BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

It is definitely looking a lot better. Although this one still confuses me:

Minifigure-Scale Character Figure

This is my third reply to this post. Perhaps if I had read it more carefully,
then I could have saved some ones and zeros.

Your question here was about policy and I have answered it.

Minifigure-Scale Brick Built Figure

Your question here was about actual inconsistencies in the additional figure
types I added at your request. I can see what you mean about inconsistencies
and I agree. So, what would you suggest to correct these inconsistencies?

I think the easiest distinction would be between specially-molded figures and
brick-built figures - this would remove having a separate item type for character
figures. Does that sound right?

BTW, did you see that I made the pictures bigger and added little frames around
each photo? I thought it looked better.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 27, 2018 05:07

Subject:

Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

But what about Scooby Doo and Santa's Little Helper, and other similar characters.
Are they animals or figures? After all, Angry Birds are birds, which are animals.
Cartoon animals that are characters. Just like Scooby Doo and Sant's Little
Helper are cartoon dogs.

Since you've spent some time thinking about this, I don't want to just
brush you off as I sort of did in what I just posted. The answer to this is
that there has never been a written definition of minifigures. This explains
the inconsistency of some figures being considered parts and others considered
figures. It also explains member frustration when some figures have been allowed
and others denied.

In the past, what was and was not a figure was decided on unwritten rules according
to the preferences of the person deciding. One of the self-imposed tasks I face
is ending this practice and creating written rules so that we're all on the
same page. You'll notice that a number of catalog projects mention this.

Until such time as we have written rules, there is not much point in discussing
what should or should not be a figure and until we have the ability to sort figures
by type, if we ever have it, then there is not much point in going into the minutiae
of different types.

I encourage you to keep thinking about these things, though, because when I get
to rulemaking I will open the rules for discussion and possible modification
before they're implemented (something which has rarely happened in the past).
I look forward to your input then.

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 27, 2018 04:59

Subject:

Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

Until then, I hope you are able to somehow locate the ability to be pleased that
I volunteered my time to make a list in the first place.

And yes, I am pleased that someone with at least a little power has started this.
The whole catalogue is a bit of a mess since it is so rigid, but the Minifigures
category in particular has started to be full of inconsistencies (either what
is in or what is out) since it has not moved with the times.

A number of mere mortals have flagged up many inconsistencies in the past, and
normally all are shot down as "the catalog doesn't work like that". When
really the catalog should work for the users, not work based on decade old unwritten
rules.

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 27, 2018 04:56

Subject:

Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

This is why I think the definitions of each category need to be considered carefully
so that inconsistencies do not appear.

Is this not the first step in that process, even if being done unofficially?
If these become accepted Bricklink definitions, then there would clearly be a
hangover from this list into any new sorting of figures. If it is not the first
step, then what is the point of this page? You said it could move into the Catalog
Help Center. It is showing people how to define or classify many different types
of figures, but if these terms cannot be used on bricklink to find what someone
is after, how does it actually help? If anything it will be confusing to tell
people that such and such is a XXX type of figure, then XXX is not used anywhere
else on BL.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Nov 27, 2018 04:45

Subject:

Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

This is why I think the definitions of each category need to be considered carefully
so that inconsistencies do not appear.

I do appreciate your feedback and you can see that I incorporated some of it
into the page, but again, these are not category definitions. They change nothing
in the catalog. We haven't the ability to sort figures by what type they
are. If we ever do have that ability, then we can have a serious discussion.

Until then, I hope you are able to somehow locate the ability to be pleased that
I volunteered my time to make a list in the first place.

I believe you may have missed the disclaimer at the beginning of the description
of this list:

. . . figure types should not be considered definitive.

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 27, 2018 04:29

Subject:

Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

I have read your suggestions, took them to heart, and updated the page:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88

I added three new types close to the beginning and added a disclaimer that this
is only an experimental project. The purpose of the framework on that page is
to gauge desirability. If members want to keep this list and BrickLink agrees
to keep it, then it will be improved with better descriptions, better photos,
and better ordering of the entries on the list (possibly by chronological order?).

