1990 Good Humor Big League Ice Cream Bats Baseball Forum

You must really hate libraries, with all those cataloguing numbers "made up" by Dewey.

Hey, that's cool, didn't know those Tarot cards were there, CollectingAfterDeath!  My wife will enjoy those, if I dare show her - I hesitate merely because upon seeing them, I may be ordered to procure a set for her...  

Just because COMC does it wrong doesn't mean we should as well. COMC also is known to put question marks for people's names that are clearly printed on the cards, they are not infallible. 

Chuck, your comparison is not valid. They don't change the name of the book, they just use it as a filing system. 

Why do we change history to suit Jefferson Burdick but NOT James Beckett...after all, he's well known in the hobby and changes reality to suit his system. We change history to match one but not the other. 

Please note I'm not arguing that we change to match Beckett- quite the opposite.

CAD >>> Been there done that, and could possibly do it again >>> Seems like ADMIN and the site are loosening up a bit >>> How about my Coasters ! LOL

I don't think by ADDING an ACC number to the set's name is changing history.

If we claimed that the set was known as T206 (for example) from the days of its release, then yes, that would be attempting to change history. We know that the set wasn't referred to as T206 until Burdick created his naming system. Adding this ACC number simply helps collectors, much like adding ERR, COR, or VAR to the notes - that is info that doesn't appear on the cards, so are we changing history by adding that information to these cards? If we are changing history by including the ACC numbers, then we're also changing history by adding those notes, and we should remove them when we remove the ACC numbers (or vice versa).

I kinda see the point presented here. Removing TCDB ability to add reference notes would be a disaster for the site. Not being able to use VAR, COR, UER, ERR and more would be a step WAY backward. So in so many cases on the TCDB site, we gotta accept and roll on.

Sips coffee, rocks chair smiling. ;)

No, that's just going to the extreme to try and make what I say look bad. None of those things are presented as the official name of the set. Putting those numbers in the titles does. Those numbers should be in trivia, not in the set title. 

While I agree that ACC numbers are not to be confused with nor considered part of the 'set name', I strongly support any solution that would ensure the numbers are searchable.  If including them in the 'set name' field is the only way that someone searching TCDB for "T206" will find it, that's how I think it should be.