Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 03:44 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | I find it easier to apply rather than discuss in the air as it were, so following
on from the above and using a few of the catalog items I've submitted, let
me see if I can get these correct from the word go.
|
Great, thanks for testing these out! The interpretation of others will allow
me to see where explanatory flaws lie.
| | Maybe a sandbox forum topic for
this should be used, so these can be tested efficiently and in one place?
|
We're not really changing anything yet except 4 Juniors, so I don't think
there's a need for anyone to post a huge number of examples and no need for
anything separate.
| |
would become: Character CUUSOO, Grandmother (21315)
|
Seeing it in print makes me realize that there's already a problem with the
rules. In this case this figure is a grandmother so we'd want to indicate
that first in the title. Yet her name is also Grandmother. So properly formatted
according to the rules, the title should look like this:
Grandmother, Grandmother (21315)
Remember that we want to list the occupation/type first in the title. This groups
similar figures like grandmothers together and there are six of them in the catalog.
When an occupation exists, the "Character" portion of the title isn't necessary
and what follows is any official figure name or any necessary descriptors.
This would be an easy update: if the occupation/type exactly matches the figure
name, then the occupation/type would be excluded from the title. This change
would make the current title completely in compliance with the rules. Thanks
for finding this one.
| |
would become: Microfigure - Character CUUSOO, Jack (21315)
|
Okay, so for this one microfigures already exist in the catalog. Search "microfigure"
and you can see them. Here we would use statuette to describe the figure size/type.
Also, CUUSOO was only two sets. Everything after was Ideas. So here I'd
go with:
Statuette - Character Ideas, Jack (21315)
| |
would become: Plain Torso, Red (Gear 81087)
|
This one is perfect except for the word Gear. Russell taught me a little trick
to thinking about catalog items: since they all have different item numbers,
we don't really need to worry about whether they're sets or gear. Also,
if an item moves from one to the other, then we'd have to go back and change
figure titles.
| |
would become: Mini Doll - Character Friends, Mia, Dark Azure Plaid Shirt, Dark
Purple Shorts, (10749, 41345)
|
When we go through every minifigure title in the catalog we will find errors.
Here's an example of an error: the following figure has exactly the same
top as the figure you mention, but it is incorrectly described as a different
color in the title:
So for this incarnation of Mia, we would cut the color from the top altogether.
It is unnecessary because the top only comes in one color. We would go in order
through the figure characteristics until we found the difference and remember
that we're only looking for differences in otherwise identical figures.
For this figure the title would be:
Mini Doll - Character Friends, Mia, Plaid Shirt, Ponytail, Eyes Green and Freckles,
Shorts (10749, 41345)
The part about descriptors could be modified to say that instead of going in
order we would only identify any difference after the torso, I suppose, and that
all affected figures would get the same title treatment up to the difference.
I worded it the way I did because of the wide variety of similar Town figures,
but we could reexamine that approach. It seems silly for one figure to have
all that information and the other to have nothing - it will result in long titles
and short titles for otherwise similar figures and will look odd.
| |
would become: Snowman, 2 x 2 Curved Top Brick as Legs (60201)
|
Here we would only need the additional descriptors in the title if other snowmen
existed (and they do). I would like to keep numbers like 2 x 2 out of titles
when possible because they aren't necessary and skew results when viewing
by title (which is, I believe, the default view). I should have mentioned that
in the guidelines as well. So I'd go more with:
Snowman, Brick Curved Top as Legs (60201)
| | A few problems I had:
Gear numbers are not set numbers, so the set number should be the standard and
gear items should be stated as such.
|
I've addressed that above. We can safely ignore adding Gear or Set to the
title.
| | The snowman is strictly not a minifig, but I do not think that something like
is Parts Figures or Figure from Parts should be used, in this case, the identifier
should be the part that does not conform to it being a standard Figure.
|
As you look through minifigures you will find many examples of non-minifigure
parts used in figures. I think just briefly describing the part would be fine
and I think I need o do some more work on the part in the rules about descriptors.
It would probably be best to go straight to the most significant difference
and this approach is already used for numerous figures.
| | I'll work through a few more later, but for the time being, is this moving
in the right direction?
|
Yep, you did fine and you identified some problems with the guidelines. Thank
you. I am doing the 4 Juniors figures strictly by the rules as we speak and
we can identify further problems once we see them all together in a group.
This time challenge yourself by finding some minifigures which really strain
the rules and let's see how well they work under stress.
