| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Jude Beaudin writes:
> > Todd,
> > Now that new themes are showing up in stores and in our collections :-),
> > it may be time to add Studios and Life on Mars into the theme heirarchy
> > here on LUGNET. After all the LOM comments are falling into .space and
> > we all know this is not related to Classic Space or one of it's sub-themes.
>
> (I'm assuming you mean the newsgroup hierarchy.)
>
> That's a Good Question. A Tough Question. A year ago, I wouldda said, "Yah,
> fer sure," but today I'm a bit leary of adding more upper-layer newsgroups
> because LEGO seems to be phasing out LEGO SYSTEM and closing the gap between
> product programmes (e.g., LEGO SYSTEM, LEGO DUPLO, LEGO BABY, LEGO TECHNIC,
> etc.), systems (e.g., Adventurers, Underground, Castle, etc.), and play
> themes (e.g., Dino Island, Rock Raiders, Knights' Kingdom, etc.). That is,
> long ago, the new play themes appeared in a clear place within the LEGO
> product hiearchy -- but now all the lines are blurred.
Yah, its gotten pretty messy from a differentiation point of view. It seems
like the current mode is to have 2 or 3 continueing themes like Star Wars,
Adventurers, and Town and to have 1 or 2 one off themes that have expected and
planned one year life spans like Rock Raiders, Arctic and I am guessing LoM
will fall into that catagory too.
Definitely wouldn't want top level groups for one off play themes as they will
have a short burst of traffic an probably die off.
> As more new official (and unofficial) building categories pop up, these sorts
> of questions cross my mind more and more. For example, we don't currently
> have any good area for talking about ancient stuff -- Rome, Greece, Egypt,
> temples, coliseums, etc. That could go under .build like .mecha did, but
> maybe an upper-layer group would be better, even in the absense of an official
> product category.
Personally I think the .build hierarchy is great. Granted a lot of the ancient
stuff could go under .build.arch there are other things that don't necessarily
fit in .arch that are ancient. I am all for expanding .build though to include
things that don't fit past or current LEGO themes. Although a large part of
LoM seems to be trying to pick up on the Mecha market.
Whatever you decide I am sure it will work.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Themes
|
| (...) (I'm assuming you mean the newsgroup hierarchy.) That's a Good Question. A Tough Question. A year ago, I wouldda said, "Yah, fer sure," but today I'm a bit leary of adding more upper-layer newsgroups because LEGO seems to be phasing out LEGO (...) (24 years ago, 22-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.space)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
