Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 04:03 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Rest of the B's, C and D. I'm assuming you want catalog change requests
and not forum posts like the colors, correct?
|
Okay, so you're taking Bionicle through Duplo. And yes, catalog change requests,
please.
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 03:02 | | Subject: | Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Thank you all for caring enough to provide the fascinating discussion and for
listening as I tried to formulate my own thoughts on figure titles with that
rather convoluted set of rules which I posted.
Some of you were for set numbers and some were against. The only thing we really
all agreed on was that set/book/gear numbers should be in figure titles until
that figure is added to an inventory.
The only point that I haven't yet addressed (I think) is the mention that
Brickset uses item numbers in the titles to link back here. I've checked
this for some figures without set numbers in the titles and Brickset still
links back to us on those figures, so I don't think that would be a valid
reason for keeping item numbers.
So here's what I've done:
Added Figure Title Standardization to the Catalog Roadmap
We absolutely need to standardize figure titles catalog-wide and we will. However,
this particular project was only to decide if we should have set numbers in titles
and I've decided on that. The members who said that we should start at the
beginning with figure titles are right - and in an ideal world we would. For
now, though, we're just going to address the issue at hand.
Progress sometimes comes in fits and starts and we are making slow progress
with catalog issues, even if we're not doing it in the most efficient way
possible.
Updated the Help Center Section to Address Figure Titles
See here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=179
This section had not been updated in over eight years. I added the following
sentence:
Figure titles should not include set, book, or gear numbers; these are only allowed
in the figure title until that figure is added to an inventory and must then
be removed.
Updated Project
I waffled back and forth on set/book/gear numbers in figure titles, but in the
end I don't think we gain much from keeping them. They are something which
need continual management (meaning occasional review and corrections when necessary)
to remain correct and members simply aren't doing this. I certainly don't
have the time to do this regularly and clearly other administrators don't
either. I found an error, BTW, fairly early when selecting a figure at random
which the title said appeared in two sets when it only appeared in one set.
We gain little by keeping numbers in the title once a figure is inventoried,
they must be changed when occurrences of figures change, no one is reviewing
them periodically for corrections, they're something else members have to
think about when looking at titles (and titles don't explain what these numbers
mean), they would need an additional identifier such as (Multiple Sets) to be
consistent catalog-wide, and they lessen the aesthetic appeal of figure titles.
So we are removing set/book/gear numbers from every figure in which they appear
except those figures not yet inventoried. Please submit catalog requests as
necessary if you'd like to help and do not submit any other changes with
your requests unless a serious error is discovered (include a note to me with
your request in that case). The colors project wasn't coordinated so well,
so I'm doing something different here.
Please use this thread to claim some categories which you are checking and correcting.
This should make things go more smoothly. We will go in alphabetical order,
so here are the categories I am claiming and will correct myself:
4 Juniors
Adventurers
Agents
Alpha Team
Aquazone
Atlantis
Avatar
Basic
Batman 1
Belville
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 14:35 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
Thank you very much for making a chart. This kind of in-depth, serious analysis
is greatly appreciated. I haven't had time to look it over completely, but
I wanted to explain the first title section in more detail.
The Minifigs section of the catalog is an item type wherein we group most sizes
and types of figure that TLG has ever made with the exception of a few which
we consider parts:
and those we consider gear:
and those we don't include at all:
* | | 7920-1 (Inv) McDonald's Sports Set Number 5 - Blue Hockey Player #4 polybag
3 Parts, 1 Minifigure, 2004
Sets: Sports: Hockey |
Item types are different than categories and we only have one item type (Minifigs)
to use for a wide variety of figures of differing sizes and types. Some of these
we have given descriptive names (statuette, big figure, microfigure, etc.).
Others we have not (Technic figure, Duplo figure, 4 Juniors figure). The first
part of the title is intended to indicate the type of figure, not the theme (although
theme names are used).
Yes, it is inconsistent. However, the alternative is to come up with non-themed
names to describe each size/type of figure. And yes, as I explained in the original
posting, technically this section should be included for all figures and it should
be organized like this:
Figure, Minifigure
Figure, Technic
Figure, Statuette
Figure, Microfigure
Figure, Big
Figure, Primo
Figure, Duplo Brick
Figure, Duplo, Early Brick
Figure, Duplo, Doll
Figure, Duplo LEGO Ville
Figure, Mini Doll
Figure, Belville
Figure, 4 Juniors
Figure, Quatro
Figure, Fabuland
And so on. The word "figure" is necessary to avoid the appearance that these
are just themes. Since we're genuinely stuck with throwing all figures into
one place, I tried to make the best of it. We should retitle that item type
Figures instead of Minifigs and I will ask if this can be done
(I can't change item types like Sets, Books, Catalogs, etc.).
As for the different sizes and giving every one of those different sizes/types
of figures its own name instead of a theme name, I despair.
BTW, don't take my thoughts on figure titles as any sort of gospel. It's
only a starting point for a discussion. If you came up with your own titling
system independently, then what would it look like?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 14:03 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm just noting that there's a mix of apples and oranges in this column.
|
Right, and I did think of that and disliked it. I have most of the 4 Juniors
sets done now according to the guidelines:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=M&catString=516&itemBrand=1000
Honestly, when I see all those set numbers together on one page I don't much
care for the idea of including them at all. For those of you who want set numbers
added to the titles, do you like the way they look?
We could go with including them for one set only and use (Multiple Sets) after
that. This would fix the issue mfav pointed out. But, if I were the only person
deciding, I'd just leave them off completely except for figures which hadn't
yet been included in an inventory. They just look messy to me.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 07:14 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Part Dragon03 | | Viewed: | 15 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 40379 Dark Green Dinosaur Tail End Section
Comments from Submitter:
The end of the Tail is not Part 40379 but part 51874pb03 (already in the inventory of this Dragon).
|
I think that part may be used at the back of the head.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 05:57 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | may I please you to consider fianlly changing their numbers to sw... as all others
Sw minifigs have.
|
Taking a hard look at item numbers is another huge project which is on my distant
radar. Item numbers aren't changed very often because it can have negative
effects in a number of ways, but I think it's a little foolish to still be
using item numbers from other websites.
This is a project where we will have to tread carefully, but it is something
which needs to be done.
| | Following these above this one should also have part number left because it has
it own part number: 87561
Now if it is sw978 these two with parts number should be changed to sw... it
the same case 
|
I left the part number in place for Han Solo in Carbonite, but changed it to
an alternate item number. The word didn't crumble or anything, so it may
not hurt to give these two figures SW numbers and move the existing numbers to
additional item numbers.
Do this for me, please. Submit a separate forum catalog request so that I can
have it handy and reference it when asking higher up.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 05:31 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I would leave only
Clone Trooper Episode Three (7261, 7655)
his occupation is being Clone Trooper
|
Right, but adding trooper at the beginning of all troopers will group them all
together and fit in with the larger plan for all minifigures. As I said, this
initial identifier doesn't have to be an occupation. It can be a type of
theme-specific minifigure like trooper or droid.
As for destroyer droid, I don't think we need to be that specific (although
we certainly could, I suppose). "Destroyer droid" is an identifier which could
only be applied to a few figures, while "droid" is more inclusive. But I'm
always open to reconsidering anything. 
| | So I can help you with Star Wars category
|
I would, of course, appreciate it.
| | I will later also look what else can be made more consistent in there.
|
Once we get the final rules agreed upon and in place, they should take care of
any inconsistencies on their own if applied correctly to all figures. The Star
Wars category is fairly well titled as a whole and the only changes in many cases
would be adding occupation or type identifiers at the beginning of the titles
and set numbers to the ends.
If you find any figures for which this approach would cause problems, please
let me know. And be aware that we're not making any changes right now except
to 4 Juniors figures.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 05:05 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | So you like see this
[m=sw432] as
Farmer, Luke Skywalker
This is his occupation, this is what he was doing on Tatooine
I don't Like it after change according to this rule
|
For this we'd probably do something like:
Hero, Luke Skywalker, Additional Descriptors as Necessary (Set Number)
And:
Villain, Darth Vader, Additional Descriptors as Necessary (Set Number)
We can definitely discuss those terms, though. They don't necessarily have
to be any one specific thing like occupation. Or, we could simply go with this
if you preferred (and maybe this would be a better approach anyway):
Character Star Wars, Luke Skywalker, Additional Descriptors as Necessary (Set
Number)
In the past specific themes appear to have been titled independently of the whole,
at least in some cases, and that's what catalog-wide figure title standardization
would correct. I'm thinking in terms of all 10,000 figures and not just
one theme.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 04:39 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I'm against it and I don't like it.
|
I almost get the sense that you simply don't care for it.