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 01:21 | | Subject: | Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles.
|
A couple of people have suggested we begin at the beginning with standardized
titles for all minifigures. I agree and thank Lauren_Luke and mfav for mentioning
it. The necessity of standardized titles becomes apparent if you look at all
10,000+ minifigures together.
It's easy to suggest that we standardize minifigure titles, but it gets complex
when you actually start looking into it. My goal was to come up with standards
which could be used for any figure in the entire catalog. I spent most of today
on them and still am not sure that I'm satisfied with the results - these
rules are still not perfected and any instances where they need improvement (with
examples) would be appreciated.
Here are the guidelines I've come up with and am presenting for commentary
and modification. All of these sound complicated and they are - they'd be
intended more for the use of administrators, although they would be public in
the Help section. The result of these rules would be titles which are somewhat
less aesthetically pleasing (see the Arctic Batman example later in this post),
but which are consistent catalog-wide. They follow fairly well with what has
been done in the past:
Preliminary Section of Title:
The preliminary section of the title is not used for standard-sized minifigures.
This section describes the figure type (mini doll, microfigure, big figure,
Duplo figure, Technic figure, 4 Juniors figure, etc.). This section of the title
is not intended for the theme of a figure, does not include commas, and is separated
from the rest of the title with a dash.
To be truly consistent every figure should be titled the same way. Examples
are Figure, Technic and Figure, Belville, and Figure, Minifigure and Figure,
Microfigure and Figure, Statuette. However, it is possible to add too much to
titles and thus this approach was not used.
First Section of Title
The occupation or type of the figure goes here. These words would include firefighter,
pilot, race driver, doctor, knight, superhero, robot, droid, skeleton, zombie,
alien, etc. and should be used in identical ways for similar figures. Additional
occupations are listed in ascending alphabetical order up to a maximum of three
and are separated by a forward slash. Theme-specific words are used where appropriate.
For example, a Star Wars trooper is identified as Trooper, 212th Battalion or
Trooper, Clone, 41st Kashyyyk.
For figures which have no apparent occupation, the word "character" is used followed
by the theme without a comma. An example is Character Minecraft. For plain
figures with no torso pattern which also have no occupation, the term "plain
torso" is used, followed by the color. An example is Plain Torso, Red.
Second Section of Title:
This section includes the name of the figure if it has a name and is separated
from the first section by a comma. Additional names or name-type descriptors
are separated with a forward slash. For figures without a name, descriptions
are used. For multiple figures with the same name, the name is followed by a
comma and further descriptors separated by commas.
No two figures should have exactly the same title, but all descriptions should
be limited to the minimum necessary to differentiate one figure from another.
When describing a figure, characteristics should be listed in this order and
ended once the first differing characteristic is listed: torso assembly, hair/headgear,
body wear such as backpacks when applicable, head, and legs assembly. Titles
of individual items used for descriptors should be shortened where possible and
descriptor colors should be eliminated where possible. When descriptor colors
are required they should be placed after descriptors. The word "pattern" should
not be used in minifigure titles.
The sole exceptions for this section are Duplo figures which always include complete
descriptions in their titles.
Third Section of Title:
The set number in which the minifigure appears is included in round brackets
(parentheses) in ascending order and the -1 identifier is not used in the set
number unless it is greater than one. This information is only included for
figures which appear in three or fewer sets and combination/value packs are not
included. For figures which appear in more than three sets the term (Multiple
Sets) is used. The (Multiple Sets) identifier is necessary for consistency in
appearance and shows that the figure is in more than three sets. It also allows
members to easily identify figures for which this section of the title is missing.
Coda Section of Title:
This section is used for any additional information necessary and is separated
from the rest of the title with a dash. This information usually relates to
commerce, such as describing that a collectible minifigure entry is for only
the figure.
And that's everything. Let's see these rules in action: for each figure
below I've shown how titles would appear with these changes (several required
research to see if the colors included in the titles were actually necessary).
