 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: 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
|
|
(...) 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: 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | ASSOCIATE (was: Re: Renaming of 2916.dat)
|
|
(...) Hmm. Interesting idea. So part 3937 (URL) might have an entry like: 0 ASSOCIATE 3938 6134 and part 3938 (URL) might have: 0 ASSOCIATE 3937 2440 (of course, these examples capture information that otherwise might be captured by a connectivity (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: ASSOCIATE (was: Re: Renaming of 2916.dat)
|
|
(...) Yes. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: ASSOCIATE (was: Re: Renaming of 2916.dat)
|
|
(...) WAY better than using naming to overload. 2916 and 2917 get at best a very weak association if they have train in their name. With the ASSOCIATE keyword extension it becomes quite explicit what their connection is. (and parts can also have (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
