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?
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Oklahoma
Netherlands, Utrecht
United Kingdom, England
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Poland, w. Wielkopolskie
Canada, Ontario
South Africa, Western Cape
Australia, Queensland
