|
 |
| | | Author: | Teup  | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 03:51 | | Subject: | Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 153 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I just noticed this in the catalog roadmap:
"Move parts out of Cone (most of them to Brick, Round) and eliminate the Cone
category."
But why? Actually, I kind of like the Cone category. I think it's:
- precise: It's pretty clear when something is a cone and when it is not
- nicely sized: There's quite a bunch of different cones by now, and the
number appears to be growing. Ok, it's not huge, but not smaller than Dish.
- a relevant set: Several cones combine together to form larger cones - top/bottom
halves, side halves
Seems like a fine category to me. I get the wish to eliminate some categories,
but then I'm thinking about stuff like Hook or Tail, the real small and
rarely used ones ones like that.
And I'm thinking: Slope and Slope,Curved get to be separate categories too.
If cones would be considered round bricks, then analogous to that at least maybe
we can have Brick,Round and Brick,Round,Conical? Not sure what the exact reason
was to be cone haters, but maybe this could be the best of both worlds?  Somehow
it feels like a waste to me to throw one category into another when it has such
a consistent distinctive feature.
Well, just some thoughts
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Hurt | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 04:01 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Oh no, really?
Even if this happen, I will sort them still extra I guess.
If it needs to be "Brick", how about "Brick, Cone" (instead of just "Cone" as
it is now) instead of moving all of them to "Brick, Round"?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 21:49 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hurt writes:
| | If it needs to be "Brick", how about "Brick, Cone"
|
I like this option.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Shiny_Stuff | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 23:02 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hurt writes:
| | Oh no, really?
Even if this happen, I will sort them still extra I guess.
|
I sort and store this piece with Cones instead of Roof (with appropriate Remark
field used). It is cone-shaped first and textured like a roof second.
____
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 06:23 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | I just noticed this in the catalog roadmap:
"Move parts out of Cone (most of them to Brick, Round) and eliminate the Cone
category."
But why? Actually, I kind of like the Cone category. I think it's:
- precise: It's pretty clear when something is a cone and when it is not
- nicely sized: There's quite a bunch of different cones by now, and the
number appears to be growing. Ok, it's not huge, but not smaller than Dish.
- a relevant set: Several cones combine together to form larger cones - top/bottom
halves, side halves
Seems like a fine category to me. I get the wish to eliminate some categories,
but then I'm thinking about stuff like Hook or Tail, the real small and
rarely used ones ones like that.
And I'm thinking: Slope and Slope,Curved get to be separate categories too.
If cones would be considered round bricks, then analogous to that at least maybe
we can have Brick,Round and Brick,Round,Conical? Not sure what the exact reason
was to be cone haters, but maybe this could be the best of both worlds? Somehow
it feels like a waste to me to throw one category into another when it has such
a consistent distinctive feature.
Well, just some thoughts
|
Maybe that is from half a year ago when a new category for Dome was going to
extist?
BTW, I see that the Movements in Item Type and Category 3 now says Nov 1st instead
of October, what happened?
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2509
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 06:51 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| |
Maybe that is from half a year ago when a new category for Dome was going to
extist?
|
Hopefully. Removing the cone category would be stupid.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 11:23 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | I just noticed this in the catalog roadmap:
"Move parts out of Cone (most of them to Brick, Round) and eliminate the Cone
category."
But why? Actually, I kind of like the Cone category. I think it's:
- precise: It's pretty clear when something is a cone and when it is not
- nicely sized: There's quite a bunch of different cones by now, and the
number appears to be growing. Ok, it's not huge, but not smaller than Dish.
- a relevant set: Several cones combine together to form larger cones - top/bottom
halves, side halves
Seems like a fine category to me. I get the wish to eliminate some categories,
but then I'm thinking about stuff like Hook or Tail, the real small and
rarely used ones ones like that.
And I'm thinking: Slope and Slope,Curved get to be separate categories too.
If cones would be considered round bricks, then analogous to that at least maybe
we can have Brick,Round and Brick,Round,Conical? Not sure what the exact reason
was to be cone haters, but maybe this could be the best of both worlds? Somehow
it feels like a waste to me to throw one category into another when it has such
a consistent distinctive feature.
Well, just some thoughts
|
Maybe that is from half a year ago when a new category for Dome was going to
extist?
|
Yep.
We had to make sure that the most recent catalog newsletter gave at least one
month of notice before the changes were made. Since the catalog newsletter came
out a bit later than expected, we had to shift by one month. This shift also
allowed me to get one other item into the parts that will move. The parts for
the next movement in six months will start to be populated in the next week as
there are some that could not make into this current move that I am currently
working on.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | chetzler | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 08:46 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | I just noticed this in the catalog roadmap:
"Move parts out of Cone (most of them to Brick, Round) and eliminate the Cone
category."
