 | | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) It might. (...) I can see your point. And I must admit that the first category I would search for this part under would be "Train". - Which certainly implies that "train" at least should be a keyword for the part. (...) Sort of. In principle (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) It is not my intention to control the fate of this part forever and ever. But to have some input as to how it is categorized and where it ends up in the parts list. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) I would argue that 2917 probably belongs in windscreen or window, I guess? In an ideal world there would be a way to associate a part with its "partner" as it were without using naming, there just would be a link between them somehow. (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) True, but I feel this part might fall under Larry's "terribly unwieldy" escape clause. Even if he doesn't think so. (...) It's arguable at this point, but the long-term general idea is that you can do whatever you want with your original file, (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: File Header request for Minifig Parts
|
|
BTW, I found part of that discussion I mentioned in my other post. Here's the text. I don't think Terry will mind me posting it. The file I found this in is dated 7/5/2001, the discussion is possibly a year older than that. Some things are out of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) Probably true. Some discussion on the train related parts to establish general standards may help though, and it may make sense to do so in the context of specific parts. With respect to this one, does it at all make sense to change the name (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) Hey - my first PTadmin hornet's nest !! Here's my rationalisation for changing the name, FWIW. The only comment on the part name in the review history is from Steve Bliss. No-one challenged Steve's suggestion that it should be linked by name (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: File Header request for Minifig Parts
|
|
Hi Willy (and everyone :), I mostly agree with your idea that 'minifig parts' need to be rearranged. This has been a back-burner project of mine for over a year (and it had been thought about for much longer than that). Here are some things to keep (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | File Header request for Minifig Parts
|
|
Hi folks, the other day I was flicking through the "Other Parts/M-Library" looking for the "Minifig Top Hat" and it took me quiet a while to find it 'cos there isn't any criteria in naming the different minifig parts. There are: caps, castle (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) Yes. And this part has already been used in non-train sets (the Res-Q hoovercraft comes to mind). Couldn't we put "train" in the keyword list instead of in the name? Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) Good point. I looked over all the parts in MLCad w/ the Train designator and found that, barring the parts previously mentioned and possibly the track parts, most of them don't even belong in that category (e.g. the doors and windows) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) Train in my view is a very narrow group. There are a very few parts that belong in it. I would refer you to the PNLTC originated "diagram of train parts" that many train clubs use to discuss how easy it is to actually get started in trains. (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) The flip side of this arguement is that while it's only use may not be just for trains, the primary use is for trains. By your argument all the parts with the word Technic and Minifig in the title should be renamed as well. The reason that (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) I agree (obviously since you referenced my post as your second ref)! (...) I disagree. That's not the intent. The license that is contemplated to be in effect does not let you as the author prevent people from submitting revisions to parts (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
I would like to object on the strongest terms possible the "Modified part description" of the part 2916.dat. This is in keeping with my beliefs on how parts should be named. Please refer to: (URL) is not necessarily a train part. Is this file not my (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | .LDR file license (Was: Description of MLCad extensions...)
|
|
(...) Larry, sorry I didn't reply sooner but I was away on vacation. I guess everyone else must be too. Anyhow, I see you got my point. The whole reason for a parts license is to prevent new part authors from asserting arbitrary demands on the (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | numbers report - 16 July 2002
|
|
Stats for Unofficial Files 131 certified files. 165 files need admin review. 176 files need more votes. 258 have uncertified subfiles. 135 held files. For comparison: 2002-07-16 - 131 / 165 / 176 / 258 / 135 (865) 2002-07-10 - 123 / 163 / 172 / 258 (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | new feature for tracker?
|
|
Steve, I've got over 300 votes in the Tracker ("(URL) it's getting a little difficult to see what files I have _not_ voted on. How difficult would it be to code a "not reviewed" search function (i.e., the Boolean opposite of the "my reviews" (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
Ahui Herrera wrote: [ please consider quoting a little bit less in the future ] (...) I disagree. There is nothing wrong with enforcing his copyright to MLCAD as well as to the specification we are discussing, but I consider any attempt to enforce a (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
(...) I'm 1000% confused and really hate to admit it. I downloaded and read the extensions file but have NO CLUE what it's for? Can someone please let me what the extensions are for? Also Michael's approach with the license agreement is *NOT* bad (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
