. The orientation is
that of a bar attached to the clip, not that of the clip itself.
I can't find any name change logs of this part.
Thanks for the explanation!
I am pretty sure that the plates also used to be called differently. (vertical
was horizontal and around)
Theory behind the names is not logical to me, when a clip is vertical, call it
vertical. Why go a step further and think about the bar that will attach it.
I am pretty sure that the plates also used to be called differently. (vertical
was horizontal and around)
Theory behind the names is not logical to me, when a clip is vertical, call it
vertical. Why go a step further and think about the bar that will attach it.
Brickset copies lego names, which is why they also copy LEGO's errors, such
as using a zero instead of an O. It doesn't have to be the bar you think
of, you can also think of the channel of the clip, the channel runs vertically.
That said, I think the definition based on what a clip holds is probably best,
as clips are designed to hold something. So if I use a clip to hold a drainpipe,
I want a vertical one.
I am pretty sure that the plates also used to be called differently. (vertical
was horizontal and around)
Theory behind the names is not logical to me, when a clip is vertical, call it
vertical. Why go a step further and think about the bar that will attach it.
Brickset copies lego names, which is why they also copy LEGO's errors, such
as using a zero instead of an O. It doesn't have to be the bar you think
of, you can also think of the channel of the clip, the channel runs vertically.
That said, I think the definition based on what a clip holds is probably best,
as clips are designed to hold something. So if I use a clip to hold a drainpipe,
I want a vertical one.
Valid argument, however, the manufacturer is the naming source, and shouldn't
we respect that they are considering the orientation of the clip itself, not
the "channel" or the orientation of the object it might hold?
The industry standard for such devices, is that opposing angles bind; that is
to say, a vertical device holds a horizontal element, and the part's reference
is based on the object you are referring to, not the future mated object.
By way of your argument, BL, and by extension, TLG, assumes the engineers are
in error? Maybe so, maybe not so; although I find it humorous that grammar errors
are carried through. It may be laziness, or total respect for the manufacturer,
I don't know... however, I lean toward the former.
On an interesting note, when I get a "horizontal" clip from the manufacturer,
and get a "vertical" clip from BL, they appear to be one in the same element
and are 100% interchangeable. Go figure.
[…]
I find it humorous that grammar errors
are carried through. It may be laziness, or total respect for the manufacturer,
I don't know... however, I lean toward the former.
It’s not “carried through” by “laziness.” It’s simply because Brickset’s database
IS (a copy of) LEGO’s database.
They get their data directly from LEGO and don’t change anything because their
purpose is showing LEGO’s data verbatim.
I am pretty sure that the plates also used to be called differently. (vertical
was horizontal and around)
Theory behind the names is not logical to me, when a clip is vertical, call it
vertical. Why go a step further and think about the bar that will attach it.
Valid argument, however, the manufacturer is the naming source, and shouldn't
we respect that they are considering the orientation of the clip itself, not
the "channel" or the orientation of the object it might hold?
LEGO kept the names secret for many years, and BL started using it's own
definition. If BL changes this, then should change they everything else to fit
LEGO's catalogue too? For example,
has no orientation in the name, it is just a PLATE 1X1 W/ HOLDER.
The industry standard for such devices, is that opposing angles bind; that is
to say, a vertical device holds a horizontal element, and the part's reference
is based on the object you are referring to, not the future mated object.
But what defines a clip, is it the "arms" or is it groove in it? It could be
either, especially as they are both roughly the same dimensions here.
How would you describe these, if they needed to be distinguished?
I am pretty sure that the plates also used to be called differently. (vertical
was horizontal and around)
Theory behind the names is not logical to me, when a clip is vertical, call it
vertical. Why go a step further and think about the bar that will attach it.
Valid argument, however, the manufacturer is the naming source, and shouldn't
we respect that they are considering the orientation of the clip itself, not
the "channel" or the orientation of the object it might hold?
LEGO kept the names secret for many years, and BL started using it's own
definition. If BL changes this, then should change they everything else to fit
LEGO's catalogue too? For example,
has no orientation in the name, it is just a PLATE 1X1 W/ HOLDER.
The industry standard for such devices, is that opposing angles bind; that is
to say, a vertical device holds a horizontal element, and the part's reference
is based on the object you are referring to, not the future mated object.
But what defines a clip, is it the "arms" or is it groove in it? It could be
either, especially as they are both roughly the same dimensions here.