But why? Actually, I kind of like the Cone category. I think it's:
- precise: It's pretty clear when something is a cone and when it is not
- nicely sized: There's quite a bunch of different cones by now, and the
number appears to be growing. Ok, it's not huge, but not smaller than Dish.
- a relevant set: Several cones combine together to form larger cones - top/bottom
halves, side halves
Seems like a fine category to me. I get the wish to eliminate some categories,
but then I'm thinking about stuff like Hook or Tail, the real small and
rarely used ones ones like that.
And I'm thinking: Slope and Slope,Curved get to be separate categories too.
If cones would be considered round bricks, then analogous to that at least maybe
we can have Brick,Round and Brick,Round,Conical? Not sure what the exact reason
was to be cone haters, but maybe this could be the best of both worlds? Somehow
it feels like a waste to me to throw one category into another when it has such
a consistent distinctive feature.
Well, just some thoughts
|
Agreed. "Cones" is a useful, logical category. I hope we do not lose it. Even
TLG considers it a category. How silly would it be to have a set called "Disks
and Cones" that contains no cones?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 09:06 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | […]
Agreed. "Cones" is a useful, logical category. I hope we do not lose it. Even
TLG considers it a category.
|
(My emph.)
Considering TLG’s track records on naming, I’m not sure that’s a good argument
| | How silly would it be to have a set called "Disks
and Cones" that contains no cones?
|
I’d say it’d be less silly than having sets called “Disks and Cones” that contain
no disks and no parts in a “Disk” category 
At least the cone parts would still have “Cone” in their names.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | chetzler | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 11:59 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | […]
Agreed. "Cones" is a useful, logical category. I hope we do not lose it. Even
TLG considers it a category.
|
(My emph.)
Considering TLG’s track records on naming, I’m not sure that’s a good argument
|
I disagree. An opinative generalization cannot be used to nullify a specific
narrowly-defined example. "Cone" is descriptive, unambiguous, and well-understood.
Even TLG knows what a cone is.
| |
| | How silly would it be to have a set called "Disks
and Cones" that contains no cones?
|
I’d say it’d be less silly than having sets called “Disks and Cones” that contain
no disks and no parts in a “Disk” category
|
It's a pedantic observation about which no one else has expressed any concerns,
and it has nothing to do with cones, but you're nonetheless correct.
| |
At least the cone parts would still have “Cone” in their names.
|
Fortunately, it looks like the concerns that have been expressed have been addressed
and you no longer have to play devil's advocate. 😈
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 11:17 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | I just noticed this in the catalog roadmap:
"Move parts out of Cone (most of them to Brick, Round) and eliminate the Cone
category."
But why? Actually, I kind of like the Cone category. I think it's:
- precise: It's pretty clear when something is a cone and when it is not
- nicely sized: There's quite a bunch of different cones by now, and the
number appears to be growing. Ok, it's not huge, but not smaller than Dish.
- a relevant set: Several cones combine together to form larger cones - top/bottom
halves, side halves
Seems like a fine category to me. I get the wish to eliminate some categories,
but then I'm thinking about stuff like Hook or Tail, the real small and
rarely used ones ones like that.
And I'm thinking: Slope and Slope,Curved get to be separate categories too.
If cones would be considered round bricks, then analogous to that at least maybe
we can have Brick,Round and Brick,Round,Conical? Not sure what the exact reason
was to be cone haters, but maybe this could be the best of both worlds? Somehow
it feels like a waste to me to throw one category into another when it has such
a consistent distinctive feature.
Well, just some thoughts
|
Don't worry, the "Cone" category is not going anywhere. That was a project
started by a former admin that was not agreed upon at the BrickLink company level.
It will be removed from the roadmap.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | I just noticed this in the catalog roadmap:
"Move parts out of Cone (most of them to Brick, Round) and eliminate the Cone
category."
But why? Actually, I kind of like the Cone category. I think it's:
- precise: It's pretty clear when something is a cone and when it is not
- nicely sized: There's quite a bunch of different cones by now, and the
number appears to be growing. Ok, it's not huge, but not smaller than Dish.
- a relevant set: Several cones combine together to form larger cones - top/bottom
halves, side halves
Seems like a fine category to me. I get the wish to eliminate some categories,
but then I'm thinking about stuff like Hook or Tail, the real small and
rarely used ones ones like that.
And I'm thinking: Slope and Slope,Curved get to be separate categories too.