But you're definitely right: I got my examples wrong.
| | It complicate too much in nicley
named in my opinon Star Wars minifigs, many of them have their on specific names
which function quite well, why change them?
|
Yes, this was my own problem, too. It reduces the aesthetic appeal of some titles
and I'm with you - I don't like it either.
But in Star Wars the droids, for example, are scattered everywhere and some of
them won't even appear when you search for droid:
[M=sw441]
| | Darth Vader is Darth vader adding something like supervillain or Dark Lord of
Sith (which suit better in this case is completly unnecessary
|
Yes, it is unnecessary for this figure. The only thing it would be necessary
for is across-the-board standardization. You mention later in your post that
we should not mess with licensed lines, but I'm unsure why these figures
deserve special treatment that other figures are denied.
Star Wars figure titles are, generally speaking, usually just the figure name,
sometimes with a set number and sometimes not. Literally the only things I'm
suggesting adding to that are type classifications at the beginning and set numbers
where they don't already exist.
| | No this is Clone Trooper not Trooper, Clone
|
You're right. Please consider these titles and see if you would consider
them acceptable:
[M=sw522]
Trooper, 212th Battalion Trooper (75036)
[M=sw374]
Trooper, Death Star Trooper (9492)
[M=sw126]
Trooper, Clone Trooper Episode Three (7261, 7655)
As a side note, why are we using Ep.3 in that title? Ep. is a poor substitute
for Episode and the number 3 is stripped from searches anyway.
So hopefully these examples will demonstrate that almost nothing would change
with Star Wars titles and the change would be an improvement in that it would
group similar figures together. I do apologize for the misleading examples I
gave.
By the way, here are some Star Wars examples of poor titling which need to be
standardized. How does adding non-searchable numbers like 1, 2, and 3 at the
end give anyone an idea which figures these are? Essentially these figures have
identical titles and I, not being very familiar with Star Wars, would have to
examine the photos closely to find the differences. There are more besides just
these, too.
[M=sw678]
[M=sw708]
[M=sw734]
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 03:52 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Pretty_Pieces writes:
| | Imho, there is no need to include the set number in minifig titles. If I am
looking for figs from a specific set, I pull up that set, and click the included
minifigures link.
|
Right, but remember that your experience with the catalog is different than mine
and mine is different than Randy's. Some people do want the item numbers
there and would use them.
| | When I search a set/gear number in the catalog, having a clutter of figs to wade
through is unhelpful.
|
We already use set numbers in every single sticker sheet title and every stickered
part title. When I search for 10261 (the roller coaster) I get 32 results and
only 11 of those are minifigures. Like it or not, we're stuck with set numbers
in titles anyway and I don't think adding minifigures into the mix will change
things too much for the worse.
| | But here’s the kicker: when I print out my packing list, I *really* don’t want
a quarter page of useless set numbers on every fig.
|
And you won't have these. Most modern figures appear in only one or two
sets and we won't add set numbers beyond three sets. I don't think this
change will affect your printing packing lists much at all (if any).
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. It's always good to hear additional
perspectives.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 03:44 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | I find it easier to apply rather than discuss in the air as it were, so following
on from the above and using a few of the catalog items I've submitted, let
me see if I can get these correct from the word go.
|
Great, thanks for testing these out! The interpretation of others will allow
me to see where explanatory flaws lie.
| | Maybe a sandbox forum topic for
this should be used, so these can be tested efficiently and in one place?
|
We're not really changing anything yet except 4 Juniors, so I don't think
there's a need for anyone to post a huge number of examples and no need for
anything separate.
| |
would become: Character CUUSOO, Grandmother (21315)
|
Seeing it in print makes me realize that there's already a problem with the
rules. In this case this figure is a grandmother so we'd want to indicate
that first in the title. Yet her name is also Grandmother. So properly formatted
according to the rules, the title should look like this:
Grandmother, Grandmother (21315)
Remember that we want to list the occupation/type first in the title. This groups
similar figures like grandmothers together and there are six of them in the catalog.
When an occupation exists, the "Character" portion of the title isn't necessary
and what follows is any official figure name or any necessary descriptors.
This would be an easy update: if the occupation/type exactly matches the figure
name, then the occupation/type would be excluded from the title. This change
would make the current title completely in compliance with the rules. Thanks
for finding this one.
| |
would become: Microfigure - Character CUUSOO, Jack (21315)
|
Okay, so for this one microfigures already exist in the catalog. Search "microfigure"
and you can see them. Here we would use statuette to describe the figure size/type.
Also, CUUSOO was only two sets. Everything after was Ideas. So here I'd
go with:
Statuette - Character Ideas, Jack (21315)
| |
would become: Plain Torso, Red (Gear 81087)
|
This one is perfect except for the word Gear. Russell taught me a little trick
to thinking about catalog items: since they all have different item numbers,
we don't really need to worry about whether they're sets or gear. Also,
if an item moves from one to the other, then we'd have to go back and change
figure titles.
| |
would become: Mini Doll - Character Friends, Mia, Dark Azure Plaid Shirt, Dark
Purple Shorts, (10749, 41345)
|
When we go through every minifigure title in the catalog we will find errors.
Here's an example of an error: the following figure has exactly the same
top as the figure you mention, but it is incorrectly described as a different
color in the title:
So for this incarnation of Mia, we would cut the color from the top altogether.
It is unnecessary because the top only comes in one color. We would go in order
through the figure characteristics until we found the difference and remember
that we're only looking for differences in otherwise identical figures.
For this figure the title would be:
Mini Doll - Character Friends, Mia, Plaid Shirt, Ponytail, Eyes Green and Freckles,
Shorts (10749, 41345)
The part about descriptors could be modified to say that instead of going in
order we would only identify any difference after the torso, I suppose, and that
all affected figures would get the same title treatment up to the difference.
I worded it the way I did because of the wide variety of similar Town figures,
but we could reexamine that approach. It seems silly for one figure to have
all that information and the other to have nothing - it will result in long titles
and short titles for otherwise similar figures and will look odd.
| |
would become: Snowman, 2 x 2 Curved Top Brick as Legs (60201)
|
Here we would only need the additional descriptors in the title if other snowmen
existed (and they do). I would like to keep numbers like 2 x 2 out of titles
when possible because they aren't necessary and skew results when viewing
by title (which is, I believe, the default view). I should have mentioned that
in the guidelines as well. So I'd go more with:
Snowman, Brick Curved Top as Legs (60201)
| | A few problems I had:
Gear numbers are not set numbers, so the set number should be the standard and
gear items should be stated as such.
|
I've addressed that above. We can safely ignore adding Gear or Set to the
title.
| | The snowman is strictly not a minifig, but I do not think that something like
is Parts Figures or Figure from Parts should be used, in this case, the identifier
should be the part that does not conform to it being a standard Figure.
|
As you look through minifigures you will find many examples of non-minifigure
parts used in figures. I think just briefly describing the part would be fine
and I think I need o do some more work on the part in the rules about descriptors.
It would probably be best to go straight to the most significant difference
and this approach is already used for numerous figures.
| | I'll work through a few more later, but for the time being, is this moving
in the right direction?
|
Yep, you did fine and you identified some problems with the guidelines. Thank
you. I am doing the 4 Juniors figures strictly by the rules as we speak and
we can identify further problems once we see them all together in a group.
This time challenge yourself by finding some minifigures which really strain
the rules and let's see how well they work under stress.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 01:21 | | Subject: | Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles.
|
A couple of people have suggested we begin at the beginning with standardized
titles for all minifigures. I agree and thank Lauren_Luke and mfav for mentioning
it. The necessity of standardized titles becomes apparent if you look at all
10,000+ minifigures together.
It's easy to suggest that we standardize minifigure titles, but it gets complex
when you actually start looking into it. My goal was to come up with standards
which could be used for any figure in the entire catalog. I spent most of today
on them and still am not sure that I'm satisfied with the results - these
rules are still not perfected and any instances where they need improvement (with
examples) would be appreciated.
Here are the guidelines I've come up with and am presenting for commentary
and modification. All of these sound complicated and they are - they'd be
intended more for the use of administrators, although they would be public in
the Help section. The result of these rules would be titles which are somewhat
less aesthetically pleasing (see the Arctic Batman example later in this post),
but which are consistent catalog-wide. They follow fairly well with what has
been done in the past:
Preliminary Section of Title:
The preliminary section of the title is not used for standard-sized minifigures.