How would you describe these, if they needed to be distinguished?
I would say they are vertical and horizontal, and they hold vertical and horizontal
parts.
Precisely, I think you've helped prove the point: at any time, irrespective
of any industry or engineering standard, names are going to be conflated, twisted,
and distorted by the entire chain of "handlers".
However, the original question was when did the names change, and the
answers were attempts to explain why the names changed. The objective
was to address both.
The when, of course, being years ago when BL decided they didn't like the
manufacturer's nomenclatures, perhaps even day one (though the point is well
taken that the manufacturer saw no need to publicly name their elements and should
be considered as to why BL moved in this direction, you might know better as
to when the manufacturer disclosed their internal names). The why being as long
as we, the BL community, develop a common symbology, regardless of our biases,
we can use the site.
And as was also pointed out, even the logic applied to the first examples of
why, don't flow throughout the BL catalogue. Nonetheless, we can use BL,
as understanding is not a requisite, only acceptance.
Then finally, to use other platforms, one will need a translator. For example,
feces = excréments = ontlasting = heces = kot = fezes and so forth... yes?
On a personal note, I enjoy these discussions, they're civil and above all,
educational. While understanding is not necessarily necessary to use BL, it
can spark creativity and in our case, lead to discoveries that make our hobby
even more enjoyable.
[…]
However, the original question was when did the names change, and the
answers were attempts to explain why the names changed.
No, the answers were why the names were this way.
The objective
was to address both.
Which are both irrelevant questions because the names didn’t change.
When and why did you stop beating your wife?
The when, of course, being years ago when BL decided they didn't like the
manufacturer's nomenclatures, perhaps even day one (though the point is well
taken that the manufacturer saw no need to publicly name their elements and should
be considered as to why BL moved in this direction, you might know better as
to when the manufacturer disclosed their internal names).
How do you decide not to like something you don’t know?
[…]
Then finally, to use other platforms, one will need a translator. For example,
feces = excréments = ontlasting = heces = kot = fezes and so forth... yes? […]
Which are both irrelevant questions because the names didn’t change.
With al due respect but how can you be so sure?
I've been selling here since 2000.
My inventory boxes carry the stickers with the old names since that date, these
names were changed sometime in the past 20 years, I only did not notice
this until just a few months ago.
I did notice that very recently the names were changed again. And for the better,
they have included the word 'grip'in the description.
Which are both irrelevant questions because the names didn’t change.
With al due respect but how can you be so sure?
I've been selling here since 2000.
My inventory boxes carry the stickers with the old names since that date,
[P=30241b]
That part appeared in 2008/2009.
these
names were changed sometime in the past 20 years, I only did not notice
this until just a few months ago.
Peeron’s name (60475): Brick 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical
Peeron hasn’t been updated since 2011. (They have only one variant. 30241 is
just appearing in notes in 60475’s list of sets.)
LDraw’s names:
(60475a): Brick 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical (Thick C-Clip) and Solid Stud
(60475b): Brick 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical (Thick C-Clip) and Hollow Stud
Rebrickable:
(60475a): Brick Special 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical [Thick U Clip, Solid Stud]
(60475b): Brick Special 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical [Open O Clip, Hollow Stud]
Same motive, same punition with BrickOwl.
They all agree on what “vertical” means for this part.
They all agree on what “vertical” means for all the parts with clips.
As the part is “recent” (2008/2009), it’s not on lugnet (which died in 2002),
but lugnet agrees with everybody else on what “vertical” means for parts with
clips.
There’s no traces whatsoever of a change of names.
Those are facts, not memories.
On your side, you’re saying they all changed their names together, without leaving
any trace but your labels, twice!
What are the chances you made a mistake with your labels instead?
I did notice that very recently the names were changed again. And for the better,
they have included the word 'grip'in the description.
Which are both irrelevant questions because the names didn’t change.
With al due respect but how can you be so sure?
I've been selling here since 2000.
My inventory boxes carry the stickers with the old names since that date,
[P=30241b]
That part appeared in 2008/2009.
these
names were changed sometime in the past 20 years, I only did not notice
this until just a few months ago.
Peeron’s name (60475): Brick 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical
Peeron hasn’t been updated since 2011. (They have only one variant. 30241 is
just appearing in notes in 60475’s list of sets.)