4 Juniors Figure - Pilot, Airplane (4619, 4620)
Primo Figure - Character Disney, Minnie Mouse (2592, 2594)
Race Driver, Stripes Red and Black, Classic Helmet Red (Multiple Sets)
[M=cty287]
Firefighter, Fire Suit with Utility Belt Brown, Fire Helmet, Airtanks (4427,
853378)
Supervillain, Bane, Black Suspenders (6860)
Superhero, Batman, Arctic (76000)
Mini Doll - Character Friends, Andrea, Halter Top, Skirt (3938)
Basketball Player, Basket Torso, Sunglasses (3390)
[M=Belvmale7a]
Belville Figure - King, Cross and Dots (5808)
Technic Figure - Construction Worker/Race Driver, Two Belts (Multiple Sets)
Scala Figure - Character Emma, Sweater (3200)
Soccer Player, Hair Brown, Arched Eyebrows and Stubble (3425) - White Team Player
2
Duplo Figure Brick - Base Red with Number 1 Race, Hair Brown, Head Yellow (9051,
9053)
I am going to apply these rules soon to the low-impact category 4 Juniors so
that we can see what they'll look like for an entire category. Beyond that,
I'll wait to see what kind of feedback everyone has before doing anything
further.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 20:57 | | Subject: | Re: Consider changing title | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | Please consider changing the following titles of these parts:
|
Please submit these requests as catalog requests:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp
The ability to submit requests in the discussion forum should only be used for
things which cannot be done with existing forms. Include any notes regarding
the changes in the comments section of the form.
Thank you.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 19:02 | | Subject: | Re: image for hol132?? | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Reki_Lobsheek writes:
| | How on Earth did this image get cleared by the catmins? 
I have seem some blurry, dark, petite, ... pictures of Lego items in the past
15 years on BL, but a sideways image of a minifig?
I don't even get what benefit there would be from taking a picture this way.
|
We don't like to add items to the catalog without an image and hardly ever
do. In the case of this figure the inventory is pending approval and rather
than delay the inventory while waiting for a perfect picture, this figure was
approved with the image submitted because it was the only image submitted.
The picture shows all the relevant characteristics of the minifigure, even though
it is not the traditional front-facing image. The good thing about this image
is that it is not permanent - anyone who feels like they have a better image
can submit that image to replace the current one.
Our other option is to hold every item in a pending status until perfect pictures
come in. I trust that is not something desired by most members.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 18:17 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9630-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | I leave for now as it is it agrees with parts list now showed in this thread
if something will needs to be corected then new change request can be submited.
|
I understand. The inventory is now missing some 30 parts which were actually
included in every copy of the set, though. You might consider adding an inventory
note which mentions the difficulties with this inventory.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 17:48 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9630-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Peeron's inventory should be a big help.
|
As a side note, Peeron's inventory may have been the 2002 version. I haven't
checked, but it wasn't added to the site until 2008. Since the submitter
has a copy of the 1997 set in hand, this would be your best resource for making
sure everything is correct for the 1997 version. The submitter may also be able
to help you determine what parts may have genuinely been extras.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 17:41 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9630-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | Robert if you have time between catalog work I would appreciate if you also look
at this if there something more to correct.
|
I'm sorry that I didn't give you more support on this. I have, indeed
been very busy elsewhere. If you'll take a look at the Peeron inventory,
you'll see that it was done from a MISB source and includes 216 parts and
around 72 extra parts. So I think it comes down to how we define extras.
This set was consistently advertised in catalogs with a lower quantity of parts
than that printed on the box and included in the set. Both Peeron and BrickLink
considered those 70+ parts to be extras. However, they're not extras according
to our current definition because they were included in every set and reflected
in the part count on the set box.
So my suggestion here is to get the part count to match the total on the set
box. To do this, you'll have to select some of the extras (around 10, I
think) and just make them extras based on what you think would be reasonable.
You will kind of be making this up, but I don't think even having a sealed
set in front of you would help here. There were a defined number of parts (presumably
the 216) used in models and the rest were just included.
Once you reach the part count on the box, you'll just have to decide what
else is extra. It's a complicated mess, but it definitely can be done and
Peeron's inventory should be a big help.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 04:58 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Note it is not Genie "with a lamp" but "of the Lamp", so it is part of his name.
The minifigure (only) name should really change to reflect this.
|
I just checked and TLG refers to this character as both Genie and Genie of the
Lamp. So either is technically appropriate as the official title. TLG, like
BrickLink, is not known for its consistency. 
I do plan to go through and correct identical titles from the list qwertyboy
so kindly supplied. When I do that, I'll fix it along with the rest.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 04:48 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | "Without face" sounds really strange
|
Okay, so what suggestions do you have for something better? Keep in mind that
it needs to be something which will keep these heads about where they are (close
to the top, but just under the plain heads) in the entire list of heads when
you look at them by title, as well as something which will only return these
heads in searches.
Previously you couldn't find any of these heads without a minifigure face
in searches, BTW, and now you can find them by searching "without face." They're
the only things that come up if you search for them.