This section describes the figure type (mini doll, microfigure, big figure,
Duplo figure, Technic figure, 4 Juniors figure, etc.). This section of the title
is not intended for the theme of a figure, does not include commas, and is separated
from the rest of the title with a dash.
To be truly consistent every figure should be titled the same way. Examples
are Figure, Technic and Figure, Belville, and Figure, Minifigure and Figure,
Microfigure and Figure, Statuette. However, it is possible to add too much to
titles and thus this approach was not used.
First Section of Title
The occupation or type of the figure goes here. These words would include firefighter,
pilot, race driver, doctor, knight, superhero, robot, droid, skeleton, zombie,
alien, etc. and should be used in identical ways for similar figures. Additional
occupations are listed in ascending alphabetical order up to a maximum of three
and are separated by a forward slash. Theme-specific words are used where appropriate.
For example, a Star Wars trooper is identified as Trooper, 212th Battalion or
Trooper, Clone, 41st Kashyyyk.
For figures which have no apparent occupation, the word "character" is used followed
by the theme without a comma. An example is Character Minecraft. For plain
figures with no torso pattern which also have no occupation, the term "plain
torso" is used, followed by the color. An example is Plain Torso, Red.
Second Section of Title:
This section includes the name of the figure if it has a name and is separated
from the first section by a comma. Additional names or name-type descriptors
are separated with a forward slash. For figures without a name, descriptions
are used. For multiple figures with the same name, the name is followed by a
comma and further descriptors separated by commas.
No two figures should have exactly the same title, but all descriptions should
be limited to the minimum necessary to differentiate one figure from another.
When describing a figure, characteristics should be listed in this order and
ended once the first differing characteristic is listed: torso assembly, hair/headgear,
body wear such as backpacks when applicable, head, and legs assembly. Titles
of individual items used for descriptors should be shortened where possible and
descriptor colors should be eliminated where possible. When descriptor colors
are required they should be placed after descriptors. The word "pattern" should
not be used in minifigure titles.
The sole exceptions for this section are Duplo figures which always include complete
descriptions in their titles.
Third Section of Title:
The set number in which the minifigure appears is included in round brackets
(parentheses) in ascending order and the -1 identifier is not used in the set
number unless it is greater than one. This information is only included for
figures which appear in three or fewer sets and combination/value packs are not
included. For figures which appear in more than three sets the term (Multiple
Sets) is used. The (Multiple Sets) identifier is necessary for consistency in
appearance and shows that the figure is in more than three sets. It also allows
members to easily identify figures for which this section of the title is missing.
Coda Section of Title:
This section is used for any additional information necessary and is separated
from the rest of the title with a dash. This information usually relates to
commerce, such as describing that a collectible minifigure entry is for only
the figure.
And that's everything. Let's see these rules in action: for each figure
below I've shown how titles would appear with these changes (several required
research to see if the colors included in the titles were actually necessary).
4 Juniors Figure - Pilot, Airplane (4619, 4620)
Primo Figure - Character Disney, Minnie Mouse (2592, 2594)
Race Driver, Stripes Red and Black, Classic Helmet Red (Multiple Sets)
[M=cty287]
Firefighter, Fire Suit with Utility Belt Brown, Fire Helmet, Airtanks (4427,
853378)
Supervillain, Bane, Black Suspenders (6860)
Superhero, Batman, Arctic (76000)
Mini Doll - Character Friends, Andrea, Halter Top, Skirt (3938)
Basketball Player, Basket Torso, Sunglasses (3390)
[M=Belvmale7a]
Belville Figure - King, Cross and Dots (5808)
Technic Figure - Construction Worker/Race Driver, Two Belts (Multiple Sets)
Scala Figure - Character Emma, Sweater (3200)
Soccer Player, Hair Brown, Arched Eyebrows and Stubble (3425) - White Team Player
2
Duplo Figure Brick - Base Red with Number 1 Race, Hair Brown, Head Yellow (9051,
9053)
I am going to apply these rules soon to the low-impact category 4 Juniors so
that we can see what they'll look like for an entire category. Beyond that,
I'll wait to see what kind of feedback everyone has before doing anything
further.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 20:57 | | Subject: | Re: Consider changing title | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | Please consider changing the following titles of these parts:
|
Please submit these requests as catalog requests:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp
The ability to submit requests in the discussion forum should only be used for
things which cannot be done with existing forms. Include any notes regarding
the changes in the comments section of the form.
Thank you.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 19:02 | | Subject: | Re: image for hol132?? | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Reki_Lobsheek writes:
| | How on Earth did this image get cleared by the catmins? 
I have seem some blurry, dark, petite, ... pictures of Lego items in the past
15 years on BL, but a sideways image of a minifig?
I don't even get what benefit there would be from taking a picture this way.
|
We don't like to add items to the catalog without an image and hardly ever
do. In the case of this figure the inventory is pending approval and rather
than delay the inventory while waiting for a perfect picture, this figure was
approved with the image submitted because it was the only image submitted.
The picture shows all the relevant characteristics of the minifigure, even though
it is not the traditional front-facing image. The good thing about this image
is that it is not permanent - anyone who feels like they have a better image
can submit that image to replace the current one.
Our other option is to hold every item in a pending status until perfect pictures
come in. I trust that is not something desired by most members.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 18:17 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9630-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | I leave for now as it is it agrees with parts list now showed in this thread
if something will needs to be corected then new change request can be submited.
|
I understand. The inventory is now missing some 30 parts which were actually
included in every copy of the set, though. You might consider adding an inventory
note which mentions the difficulties with this inventory.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 17:48 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9630-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Peeron's inventory should be a big help.
|
As a side note, Peeron's inventory may have been the 2002 version. I haven't
checked, but it wasn't added to the site until 2008. Since the submitter
has a copy of the 1997 set in hand, this would be your best resource for making
sure everything is correct for the 1997 version. The submitter may also be able
to help you determine what parts may have genuinely been extras.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 17:41 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9630-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | Robert if you have time between catalog work I would appreciate if you also look
at this if there something more to correct.
|
I'm sorry that I didn't give you more support on this. I have, indeed
been very busy elsewhere. If you'll take a look at the Peeron inventory,
you'll see that it was done from a MISB source and includes 216 parts and
around 72 extra parts. So I think it comes down to how we define extras.
This set was consistently advertised in catalogs with a lower quantity of parts
than that printed on the box and included in the set. Both Peeron and BrickLink
considered those 70+ parts to be extras. However, they're not extras according
to our current definition because they were included in every set and reflected
in the part count on the set box.
So my suggestion here is to get the part count to match the total on the set
box. To do this, you'll have to select some of the extras (around 10, I
think) and just make them extras based on what you think would be reasonable.
You will kind of be making this up, but I don't think even having a sealed
set in front of you would help here. There were a defined number of parts (presumably
the 216) used in models and the rest were just included.
Once you reach the part count on the box, you'll just have to decide what
else is extra. It's a complicated mess, but it definitely can be done and
Peeron's inventory should be a big help.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 04:58 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Note it is not Genie "with a lamp" but "of the Lamp", so it is part of his name.
The minifigure (only) name should really change to reflect this.
|
I just checked and TLG refers to this character as both Genie and Genie of the
Lamp. So either is technically appropriate as the official title. TLG, like
BrickLink, is not known for its consistency.
I do plan to go through and correct identical titles from the list qwertyboy
so kindly supplied. When I do that, I'll fix it along with the rest.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 04:48 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | "Without face" sounds really strange
|
Okay, so what suggestions do you have for something better? Keep in mind that
it needs to be something which will keep these heads about where they are (close
to the top, but just under the plain heads) in the entire list of heads when
you look at them by title, as well as something which will only return these
heads in searches.
Previously you couldn't find any of these heads without a minifigure face
in searches, BTW, and now you can find them by searching "without face." They're
the only things that come up if you search for them.
