Parts to be renamed?


Parts to be renamed?
#1
Hi All,

I was looking for the 6 x 6 tile today (6881a/b) and was surprised to see it wasn't in the library. Or rather, after doing some sniffing, I discovered it wasn't a 'tile'. It was a 'Scala tile'.

This seems rather wrong to me and got me wondering if there weren't other parts with strange naming. Does anyone else know of any?

Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I believed that part names should generally be descriptive of form and function, not of the line they appear in (aside from prints).

Tim

PS. Which isn't to single out the part authors. It is the name Peeron uses which are traditionally the source of LDraw parts. I simply think it is wrong for LDraw.
Reply
Re: Parts to be renamed?
#2
At first glance I would say it's named wrong indeed.

But looking at the header it says "0 !CATEGORY Tile". So this would only cause a 'problem' for software that categorizes on the first description word only.

It would still cause sorting issues though.
Reply
Re: Parts to be renamed?
#3
The sorting issue is really what I worry about. It probably even appears in my tiles list in MLCAD but not where it should. When we worry about the number of spaces for sorting, but leave a name wrong it's a bit inconsistent.

Tim
Reply
Re: Parts to be renamed?
#4
Neither of these parts 6881a and 6881b are on the official library yet.

Please remember the mantra of the Parts Tracker "These are unofficial parts. They may be incomplete, or inaccurate, and it is possible that when they are officially released they may be changed in ways that could mess up any model you use them in.". That still applies even though a part may be Certified, as these are.

You raise a good point about sorting, and one that we probably don't pay enough attention to. For this reason, I am minded to re-title these and add Scala as a KEYWORD.

I think it is good to raise general philosophical points on this forum, but I'd really prefer that comments on individual files on the Parts Tracker are posted there so that everyone who has contributed to their development or review is notified through the daily PT digest.

Part names should be descriptive of form and function, and for this reason, I think "Scala" still has a place as a CATEGORY for parts that use a Scala Stud. However, of the exsting 9 Scala parts in the official library not all do.

Code:
6923.dat:0 Scala Tile  8 x 20 x   2/3 Round Ends
6934.dat:0 Scala Tile  3 x  6
6940.dat:0 Scala Bed  8 x 24
6965.dat:0 Scala Table  7 x  7 x  1 & 1/3
6969.dat:0 Scala Towel Bar  1 x  5
33008.dat:0 Scala Flower Pot
33029.dat:0 Scala Plate  2 x  4
33062.dat:0 Scala Plate  4 x  4
33089.dat:0 Scala Support  4 x  4 x  5.667

I'll re-cycle the two existing "Scala Tiles" for header correction. Others could benefit from a re-examination.

Chris
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
Re: Parts to be renamed?
#8
Chris Dee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neither of these parts
> [url=http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?s=6
> 881a]6881a[/url] and
> [url=http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?s=6
> 881b]6881b[/url] are on the official library yet.

Whoops. This will teach me not to double check. I thought both were from the library. But the topic was meant to be more general and I'm sure I've found parts with incongruous naming in the official library.

> You raise a good point about sorting, and one that
> we probably don't pay enough attention to. For
> this reason, I am minded to re-title these and add
> Scala as a KEYWORD.

This sounds ideal.

> I think it is good to raise general philosophical
> points on this forum, but I'd really prefer that
> comments on individual files on the Parts Tracker
> are posted there so that everyone who has
> contributed to their development or review is
> notified through the daily PT digest.

Agreed. As mentioned I should have checked.

> Part names should be descriptive of form and
> function, and for this reason, I think "Scala"
> still has a place as a CATEGORY for parts that use
> a Scala Stud. However, of the exsting 9 Scala
> parts in the official library not all do.
>
>
Code:
>  6923.dat:0 Scala Tile  8 x 20 x   2/3 Round Ends
>  6934.dat:0 Scala Tile  3 x  6
>  6940.dat:0 Scala Bed  8 x 24
>  6965.dat:0 Scala Table  7 x  7 x  1 & 1/3
>  6969.dat:0 Scala Towel Bar  1 x  5
> 33008.dat:0 Scala Flower Pot
> 33029.dat:0 Scala Plate  2 x  4
> 33062.dat:0 Scala Plate  4 x  4
> 33089.dat:0 Scala Support  4 x  4 x  5.667
>
>
> I'll re-cycle the two existing "Scala Tiles" for
> header correction. Others could benefit from a
> re-examination.
>
> Chris
Reply
Re: Parts to be renamed?
#7
Roland Melkert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But looking at the header it says "0 !CATEGORY
> Tile". So this would only cause a 'problem' for
> software that categorizes on the first description
> word only.

Bricksmith still does this. I have not yet tackled any of the extra header meta-data.

Allen
Reply
Re: Parts to be renamed?
#5
Tim Gould Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This seems rather wrong to me and got me wondering
> if there weren't other parts with strange naming.
> Does anyone else know of any?

