On 2023-04-14 01:57 (-4), jr wrote:
> 
> unsure (did I mention I'm crap at naming stuff ? :-)), to me they're like
> interior + exterior, "qualifiers", rather than categories per se; eg CR's
> coronavirus, it'd be 'organic forms' and 'terrestrial fauna' primarily, I guess,
> and 'microscopic' too.

I don't think of viruses as fauna.  I still hear dieticians referring to
bacteria as "flora," probably a holdover from the days when biologists
thought bacteria were plants; but viruses have no analogous history.

> [snip]
>     Household/Office Objects
>         Computers
>         Furniture
>         Furnishings/Decor
>             Office
>             Living space
>             Kitchen
>             Bathroom
>             Bedroom

Would coffee mugs be considered "Furnishings/Decor"?

> [snip]
>     Transforms
>     Cameras

Great additions!

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> On 2023-04-14 01:57 (-4), jr wrote:
> > coronavirus, it'd be 'organic forms' and 'terrestrial fauna' primarily, I guess,
> > and 'microscopic' too.
>
> I don't think of viruses as fauna.  I still hear dieticians referring to
> bacteria as "flora," probably a holdover from the days when biologists
> thought bacteria were plants; but viruses have no analogous history.

yes.  dilemma(s).  fungi too cannot be categorised, really, as is.


> Would coffee mugs be considered "Furnishings/Decor"?

furnishings.  :-)  not ideal, but definitely not decorative (only).


> >     Transforms
> >     Cameras
> Great additions!

hey, thanks.


given that there have been no other follow-ups, I'll go with the last published
list, plus added 'Splines' (after 'Transforms'), and, maybe, something like
'Utensils' to go with the 'Furnishings/Decor'.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hi,
>
> yesbird <sya### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > I like this hierarchy, but only one question: what is a "Scale Model"
> > category ?
>
> thanks (still room for improvement, though :-)).  I guess I'm thinking of
> projects like 'Ton' does, eg.
>
<https://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.5d05f9ab6bc50fb5939601860%40news.povray.org%3E/>
>
>
>
> regards, jr.

Hi,

but Ton's project would fit in Vehicles>Rail. I guess it's not necessary to have
an extra category if the model is scaled down from the original. Nobody would
realise it from the image.

regards - Oswald

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > yesbird <sya### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > > I like this hierarchy, but only one question: what is a "Scale Model"
> > > category ?
> > thanks (still room for improvement, though :-)).  I guess I'm thinking of
> > projects like 'Ton' does, eg.
> > ...
> but Ton's project would fit in Vehicles>Rail.

just to repeat something I wrote elsethread, as I feel it's important: there is
no 'Vehicles->Rail' category, both categories/labels need selecting.  the
hierarchy is implicit only.


> I guess it's not necessary to have
> an extra category if the model is scaled down from the original. Nobody would
> realise it from the image.

yes and no :-).  take two hypothetical cars, one claims 'scale model'.  then I'd
expect to be able to re-texture either with little fuss, scale, and use.  but
say I want to make a monster truck, already have chassis and wheels, and only
want a body ?  then (I would think and hope) the scale model car would make that
an easier task, as I'd expect it to be built from parts.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

On 2023-04-22 04:51 (-4), jr wrote:
> 
> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> On 2023-04-14 01:57 (-4), jr wrote:
>>> coronavirus, it'd be 'organic forms' and 'terrestrial fauna' primarily, I guess,
>>> and 'microscopic' too.
>>
>> I don't think of viruses as fauna.  I still hear dieticians referring to
>> bacteria as "flora," probably a holdover from the days when biologists
>> thought bacteria were plants; but viruses have no analogous history.
> 
> yes.  dilemma(s).  fungi too cannot be categorised, really, as is.

There is actually a neologism for fungi, "Funga," apparently coined in
the early 2000s.  Now that biologists have determined that fungi are
less closely related to plants than to animals, should we include the
category "Funga" under Organic Forms?  (One POVer regularly renders
sentient fungoid beings, though he has not contributed them to the
Collection.)  Or is it fine to group fungi under Flora?

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> ...
> > yes.  dilemma(s).  fungi too cannot be categorised, really, as is.
>
> There is actually a neologism for fungi, "Funga," apparently coined in
> the early 2000s.  Now that biologists have determined that fungi are
> less closely related to plants than to animals, should we include the
> category "Funga" under Organic Forms?  (One POVer regularly renders
> sentient fungoid beings, though he has not contributed them to the
> Collection.)  Or is it fine to group fungi under Flora?

Wiktionary says the "term is equivalent to the concepts of fauna and flora", so
as a third "Terrestrial" entry, I guess.  thanks.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message