Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 15:28 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 7074-1 | | Viewed: | 12 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Gear 4244910 (Not Applicable) Pirates Captain Kragg Poster
Comments from Submitter:
Freestyle posters are included in set inventories, so I see no reason why this poster should not also be included in the inventory of the set in which it came.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 04:41 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve LEGO Movie 2 30620 Polybag | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, rapar writes:
| | Can you please approve The Lego Movie 2: 30620 Star-Stuck Emmet Polybag? I have
some in my hands. This polybag can already be purchased in Poland.
|
For you I will, but only just this once. 
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 12, 2018 16:36 | | Subject: | Re: Stickered Parts separate category | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, brickphils writes:
| | Pls create separate category for stickered parts so that we dont have to go through
them when we are browsing items only with decorated/printed ones.
|
I definitely want the catalog to give members the ability to easily distinguish
between plain parts, stickered designs, printed designs, and molded designs.
We should be able to easily see what we want to see in search results without
having to go to another website or filter within search results.
However, I don't think more categories are the solution here. I believe
this needs some programming to happen, so I have moved your request to the Suggestions
topic. Suggestions are largely not read or acted upon, but don't worry -
I will continue to advocate that we have this functionality for the catalog in
the future.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 11, 2018 15:37 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 60147-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:
| | Sticker should be on 1x6 white tile (part 6636)
|
It was easily fixed. Now it's a 1 x 6 tile.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2018 00:54 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 8091-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 3039pb094 Dark Bluish Gray Slope 45 2 x 2 with Red and Gray Buttons and Controls Pattern (Sticker) (Counterpart)
* Add 1 Part 3039pb119 Dark Bluish Gray Slope 45 2 x 2 with Dark Red and Gray Buttons and Controls Pattern (Sticker) (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1118942
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2018 14:33 | | Subject: | Re: Quiver out of inventoryname. | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, tonnic writes:
| | I was putting some minifigs into my inventory when I saw the following minifig
that is mentioned to have a quiver but in fact is without quiver. See the inventory!
|
Thank you for mentioning this. It has been corrected.
If you need to correct an item name in the future, then please use this form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 8, 2018 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8091-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Redhawk_Kevin writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3039pb094 Dark Bluish Gray Slope 45 2 x 2 with Red and Gray Buttons and Controls Pattern (Sticker) - Set 8129 (Counterpart)
|
I know it has already been done, but I think a new catalog entry should probably
be added here. The buttons on one slope are red and the buttons on the other
slope are dark red. Also, the patterns don't precisely match.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 18:12 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-2 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, 69transamman writes:
| | I just have to say that no matter what the subject is, I always read thru your
post completely in search of the humor you often interject!
|
Aww, thanks! That made my day.
Nope. You may not believe this, but I have never even tasted alcohol and have
never experimented with drugs. I don't use caffeine. I smoke cigarettes
and that's it.
I don't think there's a thing wrong with drug or alcohol use, but I have
always preferred to be in control of my own mind. I do, however, think that life
is something of an absurdity and a joke and I intend to laugh at it whilst I
am able in whatever ways I find.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 17:53 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-1 | | Viewed: | 15 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Am creating a new catalog entry for the early version of the set
|
Note that the later version of the set included 13 sealed bags instead of the
12 bags from the first version. An attached photo from an auction site shows
the contents of the later set, although the green large bricks are not visible
in the photo.
Also, the date printed on the activity/instructions cards is 1994, but the date
printed on the cover/inventory card is 1993. The actual date of re-release is
unknown. I went with 1994, but it could have been earlier.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 17:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-2 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
I wanted to include some additional information about this set for future reference
and an inventory change is the best way to do that.
First, I personally and carefully checked every single brick in this set from
sealed contents for which I opened every bag and handled the parts (photos of
my set attached). Mine was the early version of the set released in 1991 and
there were 12 bags in the set. All of the bricks included cross supports except
a single 2 x 3 brick in yellow (the other 11 of the same brick had cross supports).
This is a late appearance for this brick (two years late according to BrickLink's
current timeline) and I was surprised to find it, but there it was.
