Site Forum

I don't know if this situation exists in any category other than racing, but I thought I'd post it up to the forums at large and see what everyone's opinions are.

In Racing, we have many cards that are associated with a particular driver, but are pictures of equipment; most commonly the race car but also helmets, team haulers, etc.  I don't know of any racing collector who collects a specific driver but only wants cards that picture the driver and not cards that picture the race car, etc.  However, many of the 'traditional' checklist publications make it a point to specify that those cards do not picture the person, they describe them as "so-and-so's car", "John Doe's Helmet", and so on.  For illustration, here's an example:

1993 Maxx #168

This is a Jeff Gordon card that pictures the race car he drove.  For database purposes, does that distinction need to be made?  Does anyone want to be able to sort the person cards from the equipment cards?  If so, what is the correct place to make that distinction; the name field, one of the note fields, or where?

Does anyone have an example of this situation from another sport?  The ones I can think of would be associated with a specific team, but I don't know of any that would have a helmet, stick, ball, or anything else that could be attributed to a specific player if taken out of context.

Does anyone here have any thoughts, opinions or precedents for this situation?

-Tom

I would say check out the older Pinnacle helmet cards, if you don't know the sport you wouldn't know the helmet. Try 91-92 (maybe lol)

I would say that Note2 would be the best bet. I would say with the example you gave put driver name in Name field and then put RaceCar pictured. Or something to that effect.

I'm trying to think of a situation in any of the other sports on here where that would be "a thing". In baseball, the only thing that could be depicted on a card that could be distinguished as "so-and-so's" would be a jersey. And when that has happened, I think we just tagged the player (as it was an ad card of some sort) and left it at that. In Hockey, we have had Goalie Mask cards, and we just gave them the player's name and left it at that. Never even crossed my mind that anyone would want to distinguish between the player's cards and the mask card as something separate. In this case, the mask is more or less an extension of the player.

I think if I was into NASCAR, and I decided on a driver to collect, that I'd be interested in all aspects of their cards - them, helmets, racing suits, cars, special paint schemes, etc.

Would you want there to be a PID for Dale Jarrett and a PID for Dale Jarrett's Equipment?

vrooomed wrote:

Would you want there to be a PID for Dale Jarrett and a PID for Dale Jarrett's Equipment?

Oh good Lord, no ..... LOL!  I don't even think that the distinction needs to be made.  Some people have perpetuated the tradition of distinguishing between the driver and the car, etc., and I wanted some more opinions on if that practice needs to continue and if so, how.  It would be nice to have a standard before things start getting locked down.

-Tom 

Admin has told me that car can be placed in the note section. Personally, I would prefer that it was not denoted at all, as 99% of all car cards have the driver in them. Of course, knowing how my week has been going, everyone will agree with me after I've already pretty much finished linking them all, per the Name Validation System. 

But seriously, we don't list when an athlete is using the tools of their chosen sport, why do we do so for auto racing? That would be like listing "holding bat" for most baseball players, in the name field. What a mess that would be.

Billy Kingsley wrote:

Admin has told me that car can be placed in the note section. 

I remember you posting that in the past, Billy, but then I got chastized by the note police for doing it that way.  That's why I'm questioning the need to do it at all.  I think the title of the card should go in the name field and leave it at that.  

-Tom

That is why I think Note2 would make better sense Tom. You can describe the card and it does not show up in the general checklist like Note does, only when you look at the individual card or make a list does the Note2 appear. You probably know that though so I will return to my morning coffee. =)

The example you give in your original post (from all I can see) should probably be just the driver's name. He's pictured on the back. The front never mentions "Car" - it simply has the driver's name.

As ranfordfan (a.k.a. "the Bill Collector") states, any info about the card that isn't directly on the card itself goes in Note 2. The poor Note field has been misused and abused now for years. AU, MEM, SNxx, PRxx, CL, ERR, VAR,  and the like are proper use of the Note field. I noticed someone putting CPC in there on older baseball sets when there were more than 1 player on the card. The card doesn't have CPC on the card anywhere (or what the abbreviation supposedly means). You want to note that it's multiple players, fine - Note2. That stuff doesn't belong in the note/glossary. So glad Admin introduced the lock down functionality. I know I had mentioned the ability to do that a while back (can't find the message to them as I have over 1200 messages in my "sent" folder) and it's great to see that implemented. I just hope all of our Level 8 members get this right. :)

It sounds like we agree in principle, I just wish that more than four of us had input to share. 

I like the statement that Note1 info should be a feature that appears on the card itself, I've never heard it described that way before.  That guidance accounts for all of the notes you mentioned, as well as the subset notations that Admin expressly allows in the FAQ.  The only exception I can think of is the RC designation, and that has its own litany of rules and guidelines.  As long as that is the only exception, I think we've arrived at a good definition, which is why I wanted to have this discussion in the first place.  I don't want to HOPE that everyone gets it right, I want there to be clear guidance that everyone can follow consistently.

By the way Dan, I agree with your first paragraph (in the post immediately above this one) completely.  I specifically chose that listing as a bad example.  Or a good example of how things have been done badly...LOL!

-Tom

As I have said before a member based convention or even an Admin made TCDB for Dummies book is needed. With solid guidlines (dare I say rules) on how to enter items to the db, everyone needs a little structure .... heck even the hippies did din't they?!?! =)