As for your question about what criteria I used to populate the list, I tried
to include every head which was self-evidently not a face and which was
also not used in a standard-size minifigure as a head. There are two exceptions
on the list, meaning two heads which are used in minifigures.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 04:14 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6385-1 | | Viewed: | 16 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | The part 4532a also came assembled with its door. If this has to be added, shall
I add this part first?
|
Parts which came preassembled in the box for display purposes are excepted from
having catalog entries for assemblies (see the Part Assemblies section):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=199
Just an FYI: the catalog is not accepting any additional basic part assemblies
like this one until we get together some written guidelines on what assemblies
should or should not be in the catalog. Creating these written rules regarding
assemblies is on the list of things to do (item 17):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 01:14 | | Subject: | Re: Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | If it's not the best idea, then I can always move the three heads back to from where they came and we can pretend this never happened.
|
Meh. Gave it some thought and didn't like it and changed it back. I'm
just going to retitle these heads so that they're searchable and they'll
also show up near the top of the list of heads:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 23:44 | | Subject: | Head Category Split | | Viewed: | 119 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I have split heads into two categories. Minifigure heads now exist in the original
category and a new category titled Minifigure, Head, Faceless:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=P&catString=1010&itemBrand=1000
This category will be for any heads which do not have a minifigure face, whether
the heads are simply plain or have some non-face pattern. I have only moved
three low-impact heads right now to give everyone an idea of what it will look
like. If there are no objections, then I will move the remaining heads which
qualify.
This was necessary because in the past the practice for heads without a face
was to use the wording "Head with XXXX Pattern." The addition of the word "with"
forced faceless heads (but not plain, unprinted heads) to the bottom of the list
of heads when searching by title and thus grouped them in one place.
This was not a perfect solution, however, because it ignored unprinted heads
and caused confusion for members when titling heads. I just looked at the end
of the list and found several standard heads which used the "with" keyword (which
isn't really a keyword at all because you can't search for it).
Anyway, thoughts on this new category? If it's not the best idea, then I
can always move the three heads back to from where they came and we can pretend
this never happened.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 20:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | What about 'Dimensions Minifigs'? There are bunch of minifigs with the
word Dimensions Team Pack or Dimensions Fun Pack as their only
differentiation. If set numbers are to go ahead are these titles going to be
replaced with the relevant dimensions set numbers?
|
Whatever solution we achieve will be applied consistently. If set numbers, then
yes, the extra portions of the titles would be removed. Even among those figures
there is not titling consistency:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 20:40 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | Since we are contemplating change the titles en masse, I think it would be a
better time now to agree on a consistent standard.
|
Yes, I was looking through minifigures a little bit ago and I see that this project
will involve more than just removing set numbers from minifigure titles.
| | I disagree, I have relied upon the “with” and other prepositions in searches.
|
Are you quite sure? I just checked and BrickLink automatically excludes the
word "with" from searches. The site also excludes the word "no," which is why
some items I recently found (and corrected) which had the term "No Pattern" in
the title were not usefully titled.
| | Why? Is three a magical number? There are several minifigs with duplicate titles,
even before removing the set number, these need to be addressed for example:
|
Good find on those two figures. Yes, we need to address this. I am of the belief
that, generally speaking and allowing for some exceptions, items in the catalog
should not have exactly the same title.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 19:37 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The general trend of opinion is to remove set numbers from minifigure titles
(pretty much everyone I've heard from privately and publicly agrees or would
be okay with it).
|
This consensus seems to have arrive in a couple hours on a major national holiday
in the US.
|
I ain't say it was a consensus. I only said everyone so far (at that time)
was in favor of removing set numbers. I've noticed that only a few people
typically comment on these changes and they're usually the same people.
I appreciate all input, of course, and wish more people would join in the discussions,
but once I've heard from the core group I have a general idea of how things
are going with a given issue.
| | Initially, the parenthetical set numbers are very useful.
|
Yes, of course. There's nothing wrong with having these until they go into
a set inventory.
| | I don't really agree with the premise. I don't think people looking
for that droid are going to hit upon the right keywords.
|
I definitely see what you're saying, but I wouldn't want to remove set
numbers and have three figures with the exact same titles. Of course there is
precedent in every direction for this issue, including nothing but a name:
What we're trying to do here is find some standard approach and implement
it. It sounds like just having the set number in parentheses at the end of the
minimally-descriptive title (perhaps only the figure name) would work well for
you?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 19:16 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
Right now the titles are mixed, but you're saying you prefer just the set
number in the title with no further descriptors. We could go that route, too.
As I mentioned, we've been heading that way the last few years. It is the
easier route, but breaks down for figures which appear in more than a few sets.
| | I would like to see every set in which the minifig comes in inside brackets,
just like the tech minifig in your original list. That would be so amazing!
|
I agree that it would be amazing to see a minifigure with 46 different set numbers
in its title:
Perhaps not amazing in the way you mean, though. 
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 17:12 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles.
|
The general trend of opinion is to remove set numbers from minifigure titles
(pretty much everyone I've heard from privately and publicly agrees or would
be okay with it). No problem there from me, but we must consider that in recent
years there has been a move away from describing minifigures in the titles and
simply including the set number.
In the past all three of the minifigures below would have included figure descriptions
in the titles. Now they simply include the set number to differentiate between
them:
[M=sw345]
[M=sw936]
[M=sw956]
For figures like this we would have to replace set numbers with at least basic
figure descriptions to differentiate them.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 15:10 | | Subject: | Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 207 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| First, let me thank you all for your assistance with these projects. Thanks
to your hard work and discussion we have completed four projects within the last
month and three are ongoing:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
The seventh project consists of moving every 47th item in the Set item type to
the Gear item type. This is necessary because the Set item type just seems larger
than the Gear item type. When these items are moved, perhaps we can also give
them funny titles.
On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles. Here are some examples of different
ways set numbers are included or not included in minifigure titles:
I realized that standardizing this would be as simple as a single sentence added
to the appropriate section of this page (which hasn't been updated since
2010):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=179
But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 23:46 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Legolibrarian2 writes:
| | With more changes on the way, I can hear a large groan.
|
You have better hearing than I do. I hear nothing but the adulation of the multitudes
. . . perhaps I just have selective hearing.
| | I really am a librarian, and am quite familiar with categorization schemes
|
That's awesome. Librarians are among my favorite kinds of people and libraries
are among my favorite places to visit. I get the feeling that libraries are
in decline since the internet arrived, which is unfortunate.
Considering that you have experience in understanding and working with systems
of categorization, your input would be appreciated on any future catalog work.
| | One thing that might help is to create a field in each part's
description that includes its previous name and/or category. And make this searchable.
|
I will consider this. All I could really do is add something to the title which
would have to be removed later. I don't feel like there have been many complaints
about actually finding things once they're moved. It seems more that people
are unhappy about having to rearrange their stock. So I don't think the
problem lies as much in locating items as it does in the fact that change has
occurred. I did try to make things easier with this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1113041
Ideally we could message or email every affected seller when something is moved.
Perhaps we'll have that ability in the future.
The same to you, of course.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 18:36 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8830-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | Instruction for this set and official images of it do not show this part being
used in it.
Request will be rejected.
|
The photo which caused the problem has been completely removed from the set entry.
I apologize for the difficulty it caused.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 15:33 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | OK. I assumed it existed already as these types of symbiotic relationships are
already used for windows, doors, wheels, etc. But obviously I don't know
the code so didn't realise they are different types of relationships.
|
You can learn more about item relationships here (click Definitions for further
information):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 13:14 | | Subject: | Re: 4x4 dish with open stud | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admiral_Brick writes:
| | 35394 is not an alternative design number of the old 4x4 dish.
It's a new design with a hole/open stud in the middle.
|
We'd need to see some hard evidence. I've just now looked at a number
of different sources and have found none.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 09:18 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I wouldn't mind projectiles going in there, but of course many won't
as they will already be in other categories. So maybe it would be wise to have
a list of things that the shooter can shoot as part of the extra information,
just like windows have which glass fits with them, door frames have which doors,
and wheels have which tyres, etc.
|
This would require a new relationship type. I have been thinking about that
for years and I suggested it some years ago. This would be a relationship type
that shows parts designed to fit and work together which are commonly used together:
* | | 4275 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 4276 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers on End (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
A number of parts which currently include that information in the part titles
would benefit from this kind of relationship match:
This type of relationship could be used to show which projectiles can be shot
with which launchers. However, creating that new relationship type won't
happen for a while - I haven't even added it to the roadmap yet.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 08:16 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | Personally I'd propose including the projectiles into the category, whenever
at least their first appearance was for the purpose of projectile.
|
Yes, I agree with that. Once the project launches and I get the definitions
all written I will open the category definitions to discussion and possible modifications
before we actually begin moving anything.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 08:03 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | Change for the sake of change is often followed by complaints - it rarely serves
any real purpose. Agreed changes often come with compliments and welcoming. There
is a difference.
|
That's a reasonable assessment. However, I'm fairly confident that the
changes I've made or coordinated in the catalog so far were all improvements.
Still, I've gotten a number of complaints about nearly all of them.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 07:48 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
That was the point of the Projectile Launcher category: to group all of these
together in one place. However, I'd prefer to wait for the launch of the
parts reclassification project to move these.