As for inside supports, those little ridges inside the brick which are only currently
distinguished for one brick (the Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports in case
the title or part number changes in the future):
All bricks in the set, including those with designs, had these ridges with the
exceptions listed below. I mention this because it will be useful data if we
decide to distinguish these parts in the future (I compared the parts listed
below (except the last two, for which I had no comparison parts) to recent examples
and all of the newer bricks I checked had inside supports).
The aforementioned 2 x 3 brick in yellow without cross supports.
All 2 x 6 bricks in the set.
All 2 x 8 bricks in the set.
All 2 x 10 bricks in the set.
All 4 x 12 bricks in the set.
All 8 x 16 bricks in the set.
The empty window frames had hollow studs as I indicated in the inventory. The
bricks with eyes had no white included as indicated in the inventory.
Finally, and I really don't think we'd ever distinguish this difference,
exactly half of the doors and windows were attached to the left and half to the
right. So two doors attached facing left and four windows attached facing left
and the same number of each facing right. TLG did not distinguish this difference
and I see no need for us to. The door and window directions are easily reversible.
The complete contents of the set are the storage case with no lid, 12 bags of
parts and four green large bricks loose, the cover/inventory cardboard with nothing
printed on the other side, four double-sided activity/instructions cards, and
the informational sheet of paper. All of these are included in an outer original
box with the set number printed thereupon. I have the activity cards from the
1994 version and verified that each of these was different than the 1991 version
in spite of having the same 6-digit identification number printed on each card
for both versions.
I'm certain this last bit has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion,
but I mention it for the sake of completeness: my second cousin's first name
is Frank.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 17:01 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-2 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 12 Part 3002old Yellow Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Change 12 Part Yellow 3002 Brick 2 x 3 {match ID 0 to 1}
Comments from Submitter:
Another message follows.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 14:01 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9252-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Minifig 4224c01 Basic Figure Finger Puppet Female (bfp001) (match ID 1)
* Delete 4 Minifig 4224c02 Basic Figure Finger Puppet Male (bfp002) (match ID 1)
* Change 1 Part Black 4744px15 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Moustache Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 1 Part Black 4744px9 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Simple Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 2 Part Black 4744px14 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Woman Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 1 Part Red 4744px3 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Freckles and Ears Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 1 Part Red 4744px15 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Yellow Face, Moustache Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
* Change 2 Part White 4744px16 Brick, Modified 2 x 4 x 2 Double Curved Top with Baby Face Pacifier Pattern {Alternate to Regular} {match ID 1 to 0}
Comments from Submitter:
Am creating a new catalog entry for the early version of the set to avoid an unnecessarily complicated inventory.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 21:21 | | Subject: | Re: Bored? I Need Help | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | I am absolutely going to need help with these definitions
|
I'll do:
2nd Section: F, G, H, I, J
This only leaves the 4th and 5th sections which still need to be worked on.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 4, 2018 17:38 | | Subject: | Re: 40292 minifig error | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
I need to make it clear that these are not official guidelines. I have been
working on a project to rework the catalog Help Center and the page linked to
above is a proposed page which is not yet complete or official.
The current catalog guidelines still in effect are only those on the left
side of this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
The sections on the right side of the page are proposals and are works in progress.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2018 03:57 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6387-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| What's the difference between these two items?
[P=4210c04]
[P=4210c02]
You've submitted the first one to the catalog, but isn't it the same
as the second one which is already in the catalog?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 22:40 | | Subject: | Bored? I Need Help | | Viewed: | 250 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I am embarking on an ambitious project to create written definitions of every
single category in the BrickLink catalog. This has never been done before, although
Dan made a start here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1568
I realize now that it was never done because it's a massive amount of work.
Even coding the page is taking me a while, but I have the first eight letters
in the alphabet done:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2479
I am absolutely going to need help with these definitions and, since you'll
be the ones most affected by category definitions, who better to ask? 
Please read very carefully:
1. Descriptions should be short, but complete. I'm not looking for a legal
definition, but also don't want something vague and ambiguous - the point
of these definitions is so that we can easily and completely see what fits into
a category. Creating short, accurate, complete descriptions may tax your writing
ability, but I believe it is possible for every category. Focusing on accurate
descriptions rather than listing exclusions would be best.