You, sir, just opened a can of worms you probably shouldn't have. I have a completely custom parts.lst for this reason (I don't change the names in the .dats, I simply change them here). The changes are both major and minor, drastic in some cases, insignificant in others.

One of my biggest complaints is are the "Wedge ..." parts. Most people tend to use MLCad, and it tends to categorize parts by first name. Especially things like Bricks and Plates, things which people are unlikely to change. I realize this is how both Peeron and Bricklink categorize them, but I've long thought them wrong for it as well. Take for example "Wedge Plate". Why on earth are these not categorized "Plate Wedge" instead, and most other wedges could be fit under Slope or Brick as well. In the case of the Wedge Plate, I'm sure most people would look for these under "Plate", but under MLCad's default settings and tree, you'll have to go to "Other Parts->W" and find them mixed with all the other wedges and various other W parts.

Also, "Rubbish Bin"? Are you f***ing kidding me?!? I have never heard anybody call that a "Rubbish Bin" in my entire freaking life. It's a Garbage Can.

And don't even get me started on "Tyre" and "Centre." A quick trip to www.dictionary.com will reveal their correct spellings. Sheesh, people. The "Tyre" one is especially egregious, as anybody searching for "Tire" under come up with 0 results and be led to the conclusion that no tires have been made.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
I'm theJude! So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, his Judeness, or uh, Juder, or el Juderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
Reply
Re: Parts to be renamed?
#6
Jude Wrote:
> Also,
> "Rubbish
> Bin"
? Are you f***ing kidding me?!? I have
> never heard anybody call that a "Rubbish Bin" in
> my entire freaking life. It's a Garbage Can.
>
> And don't even get me started on "Tyre" and
> "Centre." A quick trip to www.dictionary.com will
> reveal their
> c
> orrect

> [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Center
> ]spellings[/url]. Sheesh, people. The "Tyre" one
> is especially egregious, as anybody searching for
> "Tire" under come up with 0 results and be led to
> the conclusion that no tires have been made.

Despite your condescending tone, I'll give you a free pass because I'm a nice guy and I want a constructive conversation vice a flame war...

If you read the spec, it specifies Australian English spellings out of respect for James Jessiman who started and maintained the LDraw project until his untimely death. This is the reason for Tyre, Centre, and "Rubbish Bin". Yes, English words are spelled differently based on the region of the world you happen to be in. Hence, !COLOUR vice !COLOR.
Reply
Re: Parts to be renamed?
#10
> If you read the spec, it specifies Australian
> English spellings out of respect for James
> Jessiman who started and maintained the LDraw
> project until his untimely death. This is the
> reason for Tyre, Centre, and "Rubbish Bin". Yes,
> English words are spelled differently based on the
> region of the world you happen to be in. Hence,
> !COLOUR vice !COLOR.

And I can assure you each of those is spelled or named correctly.

There actually are parts that aren't (eg. 'grill' should be 'grille' in 50946px1) but I always felt that making a fuss about them would be silly. However since grille is used in most parts I'll raise the issue with Chris.

Tim
Reply
RE: Parts to be renamed?
#11
(2011-10-31, 22:36)Tim Gould Wrote: > If you read the spec, it specifies Australian
> English spellings out of respect for James
> Jessiman who started and maintained the LDraw
> project until his untimely death. This is the
> reason for Tyre, Centre, and "Rubbish Bin".  Yes,
> English words are spelled differently based on the
> region of the world you happen to be in.  Hence,
> !COLOUR vice !COLOR.

And I can assure you each of those is spelled or named correctly.

There actually are parts that aren't (eg. 'grill' should be 'grille' in 50946px1) but I always felt that making a fuss about them would be silly. However since grille is used in most parts I'll raise the issue with Chris.

Tim
Dear,
I wonder if this issue has been thoroughly discussed further in the past 10 years...

I'm fairly new to the forum, but I have been using Stud.io for a while, which populates directly from the LDraw Library. In the Stud.io library I have been encountering many eyebrow-lifting names, spellings and categorisations, and I was glad that somebody had raised the issue that a general check of spelling and categories could be useful to clean up the library.
It being called a can of worms, told me that I'm not the only one finding it very uncomfortable that certain parts are sorted in a way that only makes sense to an intoxicated mind.
e.g. Technic Plate 11x19x1 is categorized/sorted as "Vehicle - Land" -- "Road Sign".

And I also saw a thread where a perfectly correct spelling (in Australian English) was "corrected" to a global misspelling, based on the premise that such misspelling was already used elsewhere in the library... This is not a Cobol database, I presume, so when a misspelling is found, it should be corrected instead of new authors being forced to apply a wrong spelling. (wink to IT staff that is old enough to get that reference Wink ) (The example in question is "propeller", which is the proper Australian English spelling according to ALL online dictionaries that feature the difference between the English spellings that I could find, but which remains spelled "propellor" in the library)

Other blatant errors exist. Example: In Stud.io there is a part called 41125 - "Horse Vet Trailer" which in truth is an 8 x 8 six bladed shuriken. I find neither the partnumber, nor that name back in here, but I wouldn't know how to go about finding how it is actually listed in this library. Regardless, somehow that part carried something that made Stud.io classify it under that strange number and name.