As for your question about what criteria I used to populate the list, I tried
to include every head which was self-evidently not a face and which was
also not used in a standard-size minifigure as a head. There are two exceptions
on the list, meaning two heads which are used in minifigures.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 04:14 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6385-1 | | Viewed: | 16 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | The part 4532a also came assembled with its door. If this has to be added, shall
I add this part first?
|
Parts which came preassembled in the box for display purposes are excepted from
having catalog entries for assemblies (see the Part Assemblies section):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=199
Just an FYI: the catalog is not accepting any additional basic part assemblies
like this one until we get together some written guidelines on what assemblies
should or should not be in the catalog. Creating these written rules regarding
assemblies is on the list of things to do (item 17):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 01:14 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | If it's not the best idea, then I can always move the three heads back to from where they came and we can pretend this never happened.
|
Meh. Gave it some thought and didn't like it and changed it back. I'm
just going to retitle these heads so that they're searchable and they'll
also show up near the top of the list of heads:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 23:44 | | Subject: | Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 119 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I have split heads into two categories. Minifigure heads now exist in the original
category and a new category titled Minifigure, Head, Faceless:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=P&catString=1010&itemBrand=1000
This category will be for any heads which do not have a minifigure face, whether
the heads are simply plain or have some non-face pattern. I have only moved
three low-impact heads right now to give everyone an idea of what it will look
like. If there are no objections, then I will move the remaining heads which
qualify.
This was necessary because in the past the practice for heads without a face
was to use the wording "Head with XXXX Pattern." The addition of the word "with"
forced faceless heads (but not plain, unprinted heads) to the bottom of the list
of heads when searching by title and thus grouped them in one place.
This was not a perfect solution, however, because it ignored unprinted heads
and caused confusion for members when titling heads. I just looked at the end
of the list and found several standard heads which used the "with" keyword (which
isn't really a keyword at all because you can't search for it).
Anyway, thoughts on this new category? If it's not the best idea, then I
can always move the three heads back to from where they came and we can pretend
this never happened.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 20:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | What about 'Dimensions Minifigs'? There are bunch of minifigs with the
word Dimensions Team Pack or Dimensions Fun Pack as their only
differentiation. If set numbers are to go ahead are these titles going to be
replaced with the relevant dimensions set numbers?
|
Whatever solution we achieve will be applied consistently. If set numbers, then
yes, the extra portions of the titles would be removed. Even among those figures
there is not titling consistency:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 20:40 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | Since we are contemplating change the titles en masse, I think it would be a
better time now to agree on a consistent standard.
|
Yes, I was looking through minifigures a little bit ago and I see that this project
will involve more than just removing set numbers from minifigure titles.
| | I disagree, I have relied upon the “with” and other prepositions in searches.
|
Are you quite sure? I just checked and BrickLink automatically excludes the
word "with" from searches. The site also excludes the word "no," which is why
some items I recently found (and corrected) which had the term "No Pattern" in
the title were not usefully titled.
| | Why? Is three a magical number? There are several minifigs with duplicate titles,
even before removing the set number, these need to be addressed for example:
|
Good find on those two figures. Yes, we need to address this. I am of the belief
that, generally speaking and allowing for some exceptions, items in the catalog
should not have exactly the same title.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 19:37 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The general trend of opinion is to remove set numbers from minifigure titles
(pretty much everyone I've heard from privately and publicly agrees or would
be okay with it).
|
This consensus seems to have arrive in a couple hours on a major national holiday
in the US.
|
I ain't say it was a consensus. I only said everyone so far (at that time)
was in favor of removing set numbers. I've noticed that only a few people
typically comment on these changes and they're usually the same people.
I appreciate all input, of course, and wish more people would join in the discussions,
but once I've heard from the core group I have a general idea of how things
are going with a given issue.
| | Initially, the parenthetical set numbers are very useful.
|
Yes, of course. There's nothing wrong with having these until they go into
a set inventory.
| | I don't really agree with the premise. I don't think people looking
for that droid are going to hit upon the right keywords.
|
I definitely see what you're saying, but I wouldn't want to remove set
numbers and have three figures with the exact same titles. Of course there is
precedent in every direction for this issue, including nothing but a name:
What we're trying to do here is find some standard approach and implement
it. It sounds like just having the set number in parentheses at the end of the
minimally-descriptive title (perhaps only the figure name) would work well for
you?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 19:16 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
Right now the titles are mixed, but you're saying you prefer just the set
number in the title with no further descriptors. We could go that route, too.