2. Yes, my list is not structured like Dan's. His focuses on readability
while mine focuses more on functionality. This page, to my mind, exists to serve
a purpose, like a dictionary, and not to entertain or greatly inform. My page
is more of a reference we can all use as necessary and the alphabetical order
should make it easy to quickly locate information. So I've given this structure
some thought and I'm not too interested in restructuring the page.
3. Limit descriptions to one or two reasonably short sentences. My goal
is to get everything onto one line without breaks between categories. You can
see that the Years category at the top approaches the limit in length. If we
absolutely can't accomplish this for some categories, then we're stuck
with exceptions - but let's shoot for this goal.
4. Please do not post every five minutes with new definitions. Pick the section
below you're going to work on and create all the definitions for that
section. Then post back here with your complete list. I recommend doing this
in MS Word or some other word processing software to avoid losing data. You
may claim any of these sections already unclaimed:
1st Section: A, B, C, D, E
2nd Section: F, G, H, I, J
3rd Section: K, L, M, N, O
4th Section: P, Q, R, S, T
5th Section: U, V, W, X, Y
Ignore the letter Z - I'll get that out of the generosity of my heart.
5. Some of these definitions will require research. For parts, look over the
categories carefully and try to completely understand why they're structured
like they are before defining them. For sets, do enough research to present
a quality definition. Some categories are repetitious, so try to include slightly
differing information for each one (years, for example). An example of repetitious
categories are the Dimensions Wave 1-9. I'm defining every category except
for years for the sake of consistency.
6. Completely ignore decorated categories. There are 33, I think, and I will
create definitions for them.
7. We will have discussion about these categories later. First we need to get
definitions in place and then, later, we can all discuss together if the definitions
need improvements. So there should, in theory, only be 10 replies to this post:
five category claims and five category section definitions.
8. I will edit your definitions as I see necessary. Save your definitions somewhere
(shouldn't be a problem if you're writing them in word processing software)
and we can discuss later if you think I've butchered any of them beyond your
liking.
Okay, that's all I can think of. This will be work, but I can't imagine
doing this all on my own. So assistance is deeply appreciated and I wish I could
do more for you than just appreciate it.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 29, 2018 15:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6393-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | Minifigures for this set were almost completely assembled in the sealed sets;
leg assemblies were the only thing separate from the combined hat/head/torso.
Therefore, if you only add in *two* parts for each minifigure in the set (of
which there are five), that brings the part total to 587.
|
The figures were assembled with headgear for display purposes, but I doubt it
would have changed how many parts TLG considered them to be for purposes of an
official part count. I don't know for sure, though - just mentioning it
as something for consideration.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 14:42 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In General, mfav writes:
| | The instructions are a horror show. Can you update those?
|
Yes. Few people would ever read through all those 2,700 words before submitting
an item to the catalog, nor should they have to.
That's not to say it isn't necessary to have rules, because it is. But
that particular page desperately needs to be simplified to the salient points
along with clear, simple guidelines for completing the form. The minutiae can
be moved elsewhere.
The entire Catalog Help Center needs a makeover. There are too many topics and
some of them have not been updated in forever. I was going to work on other
things today, but I've been putting this off for too long.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 07:12 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I don't see the point of the "pattern" in the title anyway.
If everything in a decorated category has pattern in the title, it becomes useless
for searching if you restrict searches to that category.
|
Something is necessary in the title because not everyone goes to categories first.
Sometimes people just want to find all the 2 x 2 bricks with a pattern. That's
the whole point of having a search feature and the search feature is only as
good as item titles.
Ideally, as you pointed out, we would be able to tag things for the purpose of
searching and we could have more reasonable item titles.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 07:04 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In General, mwright5 writes:
| | I actually have submitted things only to have it rejected.
|
I'm sorry to hear that you had a negative experience in the past. We're
working on our communication and I make a serious effort to send an explanatory
message to every single contributor when I am unable to approve submissions.
| | I'm sure I didn't fill out the form correctly . . . I just find the form to be convoluted as heck.
|
One of the jobs of a catalog administrator is to check submissions and correct
them to catalog standards before approving them. It is true that if you make
a perfect submission it makes my job much easier and it will be approved quicker,
but don't let fear of errors dissuade you from submitting. You don't
have to get things perfect.
