Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:26 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| | | 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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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.
|
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.
|
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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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:
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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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: | Catalog | |
|
| 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?).
|
Chronogical order and something like “discontinued,” or more simply the era /
production years next to the title.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 23:05 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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?).
|
I like what I am seeing, Robert, and I think the page could be a fantastic resource
for all users if kept available. As much as I know about the catalog, it is still
fascinating to see all these types of figures on one page and *not* have to leave
BrickLink to find it!
I also like the suggestion of moving away from "Minifigure" as an item type in
favor of "Figure". Even if "Figure" is not perfect, it is much better than "Minifigure",
and the page you have created makes that point very clearly.
However, Niek brought up a lot of good points about how changing the item type
name could lead to a bunch of unforeseen consequences behind the scenes, and
I am in total agreement with him. We have no idea what a change like this could
do throughout the entire website. I would definitely run this by the development
team before even asking for that name to be changed as there are undoubtedly
a large number of unknown pages, forms, database queries, stored procedures,
etc. that reference that item type.
Thanks for all of your hard work.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 20:51 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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?).
|
|
| Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 20:40 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In my continual quest to make your lives marginally better, I have just now put
together a list with photos of the different types of figures the LEGO Group
has produced over the years.
This list is not yet official and will change. It will have more detailed descriptions
of figures and hopefully better photos. It will also move from the current location
to an unknown location in the Catalog Help Center section. Or, of course, it
could also get shot down.
I have also asked that the item type Minifigs be retitled to Figures
in light of the wide range of figures of all different sizes we include in this
one section - no word on if this will happen or not. So the six item types would
be:
Sets
Parts
Figures
Books
Catalogs
Gear
This is truly a sneak peak for everyone - the people at the BrickLink office
haven't even seen it yet:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
Your thoughts on this list and the item type retitle? Do you find this list
of figure types useful or is it something not needed?
|
Here is something I just threw together.
John P
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 20:01 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Rainey writes:
| | I like it! It just helped me learn a few things! I do think that you need to
get rid of the repeat after the title though.
|
That part is just a placeholder. It will be filled in with further information
about each kind of figure if we decide to keep this as a permanent catalog feature.
|
|
| Author: | MontagueBrick | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 19:39 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In my continual quest to make your lives marginally better, I have just now put
together a list with photos of the different types of figures the LEGO Group
has produced over the years.
This list is not yet official and will change. It will have more detailed descriptions
of figures and hopefully better photos. It will also move from the current location
to an unknown location in the Catalog Help Center section. Or, of course, it
could also get shot down.
I have also asked that the item type Minifigs be retitled to Figures
in light of the wide range of figures of all different sizes we include in this
one section - no word on if this will happen or not. So the six item types would
be:
Sets
Parts
Figures
Books
Catalogs
Gear
This is truly a sneak peak for everyone - the people at the BrickLink office
haven't even seen it yet:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
Your thoughts on this list and the item type retitle? Do you find this list
of figure types useful or is it something not needed?
|
I like it! It just helped me learn a few things! I do think that you need to
get rid of the repeat after the title though.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 19:03 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The problem is that once we get them there we have no easy way to find the specific
kind of figure you're looking for. They're all mixed together and only
sorted by theme. There is currently discussion behind the scenes on how we can
better sort figures and I have suggested that figure type be given consideration
as one way of sorting.
|
Have them let you edit the HTML and it'll all be good. Barring editing the
HTML in conjunction with these other changes...well, it'll be difficult enough
to achieve the desired outcome being able to edit HTML with the db. Just editing
the db alone will be...more difficult by a lot.
If you can edit that, I say do it right away.
But this is another of those obscure pages that's not readily located, as
are most of the informational pages. Buried. Somewhere or other.
And another instance where the pertinent information is divorced from the label.
Like having the bottle of medicine, but having to drive to the factory to find
out how to use it correctly. If you can find the factory.
| | You see the item name change as the last step and I see it as the first step,
so perhaps it's just a difference of opinion.
|
I don't think it's a difference of opinion. It's a difference of
perspective, and now you've provided some of that. So thank you.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 18:27 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | It's differently inaccurate. And as I've stated elsewhere, it has the potential to create confusion with regards to the half-dozen or so other "figures" which are in the catalog but not in this section. Not asking you to agree, but asking do you get the point I'm putting forward.
|
I absolutely do get your point. I agree that we would be wise to include all
figures of all sizes in the same place. We already do include nearly all of
them in the same place and that place is Minifigs. Some we don't and those
are the ones which you're concerned about.
The problem is that once we get them there we have no easy way to find the specific
kind of figure you're looking for. They're all mixed together and only
sorted by theme. There is currently discussion behind the scenes on how we can
better sort figures and I have suggested that figure type be given consideration
as one way of sorting.
| | But isn't that what good labelling *should* do? Isn't the point to accurately
define which items are included?
|
Yes, and the place for that is here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
An item type is simply a quick and dirty method of splitting things. We only
have six item types and we will not get any more.
An item type is simply not the place for any kind of specific definition and
the current title indicates that only minifigures are housed there when, in fact,
we put nearly all figures there. Figures is a more inclusive title and thus,
more accurate. The ways in which the word Figures is inaccurate stem from policies,
and policies can be changed.
| | So if it already doesn't accurately define what's in there, why change
it so it doesn't accurately define what's in there?
|
Because the change would be from less accuracy to perfect accuracy provided
that additional changes were made to what was included or what should be included
in this item type. You want those changes made first, but I think we must first
start with reconsidering the idea that this section is only for minifigures.
Clearly, it already is not.
You see the item name change as the last step and I see it as the first step,
so perhaps it's just a difference of opinion.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:47 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
I didn't use a fine comb, but it looks like the orphaned ones
| | are pretty much all Marked for Deletion or super-exclusives.
|
And I lot of Duplo figures. I don't know what is up with those.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:46 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In my ongoing effort to make your life marginally crazier...
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm not sure the StormChaser has clearly articulated the reason for relabelling the section, why he finds the current labelling problematic, and what the intended result of the renaming is supposed to achieve.
|
I apologize for not doing this. I will address all three of these below, but
the most important point to understand is this: the only change which would occur
is to remove Mini from Figures.
What is the reason for renaming this item type?
I have asked for a name change because the current name does not accurately describe
the contents of this section of the catalog.
|
Good reason.
| | Why is the current labelling problematic?
The label Minifigs is not accurate because in this item type we include many
different sizes of figures which vary in size from tiny to vary large. We also
include a range of different styles of figures at these different scales.
|
I agree it is not accurate.
But the question is "why is it problematic?" You've stated it's inaccurate,
but how is it a problem? People can't find things they're looking for
in this section? It causes a me to irritate you with questions like this? What's
the problem?
How does changing it to "Figures" which is similarly but differently inaccurate
resolve the issue?
| | What is the intended result of renaming this section?
| | Renaming from Minifigs to Figures would present a more accurate picture of what
|
users can expect to find in this item type and that is the intended result.
|
I'm simply not convinced that it will present a more accurate picture of
what users can expect to find in this space. I argue that Figures is no more
or less accurate than Minifigures in this position. It's differently inaccurate.
And as I've stated elsewhere, it has the potential to create confusion with
regards to the half-dozen or so other "figures" which are in the catalog but
not in this section.
Not asking you to agree, but asking do you get the point I'm putting forward.
I've not seen it stated, but if you intend to move ALL the other "figures"
into the section, then I don't have any further argument with "Figures" as
a label. I only have an issue if some figures are in the section and some
figures are not in the section.
| | This name change is not intended to and will not define which items are included
in this section.
|
But isn't that what good labelling *should* do? Isn't the point to accurately
define which items are included?
Seems to me your statement of the problem at question 1
| | current name does not accurately describe the contents of this section
|
is the same as your statement of the solution at question 3
| | name change...will not define which items are included in this section.
|
So if it already doesn't accurately define what's in there, why change
it so it doesn't accurately define what's in there?
Sorry. Sorry to make you crazy. I just don't grasp the benefit to the site
visitor. I get the intention, but think the execution is flawed.
|
|
| Author: | superchicken77 | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:45 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I haven't read all the replies so I apologize if it's been said, but
instead of a picture of each, maybe one picture of each group through the years
with a timeline?
For example, original minifig 1975, modern minifigure 1978. Like the image found
here, but for each category (duplo, hero factory etc.)
http://b1creative.com/blog/the-history-of-the-lego-minifigure/
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In my continual quest to make your lives marginally better, I have just now put
together a list with photos of the different types of figures the LEGO Group
has produced over the years.
This list is not yet official and will change. It will have more detailed descriptions
of figures and hopefully better photos. It will also move from the current location
to an unknown location in the Catalog Help Center section. Or, of course, it
could also get shot down.
I have also asked that the item type Minifigs be retitled to Figures
in light of the wide range of figures of all different sizes we include in this
one section - no word on if this will happen or not. So the six item types would
be:
Sets
Parts
Figures
Books
Catalogs
Gear
This is truly a sneak peak for everyone - the people at the BrickLink office
haven't even seen it yet:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
Your thoughts on this list and the item type retitle? Do you find this list
of figure types useful or is it something not needed?
|
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:43 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | From whole SW category this one stays for now without change
[m=sw388]
it is not connected still to any inventory.
|
Is there a search tool for orphaned minifigs? I found two in my work on this
project and tried to stay alert to it, but it would be good to double check now
that we are done.
|
Here it is
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?v=3&noIn=Y&catType=M
|
Okay, I just put in a request to fix one that I shouldn't have removed the
number from. I didn't use a fine comb, but it looks like the orphaned ones
are pretty much all Marked for Deletion or super-exclusives.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:37 | | Subject: | Seventh Catalog Project - Complete So Soon? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Wow, it's hard to believe that we accomplished this in just two days. Very
impressive work, everyone! We are finished with this, right?
One of the benefits of the change logs is that it gives us a picture of how many
figures had set/gear/book numbers in their titles. This is not precise because
it was necessary to change some existing titles to avoid confusion, but I believe
I have accounted for the differences.
So, roughly, we can say that around 2,100 figures had other item numbers in their
titles and those have now been removed. The total number of affected figures
was about one fifth of all the figures in the catalog.
I feel pretty good about this change because, as those of you who have done the
actual work have seen, set numbers were a lazy way out of usefully describing
figures so that people could find them (and, honestly, figure names are, too).
I point no fingers, because I have added many figures to the catalog and only
described them with a brief name and a set number.
Anyway, if we're done with all the categories, then I'll put this project
to rest in the Completed Projects section of the catalog roadmap. We still need
to check for duplicate titles and orphaned figures, but that shouldn't take
much more work.
Thanks again to everyone who made this happen.
|
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:03 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | From whole SW category this one stays for now without change
[m=sw388]
it is not connected still to any inventory.
|
Is there a search tool for orphaned minifigs? I found two in my work on this
project and tried to stay alert to it, but it would be good to double check now
that we are done.
|
Here it is
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?v=3&noIn=Y&catType=M
|
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:59 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | From whole SW category this one stays for now without change
[m=sw388]
it is not connected still to any inventory.
|
Is there a search tool for orphaned minifigs? I found two in my work on this
project and tried to stay alert to it, but it would be good to double check now
that we are done.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:59 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| From what I understand, you want to rename the catalog section "Minifigs" to
"Figures", correct?
I obviously can't see what is happening in the back end of BL - renaming
the item type might be simple. Then again, it might be a pretty major undertaking,
depending on how it is coded. One thing that would break is the relationship
between the item type and the one-letter-identification that is used throughout
BL. For the forum, adding a nice little reference to a catalog item for a minifig
requires you to type "[M=blahblah]". Renaming the type to "Figure" _might_ cause
it to become "[F=blahblah]". Furthermore, images on BL are pointed to using the
same one-letter-identification. The relationship between item types and the one-letter-identification
might break, or it might be OK.
In short, I think this kind of change would need some dev eyes on the code. Remember
what happened a month or so ago - the breaking of store inventories - that would
pale in comparison if the code is not all that flexible set up...
Niek.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
United Kingdom, England
Poland, w. Wielkopolskie
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Canada, Ontario