The first part of that project will be creating precise written definitions for
every category of parts. Once written definitions exist, then people will have
less room to bring out the torches and pitchforks when parts start moving.
Don't know if you noticed or not, but people sometimes want change and then
complain when it happens.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 06:25 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Why is 3464c02 present in this inventory (as counterpart)?
|
This part is present as a counterpart because it appears in two motorcycle assemblies
in this set. As to whether it should be present or not, I don't believe
there are any rules for this sort of thing.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2018 18:05 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tvallely writes:
| | I read this post the other day and just happen to stumble upon this part. I haven´t
done anything catalog wise in a good year, so I hope I am not too far off in
what you are asking.
[p=2865]
Red - doesnt exist in a set
Dark Gray & DBG - rendered?
|
Good to see you around again! You haven't posted in the forum since June,
2017.
We're not getting rid of renders, so the two existing renders are fine.
We're only getting rid of renders which don't appear in any set in that
color. As for parts which simply don't appear in sets in a specific color,
there are many of these. We're keeping photos for these parts and deleting
renders. The image in red for this part is a photo, so it would not be deleted.
This project is actually finished, I believe. I just haven't closed it out
yet. Feel free to see if you can find anything the rest of us have missed before
I do.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 19, 2018 21:09 | | Subject: | Re: Items which change category | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In General, qwertyboy writes:
| | Internally we have a web page that shows items that have moved. Would that be
helpful for others as well?
|
That is a wonderful tool and thank you for sharing it. BrickLink should absolutely
have something like that on-site: an easy-to-read, well-organized tool with pictures
which show when stuff is moved around and where it has gone.
| | Currently I have it limited to only pick "parts" or "minifigs" - in the last
month there have been an _insane_ amount of category changes for gear/sets/instructions
etc.
|
This was the result of categorizing the 700+ items which had no categories and
these were necessary changes. I expect additional changes to occur in the future,
so I have saved your link and will share it again in the future if you don't
mind.
If you could figure out a way to add sets and gear without overwhelming your
tool, then that would be awesome. At some point I plan to go forward with precise
written definitions of all item types (I actually have them written now) and
when that occurs it may be necessary to move some items which don't fit the
definitions.
This, for example, is self-evidently not even remotely close to being a set:
[S=bb173-4]
It's a storage bag and it will be moved to Gear when clear definitions of
item types exist.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 19, 2018 03:11 | | Subject: | Re: (MARKED FOR DELETION) Why?? | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Searching, BuildZone writes:
| | Can the Minifigures be added again somehow ?
Why are some of them are marked for deletion?
|
Most of the minifigures currently marked for deletion have been that way for
years, some for many years. However, this fact became much more noticeable recently
when I added MARKED FOR DELETION to their titles.
Most of them were marked for deletion because they did not meet inventory standards:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=200
The figures marked for deletion don't need to be added to the catalog again
because the majority of them (actually, probably all of them) were already added
again with correct photos/inventories according to inventory standards.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 19, 2018 03:04 | | Subject: | Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | Can anyone who owns 7739, especially a copy they built new, check to see if their
53588 from that set is marbled?
|
Thank you to everyone who generously provided photos and shared their experiences
with this part. Considering that not a single person was able to show that the
non-marbled part exists, I have merged 53588 with 53588pb01.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 18, 2018 20:18 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Gear pin073 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | The inventory as it stands is perfectly acceptable.
|
I apologize that I did not explain my reasoning when I submitted the requests.
I didn't realize they would be contentious requests, but if I had realized
I would have provided further details. I'm not asking you to reconsider,
but I would like to explain why I submitted it.
| | It is set up the way that any other part assembly would be identified: the main part has a variable color, and the part that does not change is specified.
|
This is true. However, the color is added to other parts inventoried this way
only when they appear in sets. This part does not appear in a set and never
will, so I felt like it deserveed an exception to the way other parts are handled
in inventories. Part bb185 will never have a color in the catalog unless we
help it along. The part comes in two specific solid colors, neither of which
are N/A.
I found it when looking here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?v=3&pg=1&catLike=W&colorPart=0&sortBy=N&sortAsc=A&sz=50&itemBrand=1000&catType=P
Also on that list are a couple of other items in N/A colors which we spoke about
privately such as the 3001 brick. The fewer solid-color parts which appear on
that list, I would imagine, the better.
And it's not exactly out of the ordinary to specify all the colors in a part
assembly. This is done for many assemblies in the catalog:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 18, 2018 14:50 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Gear pin073 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part bb185 White Plate, Modified 3 x 3 Cross with Thread Hole (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Change 1 Part (Not Applicable) bb185 Plate, Modified 3 x 3 Cross with Thread Hole {match ID 0 to 1}
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 18, 2018 14:47 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Gear pin073 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {(Not Applicable) to Red} bb185 Plate, Modified 3 x 3 Cross with Thread Hole
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 18, 2018 12:21 | | Subject: | Re: About 3039pb088 Stickers in 10195 AT-OT | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, irregular writes:
| | I realize this is a detail, I'm curious to know if this is relevant to bricklink
and how this is managed and/or changed.
|
It is a detail, yes. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of Star Wars sets
than I have can comment upon it. If it needs to be corrected, then it would
merely necessitate adding a new catalog entry for the part with the sticker upside
down.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 18, 2018 02:39 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Dark Tan
Tan
Light Orange
Sand Green
Dark Blue
Medium Blue
Bright Light Blue
Violet
Purple
Pink
Trans Black
Trans Red
Trans Light Blue
Glow in the Dark White
|
And here I thought we were nearly finished. Great job finding these additional
renders.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 18, 2018 02:38 | | Subject: | Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | No note - search redundant
|
This is not a problem with individual catalogue entries, but instead a flaw in
the system. The bug has been around for a long time, but I have recently reported
it and have been told that it will be investigated.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 17, 2018 14:31 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I will have some time today, I think, but I'm really not sure where to pick
up.
|
Actually, I think this project is winding down just two days after it started
due to the spectacular job by you and the others who have contributed.
I'll leave it open for a couple more days. I think we've plucked all
the low-hanging fruit here, but there are probably more obscure images still
lurking around.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2018 21:03 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Gear 752437 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 16 Part 3032 White Plate 4 x 6 (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Change 16 Part {(Not Applicable) to Black} 3032 Plate 4 x 6 {match ID 0 to 1}
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2018 20:56 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Do we need to do Marked for Deletion stuff? I'd been skipping them because
the whole thing is going to be deleted.
|
No, you're right, we're skipping them.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2018 15:35 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Perhaps you could start a thread where people can post when they have cleared
a category?
|
I will be going through all the Technic part categories myself today, so you
may consider those completed.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2018 15:19 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Perhaps you could start a thread where people can post when they have cleared
a category?
|
I'd like to keep everything in one place. Just post in this thread with
a list of part categories you've completely checked and I'm sure bje
and others will do the same.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 23:54 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| |
Brown
Why was this deleted? The brown appears in two sets.
|
It was deleted because I wasn't paying enough attention. I've double
checked every single image before I deleted it, but this one slipped by me.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 17:56 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, leovaliant writes:
| | I didn't know they were using the prototype pictures for the official set
images. The images are correct on the canisters and manuals. The 8747-1 isn't
using the prototype image.
There's other things wrong besides the rip cords.
|
How about this: would you see if you can track down some correct images from
official sources for us? You may add them here:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogImageAdd.page
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 17:52 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | A new catalog project has begun:
Thank you all for your assistance.
|
Okay, I'm all caught up with everything which has been posted so far. Thanks
to the assistance you have all provided I have deleted 449 images today. I believe
I greatly overestimated the time it would take to complete this project.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 17:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9630-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | For the booklet, Need I make an add item request with booklets from 1997 (Dacta
version) ?
If yes: As an exemple, How will the Dacta version numbered for item 9630bA ?
|
That's a tough one to answer without having the items side-by-side in person
to compare. What differences can you tell other than the changing of the logo
at the top from Dacta to Educational Division?
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 15:37 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, leovaliant writes:
| | How about set pictures that show incorrect part colors?
|
These are official set images and I'm not big on altering TLG's set images.
I suppose we could add additional notes to each set entry explaining the issue
if you'd like.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 14:22 | | Subject: | Re: 3626ap01 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, mikkk writes:
| | For discussion: the additional note
|
I have copied and pasted your message into the discussion we are currently having
about additional notes and further responses to your message should be posted
there.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 14:21 | | Subject: | Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, mikkk writes:
For discussion: the additional note
"The top of the heads of the earliest examples of this part had a more squared-off
forehead as shown on the left in the comparison image (image courtesy of chetzler)."
is, in my opinion, not correct.