I know the submission form is difficult to understand, but I do not have the
ability to change it. I can tell you from experience that the more submissions
you make the easier it gets and the more comfortable you become with the form.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:36 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
And that, my friends, is the tragedy which can befall you when you attempt to
be clever whilst also being tired.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:34 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | The word 'Pattern', used in parts titles, is just a comfortable placeholder
in reading the part titles. Pick out ten random parts and read them with the
word 'Pattern' and then read them without the word 'Pattern'
and they mean the same thing.
|
No, this word serves a very important purpose. You can search for "pattern"
and "-pattern" to modify your search results as desired. It's not just verbal
eye candy.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:32 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | Are there any Printed/Stickered parts?
|
Yep. Just came across one, in fact.
Printed nose:
Printed nose and stickered part (no space in the title for "Pattern," apparently):
* | | 18907pb02 Aircraft Fuselage Forward Top Curved 6 x 10 x 4 with 5 Window Panes with Shuttle Nose Pattern and Space Logo on White Background on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 60080
Parts: Aircraft, Decorated |
| | I'm pretty sure there are molded/printed parts (at least dual-molded arms)
|
Yep. Here's one:
| | but not sure about the other combinations.
|
But that's the point of such a system. It would be designed for the future
as well as the past.
| | There's something to be said for making the category names and the
terms used in the actual names to be consistent. I'd be agreeable to 'Patterned' for the category name.
|
Meh. Perhaps we'll consider it in the future. I sense a lack of enthusiasm.
I changed the new category to Decorated and finished moving all the Aircraft
parts.
I actually like the eight definitions I came up with thanks to this discussion.
We need to be able to distinguish between printed, stickered, and molded designs
and people have asked for that ability. I don't think those identifiers
would ever go into part titles, but they could go into tags and result in a simplification
of overly complicated existing part titles.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:18 | | Subject: | Re: postcards and assortiment gidsen | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, ZwarteMagica writes:
| | Are these considered lego(products) and is it worth adding them into the catalog?
|
Yes, they look like LEGO products and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't
be accepted.
I changed your post from Catalog Requests to Catalog. The Catalog Requests topic
is only to ask that something in the catalog be changed which can't be changed
through existing forms.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 02:31 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | I'm not sure that 'Pattern' actually fits.
|
The word "design" means "decorative pattern."
If we wanted to be truly accurate and consistent, then every single part title
would have one of the eight following identifiers:
Plain
Printed Design
Stickered Design
Printed/Stickered Design
Molded Design
Molded/Printed Design
Molded/Stickered Design
Molded/Stickered/Printed Design (pretty sure there are none of those)
Have I missed any? Maybe when/if we get tags we can do this. I think it would
be helpful.
But it sounds like "Decorated" is the preferred term so far from all three commentors.
I still think it's quite strange that part categories are the only place
we use that word, but this ain't a one-man show.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 01:24 | | Subject: | Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 150 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| In my continual effort to make your lives marginally better (which is a close
second to my continual effort to be a person who does not use catchphrases),
I propose the following for discussion: why do we call patterns patterns pretty
much everywhere but in category names?
Nearly the only place you will see "Decorated" on BrickLink is in category names
(32 of them). When you click on decorated parts, though, you see parts with
patterns. I propose changing the word "Decorated" to the word "Pattern" in those
32 category names. This will have no effects except in aesthetics and site-wide
consistency.
LordSkylark has asked for a category split of the Aircraft category into patterned
and non-patterned parts. I decided to succumb to his demand and have created
a new category titled Aircraft, Pattern. Now you can look at it on the parts
category page and see if you prefer the way things are now or the way I suggest
we do things.
Provide input, please.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 00:56 | | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
Yes, I remember. There's really only one fix for that: someone will have
to buy the books and photograph the bags. These kinds of sets wouldn't appear
in any catalog because the book must be opened to see them. Once we have photos,
then the sets will be quickly approved.