I recognize that the first and the last issue could be due to some coding mistakes on BL premises, perhaps a glitch when matching LD data to BL names/descriptions, but the second issue about the spelling is entirely located here. I regularly have to search the LD library for a part that is still missing in Stud.io for manual import. Would be nice to be able to find the part when I know I'm using the correct spelling, yet I still can't get any hits back from the search function.

And while we're at it: I deeply understand how certain gestures are done to show respect, but when those gestures cause more confusion than clarity for the vast majority of users, then the initial goals of the founder are not respected at all... Banning prevalent spelling in favor of exotic obscure spelling, is imho not an effective way of remembering respectfully. After all, the memory will be associated with frustration and confusion. Not a way that I would want to be remembered. So maybe it is a good moment to reconsider the ways we remember the founder of this great initiative, implement them in a more constructive and pleasant way, and apply prevalence over rigidity onto the spelling rules. If you must, keep one or two very specific names, but at least add the normal spelling too. Only a tiny minority of users is privy to the inner secrets of the Australian typography. The rest of us ignorants has to rely on what normal spellcheckers teach us... Smile

Thank you for your time and attention, and for all effort put into this library. (sincere gratitude, not everything I write is irony... =D )

Luke.
Reply
RE: Parts to be renamed?
#12
Instead of a long complaint it would be much more useful to simply list the spelling errors in the library you came across and give us a chance to correct them as we did with this:

https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-24356-po...l#pid39960

w.


BTW. Before you post please cross-check your finding in Stud.io with LDraw - as they do their very own thing.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Parts to be renamed?
#13
Dear Luke,



Adding to Willy's comment, which basically says it all, channel the energy to list the parts in question and contribute to a better library.


(2021-03-09, 5:22)Luke Art Wrote: e.g. Technic Plate 11x19x1 is categorized/sorted as "Vehicle - Land" -- "Road Sign".

This is part 39369, please approach the Studio team to have them assign to a proper category instead of "Roadsign". The Studio Team changes parts numbers (especially printed parts) and categories, we do not have influence on this.

(2021-03-09, 5:22)Luke Art Wrote: Other blatant errors exist. Example: In Stud.io there is a part called 41125 - "Horse Vet Trailer" which in truth is an 8 x 8 six bladed shuriken.

Also approach here the Sudio Team. This part (41125) is not in the LDraw Library. This is an interesting case where a Set Number and a Part Number exist, the Studio team has chosen the Set Name, interesting choice...

(2021-03-09, 5:22)Luke Art Wrote: And while we're at it: I deeply understand how certain gestures are done to show respect, but when those gestures cause more confusion than clarity for the vast majority of users, then the initial goals of the founder are not respected at all... Banning prevalent spelling in favor of exotic obscure spelling, is imho not an effective way of remembering respectfully. After all, the memory will be associated with frustration and confusion. Not a way that I would want to be remembered. So maybe it is a good moment to reconsider the ways we remember the founder of this great initiative, implement them in a more constructive and pleasant way, and apply prevalence over rigidity onto the spelling rules. If you must, keep one or two very specific names, but at least add the normal spelling too. Only a tiny minority of users is privy to the inner secrets of the Australian typography. The rest of us ignorants has to rely on what normal spellcheckers teach us... Smile

As mentioned before, you are very welcome to raise spelling mistakes and contribute to a better library.

BR
Gerald
Reply
Re: Parts to be renamed?
#9
> One of my biggest complaints is are the "Wedge
> ..." parts. Most people tend to use MLCad, and it
> tends to categorize parts by first name.
> Especially things like Bricks and Plates, things
> which people are unlikely to change. I realize
> this is how both Peeron and Bricklink categorize
> them, but I've long thought them wrong for it as
> well. Take for example
> [url=http://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catT
> ype=P&catString=583]"Wedge Plate"[/url]. Why on
> earth are these not categorized "Plate Wedge"
> instead, and most other wedges could be fit under
> Slope or Brick as well. In the case of the Wedge
> Plate, I'm sure most people would look for these
> under "Plate", but under MLCad's default settings
> and tree, you'll have to go to "Other Parts->W"
> and find them mixed with all the other wedges and
> various other W parts.

You can add a "Wedges and Wings" category like I have.

Actually this brings up a side issue: why are 43710 and its mirror 'slopes' while the combined version 6069 is a wedge?

I'm firmly of the opinion they should live together but not sure if they should be a wedge or a slope. Thoughts?

Tim
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)