Earlier versions had a more round forehead (shown on the right), the later examples
(Futuron, Blacktron and later) hat a more squared-off head (shown on the left).
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 14:14 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | So, if I were to supply images of all of the unreleased BASF and Bayer 3001's
that I have on my colour palette, they would be accepted?
|
I imagine those would be for this catalog entry, right?
I don't know of any reason why we would not accept additional photographs
for that catalog entry.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 14:09 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Is just happening to have notice one and taking a note of it some time the only
way to help?
|
No, the way to help is to look at catalog entries for individual parts, determine
which images never appeared in sets in those colors, and reporting the renders
which need to be removed in this thread.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 14:05 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | I'm listing a few Bionicle bits within my store, and I think this part is
a render?
If so, I can provide an image of the black one
|
We are not deleting all renders, but only those which are not known to appear
in any set. This part does appear in a set in black. You are welcome to provide
an actual photo of this part, but it will probably be used as an additional image
instead of the main image.
Please see the Preferences section on this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=87
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 13:35 | | Subject: | Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, rikitikitaviguy writes:
| | I'm fairly confident that "cupcake" is glued...I own it and it comes in a
clear plastic container. I think it is similar to other glued Legoland items
like the Pirate, Ollie, etc.
|
I believe there were two of them:
So the current additional note may be necessary or this may be information which
could be easily transferred to the title of the item.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Removal of notes | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, bje writes:
| | Please remove additional notes for:
|
In the future, please post all of these in the forum thread which was started
for this purpose. I have copied and pasted your entire message over to that
thread.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, bje writes:
Please remove additional notes for:
* | | 48457 Bar 2L with 2 Clips and Top Stud Holder (Skeleton Leg Dementor Stand)
Parts: Bar |
Self-explanatory, the additional note is now redundant as a result of the update
on the note.
Item relationship is already shown, note is redundant
* | | 2714b Bar 8L with Stop Rings and Pin (Technic, Figure Accessory Ski Pole) - Flat End
Parts: Bar |
Years of release already include the dates mentioned, and the variant is already
related
* | | 2714a Bar 8L with Stop Rings and Pin (Technic, Figure Accessory Ski Pole) - Rounded End
Parts: Bar |
as for 2714b above, and the note refers to the information applicable to 2714b,
not this part.
* | | 6190 Bar 1 x 3 with 2 Stud Receptacles (Radio Handle / Telephone Handset)
Parts: Bar |
No need for note, add item relationship instead
No note - search redundant
No note - search redundant
I trust this is what is needed, I'll do a few more later
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 03:00 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9630-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | I think that this is a good situation for creating a second catalog entry. Both
sets are easily identifiable from the packaging used, so there is no reason to
not have two entries.
|
Okay, this is a complicated situation. Technically, there never was a 9645 set.
It was identified by this number in catalogs, but 9645 was actually always 9630
with the addition of 9615.
So we needed two additional catalog entries:
I've already submitted an inventory for 9645-2. Correcting the 9630s is
up to you. I've added some catalog descriptions for the first 9630 and the
first 9645. You can see that catalogs consistently described their part counts
as being far less than what was included, which probably accounts for the high
quantity of extra parts in 9630-1.
Good luck and let me know if I can help any further with these sets.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 02:30 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | I have included the colourID
|
There's no need for that. It's just extra work on your part.
This one is an actual photo, so it will remain. The rest were removed. Thanks!
We're up to 28 images removed so far.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 00:48 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | [StormChaser] writes:
| | Please post here with micro tags for the parts which need rendered images removed and
specify the colors.
Thank you all for your assistance.
|
So, is this what you want?
in black
|
Yep, that's perfect. I will remove the image of that part in black.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 00:17 | | Subject: | Sixth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 180 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| The sixth project is to review all of the existing additional catalog notes:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
I am not aware of a full-scale review of additional notes ever having occurred
in the past. The purpose of this review is primarily to ensure that the notes
are necessary, but also to ensure that they are relevant and grammatically correct.
We now have over 4,000 additional notes and I know for sure that we don't
need some of them. It is my belief that catalog and inventory notes should be
used only when necessary. I'm not against them, but they are special tools
which should be used for a purpose.
Here is an example of an additional note which is unnecessary:
The additional notes states: "Unglued, with candle." This set is clearly not
glued. If it were glued, then it would (or at least definitely should) be categorized
as Gear: Glued Model. As for the candle, this is self-evident from the image
of the set. Nothing would be lost by completely removing this additional note.
Here is another example of a completely unnecessary additional note:
The additional note states: "Exclusive item for 2010 Lego Ambassador Pass holders."
This information is already contained in the title of the set and other similar
items do not include additional notes.
And another example:
This additional note states: "Batman head pattern appears on two opposite sides."
This information should be included in the title of this item, not in an additional
note.
During this review, please report any bugs you discover. This item, for example,
supposedly includes an additional note:
As you can see, no note exists. Bugs like this need to be corrected and I will
work to get this done. To find items with additional notes, use the Advanced
Catalog Search feature.
Thank you all in advance for your assistance with this project.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 00:15 | | Subject: | Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 244 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| A new catalog project has begun:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
As you can see, the (Other) project is now complete and LordSkylark's project
is temporarily on hold.
The fifth catalog project is to remove images which are renders and which show
parts which do not exist in the colors shown. There are estimated to be 1,600
of these renders left in the catalog and there is no easy way for me to locate
them.
I would imagine the majority of them are for basic, undecorated parts. Please
post here with micro tags for the parts which need rendered images removed and
specify the colors. I will review the findings and remove the renders where
appropriate. Please note that this project will not be removing any actual
photos of parts.
Thank you all for your assistance.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 14, 2018 02:38 | | Subject: | Re: 60592c01 - whos idea was this? | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Once the standards are defined, then we can look at adding or removing any assemblies
which do not fit those standards.
|
Poorly worded, obviously. We can look at adding additional assemblies and/or
removing additional assemblies which do not fit those standards. There will
be a forum discussion about this when the time comes and member input will be
considered.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 14, 2018 02:28 | | Subject: | Re: 60592c01 - whos idea was this? | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, brox999 writes:
I agree.
There were never written standards (of which I was aware, at least) for which
part assemblies should or should not be included in the BrickLink catalog. That
lack has caused confusion and hard feelings and it will change at some point.
It is on the list of things to do (number 18):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
Once the standards are defined, then we can look at adding or removing any assemblies
which do not fit those standards.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 22:19 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1882-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | I am disappointed. I was expecting a picture of an eel...
|
Do not be disappointed, for I am sure that one day your dream of seeing a picture
of an eel will come true. Just keep looking. I have found photographs of eels
in the oddest places, including in the laundry basket, in unopened packages of
off-brand breakfast cereal, and once between pages 167 and 168 of an original
copy of the Gutenberg Bible.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 21:58 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1882-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Generally profound insights
|
Here is a picture.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 21:55 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9988-1 | | Viewed: | 14 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4180c02assy1 Black Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels, Freestyle Red, with Black Tires Offset Tread (4180c02 / 3483)
* Delete 2 Part 4180c02 Black Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels, Freestyle Red
* Delete 4 Part 3483 Black Tire 24mm D. x 8mm Offset Tread
* Delete 2 Part 4131 Yellow Door 1 x 4 x 5
* Delete 2 Part 4130 Red Door Frame 2 x 4 x 5
* Add 3 Part 4132c02 Red Window 2 x 4 x 3 Frame with Yellow Pane
* Delete 3 Part 4132 Red Window 2 x 4 x 3 Frame
* Delete 3 Part 4133 Yellow Window 2 x 4 x 3 Pane
* Add 4 Part 3185 White Fence 1 x 4 x 2
* Change 2 Part Red 4130c03 Door Frame 2 x 4 x 5 with Yellow Door {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
This set is identical to 1882-1 with different packaging.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 21:55 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 1882-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4180c02assy1 Black Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels, Freestyle Red, with Black Tires Offset Tread (4180c02 / 3483)
* Delete 2 Part 4180c02 Black Brick, Modified 2 x 4 with Wheels, Freestyle Red
* Delete 4 Part 3483 Black Tire 24mm D. x 8mm Offset Tread
* Delete 2 Part 4131 Yellow Door 1 x 4 x 5
* Delete 2 Part 4130 Red Door Frame 2 x 4 x 5
* Add 3 Part 4132c02 Red Window 2 x 4 x 3 Frame with Yellow Pane
* Delete 3 Part 4133 Yellow Window 2 x 4 x 3 Pane
* Delete 3 Part 4132 Red Window 2 x 4 x 3 Frame
* Add 4 Part 3185 White Fence 1 x 4 x 2
* Change 2 Part Red 4130c03 Door Frame 2 x 4 x 5 with Yellow Door {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Many people have asked me what my favorite Ogden Nash poem is, so I will reveal it.
