Talk:Construction set

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)

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)

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)

Add Cleversticks

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

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)

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)

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)

Bayko

I would add Bayko, but I don't know how best to describe its connection method. Maproom (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)