LDraw.org Discussion Forums

Full Version: Description of part 33909
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(2020-02-19, 9:39)Jaco van der Molen Wrote: [ -> ]Let me know what you think.
Have I forgotten any part?

6934a - Scala Tile 3 x 6 with 4 inline Top Studs (not in LDraw)

and there's one more humongous semi-circular thing I cannot find right now, neither physical not in BL...
(2020-02-19, 11:48)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: [ -> ]I meant the tile keyword...

OK, so the 1x2 jumper should also get the tile keyword.
(2020-02-19, 14:34)Jaco van der Molen Wrote: [ -> ]OK, so the 1x2 jumper should also get the tile keyword.

Not according to my rule, as its studless area isn't contiguous, but I get that we want it to match the 2x2 jumper. My approach to that would be to disqualify the 2x2 jumper, since its studless area is also not "contiguous" in the way I envisioned. (You couldn't simply place the 3 missing studs back onto that part.)

On the other hand, it may also be desirable to use the "tile" keyword for any part that currently has that word in its description, and only apply the rule to new parts (if at all). But, keywords are pretty much up to the author's discretion anyway, so I don't know that there's anything stopping people from adding "tile" as a keyword if they feel it's appropriately descriptive.
(2020-02-19, 9:39)Jaco van der Molen Wrote: [ -> ]11203
Tile 2 x 2 Inverted with Groove
Plate 2 x 2 Inverted with Groove

To me, this one is still a tile (along with 35459, probably). Because it's inverted, it's the removal of its anti-studs (or whatever you want to call the underside connections) that makes it smooth and gives it that name. In other words, a regular tile removes the studs but still has the bottom connections; an inverted tile removes the bottom connections but still has the studs.
(2020-02-19, 15:51)N. W. Perry Wrote: [ -> ]To me, this one is still a tile
Agreed!
(2020-02-19, 15:39)N. W. Perry Wrote: [ -> ]On the other hand, it may also be desirable to use the "tile" keyword for any part that currently has that word in its description
I'm definitely on the inclusive side. I prefer that anything that can be thought by the user to be a tile (because it has  less studs than it could have) to have the tile keyword.
(2020-02-19, 16:06)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: [ -> ]I'm definitely on the inclusive side. I prefer that anything that can be thought by the user to be a tile (because it has  less studs than it could have) to have the tile keyword.

And on further reflection, the idea of having a rule or definition makes more sense in the context of !CATEGORY—and particularly so if the long-rumored sub-categories ever come into being.  Wink
Could someone please bring this to the finish line? Would be nice to have this sorted in the next part release.
Write a suggestion and send it to Chris.
(2020-05-18, 21:00)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: [ -> ]Could someone please bring this to the finish line? Would be nice to have this sorted in the next part release.
Write a suggestion and send it to Chris.

I could give it a try.
Would a list with partnumber - old description - new description do?
I can make a Google Spreadsheet to share so others can participate.
(2020-05-19, 19:40)Jaco van der Molen Wrote: [ -> ]I could give it a try.
Would a list with partnumber - old description - new description do?
I can make a Google Spreadsheet to share so others can participate.

Sure. Go ahead.

w.
Pages: 1 2 3 4