The Eel
I don't mind eels
Except as meals.
And the way they feels.
-Ogden Nash
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 15:01 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9630-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
|
Just an observation: the current inventory includes 73 extra parts. That is
utterly ridiculous.
If the current inventory (likely from the 2002 version) is completely correct,
then the set included 8 extra parts.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 14:55 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9630-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | There were two versions with differing part counts.
|
If you guys over in inventories want a second catalog entry to account for the
two different versions, then just let me know.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 14:51 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9630-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
|
There were two versions with differing part counts. Second version (2002) was
branded LEGO Educational Division. First version was branded LEGO Dacta and
was from 1998 (there may have been an earlier 1997 version also).
The cover/inventory card from the early version is attached front and back (second
and third images).
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 04:51 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it.
|
Grrr. Someone could have mentioned that this was already a different project
(currently number 10 on the roadmap). I just now noticed. Ah, well. We got
some good discussion in on it and now I know people definitely want it.
So all that really remains to be done from the original group is the dual-molded
arms.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 03:22 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I have [a Technic figure] in my childhood collection. What can I take apart safely?
|
I'd just leave it to the people who wanted part entries for these figure
parts. The catalog is open to these entries now and they should be submitted
as Large Figure Parts like this:
Large Figure Foot Techinc
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 03:18 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
I apologize that this group of projects has not gone so well. I will not bundle
so many projects together in the future. Here's the status of each project
as of the moment:
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
Yes. This will happen soon.
Adding individual Technic figure parts.
Yes. This has already happened - it was just a policy change. Members
who wanted it may submit catalog entries (although they haven't yet).
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
Maybe. I need to understand if this will cause unforeseen problems. It
is the only project on the list which I am still uncertain about.
Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
No. This will not happen.
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
No. This will not happen. We could not reach any consensus on the best
path to take here and I'm not entirely convinced that the benefits would
justify the effort.
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No. This will not happen, or at least not in the near future. I have
added a paragraph to this page explaining the issue (third paragraph down):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
At the least, though, we are officially recognizing the issue by including it
on that page. The issue with differences in production processes could
be addressed in the future when we get some sort of plan together to deal with
all the part variants which still need attention.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 14:33 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.
|
I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project. I think I may have bundled too many sub-projects
together, so this knowledge will be helpful for me when planning future projects.
| | Let me ask a practical question. Is this data such that you can access it and
run a global find-and-replace, or do you have to edit all these entries one at
a time?
|
There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture. And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway. The person who originally asked for this never gave me an
idea of how many heads it would affect, so I guess someone still needs to go
through the heads section and get an idea (or a list together) of how many heads
have non-face dual-sided printing.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 04:09 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | You're unique here. Not everybody has contributed tens of thousands of morsels
of information. You have. So you have a very highly attuned sense of the product
that others simply will never have.
|
Indeed. Also Jen has seen BrickLink from the inside, as I'm sure you're
aware.
I get the point you're making about the database being rebuilt from the ground
up with knowledge we have gained from the current database and knowledge we now
have of the variety of LEGO products in existence. That ain't likely to
happen, though.
Jen is saying we could avoid crazy, huge solutions with some coding. Again,
ain't likely to happen (although small improvements have definitely been
introduced here and there).
So we make do with what we have.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Images for mugs | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | So, for each mug I add to the catalogue, I have to upload the 'main'
image, and then when that's done, the additional '2' and '3'
afterwards...
|
Yes, but one at a time. So you upload the second image and wait for it to be
approved. Once it is, then upload the third image. Or fourth, fifth, etc.
| | However, I see that there are a few mugs that are already in the catalogue, but
as I have those mugs, would my images supersede those? (or shall I take pictures
of the sides not showing instead?)
|
If your pictures are better, then we can replace the main image with yours and
either relegate the current image to an alternate image or delete it. If you're
going to make yourself a project out of these mugs, then I suggest you take pictures
which are uniform (same angle, same lighting), large, clear, well-lit, and on
a completely white background.
The images mfav takes are the gold standard for images. You can see what I'm
talking about in the images of these hinge assemblies (he took most of them):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=3937*&itemBrand=1000&catType=&itemYear=&catID=&catLike=W
Thanks for doing this, BTW.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I will restate that this needs to be done.
|
No need, friend.
I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.
| | These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
|
I am fully aware of this. I have studied the issue and I understand it. Did
you carefully read Jen's post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114537
Where would this stop? And, by the way, exactly how many mini doll legs are
we talking here?
These would have to be handled like any other part variant split. We mark the
current catalog entries for deletion (again, how many?) and create two new entries.
Thus, it would be exactly as disruptive as any other split.
What I definitely will do is add them to this list for you if you'll give
me a list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
Any future part splits will come from that list (with functional differences
being a priority, obviously). I'd also like to add additional notes to all
mini doll legs and other parts with these kinds of differences, so please do
post a list.
I tend to support your position that these parts should be split and the current
catalog entries marked for deletion, but my job is to also consider the disruption
part-splitting has on people's businesses.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:12 | | Subject: | Re: Images for mugs | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | I propose that the mugs selection to be allowed to have 3 images maximum, which
will allow the mugs to be displayed fully, and that the whole design can be seen.
|
| | Can this suggestion be implemented?
|
Any item in the catalog can already have multiple additional images. If there
is a maximum number of images possible, then I'm not aware of it. I have
moved your post from Suggestions to Catalog.
To show you that this is already possible, I've drawn a very crude 2 and
3 over the image for this item and uploaded each as additional images (I will
delete them soon, so check them out quickly):
The only caveat is that you must upload additional images for a specific catalog
entry one at a time and wait for each to be approved before you can upload the
next.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 04:44 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | This may be me throwing a square ball among the pigeons
|
I have never thrown objects at or among birds, so I am unable to determine if
you are doing so now.
| |
Figure parts that are not minifig nor mini doll should go into a series of categories
like...
|
This is already on the catalog roadmap. The suggestion is to group large figure
parts together by item type to make them easier to navigate. So:
Large Figure Part, Arm
Large Figure Part, Head
Large Figure Part, Leg
Large Figure Part, Mask
Large Figure Part, Torso
etc.
They would not be separated by theme. This would essentially be transitioning
to the way minifigure parts are cataloged. But that suggestion won't be
looked at for a little while yet. It would involve significant changes.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 04:34 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | Is there a need to have "Minfig, Head..." at the start of each title? What about
just "Head...". This convention is used for torso and legs assemblies.
|
Just a catalog inconsistency. Some parts categories such as Foam, Bar, Slope,
and Tile have those words as the first word in every catalog entry within the
category (in fact, I believe all basic parts are this way).
Other categories have mixed titles. Container, Decorated, for example, contains
Container, Box and Container, Cupboard and Container, Racers, etc.
And still other categories do not have the category name in the title. Minifigure
torsos is one of them, but there are others. One of the reasons for this practice
for certain categories is to save space - titles are limited to a certain number
of characters.
Title inconsistencies which are not deliberate are the result of nearly 20 years
of (a) different approaches by different people, (b) moving parts from category
to category and splitting or merging categories, (c) a constant influx of new
items, and (d) no one with the time and/or willingness to standardize titles
catalog-wide.
As the catalog grows (we're about 1,800 items away from 100,000 catalog entries),
efforts to standardize any practices catalog-wide become increasingly
difficult. Yet, in spite of everything mentioned above, titles are still in
pretty good shape. Maggie and Ronald deserve our sincere admiration (and they
have mine) for keeping things as well-organized as they have for the past 8 years
that they have been doing this alone.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 03:37 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | So unless Ii understand this completely wrong, you would rather want a naming
convention on ALL heads then?
|
Goodness, no. I'm suggesting a brief title addition only to heads
which have printing on more than one side. Or, more precisely, LordSkylark suggested
it and I think it's something we could accomplish.