As I mentioned, we've been heading that way the last few years. It is the
easier route, but breaks down for figures which appear in more than a few sets.
| | I would like to see every set in which the minifig comes in inside brackets,
just like the tech minifig in your original list. That would be so amazing!
|
I agree that it would be amazing to see a minifigure with 46 different set numbers
in its title:
Perhaps not amazing in the way you mean, though. 
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 17:12 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles.
|
The general trend of opinion is to remove set numbers from minifigure titles
(pretty much everyone I've heard from privately and publicly agrees or would
be okay with it). No problem there from me, but we must consider that in recent
years there has been a move away from describing minifigures in the titles and
simply including the set number.
In the past all three of the minifigures below would have included figure descriptions
in the titles. Now they simply include the set number to differentiate between
them:
[M=sw345]
[M=sw936]
[M=sw956]
For figures like this we would have to replace set numbers with at least basic
figure descriptions to differentiate them.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 15:10 | | Subject: | Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 207 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| First, let me thank you all for your assistance with these projects. Thanks
to your hard work and discussion we have completed four projects within the last
month and three are ongoing:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
The seventh project consists of moving every 47th item in the Set item type to
the Gear item type. This is necessary because the Set item type just seems larger
than the Gear item type. When these items are moved, perhaps we can also give
them funny titles.
On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles. Here are some examples of different
ways set numbers are included or not included in minifigure titles:
I realized that standardizing this would be as simple as a single sentence added
to the appropriate section of this page (which hasn't been updated since
2010):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=179
But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 23:46 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Legolibrarian2 writes:
| | With more changes on the way, I can hear a large groan.
|
You have better hearing than I do. I hear nothing but the adulation of the multitudes
. . . perhaps I just have selective hearing.
| | I really am a librarian, and am quite familiar with categorization schemes
|
That's awesome. Librarians are among my favorite kinds of people and libraries
are among my favorite places to visit. I get the feeling that libraries are
in decline since the internet arrived, which is unfortunate.
Considering that you have experience in understanding and working with systems
of categorization, your input would be appreciated on any future catalog work.
| | One thing that might help is to create a field in each part's
description that includes its previous name and/or category. And make this searchable.
|
I will consider this. All I could really do is add something to the title which
would have to be removed later. I don't feel like there have been many complaints
about actually finding things once they're moved. It seems more that people
are unhappy about having to rearrange their stock. So I don't think the
problem lies as much in locating items as it does in the fact that change has
occurred. I did try to make things easier with this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1113041
Ideally we could message or email every affected seller when something is moved.
Perhaps we'll have that ability in the future.
The same to you, of course.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 18:36 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8830-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | Instruction for this set and official images of it do not show this part being
used in it.
Request will be rejected.
|
The photo which caused the problem has been completely removed from the set entry.
I apologize for the difficulty it caused.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 15:33 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | OK. I assumed it existed already as these types of symbiotic relationships are
already used for windows, doors, wheels, etc. But obviously I don't know
the code so didn't realise they are different types of relationships.
|
You can learn more about item relationships here (click Definitions for further
information):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 13:14 | | Subject: | Re: 4x4 dish with open stud | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admiral_Brick writes:
| | 35394 is not an alternative design number of the old 4x4 dish.
It's a new design with a hole/open stud in the middle.
|
We'd need to see some hard evidence. I've just now looked at a number
of different sources and have found none.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 09:18 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I wouldn't mind projectiles going in there, but of course many won't
as they will already be in other categories. So maybe it would be wise to have
a list of things that the shooter can shoot as part of the extra information,
just like windows have which glass fits with them, door frames have which doors,
and wheels have which tyres, etc.
|
This would require a new relationship type. I have been thinking about that
for years and I suggested it some years ago. This would be a relationship type
that shows parts designed to fit and work together which are commonly used together:
* | | 4275 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 4276 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
A number of parts which currently include that information in the part titles
would benefit from this kind of relationship match:
This type of relationship could be used to show which projectiles can be shot
with which launchers. However, creating that new relationship type won't
happen for a while - I haven't even added it to the roadmap yet.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 08:16 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | Personally I'd propose including the projectiles into the category, whenever
at least their first appearance was for the purpose of projectile.
|
Yes, I agree with that. Once the project launches and I get the definitions
all written I will open the category definitions to discussion and possible modifications
before we actually begin moving anything.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 08:03 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | Change for the sake of change is often followed by complaints - it rarely serves
any real purpose. Agreed changes often come with compliments and welcoming. There
is a difference.
|
That's a reasonable assessment. However, I'm fairly confident that the
changes I've made or coordinated in the catalog so far were all improvements.
Still, I've gotten a number of complaints about nearly all of them.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