LDraw’s names:
(60475a): Brick 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical (Thick C-Clip) and Solid Stud
(60475b): Brick 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical (Thick C-Clip) and Hollow Stud
Rebrickable:
(60475a): Brick Special 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical [Thick U Clip, Solid Stud]
(60475b): Brick Special 1 x 1 with Clip Vertical [Open O Clip, Hollow Stud]
Same motive, same punition with BrickOwl.
They all agree on what “vertical” means for this part.
They all agree on what “vertical” means for all the parts with clips.
As the part is “recent” (2008/2009), it’s not on lugnet (which died in 2002),
but lugnet agrees with everybody else on what “vertical” means for parts with
clips.
There’s no traces whatsoever of a change of names.
Those are facts, not memories.
On your side, you’re saying they all changed their names together, without leaving
any trace but your labels, twice!
What are the chances you made a mistake with your labels instead?
I did notice that very recently the names were changed again. And for the better,
they have included the word 'grip'in the description.
No, “grip” isn’t in the description.
Perhaps the OP simply set up their labels in a way that makes sense by describing
the part itself rather than how it is sometimes used, and his error is that he
assumed the rest of the Lego community would also follow common sense.
The way Lego describes these parts is more accurate and does not rely on defining
it by a particular usage. It is the "describe it by its use and not its shape"
philosophy that created the widely inconsistent Bricklink categories. Clips are
not always used as clips. Sometimes they are used merely as decoration. And when
they are used as clips, the parts held by them are not necessarily oriented in
a certain way. The clips are designed to allow for movement and are often used
as hinge parts, allowing the attached part to move from horizontal to vertical
around the attachment point.
Regardless of the history of the nomenclature, it is confusing and is not based
on describing the shape of the part itself. It is based on one attribute of a
part it may attach to. The bar on the other part may be oriented horizontally
or vertically relative to the part, so the full part with the bar may be oriented
opposite to the name of the clip.
I did notice that very recently the names were changed again. And for the better,
they have included the word 'grip'in the description.
No, “grip” isn’t in the description.
I mean, “grip” wasn’t in the descriptions as of a few days ago, when you started
this thread. So it’s not part of the change you think occured, it’s a consequence
of this thread.
[…]
Regardless of the history of the nomenclature, it is confusing and is not based
on describing the shape of the part itself. It is based on one attribute of a
part it may attach to.
Yes. The only clip-like part for which “vertical/horizontal” as used here could
make sense is the minifig hand (because of the already established meaning of
“vertical/horizontal” for human hands). And that part isn’t described as a clip
nor has “clip” nor any orientation in its description….
[…]
It was a short-sighted initial decision and it has unfortunately been perpetuated.
Yes.
And it’s a difficult decision to correct now, as there isn’t any other pair than
vertical/horizontal (that I know of) to describe the difference between the clips.
The only way would be to swap the meanings of vertical and horizontal, creating
confusion.
(Hence the latest change from “clip vertical” to “clip (vertical grip).”)
I think you owe the Community a sincere apology for
such a personal and unwarranted attack against my
deceased wife, whom you didn't even know and had
absolutely no reason to drag into your argument.
I think you owe the Community a sincere apology for
such a personal and unwarranted attack against my
deceased wife, whom you didn't even know and had
absolutely no reason to drag into your argument.
I believe that was a rhetorical question meant as an example to show that the
questions that were being asked were not really relevant when there is an even
bigger underlying problem that is not being addressed.
I think you owe the Community a sincere apology for
such a personal and unwarranted attack against my
deceased wife, whom you didn't even know and had
absolutely no reason to drag into your argument.
I believe that was a rhetorical question meant as an example to show that the
questions that were being asked were not really relevant when there is an even
bigger underlying problem that is not being addressed.
I cannot believe you would defend such reprehensible behaviour... if that were
the point, there are less personal ways of making it.
I think you owe the Community a sincere apology for
such a personal and unwarranted attack against my
deceased wife, whom you didn't even know and had
absolutely no reason to drag into your argument.
I believe that was a rhetorical question meant as an example to show that the
questions that were being asked were not really relevant when there is an even
bigger underlying problem that is not being addressed.
I cannot believe you would defend such reprehensible behaviour... if that were
the point, there are less personal ways of making it.
Hold on now. I did not say that I was defending it or that I thought it was a
tactful example. I was just explaining what I *thought* they meant by it.
