Subject:
|
Re: Semi-ADMIN: Pause Train Reference Improvement Work in Good Shape
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:48:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
56 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Pedant alert...
YOU'VE written "could care less..." and you're calling yourself
pedantic?
(kidding) :-) [Please don't start this flame again, I respect both
sides
of this argument, and just happen to believe that the "couldn't" crowd
is
the pedantic half]
[Some pedants reading this may want to note that I use the British
English
usage of commas (and full stops) OUTSIDE quoted material. I hereby
acknowledge this, and state that I prefer it. So there. :-)]
> One could make the argument that 2585 is mis-categorized. It's a self
> propelled vehicle, not a car. Cars are characterised by not having
> motive power.
> Given the current choices (cars, locomotives, buildings,
> Train Set (and why the different pluralizations??) )
"Train Set" was "Train Sets", but it had the wrong "feel". If enough
people
dislike the lack of orthogonality, I'll change them (all the usages of
Train Set) back.
> I would put it with
> locomotives.
(With all deference to your superior train knowledge), that's really a
stretch,
IMHO. Ask people what a "hand car" is, and (I believe) they'll say it's
a train car, and not a locomotive.
Besides, one of my criteria for a Locomotive was that it included or
could
be retrofitted with a motor. 2585 would look mightly unwieldy attached
to a motor. <g>
> Also, all the sets returned by:
> http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=Road+N%27+Rail are not cars,
> they are self propelled and therefore ALSO belong with locomontives.
The TRAIN portion of 4549 is not self-propelled, and so it fits under
Train Cars.
The rest are self-propelled, but don't really fit the criteria that they
have or take a train motor. I could introduce a "Vehicles" category, or
"Support Vehicles", but introducing more categories seems a little silly
to me. What do other folks think?
I should perhaps point out that "Locomotives" was "Train Locomotives" at
one point, in fact MOST of them secondary categorizations started with
Train. It seemed redundant, so they were dropped. Again, with "Train
Cars",
it had the wrong "feel" without train on the front (and see below, about
"Accessory Train Cars").
> But I would stump for a new choice: "Maintenance of Way" (MOW), and put
> the handcar, all 4 of the Road N'Rail sets, the 4533 rotary snow plow
> and the 4552 crane in it. That last one is very clearly MOW too.
This may fit the Train enthusiasts view, but I think the public at large
would ask WTF? about such a categorization. I'm not saying I'm really
against it, just that it doesn't have seem to have as generic a usage
as might be desired. Again, what's the group consensus here?
> Also 3225 is miscategorised, as it's a complete train, with locomotive,
> and therefore should be in Train Sets rather than in with cars.
Righto. A criteria of "Train Set" was that it had track, otherwise
little Timmy couldn't get the set for Christmas and start running
his rolling stock: he needed more accessories to make it happen. I
made an exception in the case of Speed-Regulator-lacking sets.
I see your point, however; should
"Train Set" = Locomotive + Train Cars + Track,
or is
"Train Set" = Locomotive + Train Cars
sufficient?
That's tough, I think. I've flipped three times, just writing this
response. I really feel that it's not a train "set" without track, just
a collection of cars. However, this one has a locomotive included
too, which gives it a twist. It's a locomotive WITH a motor, as well.
<sigh> I'm inclined to think we should stick with Train Cars...
Try this test: (I know, completely unscientific):
----
"Hey Tim! Did you get the LEGO Train set for Christmas that you
wanted?"
"Naw, just a locomotive and some cars. Now I gotta wait for my birthday
for
track and the controller to run it"
----
OK. Don't try that test. Blows too many holes in the system. :-P
Try THIS test:
----
"Hey Tim! Did you get the LEGO Train set for Christmas that you
wanted?"
"NO! My mom even remembered to buy a controller with it, but it was
really
just a locomotive and some cars. Now I gotta wait for my birthday for
track to run it!"
----
:-)
> 4532 could be argued as a kind of accessory track rather than a
> building. But it's both. I'd say it's more trackish than buildingish,
> though. If you look in a Lionel Catalog, you'll find crossings in with
> the track, not the buildings.
Geez, you should have at _least_ picked the other Level Crossing for
this
example. I maintain that this COULD be ranked building just because it
look an awful lot like a train station (juniorized, of course). <g>
"Level Crossing(s)" was originally a separate categorization, but again
seemed too specific to break out (too many categories). The deciding
factor for me on this one involves the cost of things. LEGO Track is
expensive enough (again, from Joe Q. Public's POV) that I thought
"Accessory Track" should come as close as possible to including ONLY
track in the price. For the price of a level crossing; relative to
how much actual track comes in the package, it doesn't seem to be
a track item (if it was, then the 4555 Freight Loading Station starts to
cross the line). Also, "_Accessory_ Track" denotes sets that, to
me, could come as parts packs rather than the 45xx range. It's an
accessory item for adding on to existing sets.
Along with this, "Train Cars" was once "Accessory Train Cars", denoting
that they were added to a "Train Set" as an accessory. In the spirit of
limited categories with concise names, "Accessory" was dropped from
that; but I was also thinking about how I wanted Accessory to refer to
parts-pack style sets, rather than the usage of the set for any
particular
purpose.
A couple notes:
1) I'm not The Law on this; I'm stating my opinion and trying to explain
how I arrived at what's in place. Todd and Suzanne were kept in the
loop
on (most) of my choices, and agreed (however tacitly) to my changes.
When it
comes right down to it, Todd is the Law. :-) I welcome further opinions
on
this, both in the spirit of how Todd would have it done, and because I
believe
it best that things be done that way (the RTL Review template,
originally my
creation, was changed many times based on feedback from RTL, it's just
the
right way to do it).
2) A lot of this will go away eventually, as Fuzzy Categorizations are
introduced by Todd. Not only will a much nicer and more natural
"official"
set of categorizations come into play (4549 Road N' Rail Hauler and 4555
Freight Loading Station get connected, since they both involve loading
freight onto a train with cranes), but _I_believe_ it's in the cards for
each and every one of us to define and save our own links, so we can
each
have our own customized view of the LEGO universe (or multiverse, if you
prefer). What's there now is meant to be a useful reference tool for
_most_ folks.
-- joshua
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
13 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
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