It is definitely looking a lot better. Although this one still confuses me:

Minifigure-Scale Character Figure - This is a minifigure-scale character figure.
The BrickLink catalog includes a number of unconventional figures like this.
Rick from the Unikitty! theme, for example, is a single 2 x 3 brick with a printed
face.

Will this contain all minifigure-scale character figures? Angry Birds are understandable.
But what about Scooby Doo and Santa's Little Helper, and other similar characters.
Are they animals or figures? After all, Angry Birds are birds, which are animals.
Cartoon animals that are characters. Just like Scooby Doo and Sant's Little
Helper are cartoon dogs.

Minifigure-Scale Brick Built Figure - This is a minifigure-scale brick built
figure. There are an array of different styles and sizes of figures in various
themes.

As above, do brick built animals like TLM snail go in here (presumably Unikitty
will). Also Rick from Unikitty! is mentioned above as a minifigure scale character
figure. I would have thought he has more in common with Unikitty than with Angry
Birds, as he is made out of standard LEGO bricks (it just happens to be one brick)
rather than an unconventional molded part.

It will also lead to inconsistencies, as for example, these two will be in different
categories:

uni11 Rick (6223895)
Minifigures: Unikitty!

uni26 (Inv) Rick with Stand
Minifigures: Unikitty!

The first has already been defined as above to be a Minifigure-Scale Character
Figure, yet the second is clearly brick built so must be a Minifigure-Scale Brick
Built Figure.

This is why I think the definitions of each category need to be considered carefully
so that inconsistencies do not appear.

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Nov 27, 2018 03:04

Subject:

Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

I will only check it again if nothing left and if no the same names after last
bunch of changes will be approved.

So two slipped

also 9 should have small corections to names and that's
it.

Author:

Admin_Russell

Posted:

Nov 27, 2018 02:46

Subject:

Re: Unofficial LEGO color guide

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

In Catalog, pikachu3 writes:

In Catalog, Nordbart writes:

In Catalog, Abels_Bricks writes:

I did read the reviews but I managed to get it new from amazon for £6.07 hardcover,
I wanted it for the color definitions and general info not really for the photos.

Did you know about this site?

http://ryanhowerter.net/colors.html

nordbart

It's not a terrible book (and I think he has a new edition coming with better
printing), but he doesn't credit the people who worked to research and compile
this color data in the first place.

It's nifty that he used a colorimeter
but the rest of the information is freely available online.

I can't complain too much, it's not as if I've updated my own list
recently. Need to get on that...

If there is a new edition in the works, I would encourage the author to proofread
ALL the reference numbers in the book. There are four different numbering systems
used, and the current edition looks as if there were substantial changes made
to one part of the book (the part with all the photos) without updating some
of the reference pages (the color group comparisons at the beginning).

For example, if you look up Orange on p. 7, it says "Bright Orange 40". "40"
does not correspond to any number for Orange - it is not a BrickLink ID or LEGO
ID, not an Unofficial Color Guide ID, or an Unofficial Color Guide page number.

It would also help to remove all BrickLink Color ID numbers. The only purpose
they have is to show the order in which the colors were added to the catalog.

Author:

CPgolfaddict

Posted:

Nov 27, 2018 01:14

Subject:

Re: Something I Just Threw Together

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

A lot of catalog issues would be easier to resolve if you could have multiple
relationships between the various catalog entities.

Minifigs could be assigned a theme category (as is today) AND some other physical
category like what is being proposed. AND... you could also leave the existing
theme structure alone while adding the physical category. Mini vs. micro vs.
statue etc.

This is a common catalog structure in eCommerce systems because people approach
finding products from different perspectives. A relationship should be thought
of as a distinct data entity in the catalog/dB.

Item - Item
Item - Item Type
Item - Category
Category - Category
Category - Item Type
etc.

It would take some work. But the long term benefit is the easier delivery of
future catalog features.

BTW... Figures is fine.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 26, 2018 23:22

Subject:

Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated

Viewed:

31 times

Topic: