Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies Author: | axaday | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 13:16 | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | Viewed: | 29 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| Nor is it logical that a minifig has an extra piece
to make a marginally different minifig with no different meaning.
|
|
|
Author: | Teup | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 12:33 | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | Viewed: | 39 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| Although they cannot sell it as a boy as depicted on the box, unless listed as
a custom minifig. No doubt in time people will wonder which minifigure they have
and not be able to match up the boy version with a minifigure in the catalogue.
|
Many questions come up in the forum to identify minifigures that have the wrong
hands, the wrong arms, the wrong legs, the wrong head, the wrong hair, etc. Such
is the nature of LEGO parts; they get played with and mixed up all the time.
Sellers are free to sell those minifigures as "customs", but it behooves them
to find a closely related minifigure in the catalog to sell under and either
sell it as incomplete or fix the minifigure they have to match the one in the
catalog. I don't see this scenario as being any different to that.
However, when it comes to adding minifigures to the catalog, the guidelines are
clear and were followed: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2477
If they weren't followed, we would have the inevitable question, "Why was
this boy minifigure added to the catalog when it clearly isn't shown in the
instructions?"
Cheers,
Randy
|
Well, I actually agree with yorbrick the "boy" should be added to the catalog.
I understand the Bricklink catalog follows the instructions and that is a good
and smart choice, but how far will we go? When I saw the set my first thought
was like "only a girl? oh wait a sec, there's the boy hair" and the box literally
has the boy on the side of the box. To me the hair seems off on the dad and he's
not shown that way either. Nor is it logical that a minifig has an extra piece
to make a marginally different minifig with no different meaning. The torso of
the child is clearly unisex (if not boyish) so in my opinion everything points
to the hairpiece being intended for the child.
If so, it begs the question if we really want to stick 100% to the instructions
in every case. I think at least adding minfigs that are shown on the box as alternates
is not such a stretch.
|
|
Author: | randyf | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 12:27 | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | Viewed: | 29 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| Although they cannot sell it as a boy as depicted on the box, unless listed as
a custom minifig. No doubt in time people will wonder which minifigure they have
and not be able to match up the boy version with a minifigure in the catalogue.
|
Many questions come up in the forum to identify minifigures that have the wrong
hands, the wrong arms, the wrong legs, the wrong head, the wrong hair, etc. Such
is the nature of LEGO parts; they get played with and mixed up all the time.
Sellers are free to sell those minifigures as "customs", but it behooves them
to find a closely related minifigure in the catalog to sell under and either
sell it as incomplete or fix the minifigure they have to match the one in the
catalog. I don't see this scenario as being any different to that.
However, when it comes to adding minifigures to the catalog, the guidelines are
clear and were followed: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2477
If they weren't followed, we would have the inevitable question, "Why was
this boy minifigure added to the catalog when it clearly isn't shown in the
instructions?"
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
Author: | yorbrick | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 08:50 | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | Viewed: | 38 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | And anyone can change the interpretation (and minifigs) to better represent their
own situation.
|
Although they cannot sell it as a boy as depicted on the box, unless listed as
a custom minifig. No doubt in time people will wonder which minifigure they have
and not be able to match up the boy version with a minifigure in the catalogue.
|
|
Author: | Teup | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 08:21 | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | Viewed: | 27 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| […]
Haha that's crazy, seems the person making the instructions made the mistake.
I guess Bricklink follows the instructions and not the box, so probably it should
stay like this then... Although unless dad has a job as a hairdresser or fashion
designer I do think he looks a bit off with that kids/teenage haircut
|
Well, we’re assuming it’s a “dad”. It could be a “big brother” or a “young uncle”
too
And anyone can change the interpretation (and minifigs) to better represent their
own situation.
|
I guess if dad really is a hairdresser or fashion designer, the girl's hair
could be even better
|
|
Author: | SylvainLS | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 07:23 | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | Viewed: | 41 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| […]
Haha that's crazy, seems the person making the instructions made the mistake.
I guess Bricklink follows the instructions and not the box, so probably it should
stay like this then... Although unless dad has a job as a hairdresser or fashion
designer I do think he looks a bit off with that kids/teenage haircut
|
Well, we’re assuming it’s a “dad”. It could be a “big brother” or a “young uncle”
too
And anyone can change the interpretation (and minifigs) to better represent their
own situation.
|
|
Author: | Teup | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 07:10 | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | Viewed: | 43 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
|
LOL, so the Christmas giftset 40292 has a male and a female hairpiece so that
the child can be a boy or a girl (and they're both on the box). But someone
uploaded a picture where the alternate hair is put on the DAD's head, kind
of making it a dad's hairdo optionality feature
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=40292-1
|
Actually, it IS a “dad’s hairdo optionality feature”: there are two versions
of the instructions and each one uses different hair for the dad.
See https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1117220
|
Haha that's crazy, seems the person making the instructions made the mistake.
I guess Bricklink follows the instructions and not the box, so probably it should
stay like this then... Although unless dad has a job as a hairdresser or fashion
designer I do think he looks a bit off with that kids/teenage haircut
|
|
Author: | SylvainLS | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 06:56 | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | Viewed: | 39 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
|
LOL, so the Christmas giftset 40292 has a male and a female hairpiece so that
the child can be a boy or a girl (and they're both on the box). But someone
uploaded a picture where the alternate hair is put on the DAD's head, kind
of making it a dad's hairdo optionality feature
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=40292-1
|
Actually, it IS a “dad’s hairdo optionality feature”: there are two versions
of the instructions and each one uses different hair for the dad.
See https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1117220
|
|
Author: | Teup | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 06:32 | Subject: | 40292 minifig error | Viewed: | 130 times | Topic: | Catalog | Status: | Open | |
|
|
LOL, so the Christmas giftset 40292 has a male and a female hairpiece so that
the child can be a boy or a girl (and they're both on the box). But someone
uploaded a picture where the alternate hair is put on the DAD's head, kind
of making it a dad's hairdo optionality feature
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=40292-1
|
|
Author: | randyf | Posted: | Dec 3, 2018 09:34 | Subject: | Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway | Viewed: | 35 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
|
The note on this part is redundant and not entirely accurate.
The information in the note is contained in the name of the part. Also, the stud
type definitions are consistent throughout the catalog, so they do not need to
be inconsistently redefined here in the note.
Please consider removal of the note.
Thanks,
Randy
|
The same goes for
|
|
Author: | randyf | Posted: | Dec 3, 2018 09:33 | Subject: | Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway | Viewed: | 36 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
The note on this part is redundant and not entirely accurate.
The information in the note is contained in the name of the part. Also, the stud
type definitions are consistent throughout the catalog, so they do not need to
be inconsistently redefined here in the note.
Please consider removal of the note.
Thanks,
Randy
|
|
Author: | randyf | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 11:57 | Subject: | Re: Special Assembly Category | Viewed: | 43 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mjwest83 writes:
| I just recently noticed that there is a new category type: Special Assembly.
While I see this as a truly useful idea, I want to make sure of the constraints
about it. Because, if the first 18 examples are good to go by, this is going
to be a completely insane mess. Which is fine by me. But, before I add to the
madness, I want to make sure of the rules so I don't make anything unnecessarily
worse.
|
Yes, there will need to be some kind of organization of them going forward, but
this section is a test run and could be considered in the "beta" stage. The catalog
admins as well as Russell at BrickLink will have to eventually decide what to
do with this section. Right now, they are monitoring how well these entries actually
get used and how well they sell.
| Oh, follow-up question: Why are the big-figs of Ares and Giant Man (and Groot
for that matter) listed as Special Assemblies. If anything, they should be put in
the Minifigures/Figures category instead, right? They are all actual characters
with names and everything. Shouldn't they be moved?
|
They are listed there because the catalog admins would not allow them as minifigures,
yet users in the past have asked repeatedly for them to be included in the catalog.
This new section was a compromise. It is possible that someday the characters
in this section will be relocated to a new catalog section.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
Author: | mjwest83 | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 11:42 | Subject: | Special Assembly Category | Viewed: | 78 times | Topic: | Catalog | Status: | Open | |
|
| I just recently noticed that there is a new category type: Special Assembly.
While I see this as a truly useful idea, I want to make sure of the constraints
about it. Because, if the first 18 examples are good to go by, this is going
to be a completely insane mess. Which is fine by me. But, before I add to the
madness, I want to make sure of the rules so I don't make anything unnecessarily
worse.
Thank you!
Oh, follow-up question: Why are the big-figs of Ares and Giant Man (and Groot
for that matter) listed as Special Assemblies. If anything, they should be put
in the Minifigures/Figures category instead, right? They are all actual characters
with names and everything. Shouldn't they be moved?
Again, thank you!
|
|
Author: | Hygrotus | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 08:39 | Subject: | Re: New sets available at LEGO S&H | Viewed: | 38 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SecondChildhood writes:
| FYI, these have been available in the US since Nov 24. They were in stores and
selling on that date (I bought some myself and have been checking to see when
they'd get added to BrickLink!) Thanks.
|
and in the meantime two persons alrady wrote about adding Darth Vader Castle
but nobody mentioned other sets with the same release date I guess Spider-Man
isn't so popular
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1116913
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1116991
|
|
Author: | SecondChildhood | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 08:28 | Subject: | Re: New sets available at LEGO S&H | Viewed: | 35 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| These five Spider man set are available from yesterday (they had the same date
of release as Darth Vader Castle) so can be approved now
sources:
1) Lego official internet shop
2) https://brickset.com/article/40381/75251-darth-vader-s-castle-and-new-spider-man-sets-now-available!
3) I saw them yesterday in polish toy shop on shelfs
Btw if star Wars Darth Vader Castle is treated as 2018 set so as these have the
same release date (1st of the December). I think they also should be counted
as 2018 sets then.
|
FYI, these have been available in the US since Nov 24. They were in stores and
selling on that date (I bought some myself and have been checking to see when
they'd get added to BrickLink!) Thanks.
|
|
Author: | Hygrotus | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 06:16 | Subject: | New sets available at LEGO S&H | Viewed: | 113 times | Topic: | Catalog | Status: | Open | |
|
| These five Spider man set are available from yesterday (they had the same date
of release as Darth Vader Castle) so can be approved now
sources:
1) Lego official internet shop
2) https://brickset.com/article/40381/75251-darth-vader-s-castle-and-new-spider-man-sets-now-available!
3) I saw them yesterday in polish toy shop on shelfs
Btw if star Wars Darth Vader Castle is treated as 2018 set so as these have the
same release date (1st of the December). I think they also should be counted
as 2018 sets then.
|
|
Author: | samsam2 | Posted: | Dec 1, 2018 22:53 | Subject: | Re: Bionicle Mask Kraahkan, 4 hole chin | Viewed: | 15 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Or is this the reason the default images are upside down so the holes can be
referred to like a chin?
|
OK, I think I see now it is not as simple as I thought and the head piece and
mask of Makuta are shown in both orientations, such that the 4 hole area is both
a chin and also near the back of the head by the ears or horns (at least that's
what I see...)
|
|
Author: | samsam2 | Posted: | Dec 1, 2018 22:14 | Subject: | Bionicle Mask Kraahkan, 4 hole chin | Viewed: | 51 times | Topic: | Catalog | Status: | Open | |
|
| I just noticed the mask that is described with a "4 hole chin", is not the chin
area. The holes are actually on the opposite end of what I would call the 'chin'
area of the mask.
and similarly the the 6 hole mask
[p=44815]
Or is this the reason the default images are upside down so the holes can be
referred to like a chin?
|
Author: | bje | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 23:48 | Subject: | Re: Bored? I Need Help | Viewed: | 70 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'll do A, B, C, D, E |
Author: | Lauren_Luke | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 23:16 | Subject: | Re: Bored? I Need Help | Viewed: | 61 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I will claim ' 3rd Section: K, L, M, N, O ' |
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 22:40 | Subject: | Bored? I Need Help | Viewed: | 250 times | Topic: | Catalog | Status: | Open | |
|
| I am embarking on an ambitious project to create written definitions of every
single category in the BrickLink catalog. This has never been done before, although
Dan made a start here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1568
I realize now that it was never done because it's a massive amount of work.
Even coding the page is taking me a while, but I have the first eight letters
in the alphabet done:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2479
I am absolutely going to need help with these definitions and, since you'll
be the ones most affected by category definitions, who better to ask?
Please read very carefully:
1. Descriptions should be short, but complete. I'm not looking for a legal
definition, but also don't want something vague and ambiguous - the point
of these definitions is so that we can easily and completely see what fits into
a category. Creating short, accurate, complete descriptions may tax your writing
ability, but I believe it is possible for every category. Focusing on accurate
descriptions rather than listing exclusions would be best.
2. Yes, my list is not structured like Dan's. His focuses on readability
while mine focuses more on functionality. This page, to my mind, exists to serve
a purpose, like a dictionary, and not to entertain or greatly inform. My page
is more of a reference we can all use as necessary and the alphabetical order
should make it easy to quickly locate information. So I've given this structure
some thought and I'm not too interested in restructuring the page.
3. Limit descriptions to one or two reasonably short sentences. My goal
is to get everything onto one line without breaks between categories. You can
see that the Years category at the top approaches the limit in length. If we
absolutely can't accomplish this for some categories, then we're stuck
with exceptions - but let's shoot for this goal.
4. Please do not post every five minutes with new definitions. Pick the section
below you're going to work on and create all the definitions for that
section. Then post back here with your complete list. I recommend doing this
in MS Word or some other word processing software to avoid losing data. You
may claim any of these sections already unclaimed:
1st Section: A, B, C, D, E
2nd Section: F, G, H, I, J
3rd Section: K, L, M, N, O
4th Section: P, Q, R, S, T
5th Section: U, V, W, X, Y
Ignore the letter Z - I'll get that out of the generosity of my heart.
5. Some of these definitions will require research. For parts, look over the
categories carefully and try to completely understand why they're structured
like they are before defining them. For sets, do enough research to present
a quality definition. Some categories are repetitious, so try to include slightly
differing information for each one (years, for example). An example of repetitious
categories are the Dimensions Wave 1-9. I'm defining every category except
for years for the sake of consistency.
6. Completely ignore decorated categories. There are 33, I think, and I will
create definitions for them.
7. We will have discussion about these categories later. First we need to get
definitions in place and then, later, we can all discuss together if the definitions
need improvements. So there should, in theory, only be 10 replies to this post:
five category claims and five category section definitions.
8. I will edit your definitions as I see necessary. Save your definitions somewhere
(shouldn't be a problem if you're writing them in word processing software)
and we can discuss later if you think I've butchered any of them beyond your
liking.
Okay, that's all I can think of. This will be work, but I can't imagine
doing this all on my own. So assistance is deeply appreciated and I wish I could
do more for you than just appreciate it.
|
|
Author: | randyf | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 13:13 | Subject: | Re: What arms for 973pb1234c01? | Viewed: | 36 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| In Catalog, cptnruthless writes:
| is listed as "yellow arms" however the picture of the only minifigure
it comes in has white arms. Which is correct?
|
Looks like it was a mistake. The picture of the torso assembly, the picture
of the minifigure, and the picture of the set all agree on white arms.
|
I submitted change requests to fix it.
|
The inventory has been updated. The name change should be accepted soon.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
Author: | axaday | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 12:35 | Subject: | Re: What arms for 973pb1234c01? | Viewed: | 33 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| In Catalog, cptnruthless writes:
| is listed as "yellow arms" however the picture of the only minifigure
it comes in has white arms. Which is correct?
|
Looks like it was a mistake. The picture of the torso assembly, the picture
of the minifigure, and the picture of the set all agree on white arms.
|
I submitted change requests to fix it.
|
|
Author: | axaday | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 12:33 | Subject: | Re: What arms for 973pb1234c01? | Viewed: | 18 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, cptnruthless writes:
| is listed as "yellow arms" however the picture of the only minifigure
it comes in has white arms. Which is correct?
|
Looks like it was a mistake. The picture of the torso assembly, the picture
of the minifigure, and the picture of the set all agree on white arms.
|
|
Author: | cptnruthless | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 12:31 | Subject: | What arms for 973pb1234c01? | Viewed: | 58 times | Topic: | Catalog | Status: | Open | |
|
| is listed as "yellow arms" however the picture of the only minifigure
it comes in has white arms. Which is correct?
|
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 17:42 | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | Viewed: | 72 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
Yes, I remember. There's really only one fix for that: someone will have
to buy the books and photograph the bags. These kinds of sets wouldn't appear
in any catalog because the book must be opened to see them. Once we have photos,
then the sets will be quickly approved.
We're moving away from approving any submission which is not accompanied
by an image and I expect that will become firm policy within the next six months
or so.
There are simply too many items in the catalog completely missing images:
3 minifigures
29 sets
106 catalogs
108 books
133 gear
575 parts
|
Of the parts, over 200 of them are from the Modulex Decorated Tile category.
If we can't find images for those and there are no listings or wanted list
entries, I suggest we do a little pruning.
|
Why would you want to do that?
I agree that it would be better to have images, but why would anyone want to
remove information from our database unless the parts do not actually exist?
There are better solutions than deleting items.
|
If, with all the resources we have on BrickLink (and by "resources" I mean people
with knowledge and extensive collections), we can't generate an image or
at least some interest in an item during a period of over 9 years, there is serious
doubt in my mind if that item does actually exist.
I'm saying this specifically concerning Modulex, because I believe many of
those entries were created based on their presence in a catalog from which special
orders could be placed. If no one ever ordered a certain font in a certain color,
would these letter tiles ever have been produced?
|
|
Author: | WoutR | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 17:08 | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | Viewed: | 43 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
Yes, I remember. There's really only one fix for that: someone will have
to buy the books and photograph the bags. These kinds of sets wouldn't appear
in any catalog because the book must be opened to see them. Once we have photos,
then the sets will be quickly approved.
We're moving away from approving any submission which is not accompanied
by an image and I expect that will become firm policy within the next six months
or so.
There are simply too many items in the catalog completely missing images:
3 minifigures
29 sets
106 catalogs
108 books
133 gear
575 parts
|
Of the parts, over 200 of them are from the Modulex Decorated Tile category.
If we can't find images for those and there are no listings or wanted list
entries, I suggest we do a little pruning.
|
Why would you want to do that?
I agree that it would be better to have images, but why would anyone want to
remove information from our database unless the parts do not actually exist?
There are better solutions than deleting items.
|
|
Author: | WoutR | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 17:06 | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | Viewed: | 32 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | Ah yes, thank you Paul for giving me my opening. I actually have submitted things
only to have it rejected. I'm sure I didn't fill out the form correctly,
not for a lack of effort, I just find the form to be convoluted as heck. If
it were a bit more user friendly, I think it make a huge difference in soliciting
volunteer submissions.
|
It's fairly easy.
For any part that is stickered, you will need to find the numerical identifier
of the last one to be issued, and for that, I use the add an image section to
find it.
Have 3 tabs up,
1st is the catalogue.
2nd is Add an image section
3rd is Add a Part section.
Say that you want to add a stickered 45deg 1x2 slope.
|
This can be done easier using the * search wildcard.
| Find the highest number of that particular part you can quickly find.
input that number in the add image box, and it should show that part in a description.
Cycle through numbers by 10 until you get an error, and then decrease the numbers
until you then get a description, and you can then increase by 1 to get the next
sequential number.
|
The undecorated slope has part number 3040.
Decorated slopes will have an additional number, all recent numbers will use
pb to indicate the "pattern numbered by BrickLink" like 3040pb000.
Knowing this, I would search the catalog for 3040pb*.
Then imply sort by item number.
That will make it easy to find the highest number currently in the catalog.
A search for that number +1 will show if that part is available, or if a part
with that number is pending approval.
|
Take a reasonable good picture of the part, preferably in daylight, or under
multiple lights, to eliminate shadows, and resize the pic to a Thumbnail on the
PC. (upload the picture, but don't submit the image yet)
Go to the add part section.
Add the number and identifier to the necessary boxes, along with the dimensions,
weight and such.
Use the same description(s) that other like parts have been added to the catalogue
before, and try to be accurate as possible.
Add the part to the catalogue.
Go back to the image section, and when you click on the verify , it should bring
up the item that you have just submitted, and you can then submit the corresponding
image.
I've done this with some of my mug collection, and will be doing others soon.
Have fun!
Paul
|
|
|
Author: | bb1266283 | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 16:25 | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | Viewed: | 48 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The valuable part which will be going to work with the overall part that can
get the process for the image that https://lenovosupport.net/blog/fix-lenovo-laptop-screen-flickering/
will provide the enhance technique to process it with the particular part.
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 14:42 | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | Viewed: | 36 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| The instructions are a horror show. Can you update those?
|
Yes. Few people would ever read through all those 2,700 words before submitting
an item to the catalog, nor should they have to.
That's not to say it isn't necessary to have rules, because it is. But
that particular page desperately needs to be simplified to the salient points
along with clear, simple guidelines for completing the form. The minutiae can
be moved elsewhere.
The entire Catalog Help Center needs a makeover. There are too many topics and
some of them have not been updated in forever. I was going to work on other
things today, but I've been putting this off for too long.
|
|
Author: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 14:16 | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | Viewed: | 93 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location: USA, California |
Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
Yes, I remember. There's really only one fix for that: someone will have
to buy the books and photograph the bags. These kinds of sets wouldn't appear
in any catalog because the book must be opened to see them. Once we have photos,
then the sets will be quickly approved.
We're moving away from approving any submission which is not accompanied
by an image and I expect that will become firm policy within the next six months
or so.
There are simply too many items in the catalog completely missing images:
3 minifigures
29 sets
106 catalogs
108 books
133 gear
575 parts
|
Of the parts, over 200 of them are from the Modulex Decorated Tile category.
If we can't find images for those and there are no listings or wanted list
entries, I suggest we do a little pruning.
|
|
Author: | mfav | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 14:12 | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | Viewed: | 34 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| I know the submission form is difficult to understand, but I do not have the
ability to change it.
|
The instructions are a horror show. Can you update those?
|
|
Author: | mhortar | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 13:53 | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | Viewed: | 62 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
Yes, I remember. There's really only one fix for that: someone will have
to buy the books and photograph the bags. These kinds of sets wouldn't appear
in any catalog because the book must be opened to see them. Once we have photos,
then the sets will be quickly approved.
We're moving away from approving any submission which is not accompanied
by an image and I expect that will become firm policy within the next six months
or so.
There are simply too many items in the catalog completely missing images:
3 minifigures
29 sets
106 catalogs
108 books
133 gear
575 parts
902 instructions
4,236 original boxes
The idea in the past was that if you approved an item then eventually someone
would add a picture. That approach sort of works - sort of. I, for one, am
tired of seeing that we are missing 6,000+ images and that number* will only
keep growing if we don't stop it now.
*To be fair, instructions and boxes don't count as much because they're
created for all sets. Still, 950+ missing images are nothing in which to take
pride. If you look through the list of items missing images, you will see a
fair number of things for sale - clearly we need to do better at rewarding contributors.
|
I might be able to get pictures of some of the missing Star Wars boxes and instructions.
I just took a peek at what was missing and my inventory says I have at least
a few of them.
Josh
|
|
Author: | randyf | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 13:14 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 41 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, TheBrickGuys writes:
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| I'm not sure that 'Pattern' actually fits.
|
The word "design" means "decorative pattern."
If we wanted to be truly accurate and consistent, then every single part title
would have one of the eight following identifiers:
Plain
Printed Design
Stickered Design
Printed/Stickered Design
Molded Design
Molded/Printed Design
Molded/Stickered Design
Molded/Stickered/Printed Design (pretty sure there are none of those)
Have I missed any? Maybe when/if we get tags we can do this. I think it would
be helpful.
But it sounds like "Decorated" is the preferred term so far from all three commentors.
I still think it's quite strange that part categories are the only place
we use that word, but this ain't a one-man show.
|
Now that you bought up the subject of stickers.... Is there a possibility of
adding sub categories for each type of patterned part so as to separate printed
parts from applied sticker parts? So that whenever there are stickers applied
by the end user on parts verses patterns applied directly by Lego on the same
type of part then there would be a sub category for the sticker applied parts
to keep them seperate.
This would be extremely helpful for adding used inventory into our stores. A
good example would be printed tiles verses sticker applied tiles. If you know
that a part you are trying to add to your inventor is a Lego printed tile then
it would be so much easier to find it in the catalog if the stickered tiles were
in a separate sub category of the printed tiles.
I know it would be a lot of work but it sure would be nice.
Jim
|
Every stickered part has either "Sticker" or "Stickers" in the name. Just run
a search for the part you want followed by "-sticker*" (without the quotes).
So to search all 2x2 tiles for just printed ones, you would run a search for
"3068b* -sticker*" (without the quotes):
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/search.page?q=3068b*+-sticker*&brand=1000&rpp=100&tab=P#T=P
HTH,
Randy
|
|
Author: | jenwick | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 13:02 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 29 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I like decorated. What I think would be really great is if there was a printed
decorated category and a stickered decorated category as some categories are
quite large.
Jen
|
|
Author: | TheBrickGuys | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 12:55 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 34 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| I'm not sure that 'Pattern' actually fits.
|
The word "design" means "decorative pattern."
If we wanted to be truly accurate and consistent, then every single part title
would have one of the eight following identifiers:
Plain
Printed Design
Stickered Design
Printed/Stickered Design
Molded Design
Molded/Printed Design
Molded/Stickered Design
Molded/Stickered/Printed Design (pretty sure there are none of those)
Have I missed any? Maybe when/if we get tags we can do this. I think it would
be helpful.
But it sounds like "Decorated" is the preferred term so far from all three commentors.
I still think it's quite strange that part categories are the only place
we use that word, but this ain't a one-man show.
|
Now that you bought up the subject of stickers.... Is there a possibility of
adding sub categories for each type of patterned part so as to separate printed
parts from applied sticker parts? So that whenever there are stickers applied
by the end user on parts verses patterns applied directly by Lego on the same
type of part then there would be a sub category for the sticker applied parts
to keep them seperate.
This would be extremely helpful for adding used inventory into our stores. A
good example would be printed tiles verses sticker applied tiles. If you know
that a part you are trying to add to your inventor is a Lego printed tile then
it would be so much easier to find it in the catalog if the stickered tiles were
in a separate sub category of the printed tiles.
I know it would be a lot of work but it sure would be nice.
Jim
|
|
Author: | Hurt | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 10:06 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 43 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| As bje pointed out, the word "pattern" means a visual design that is repeating.
The vast majority of the things called "pattern" in the BL catalog really aren't.
I think the word "pattern" needs to be changed to "print" since that's what
it really is.
David
|
I agree. Either print or sticker. Otherwise we would have to rename category
"Stickers" to "Patterns" as well
|
|
Author: | crazylegoman | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 09:51 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 37 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As bje pointed out, the word "pattern" means a visual design that is repeating.
The vast majority of the things called "pattern" in the BL catalog really aren't.
I think the word "pattern" needs to be changed to "print" since that's what
it really is.
David
|
Author: | JulieK | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 08:50 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 37 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mockingbird writes:
| I see nothing wrong with categories named 'decorated' and the use of
pattern in parts.
To me it means a collection of decorated parts. And the parts are decorated with
a certain pattern.
|
I agree with the above
|
|
Author: | mwright5 | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 08:42 | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | Viewed: | 43 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | Ah yes, thank you Paul for giving me my opening. I actually have submitted things
only to have it rejected. I'm sure I didn't fill out the form correctly,
not for a lack of effort, I just find the form to be convoluted as heck. If
it were a bit more user friendly, I think it make a huge difference in soliciting
volunteer submissions.
|
It's fairly easy.
For any part that is stickered, you will need to find the numerical identifier
of the last one to be issued, and for that, I use the add an image section to
find it.
Have 3 tabs up,
1st is the catalogue.
2nd is Add an image section
3rd is Add a Part section.
Say that you want to add a stickered 45deg 1x2 slope.
Find the highest number of that particular part you can quickly find.
input that number in the add image box, and it should show that part in a description.
Cycle through numbers by 10 until you get an error, and then decrease the numbers
until you then get a description, and you can then increase by 1 to get the next
sequential number.
Take a reasonable good picture of the part, preferably in daylight, or under
multiple lights, to eliminate shadows, and resize the pic to a Thumbnail on the
PC. (upload the picture, but don't submit the image yet)
Go to the add part section.
Add the number and identifier to the necessary boxes, along with the dimensions,
weight and such.
Use the same description(s) that other like parts have been added to the catalogue
before, and try to be accurate as possible.
Add the part to the catalogue.
Go back to the image section, and when you click on the verify , it should bring
up the item that you have just submitted, and you can then submit the corresponding
image.
I've done this with some of my mug collection, and will be doing others soon.
Have fun!
|
Paul, while I sincerely appreciate and value your input here, your making my
point. That process is nuts!!! It just furthers my point. IT has to be simplified
in order to be a useable tool. Again, this is not a knock on Paul, nor intended
to be offensive. I just really want to help, like many others, and the current
process takes way too much figuring out to be useful. I think we need to enlist
the Brickstock creator to come to the rescue on this.
|
|
Author: | WhiteVanMan | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 08:21 | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | Viewed: | 43 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Ah yes, thank you Paul for giving me my opening. I actually have submitted things
only to have it rejected. I'm sure I didn't fill out the form correctly,
not for a lack of effort, I just find the form to be convoluted as heck. If
it were a bit more user friendly, I think it make a huge difference in soliciting
volunteer submissions.
|
It's fairly easy.
For any part that is stickered, you will need to find the numerical identifier
of the last one to be issued, and for that, I use the add an image section to
find it.
Have 3 tabs up,
1st is the catalogue.
2nd is Add an image section
3rd is Add a Part section.
Say that you want to add a stickered 45deg 1x2 slope.
Find the highest number of that particular part you can quickly find.
input that number in the add image box, and it should show that part in a description.
Cycle through numbers by 10 until you get an error, and then decrease the numbers
until you then get a description, and you can then increase by 1 to get the next
sequential number.
Take a reasonable good picture of the part, preferably in daylight, or under
multiple lights, to eliminate shadows, and resize the pic to a Thumbnail on the
PC. (upload the picture, but don't submit the image yet)
Go to the add part section.
Add the number and identifier to the necessary boxes, along with the dimensions,
weight and such.
Use the same description(s) that other like parts have been added to the catalogue
before, and try to be accurate as possible.
Add the part to the catalogue.
Go back to the image section, and when you click on the verify , it should bring
up the item that you have just submitted, and you can then submit the corresponding
image.
I've done this with some of my mug collection, and will be doing others soon.
Have fun!
Paul
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 07:12 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 39 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| I don't see the point of the "pattern" in the title anyway.
If everything in a decorated category has pattern in the title, it becomes useless
for searching if you restrict searches to that category.
|
Something is necessary in the title because not everyone goes to categories first.
Sometimes people just want to find all the 2 x 2 bricks with a pattern. That's
the whole point of having a search feature and the search feature is only as
good as item titles.
Ideally, as you pointed out, we would be able to tag things for the purpose of
searching and we could have more reasonable item titles.
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 07:04 | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | Viewed: | 47 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mwright5 writes:
| I actually have submitted things only to have it rejected.
|
I'm sorry to hear that you had a negative experience in the past. We're
working on our communication and I make a serious effort to send an explanatory
message to every single contributor when I am unable to approve submissions.
| I'm sure I didn't fill out the form correctly . . . I just find the form to be convoluted as heck.
|
One of the jobs of a catalog administrator is to check submissions and correct
them to catalog standards before approving them. It is true that if you make
a perfect submission it makes my job much easier and it will be approved quicker,
but don't let fear of errors dissuade you from submitting. You don't
have to get things perfect.
I know the submission form is difficult to understand, but I do not have the
ability to change it. I can tell you from experience that the more submissions
you make the easier it gets and the more comfortable you become with the form.
|
|
Author: | yorbrick | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 07:02 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 37 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I don't see the point of the "pattern" in the title anyway.
If everything in a decorated category has pattern in the title, it becomes useless
for searching if you restrict searches to that category.
I'd prefer that space was taken up with information about how the pattern
is made: sticker, print, dual mould. Of course, that would be better as tags
but if we cannot have those, they should be in the title.
|
|
|
Author: | mockingbird | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 06:37 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 33 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| In my continual effort to make your lives marginally better (which is a close
second to my continual effort to be a person who does not use catchphrases),
I propose the following for discussion: why do we call patterns patterns pretty
much everywhere but in category names?
Nearly the only place you will see "Decorated" on BrickLink is in category names
(32 of them). When you click on decorated parts, though, you see parts with
patterns. I propose changing the word "Decorated" to the word "Pattern" in those
32 category names. This will have no effects except in aesthetics and site-wide
consistency.
LordSkylark has asked for a category split of the Aircraft category into patterned
and non-patterned parts. I decided to succumb to his demand and have created
a new category titled Aircraft, Pattern. Now you can look at it on the parts
category page and see if you prefer the way things are now or the way I suggest
we do things.
Provide input, please.
|
I see nothing wrong with categories named 'decorated' and the use of
pattern in parts.
To me it means a collection of decorated parts. And the parts are decorated with
a certain pattern.
So I do not see the need to change anything in de current use.
I think there are more important updates/changes to make than changes pure for
aesthetics.
|
|
Author: | ZwarteMagica | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 06:12 | Subject: | Re: postcards and assortiment gidsen | Viewed: | 30 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thank you for your help.
Dutch versions for approval.
[c=c06nldc2]
[c=c07nldc1]
Any examples from postcards available? It makes uploading them much easier.
|
|
Author: | Hurt | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 06:00 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 31 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| In Catalog, Hurt writes:
| As long as I can still do searches like:
"brick 2 x 3 decorated" (or exchange the "decorated" with any other word) and
then select a color from "More Options", everything is fine
|
Wow, I have been on Bricklink for about eight years and I have only just now
found a better way of searching for 'decorated' parts using the 'pattern'
keyword! Up to now, I have been using 'with' keyword to search for decorated
parts!
( a bit embarrassing really! )
|
As of now, the keyword "pattern" seems to look for parts of the name of a part,
while "decorated" is the category itself (but as nearly every decorated part
has the "pattern" keyword in it, both searches should be the same).
Changing the category "Decorated" to "Pattern" may look strange, as already stated
by some other users. Changing it to "Patterned" wouldn't result in any benefit
for searching, because it is again another word than the word used in the names
of parts ("pattern").
I don't know what would be best. I don't mind leaving category names
with "Decorated" ... it least I wouldn't have to re-print my labels for the
boxes where I store the different bricklink categories
|
|
Author: | mwright5 | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 05:58 | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | Viewed: | 43 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, WhiteVanMan writes:
| In General, mwright5 writes:
| It doesn't matter to me what we call it. I just wish the database was a
little more inclusive. For example, the sticker patterns from set 41150 are
still MIA on the database.
|
Set 41150
Why not buy the set and then add the stickered parts yourself?
Just remember, ALL of the pictures and set inventories are done by volunteers,
who spend time to collect parts and photograph them, adjust the ratios, colours
and what not, to add them to the catalogue.
I've done a few parts in my time, and to be honest, if I were getting paid
to do this, I'd be over it like a rash, but, hey, working with LEGO is a
labour of love....
Try it and see....
Paul
|
Ah yes, thank you Paul for giving me my opening. I actually have submitted things
only to have it rejected. I'm sure I didn't fill out the form correctly,
not for a lack of effort, I just find the form to be convoluted as heck. If
it were a bit more user friendly, I think it make a huge difference in soliciting
volunteer submissions.
|
|
Author: | WhiteVanMan | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 05:40 | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | Viewed: | 41 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mwright5 writes:
| It doesn't matter to me what we call it. I just wish the database was a
little more inclusive. For example, the sticker patterns from set 41150 are
still MIA on the database.
|
Set 41150
Why not buy the set and then add the stickered parts yourself?
Just remember, ALL of the pictures and set inventories are done by volunteers,
who spend time to collect parts and photograph them, adjust the ratios, colours
and what not, to add them to the catalogue.
I've done a few parts in my time, and to be honest, if I were getting paid
to do this, I'd be over it like a rash, but, hey, working with LEGO is a
labour of love....
Try it and see....
Paul
|
|
Author: | Lauren_Luke | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 05:36 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 32 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hurt writes:
| As long as I can still do searches like:
"brick 2 x 3 decorated" (or exchange the "decorated" with any other word) and
then select a color from "More Options", everything is fine
|
Wow, I have been on Bricklink for about eight years and I have only just now
found a better way of searching for 'decorated' parts using the 'pattern'
keyword! Up to now, I have been using 'with' keyword to search for decorated
parts!
( a bit embarrassing really! )
|
|
Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 05:17 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 36 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| Are there any Printed/Stickered parts?
|
Yep. Just came across one, in fact.
Printed nose:
Printed nose and stickered part (no space in the title for "Pattern," apparently):
* | | 18907pb02 Aircraft Fuselage Forward Top Curved 6 x 10 x 4 with 5 Window Panes with Shuttle Nose Pattern and Space Logo on White Background on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 60080 Parts: Aircraft, Decorated |
| I'm pretty sure there are molded/printed parts (at least dual-molded arms)
|
Yep. Here's one:
| but not sure about the other combinations.
|
But that's the point of such a system. It would be designed for the future
as well as the past.
| There's something to be said for making the category names and the
terms used in the actual names to be consistent. I'd be agreeable to 'Patterned' for the category name.
|
Meh. Perhaps we'll consider it in the future. I sense a lack of enthusiasm.
I changed the new category to Decorated and finished moving all the Aircraft
parts.
I actually like the eight definitions I came up with thanks to this discussion.
We need to be able to distinguish between printed, stickered, and molded designs
and people have asked for that ability. I don't think those identifiers
would ever go into part titles, but they could go into tags and result in a simplification
of overly complicated existing part titles.
|
I don't like the word Pattern much as for me it represents a repeated design
or motif. Sometimes I think these words are, like some strange part numbers (x145,
bb387) an inheritance of a distant and somehow obsolete past to which BrickLink
seems to be attached still. Call me avant-garde, but I'm not sure the casual
user would search for Pattern rather than Decorated or Printed or Stickered or
some variations of these words.
Thus, I would more likely replace the word Pattern in the item description with
the words Decorated Printed, Decorated Stickered, Decorated Molded, Decorated
Printed & Stickered, etc.
|
|
Author: | mwright5 | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 05:07 | Subject: | Decorated V Pattern | Viewed: | 135 times | Topic: | Catalog | Status: | Open | |
|
| It doesn't matter to me what we call it. I just wish the database was a
little more inclusive. For example, the sticker patterns from set 41150 are
still MIA on the database.
|
Author: | Hurt | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:55 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 37 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As long as I can still do searches like:
"brick 2 x 3 decorated" (or exchange the "decorated" with any other word) and
then select a color from "More Options", everything is fine
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:36 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 27 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
And that, my friends, is the tragedy which can befall you when you attempt to
be clever whilst also being tired.
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:34 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 25 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| The word 'Pattern', used in parts titles, is just a comfortable placeholder
in reading the part titles. Pick out ten random parts and read them with the
word 'Pattern' and then read them without the word 'Pattern'
and they mean the same thing.
|
No, this word serves a very important purpose. You can search for "pattern"
and "-pattern" to modify your search results as desired. It's not just verbal
eye candy.
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:32 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 27 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| Are there any Printed/Stickered parts?
|
Yep. Just came across one, in fact.
Printed nose:
Printed nose and stickered part (no space in the title for "Pattern," apparently):
* | | 18907pb02 Aircraft Fuselage Forward Top Curved 6 x 10 x 4 with 5 Window Panes with Shuttle Nose Pattern and Space Logo on White Background on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 60080 Parts: Aircraft, Decorated |
| I'm pretty sure there are molded/printed parts (at least dual-molded arms)
|
Yep. Here's one:
| but not sure about the other combinations.
|
But that's the point of such a system. It would be designed for the future
as well as the past.
| There's something to be said for making the category names and the
terms used in the actual names to be consistent. I'd be agreeable to 'Patterned' for the category name.
|
Meh. Perhaps we'll consider it in the future. I sense a lack of enthusiasm.
I changed the new category to Decorated and finished moving all the Aircraft
parts.
I actually like the eight definitions I came up with thanks to this discussion.
We need to be able to distinguish between printed, stickered, and molded designs
and people have asked for that ability. I don't think those identifiers
would ever go into part titles, but they could go into tags and result in a simplification
of overly complicated existing part titles.
|
|
Author: | Lauren_Luke | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:28 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 34 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| [StormChaser] writes:
In my opinion, categories should stay with 'Decorated' and all parts
with 'Pattern' should changed.
The word 'Pattern', used in parts titles, is just a comfortable placeholder
in reading the part titles. Pick out ten random parts and read them with the
word 'Pattern' and then read them without the word 'Pattern'
and they mean the same thing.
To replace the word 'Pattern' with 'Decorated' would be a wasted
opportunity. So I will go with what you suggested later '
Design', where would be sticker, molded, etc.
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:18 | Subject: | Re: postcards and assortiment gidsen | Viewed: | 27 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, ZwarteMagica writes:
| Are these considered lego(products) and is it worth adding them into the catalog?
|
Yes, they look like LEGO products and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't
be accepted.
I changed your post from Catalog Requests to Catalog. The Catalog Requests topic
is only to ask that something in the catalog be changed which can't be changed
through existing forms.
|
Author: | ZwarteMagica | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:10 | Subject: | postcards and assortiment gidsen | Viewed: | 65 times | Topic: | Catalog | Status: | Open | |
|
| Question for the catalog team.
Are these considered lego(products) and is it worth adding them into the catalog?
Thank you
|
|
|
Author: | mhortar | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:05 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 32 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| I'm not sure that 'Pattern' actually fits.
|
The word "design" means "decorative pattern."
If we wanted to be truly accurate and consistent, then every single part title
would have one of the eight following identifiers:
Plain
Printed Design
Stickered Design
Printed/Stickered Design
Molded Design
Molded/Printed Design
Molded/Stickered Design
Molded/Stickered/Printed Design (pretty sure there are none of those)
Have I missed any? Maybe when/if we get tags we can do this. I think it would
be helpful.
But it sounds like "Decorated" is the preferred term so far from all three commentors.
I still think it's quite strange that part categories are the only place
we use that word, but this ain't a one-man show.
|
Are there any Printed/Stickered parts? I'm pretty sure there are molded/printed
parts (at least dual-molded arms), but not sure about the other combinations.
Molded/stickered might exist too, but they're probably pretty rare.
I checked some other definition sites and none of them focused on the 'repetition'
aspect like the first one I came across (I think it was the Oxford dictionary),
so upon further review, I'd be agreeable to 'Patterned' for the category
name. There's something to be said for making the category names and the
terms used in the actual names to be consistent.
Josh
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 02:31 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 46 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| I'm not sure that 'Pattern' actually fits.
|
The word "design" means "decorative pattern."
If we wanted to be truly accurate and consistent, then every single part title
would have one of the eight following identifiers:
Plain
Printed Design
Stickered Design
Printed/Stickered Design
Molded Design
Molded/Printed Design
Molded/Stickered Design
Molded/Stickered/Printed Design (pretty sure there are none of those)
Have I missed any? Maybe when/if we get tags we can do this. I think it would
be helpful.
But it sounds like "Decorated" is the preferred term so far from all three commentors.
I still think it's quite strange that part categories are the only place
we use that word, but this ain't a one-man show.
|
|
Author: | bje | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 02:22 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 33 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| In my continual effort to make your lives marginally better (which is a close
second to my continual effort to be a person who does not use catchphrases),
I propose the following for discussion: why do we call patterns patterns pretty
much everywhere but in category names?
Nearly the only place you will see "Decorated" on BrickLink is in category names
(32 of them). When you click on decorated parts, though, you see parts with
patterns. I propose changing the word "Decorated" to the word "Pattern" in those
32 category names. This will have no effects except in aesthetics and site-wide
consistency.
|
Hmm: Meaning of Decorate:
1. make (something) look more attractive by adding extra items or images to it.
Meaning of Pattern:
1. a repeated decorative design.
Decorated would include stickered and printed items, IMO, whereas patterned simply
refers to the design added to the decorated item. So probably the category names
are correct and the individual items should refer to the pattern or some other
embellishment to be applied to the plain item in order to decorate it (good thing
I've had some coffee already this morning)
|
LordSkylark has asked for a category split of the Aircraft category into patterned
and non-patterned parts. I decided to succumb to his demand and have created
a new category titled Aircraft, Pattern. Now you can look at it on the parts
category page and see if you prefer the way things are now or the way I suggest
we do things.
|
As to the actual split of the categories, good thing except, I would, for the
reasons above, stick to "decorated" as opposed to "pattern" in the category name.
Personally I would add to the 2 parts in that category that are not specified,
either "printed" or "sticker" as it is not exactly clear what they are, unless
the feeling is that the default is printed.
|
|
Author: | mhortar | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 02:11 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 34 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| In my continual effort to make your lives marginally better (which is a close
second to my continual effort to be a person who does not use catchphrases),
I propose the following for discussion: why do we call patterns patterns pretty
much everywhere but in category names?
Nearly the only place you will see "Decorated" on BrickLink is in category names
(32 of them). When you click on decorated parts, though, you see parts with
patterns. I propose changing the word "Decorated" to the word "Pattern" in those
32 category names. This will have no effects except in aesthetics and site-wide
consistency.
LordSkylark has asked for a category split of the Aircraft category into patterned
and non-patterned parts. I decided to succumb to his demand and have created
a new category titled Aircraft, Pattern. Now you can look at it on the parts
category page and see if you prefer the way things are now or the way I suggest
we do things.
Provide input, please.
|
I'm not sure that 'Pattern' actually fits. I think you'd have
to go with 'Patterned', but even then, a pattern is more of a repeated
design, which doesn't fit for most printed parts. Decorated, Ornamented,
or Embellished would probably be better fits.
Josh
|
|
Author: | randyf | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 02:05 | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 32 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| In my continual effort to make your lives marginally better (which is a close
second to my continual effort to be a person who does not use catchphrases),
I propose the following for discussion: why do we call patterns patterns pretty
much everywhere but in category names?
Nearly the only place you will see "Decorated" on BrickLink is in category names
(32 of them). When you click on decorated parts, though, you see parts with
patterns. I propose changing the word "Decorated" to the word "Pattern" in those
32 category names. This will have no effects except in aesthetics and site-wide
consistency.
LordSkylark has asked for a category split of the Aircraft category into patterned
and non-patterned parts. I decided to succumb to his demand and have created
a new category titled Aircraft, Pattern. Now you can look at it on the parts
category page and see if you prefer the way things are now or the way I suggest
we do things.
Provide input, please.
|
If you are going to go with switching the category names, at least make them
titled with "Patterned" instead of "Pattern".
"Aircraft, Pattern" just sounds very weird since the word "Pattern" is ambiguous
here. Are you referring to aircraft parts that have a pattern or are you referring
to a pattern of an aircraft part? For someone new, that would look very confusing.
"Aircraft, Patterned" makes much more sense because "Patterned" can be a synonym
for "Decorated" whereas "Pattern" cannot. This phrase immediately makes me think
of patterned aircraft parts.
One other thing to consider is that some of the parts that have a "Pattern" are
marbled parts or parts composed of two different plastics molded together. I
don't think any of these parts are classified in "Decorated" categories,
but I could be wrong. What I do know is that most of them are for sure in normal
categories. Therefore, if you rename the "Decorated" categories to "Patterned",
you create another inconsistency since all parts with a "Pattern" will not be
in the "Patterned" categories. Just something to think about.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 01:24 | Subject: | Decorated vs. Pattern | Viewed: | 150 times | Topic: | Catalog | Status: | Open | |
|
| In my continual effort to make your lives marginally better (which is a close
second to my continual effort to be a person who does not use catchphrases),
I propose the following for discussion: why do we call patterns patterns pretty
much everywhere but in category names?
Nearly the only place you will see "Decorated" on BrickLink is in category names
(32 of them). When you click on decorated parts, though, you see parts with
patterns. I propose changing the word "Decorated" to the word "Pattern" in those
32 category names. This will have no effects except in aesthetics and site-wide
consistency.
LordSkylark has asked for a category split of the Aircraft category into patterned
and non-patterned parts. I decided to succumb to his demand and have created
a new category titled Aircraft, Pattern. Now you can look at it on the parts
category page and see if you prefer the way things are now or the way I suggest
we do things.
Provide input, please.
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 00:56 | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | Viewed: | 55 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
Yes, I remember. There's really only one fix for that: someone will have
to buy the books and photograph the bags. These kinds of sets wouldn't appear
in any catalog because the book must be opened to see them. Once we have photos,
then the sets will be quickly approved.
We're moving away from approving any submission which is not accompanied
by an image and I expect that will become firm policy within the next six months
or so.
There are simply too many items in the catalog completely missing images:
3 minifigures
29 sets
106 catalogs
108 books
133 gear
575 parts
902 instructions
4,236 original boxes
The idea in the past was that if you approved an item then eventually someone
would add a picture. That approach sort of works - sort of. I, for one, am
tired of seeing that we are missing 6,000+ images and that number* will only
keep growing if we don't stop it now.
*To be fair, instructions and boxes don't count as much because they're
created for all sets. Still, 950+ missing images are nothing in which to take
pride. If you look through the list of items missing images, you will see a
fair number of things for sale - clearly we need to do better at rewarding contributors.
|
|
Author: | LordSkylark | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 00:36 | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | Viewed: | 63 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| I have been searching for an image of this set for years:
The set has no date of addition, so it must have been added to the site not too
terribly long after BrickLink was founded. At times I have wondered if the set
was even real, but the specificity of its name always made me think that it must
have existed.
Today I got this catalog in the mail which was not in the BrickLink database
and which I just now added:
In that catalog I finally found the long-missing image and added it. I'm
pretty confident that this is the only website anywhere that you can see an image
of set 9978-1. I'm pretty excited that my long search has finally ended
in satisfaction and wanted to share.
We are now down to only 29 sets without any image (and one of them is from 2018,
so it doesn't really count). If you'd like to see what we're missing,
click here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=S&imgID=0&itemBrand=1000
|
Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
|
Author: | axaday | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 17:58 | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | Viewed: | 75 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Do you think anyone will ever find the Penguin Winter Hut?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| I have been searching for an image of this set for years:
The set has no date of addition, so it must have been added to the site not too
terribly long after BrickLink was founded. At times I have wondered if the set
was even real, but the specificity of its name always made me think that it must
have existed.
Today I got this catalog in the mail which was not in the BrickLink database
and which I just now added:
In that catalog I finally found the long-missing image and added it. I'm
pretty confident that this is the only website anywhere that you can see an image
of set 9978-1. I'm pretty excited that my long search has finally ended
in satisfaction and wanted to share.
We are now down to only 29 sets without any image (and one of them is from 2018,
so it doesn't really count). If you'd like to see what we're missing,
click here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=S&imgID=0&itemBrand=1000
|
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 17:17 | Subject: | Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | Viewed: | 200 times | Topic: | Catalog | Status: | Open | |
|
| I have been searching for an image of this set for years:
The set has no date of addition, so it must have been added to the site not too
terribly long after BrickLink was founded. At times I have wondered if the set
was even real, but the specificity of its name always made me think that it must
have existed.
Today I got this catalog in the mail which was not in the BrickLink database
and which I just now added:
In that catalog I finally found the long-missing image and added it. I'm
pretty confident that this is the only website anywhere that you can see an image
of set 9978-1. I'm pretty excited that my long search has finally ended
in satisfaction and wanted to share.
We are now down to only 29 sets without any image (and one of them is from 2018,
so it doesn't really count). If you'd like to see what we're missing,
click here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=S&imgID=0&itemBrand=1000
|
|
Author: | yorbrick | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 09:26 | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | Viewed: | 37 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | 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?
|
Yes, I think so. It would make finding things much easier if you have something
unidentified in a job lot. [This next bit is assuming that new figures types
are incorporated into the catalogue.] And that is what, to me, the catalogue
should be there for. If you know what something is or what set it came from,
it is easy to find no matter how bad the catalogue is. Whereas if you don't
know what a part (or figure) is, you should be able to follow the (hopefully
written down) definitions of different figure types and work out at least what
category it is, before looking through the entries.
| BTW, did you see that I made the pictures bigger and added little frames around
each photo? I thought it looked better.
|
Yes, each iteration is an improvement!
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:42 | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | Viewed: | 39 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| You said it could move into the Catalog
Help Center.
|
Actually, it is already there. I just meant that if we keep it, then it will
go to a different page. I hijacked the page it's on right now because I
can't create new Help Center pages.
I've updated the list. See if this new approach solves the concerns you
had.
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:35 | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | Viewed: | 37 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nordbart writes:
| Anyway, what I am saying is we need a definition of what is a figure and what
is not. At least here on BrickLink.
|
This is project number two on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
It will happen, but it is not happening right now. Please give this subject
some thought between now and the time when it does happen so that you may provide
some input at that time.
BTW, I already have written rules laid out for this project (defining all six
item types), but I am giving them some additional consideration before I begin
this project and release them for discussion. Please be patient.
|
|
Author: | Nordbart | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:29 | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | Viewed: | 35 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | 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.
|
Take the minor Planet Pluto. It was considered a planet in the past then more
planet like objects got found in the kuiper belt and the number off planets would
have been inflated...
So the Astronomers got together and created a new definition of what is a Planet
and what isn't.
This unfortunately kicked out Pluto out of the Club of Planets. At least the
scientific definition of one.
Anyway, what I am saying is we need a definition of what is a figure and what
is not. At least here on BrickLink.
We could also start listing them as
"Sub assemblies of antropomorphic appearence with a varying number movable limbs
and other functions for posability."
But this would cast a rather wide net and would include bionicle, galidor and
more.
Guess my definition sucks. I'm sure you can come up with a better one.
nordbart
|
|
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
|