Proposed change to !CATEGORY

[Orion Pobursky]

What are the thoughts on abandoning the first word convention for !CATEGORY and have every part have an explicit !CATEGORY statement?

[Travis Cobbs]

What are the thoughts on abandoning the first word convention for !CATEGORY and have every part have an explicit !CATEGORY statement?

Is this because you expect parts to stop putting the category at the beginning their name, or just to make it more obvious what the category is?

[Willy Tschager]

What are the thoughts on abandoning the first word convention for !CATEGORY and have every part have an explicit !CATEGORY statement?

I thought we had that policy already in place?

w.

[Orion Pobursky]

Is this because you expect parts to stop putting the category at the beginning their name, or just to make it more obvious what the category is?

The latter.

[Manfred Schaefer]

In my view, this would make sense, as it would allow the parts to be grouped according to their use. It might even be possible to have more than one group.

Best regards,

Manfred

[N. W. Perry]

Are there examples of where the first-word convention is providing misleading results?

[Orion Pobursky]

Are there examples of where the first-word convention is providing misleading results?

There isn't any I'm aware of. It would just make things more explicit. It would also avoid new author confusion since the two word categories require a statement even if those words are first in the description.

Edit: I thought of one case: Minifig. Since there are two word categories that contain "Minifig" and Minifig by itself is a category, that can cause misfiling. It's why the Minifig category warning exists. We could solve this by depreciating "Minifig" in favor of, say, "Minifig Body".