contribs) 19:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article, the subject is interesting.WhaleFarm (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@WhaleFarm: I've read your initial comments and I'll respond to some of the points you make:

"There is also almost nothing here about the seven years between launch and retirement. We get the 2017 launch, a couple of user and country figures, and then the app is retired in 2024. Was it successful? How did it grow? Did the design or purpose change? Why was it kept for seven years and then replaced?"

This article can be a bit tricky. There were many updates to the app until it was retired in 2024. However, most of the sources are from Q1 2017 and the most of the detailed ones are already in the article. There are a few afterwards, but they focus more on statistics and not the actual history of the app. Even most sources within the Lego community (like BrickFanatics) didn't discuss it much. So when writing this article, most of the sources require you to describe the app as it was released.

With the sources we do have could you suggest in greater detail what I could add?

Now for the three problems with the sources/links your mention:

- Sources 1,2, and 9, work fine for me?

- I fixed the link for source 11.

- As for the Buzzfeed source, they are not forbidden to be used on Wikipedia, even if the source is often avoided. This specific article was a decent review with good images and I think it should be kept. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't look real hard, but I did find a fandom entry with a bit of the history - not for use as a reference, but maybe as a time scale to find other real sources.

from lego, I found which shows growth and usage.

IEEE standards organization based a study on life, it seems really relevent. Page 63

there was a rebuild the world program at lego: based somewhat on life

APKMirror has a list of releases, also some info on parents sign up criteria for kids. A thread to pull on.

2020 reports from lego digital citizenship . Reported more than 33M downloads by the end of 2021

more lego reports: 3 references in here: I also saw a build to give that used it

I think you can fill the hole with growth, focus on safety, millions of downloads up until replacement. The IEEE SA is a detailed study, not just of lego, but for context.

This was a pretty quick search. The IEEE was a real find. I'm sure there are also articles on the release of updates.

What do you think? WhaleFarm (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@WhaleFarm: I'll take a look. Do you think you can pass 2b in the meantime however? (I can remove the Buzzfeed source if you want) I cleaned up the citations so I don't think there is much reason left to fail that criteria. NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

passed 2

I would at least like something to fill the 7 year hole, I think the IEEE SA would fill in a lot and is appropriate to the arc of your article. Maybe a couple stats to show good usage and downloads right to the end.

The webby table looks strange with just a single entry.

I think this is very close, thanks for working with me on it. WhaleFarm (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@WhaleFarm: I added those statistics as well as some information about the user verification process being updated in 2020 to fill the gap. NewAccount7295 (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Those were good additions. Are you up to adding something from the IEEE SA report? Then I would feel it was a solid GA pass. WhaleFarm (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@WhaleFarm: I did read through the report and used it for the June 2020 date of the verification change as well as the Captain Safety character and the statistic that over nine million creations were uploaded in 2019. However, a lot of what is stated in there is already in the article. NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

body of review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   minor issues could be cleaned up Done

"It released on January 31, 2017 and available until 2024."

"According to them, this decision was influenced based on"

“Inspiration for the app and its process allowing people to post creations came from...”

1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   no words to watch, fictions, list issues I think the single entry table is a little strange, prose would be better.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   all spot checks are verifyable

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   a few issues, will do more spot check

   1- I fixed archive link to better snapshot

   1,2,9 I opened and read these sources, major sources, good strong support for article. I had to use archive sources to read these to avoid paywalls.

   3 - the verge. Supports. Many of these early publications seem to be based on the same company material.

   7 - campaign. The Tan article supports the text but moch of the article derives from an interveiw with Rob Lowe. That article is also on sampaign, would be a more direct source.[]

   with the plan to incorporate more features in the coming months. the referenced source (PCmag) says "The launch version of Lego Life is only the beginning," according to the company website. "We'll be adding more and more features as the months go by, so it will just get better and better." Probably a better way to state this would be that the company web site stated, at the release, that...... Being that this was 9 years ago now, a follow up on if that happened.

