Subject:
|
Set names and numbers
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:33:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
604 times
|
| |
|
|
Here's a possible controversial debate...
The general convention on lugnet seems to be that sets are referred
to by their numbers only in most postings.
Now I'm a great fan of Lego - I've spent
hours on end poring over old Lego catalogues for the fun of it. But
even so, I can't believe I'm the only person who has a lot of difficulty
in keeping the numbers of perhaps a thousand-odd sets in my head. And I find
it intensely irritating to have to break off from reading a message in
order to go to the lugnet database and download a picture on my slow
modem connection to find out what set a message is talking about
(possibly having to connect to the Internet to do this, if
I'm reading messages by email offline) - especially
when I discover it's a set that I'd have been able to identify instantly
from its name. (Not that I'm complaining about the database itself - it's
a great resource!) 6338 Hurricane Harbor is a lot more informative than 6338!
So what would people think about instead using a convention that sets
are always identified by the number, and where posters know (or don't mind
looking up) the US name
of the set (with the lugnet database being the definitive name in case
of conflict) they use the name as well?
The only disadvantage I can think of is possible confusion if people start
using the wrong names for sets. But my feeling would be that overall it
would make the lugnet newsgroups easier to use.
Comments?
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Set names and numbers
|
| (...) <...snip...> (...) I personally think this would be a great idea. In most situations, the writer will already know the name of the set (it's usually right there on the box next to the number) and they probably will remember the name even when (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Set names and numbers
|
| Simon Robinson wrote in message ... [...] (...) Fine by me, but could everyone please keep using the numbers as well, because the names the U.S. use will typically be totally (unfathomably?) different from the names I know the sets by, living (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