Currently we have two kinds of head titles that I'm aware of:
Minfig, Head
Minfig, Head Dual Sided
We could add a third type of title such as:
Minfig, Head Dual Printed
That's all. I don't like "Duel Printed," which is why I suggested someone
come up with something. This is LordSkylark's suggestion, so maybe he should
be suggesting something. Here was his original suggestion:
Any head with any type of printing on both sides should named “dual-sided”,
not merely heads with a face on both sides. (I am not sure why the current catalog
administrators are so stubborn about changing this.) [Maybe the head category
is now big enough to divide these into one-sided and two-sided.]
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 01:35 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The (Other) project is winding down and next we're looking
at implementing some, if not all, of LordSkylark's suggestions. We need
to decide together how many of these (or maybe all of them?) we want to tackle.
Let's discuss them.
|
Okay, I've read all your comments. I had to do a little interpreting for
some of them to see what each person's take was, but that's okay - these
are nuanced issues. I included my own opinion as one of those which I counted.
Let's take a look at how things turned out.
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
This was the third most popular project. Seven for it and seven with no opinion.
I think we'll do this one.
Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
This was the least popular project. Not a single person wanted it. Two said
maybe, four had no opinion, and eight said no. We will be staying with current
policy and not adding individual hips and legs to the catalog.
Adding individual Technic figure parts.
Five people wanted this, one said maybe, and eight had no opinion. I think we'll
go ahead with this one, too.
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
This was a tough one. It was the second most popular project with 10 people
wanting it, one with no opinion, and three saying no. However, I read the comments
about doing it and I have changed my mind and now don't think it is the best
route to go. I know that heads are a big category, but I think it would be best
to leave them all together. So I'm going against the people and saying no
to the single side/dual side split.
As for the retitling dual-sided heads, I agree that we need to have some way
to distinguish these from heads with printing only on one side. For example:
I think it would be confusing to use the term "dual-sided," so someone come up
with some suggestions for a term we can tack onto titles of heads with non-face
printing on both sides, please.
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
This was the most popular project. It received 12 approvals, one maybe, and
one no opinion. Yes, I know you can filter our decorated parts by doing a second
search for -pattern. Half the time I forget that when I need to find plain legs
and a new user certainly couldn't be expected to know it.
However, the same point about the heads applies here - minifigure legs assemblies
may need to be kept together. I'd like to do this one, but I will hold off
on saying so for sure in the hopes that someone will present the case for keeping
legs assemblies together.
So, of LordSkylark's proposed group of projects some will happen, others
won't (or won't happen exactly as requested), and one I'd like to
make happen but am not sure about. For now we'll begin on the first phase:
adding Technic figure parts. I've updated catalog policy to allow it, but
a question before we begin: anyone have opinions on where these should go?
I believe Large Figure Parts is an appropriate category since it could well be
where other similar parts end up in a later project. Or, we could do a new Technic,
Figure Part category, but this may be unnecessary in the future if we organize
large figure parts as requested by some members and would mean moving these parts.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 22:17 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | I take that back... Sets are pretty simple compared to Gear and Books. Where
on earth would you put ?
|
Simple. With the Zippo lighters and other smoking supplies. I guess no one
wanted to call them what they were?
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 20:24 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 080-3 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Anyway, I'll drop some huge pictures on you and you can see everything I have to document these requests.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 20:24 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 080-3 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3011 Yellow Duplo, Brick 2 x 4
* Add 1 Minifig dupfig002 Duplo 2 x 2 x 2 Figure Brick Early, Male on Black Base, Black Police Hat, Wide Smile
* Add 2 Part 3437 Black Duplo, Brick 2 x 2
* Change {4 to 2} Part Yellow 3437 Duplo, Brick 2 x 2
* Change {2 to 1} Minifig dupfig035 Duplo 2 x 2 x 2 Figure Brick Early, Male on Black Base, Black Police Hat, Small Smile
* Change 1 Minifig {dupfig001 Duplo 2 x 2 x 2 Figure Brick Early, Dog on Black Base, White Head, looks Left to dupfig001r Duplo 2 x 2 x 2 Figure Brick Early, Dog on Black Base, White Head , looks Right}
Comments from Submitter:
OMG, you guys, imagine all the things I could've gotten accomplished with the catalog in the time it took me to throw these requests together. Seriously.
Anyway, I'll drop some huge pictures on you and you can see everything I have to document these requests. It is a used set. I believe these changes will align the part count with reality. The removal of the two black bricks (which are quite clearly in the set) was approved back in the halcyon days of 2012 when the world was filled with wonder and everyone smiled frequently. It was believed at the time that the color black was a real downer, so the bricks were removed. With the current trend toward dystopia, I think it appropriate to put them back.
Okay, bye.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 17:31 | | Subject: | Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | Do you need any more evidence to make the change in the catalog, or is this sufficient?
|
I agree with the change based on the little research I've done today and
what others have said. However, it is possible (though unlikely) that a straight
DBG version of this plate was made. Forcing everything over would mess up some
sellers if they had the rare version (which again, probably doesn't exist).
Let me contact some of these sellers and I'll reply back later with the results.
Or, if you'd be willing to continue contacting them yourself it would be
appreciated.
Good catch on discovering this, BTW.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 17:11 | | Subject: | Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, MidwestBrick writes:
| | | | You're right, it is. Perhaps the catalog admin should change this and consolidate
both parts under 53588pb01, in Dark Gray or Dark Bluish Gray, then?
|
And possibly purchase some items at those two stores to make amends?
|
I believe it is asking a bit much that we purchase from stores whenever errors
are discovered in the catalog. 
I am not wealthy and this is a volunteer position. If an error exists with this
part then I apologize, but that's about as much as my budget will allow.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 16:09 | | Subject: | Re: Need help with gold different colors | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Catalog, odurt writes:
| | Should I proceed with
an inventory change request to add the three in the middle as alternate Metallic
Gold parts?
|
No, definitely not. These are all pearl gold parts and they vary noticeably
in color. I've seen significant color variances in the same parts pulled
out of the same sealed set (half one shade and half the other shade).
It's just poor quality control from TLG.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 03:28 | | Subject: | Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 237 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| The next catalog project consists of replacing all current photos of minifigures
with photos of the same minifigures on sport bikes. You can see this on the
Catalog Roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
Okay, not really. The (Other) project is winding down and next we're looking
at implementing some, if not all, of LordSkylark's suggestions. We need
to decide together how many of these (or maybe all of them?) we want to tackle.
Let's discuss them.
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
My take: I'm good with this and it has been requested before. It will reduce
catalog entries from 23 to 11 entries for straight two-color arms. It will take
some work and I'm not sure about the exact logistics, but it can be done.
Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
My take: This is currently against policy. Policies can be changed, though.
My question would be this: is it necessary? Does anyone feel a burning need
to sell these parts? Have your buyers been requesting them? How many support
this and how strongly?
Adding individual Technic figure parts.
My take: currently against policy, a policy which is not adhered to considering
that at least one of these is already in the catalog. I see little harm in it,
but again: how many want this and how badly?
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
My take: I think these are good ideas, but am always willing to listen to dissenters.
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
My take: I would like to see a detailed explanation of the exact issue to understand
it better. I believe one was posted somewhere, but it would be great if it could
be posted one last time in this thread so that we all have an idea of what this
would entail.
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it. There are over 1,400 items in the Minifig, Legs Assembly category and I
find it exceedingly difficult to find non-decorated legs in all that mess. Does
anyone else besides me feel like this would be a good split?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 00:52 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | I suggest a new category is created called 'Ephemera' and things like
competition forms and event guides from the ' (Other) ' category are
moved into there.
|
Okay, so now we can discuss it properly.
As a quick update:
Parts are completely done.
Sets are done once the LEGO Brand categories can be used again (I still
need to know if LEGO World is an official LEGO event or not, though - so far
no one has answered).
Minifigures are done (with three exceptions) once the LEGO Brand categories
can be used.
Catalogs needed no work.
Books and Gear, then, are really the only things left. Books should
be easy, Gear not so much. It was the biggest (Other) group of all of them for
a reason. Still, I've knocked over 200 items off the (Other) list for gear.
There are 47 (Other) books and I really doubt anyone is going to care too much
where they go. These aren't exactly big sellers. I was thinking of moving
the competition forms to Gear. The Books section has gotten a little watered
down and forms which you fill out in hopes of winning a prize definitely aren't
books. I haven't thought about where they'd go once they get over to
Gear.
Ephemera, though, is a word not in common usage. I don't think it fits well
as a category with Bedding, Video Game, Storage, Magnet, Clock, and other common
words already used as categories. Not that it ain't a fun word, but I think
it's one of those somewhat esoteric words which would appeal primarily to
people with large vocabularies and discountenance everyone else by virtue of
its inscrutability.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