   11 - doesn't open, link may be wrong Done

   12 - BuzzFeed and this article are not great sources, ok for this usage Done

   17 - webby award. Maybe use the webby cite, rather than Lego. [] I won't hold GA for this, but still would be a nice touch

   c. (OR):

   No OR found

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Copyvio didn't find any. The archived version I also check show no signs.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   See detailed comments below Done

   b. (focused):

   article stays on point

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   history shows only improvents for GA in recent time

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   both images are appropriate, and have rational fair use justifications. Keyboard image has been cropped, prior images will be deleted.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   caption is suitable.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments

I think the article misses on 3a, breadth.

I read the Wired and Fast Company articles used here. They support the article, but there is much more article material in both. I think the story of creating a kid-safe social media environment is under represented.

Wired describes (my summary):

A carefully crafted, almost pastoral place, with safety at the top of the design. Parent permission was required, names were anonymous and auto-generated, and there were no profile pictures or identifying features. Every image was screened, with selfies and other identifiable material removed. Narration avoided without parental consent. Open chat created obvious problems, so Lego used emojis based on Lego faces, with no real way to leave a negative comment.

What I found particularly interesting is that the constraints were not just safeguards. They were identified as part of the creative design. The limited building challenges gave children a starting point rather than an unlimited pile of bricks. Lowe specifically discusses how adding a constraint can help creativity. The same basic idea seems to run through much of the app: limit what a child can say or reveal, but try to make the limitation itself playful. That seems like an important part of the Lego Life story and is mostly lost in the WP article.

Fast Company summary:

Lego had repeatedly struggled with online platforms. Lego Universe had been shut down, could not compete. Lego Life was aimed at 7–12 year olds. Creating an online platform for children under 13 is difficult. The FC article describes the three-stage filtering process and the real-world moderation problems involved.

The present WP article reduces this to: Auto-generated names, features designed to be safer, moderation, and emoji comments. All of that is supported, but I think it misses on breadth.

There is also almost nothing here about the seven years between launch and retirement. We get the 2017 launch, a couple of user and country figures, and then the app is retired in 2024. Was it successful? How did it grow? Did the design or purpose change? Why was it kept for seven years and then replaced? I didn’t search for reliable cites, I only suspect that there must be something. A quick look suggests there is material. Lego reported 5.9 million downloads in 2020, more than 7 million in 2021, and 7.1 million in 2022; it also reported more than 33 million downloads by the end of 2021. There were also later uses of Lego Life for online-safety and anti-cyberbullying activities. I don't think the article needs a year-by-year history, but at present there is a rather large hole in the middle.

Reception also needs more. The Common Sense Media source is much more mixed than the one sentence here suggests. It liked the safety and lack of normal social-media negativity, but also said there was not much to do, no real way to connect with friends or family, and that it felt more like a giant ad than a community.

Much of what is missing is already in the sources cited in the article. I don't think this needs a huge research effort. I do think the article needs to make better use of material and give some account of what happened during the middle of the app's life.

Pass now

Thanks for the substantial work on this. I think the article now gets there.

The child-safety design explanation has been improved. The reception section is now more balanced. Usage figures and parental verification info fill in enough of the 7 year hole between launch and retirement.

I made a few (minor) prose and reference fixes, revert any you don't like.

A short point from Wired about the restrictions also acting as creative constraints would be a good further addition. That struck me as important: Lego was not simply removing unsafe features, but trying to make the limitations themselves part of the creative experience. If you’re interested, “The keepers of light” is available on internet archive, very much talks to that subject.

There is still room to expand the middle years, but the article now gives a reasonable account of the app’s “life”. I believe it meets the GA criteria, and I am passing it. Nice work. Thanks for working with me.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Lego Life, a social media app created by the Lego Group for younger children, was described as being similar to both Instagram and Pinterest?

• Source: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/lego-life-social-network-kids/ https://www.fastcompany.com/3067693/lego-launches-a-social-network-for-kids-too-young-for-facebook https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/31/14442342/lego-life-social-network-share-build-parental-controls-app

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by NewAccount7295 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC).

• QPQ is not needed, Earwig shows no issues, the article is long enough and it achieved GA status on the 18th and was nominated for DYK on the same day (and hence is eligible). The hook is sourced in the article and I checked the sources to verify it. The hook is interesting and I cannot see any issues, so this is good to go! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)