I think you owe the Community a sincere apology for
such a personal and unwarranted attack against my
deceased wife, whom you didn't even know and had
absolutely no reason to drag into your argument.
I’m not sure this is serious due to the way it’s worded but if I owe an apology,
I’d sincerely apologize to you, your wife’s memory, and her family and friends
for having mentioned an hypothetical wife of yours in a rhetorical argument and
triggered painful memories of a dearly departed.
I believe that was a rhetorical question meant as an example to show that the
questions that were being asked were not really relevant when there is an even
bigger underlying problem that is not being addressed.
It’s also a trap question that can’t be answered without verifying (making true)
the tacit premise (asking about circumstances of something stopping implies the
something existed).
Did you stop eating snails?
— Yes ≫ Yuck! You ate snails.
— No ≫ Yuck! You’re still eating snails.
In Catalog, Legoboy_II writes:
I think you owe the Community a sincere apology for
such a personal and unwarranted attack against my
deceased wife, whom you didn't even know and had
absolutely no reason to drag into your argument.
I’m not sure this is serious due to the way it’s worded but if I owe an apology,
I’d sincerely apologize to you, your wife’s memory, and her family and friends
for having mentioned an hypothetical wife of yours in a rhetorical argument and
triggered painful memories of a dearly departed.
Seriously!? While I have never committed the most heinous and vile crime you
accuse me of, as an LEO and EMS responder, I have seen more than my fair share
of domestic violence. I find your willingness to use such imagery as a comedic
prop, repugnant.
In Catalog, randyf writes:
I believe that was a rhetorical question meant as an example to show that the
questions that were being asked were not really relevant when there is an even
bigger underlying problem that is not being addressed.
It’s also a trap question that can’t be answered without verifying (making true)
the tacit premise (asking about circumstances of something stopping implies the
something existed).
Did you stop eating snails?
— Yes ≫ Yuck! You ate snails.
— No ≫ Yuck! You’re still eating snails.
The fact your patently false statements, and lack of remorse, are endorsed by
TLG administration, is disconcerting, as well.
Fortunately, I am an extendedly tolerant man and personally unfazed by such attacks,
I only bother to address this matter because you both have offended the honor
of a person I continue to hold in the highest regard, who never sinned against
either of you, and who didn't deserve to be disparaged. Your follies to falsely
hold out a kind and gentle soul, as a victim of a true social ill, only diminish
the voice of the real victims of abuse.
In Catalog, Legoboy_II writes:
I think you owe the Community a sincere apology for
such a personal and unwarranted attack against my
deceased wife, whom you didn't even know and had
absolutely no reason to drag into your argument.
I’m not sure this is serious due to the way it’s worded but if I owe an apology,
I’d sincerely apologize to you, your wife’s memory, and her family and friends
for having mentioned an hypothetical wife of yours in a rhetorical argument and
triggered painful memories of a dearly departed.
Seriously!? While I have never committed the most heinous and vile crime you
accuse me of, as an LEO and EMS responder, I have seen more than my fair share
of domestic violence. I find your willingness to use such imagery as a comedic
prop, repugnant.
In Catalog, randyf writes:
I believe that was a rhetorical question meant as an example to show that the
questions that were being asked were not really relevant when there is an even
bigger underlying problem that is not being addressed.
It’s also a trap question that can’t be answered without verifying (making true)
the tacit premise (asking about circumstances of something stopping implies the
something existed).
Did you stop eating snails?
— Yes ≫ Yuck! You ate snails.
— No ≫ Yuck! You’re still eating snails.
The fact your patently false statements, and lack of remorse, are endorsed by
TLG administration, is disconcerting, as well.
Fortunately, I am an extendedly tolerant man and personally unfazed by such attacks,
I only bother to address this matter because you both have offended the honor
of a person I continue to hold in the highest regard, who never sinned against
either of you, and who didn't deserve to be disparaged. Your follies to falsely
hold out a kind and gentle soul, as a victim of a true social ill, only diminish
the voice of the real victims of abuse.
Shame on you both!
Please do not continue to include me in this. The fact that you are assuming
that I condoned the behavior is insulting and offensive to me.
I think you owe the Community a sincere apology for
such a personal and unwarranted attack against my
deceased wife, whom you didn't even know and had
absolutely no reason to drag into your argument.
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
)
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
United Kingdom, England
USA
