Talk:Construction set: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:13, 23 February 2012

Deletion vote in 2005

For the 1 July 2005 Vote for deletion resulting in move (keep), see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Constructions set. -- Jonel | Speak 03:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision

My major revision was prompted by my realization that I have never seen a strut system based on a D_6h node. Eassin 21:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the notation

I think it would be worthwhile to explain what the notation in the examples means, e.g. C2v (*22) nodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.192.101 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add Cleversticks

Please consider adding Cleversticks to the list of construction toys Arlington row (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split between industrial and toys

Someone should divide the article content between "toys" and industrial components. --70.142.41.253 (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Construction Set Comparison ==
Could someone please make a graph which compares
1) What each set does or does not have
2) The size of each of the units it has
I want to buy the best set I can for some novice practise engineering but am not sure what is the best novice option
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.73.132 (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is useful to list sets by category like that. Most systems have components in more than one category - for example Technical Lego is listed separately from Lego, althhough it is compatible with the Lego brick-and-stud system. Similarly Fischertechnik is listed only as a brick-and-stud system, but it also has panels and struts held together by plastic twist fasteners in a similar manner to the Meccano nuts and bolts. So I agree we need a matrix to say what features each system has and doesn't have, rather than the division into (somewhat arbitrary) categories. Philbelb (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ) The size of each of the units it has<br />
 I want to buy the best set I can for some novice practise engineering but am not sure what is the best novice option<br /><span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.124.73.132|202.124.73.132]] ([[User talk:202.124.73.132|talk]]) 05:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+I don't think it is useful to list sets by category like that.  Most systems have components in more than one category - for example Technical Lego is listed separately from Lego, althhough it is compatible with the Lego brick-and-stud system.  Similarly Fischertechnik is listed only as a brick-and-stud system, but it also has panels and struts held together by plastic twist fasteners in a similar manner to the Meccano nuts and bolts.  So I agree we need a matrix to say what features each system has and doesn't have, rather than the division into (somewhat arbitrary) categories.
+[[User:Philbelb|Philbelb]] ([[User talk:Philbelb|talk]]) 15:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)