| |
In lugnet.cad, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
I could be totally off base, but my thinking is that some group has to “own”
the naming/numbering, and what better group than LDraw.org? (With input from
relevant players, of course)
|
I do not think anybody would need to “own” anything here (other than Lego).
And I do not think any one site should be the leader with this. If the 3
sites chose to work something out then they should all have an equal say. As
catalog admin on BL I would not want to be flat out told what to name
something with less input than the next person, and that really turns me off
to the idea (speaking for myself, not anybody else in any way mind you). I
think that was the problem last time - one site trying to take everything
over.
|
All I mean by “own” (and the reason I keep using quotes) is that someone/some
group is driving the process. And as I, and I believe Steve and Tim mentioned,
the point I was making wasn’t that anyone is told what to do, but that there is
input and discussion until an idea is developed. Every project has to have some
sort of leadership. Sometimes that’s one person, sometimes that’s a small group.
Either way, they “own” that project. That’s all I was saying.
| |
I also think that before the community can ‘come together’ on this Lego needs
to ‘come together’ with itself first. I am not sure how something can be
expected when a company uses the same name for 2 different colors in one
example, and 2 names for the same color in another example.
|
I know you may not like the numbering/naming scheme, but from what I can tell it
works fine for us.
| |
I am not saying Lego needs to change its internal names - but it would be
good to see a color guide ON lego.com that uses public-friendly names (and
dare I say more correct names than the internal names?). And this would
include STOP using a name for a color when that color has been changed -
example - NOT calling the new bley ‘gray’. As well as only using ONE name per
color (example of green and dark green).
|
Besides AFOLs, who would care? Kids aren’t knocking down are door to clarify
whether it’s pink or magenta.
| |
Do not get me wrong - I think its a great idea - but I would like to see Lego
get useable names first.
|
I guess I just still don’t understand (and I’m really not trying to be dense)
why it matters what we call things internally? We call it medium stone gray, but
have you ever called it that? No, you call it bley, gray, new light gray,
whatever you want. And that’s totally cool.
I just can’t see that there’s any requirement for LEGO to change their naming
methods or part numbering or to create an internal version and an external
version. Honestly, AFOLs are the only ones who care about this, and as such,
it’s best left to them to develop a naming/numbering scheme that best works for
them. Right?
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Color Names
|
| (...) I know what you meant by it, and thats what I meant as well. I think if the sites are truly going to work with each other then they all need an equal say - if not it is more 'including' than 'working with'. And there is a large difference (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.color, lugnet.lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Color Names
|
| (...) I do not think anybody would need to "own" anything here (other than Lego). And I do not think any one site should be the leader with this. If the 3 sites chose to work something out then they should all have an equal say. As catalog admin on (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.color, lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
