| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman wrote:
> My instincts today tell me that it may be wiser long-term to adapt to LEGO's
> new (apparent) paradigm of category-loosening and create more generalized
> upper-layer groups only as needed. For example, Action Wheelers isn't DUPLO
> and it isn't SYSTEM and it isn't DUPLO Toolo, but it's a lot like DUPLO Toolo.
> Thus, all things considered, the lugnet.duplo group (or creating a lugnet.
> duplo.toolo group) might be the best place to discuss Action Wheelers, rather
> than making a new upper-level group for it. I guess it depends on how long
> the product line will last -- and we don't know that.
This is kinda wild, a change from the current setup, but how about creating
a lugnet.productline hierarchy, and put all the (play)theme-groups under
that? The current upper-layer product ng's could either stay where they
are, or move to the new hierarchy, depending on the general nature of
discussions in that group. A few of the current theme groups also support
an active MOC culture -- .space, .castle, and .starwars are three examples.
These groups should definitely stay put. But other groups -- like
.fabuland -- tend to be more focused on the actual sets released by TLC.
These groups might be better served to move to the new location.
With this approach, we might see groups like:
lugnet.productline.legoland.space <-- discussion around the Space themes
lugnet.productline.lifeonmars <-- discussion of the Life on Mars sets
lugnet.space <-- discussion around Space & SF MOCs
To go one step further, the upper-layer 'system' groups might migrate to
the .build hierarchy, to better focus on the MOC part of their subculture.
> 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.
I'd rather expand the .build hierarchy, instead of adding even more
upper-layer groups.
Steve
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