If cones would be considered round bricks, then analogous to that at least maybe
we can have Brick,Round and Brick,Round,Conical? Not sure what the exact reason
was to be cone haters, but maybe this could be the best of both worlds? Somehow
it feels like a waste to me to throw one category into another when it has such
a consistent distinctive feature.
Well, just some thoughts
|
Don't worry, the "Cone" category is not going anywhere. That was a project
started by a former admin that was not agreed upon at the BrickLink company level.
It will be removed from the roadmap.
|
Clear, thanks!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 12:07 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | I just noticed this in the catalog roadmap:
"Move parts out of Cone (most of them to Brick, Round) and eliminate the Cone
category."
But why? Actually, I kind of like the Cone category. I think it's:
- precise: It's pretty clear when something is a cone and when it is not
- nicely sized: There's quite a bunch of different cones by now, and the
number appears to be growing. Ok, it's not huge, but not smaller than Dish.
- a relevant set: Several cones combine together to form larger cones - top/bottom
halves, side halves
Seems like a fine category to me. I get the wish to eliminate some categories,
but then I'm thinking about stuff like Hook or Tail, the real small and
rarely used ones ones like that.
And I'm thinking: Slope and Slope,Curved get to be separate categories too.
If cones would be considered round bricks, then analogous to that at least maybe
we can have Brick,Round and Brick,Round,Conical? Not sure what the exact reason
was to be cone haters, but maybe this could be the best of both worlds? Somehow
it feels like a waste to me to throw one category into another when it has such
a consistent distinctive feature.
Well, just some thoughts
|
Don't worry, the "Cone" category is not going anywhere. That was a project
started by a former admin that was not agreed upon at the BrickLink company level.
It will be removed from the roadmap.
|
Clear, thanks!
|
Cone-gratulations, you got your wish!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hurt | | Posted: | Oct 8, 2021 08:25 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Cone-gratulations, you got your wish!
|
I like this cone-tribution!
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tec | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 15:49 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | +1 for the sw pun |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 19:07 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | I just noticed this in the catalog roadmap:
"Move parts out of Cone (most of them to Brick, Round) and eliminate the Cone
category."
But why? Actually, I kind of like the Cone category. I think it's:
- precise: It's pretty clear when something is a cone and when it is not
- nicely sized: There's quite a bunch of different cones by now, and the
number appears to be growing. Ok, it's not huge, but not smaller than Dish.
- a relevant set: Several cones combine together to form larger cones - top/bottom
halves, side halves
Seems like a fine category to me. I get the wish to eliminate some categories,
but then I'm thinking about stuff like Hook or Tail, the real small and
rarely used ones ones like that.
And I'm thinking: Slope and Slope,Curved get to be separate categories too.
If cones would be considered round bricks, then analogous to that at least maybe
we can have Brick,Round and Brick,Round,Conical? Not sure what the exact reason
was to be cone haters, but maybe this could be the best of both worlds? Somehow
it feels like a waste to me to throw one category into another when it has such
a consistent distinctive feature.
Well, just some thoughts
|
We need, we seriously need, to implement attributes (i.e. tags) because part
shapes are not purely hierarchical. Everything is first cousin of everything
else. So no matter how you arrange it (in hierarchical mode) someone's going
to be unhappy.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2021 19:10 | | Subject: | Re: Attack of the Cones | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, cosmicray writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | I just noticed this in the catalog roadmap:
"Move parts out of Cone (most of them to Brick, Round) and eliminate the Cone
category."
But why? Actually, I kind of like the Cone category. I think it's:
- precise: It's pretty clear when something is a cone and when it is not
- nicely sized: There's quite a bunch of different cones by now, and the
number appears to be growing. Ok, it's not huge, but not smaller than Dish.
- a relevant set: Several cones combine together to form larger cones - top/bottom
halves, side halves
Seems like a fine category to me. I get the wish to eliminate some categories,
but then I'm thinking about stuff like Hook or Tail, the real small and
rarely used ones ones like that.
And I'm thinking: Slope and Slope,Curved get to be separate categories too.
If cones would be considered round bricks, then analogous to that at least maybe
we can have Brick,Round and Brick,Round,Conical? Not sure what the exact reason
was to be cone haters, but maybe this could be the best of both worlds? Somehow
it feels like a waste to me to throw one category into another when it has such
a consistent distinctive feature.
Well, just some thoughts
|
We need, we seriously need, to implement attributes (i.e. tags) because part
shapes are not purely hierarchical. Everything is first cousin of everything
else. So no matter how you arrange it (in hierarchical mode) someone's going
to be unhappy.
Nita Rae
|
Absolutely 100% agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Netherlands, Utrecht
Austria, Wien
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
United Kingdom, England
Italy, Marche