We're moving away from approving any submission which is not accompanied
by an image and I expect that will become firm policy within the next six months
or so.
There are simply too many items in the catalog completely missing images:
3 minifigures
29 sets
106 catalogs
108 books
133 gear
575 parts
902 instructions
4,236 original boxes
The idea in the past was that if you approved an item then eventually someone
would add a picture. That approach sort of works - sort of. I, for one, am
tired of seeing that we are missing 6,000+ images and that number* will only
keep growing if we don't stop it now.
*To be fair, instructions and boxes don't count as much because they're
created for all sets. Still, 950+ missing images are nothing in which to take
pride. If you look through the list of items missing images, you will see a
fair number of things for sale - clearly we need to do better at rewarding contributors.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 21:55 | | Subject: | Re: Please Allow Alternate Item Numbers for Books | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | This suggestion has now been implemented.
|
Thank you for this and for the other work you're continually doing behind
the scenes to improve the catalog and inventory systems.
Little improvements like this have been needed for many, many years and you've
made many of them since you've been there.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 17:17 | | Subject: | Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 200 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I have been searching for an image of this set for years:
The set has no date of addition, so it must have been added to the site not too
terribly long after BrickLink was founded. At times I have wondered if the set
was even real, but the specificity of its name always made me think that it must
have existed.
Today I got this catalog in the mail which was not in the BrickLink database
and which I just now added:
In that catalog I finally found the long-missing image and added it. I'm
pretty confident that this is the only website anywhere that you can see an image
of set 9978-1. I'm pretty excited that my long search has finally ended
in satisfaction and wanted to share.
We are now down to only 29 sets without any image (and one of them is from 2018,
so it doesn't really count). If you'd like to see what we're missing,
click here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=S&imgID=0&itemBrand=1000
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:42 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | You said it could move into the Catalog
Help Center.
|
Actually, it is already there. I just meant that if we keep it, then it will
go to a different page. I hijacked the page it's on right now because I
can't create new Help Center pages.
I've updated the list. See if this new approach solves the concerns you
had.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:35 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Nordbart writes:
| | Anyway, what I am saying is we need a definition of what is a figure and what
is not. At least here on BrickLink.
|
This is project number two on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
It will happen, but it is not happening right now. Please give this subject
some thought between now and the time when it does happen so that you may provide
some input at that time.
BTW, I already have written rules laid out for this project (defining all six
item types), but I am giving them some additional consideration before I begin
this project and release them for discussion. Please be patient.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:26 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | It is definitely looking a lot better. Although this one still confuses me:
Minifigure-Scale Character Figure
|
This is my third reply to this post. Perhaps if I had read it more carefully,
then I could have saved some ones and zeros.
Your question here was about policy and I have answered it.
| | Minifigure-Scale Brick Built Figure
|
Your question here was about actual inconsistencies in the additional figure
types I added at your request. I can see what you mean about inconsistencies
and I agree. So, what would you suggest to correct these inconsistencies?
I think the easiest distinction would be between specially-molded figures and
brick-built figures - this would remove having a separate item type for character
figures. Does that sound right?
BTW, did you see that I made the pictures bigger and added little frames around
each photo? I thought it looked better.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:07 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | But what about Scooby Doo and Santa's Little Helper, and other similar characters.
Are they animals or figures? After all, Angry Birds are birds, which are animals.
Cartoon animals that are characters. Just like Scooby Doo and Sant's Little
Helper are cartoon dogs.
|
Since you've spent some time thinking about this, I don't want to just
brush you off as I sort of did in what I just posted. The answer to this is
that there has never been a written definition of minifigures. This explains
the inconsistency of some figures being considered parts and others considered
figures. It also explains member frustration when some figures have been allowed
and others denied.
In the past, what was and was not a figure was decided on unwritten rules according
to the preferences of the person deciding. One of the self-imposed tasks I face
is ending this practice and creating written rules so that we're all on the
same page. You'll notice that a number of catalog projects mention this.
Until such time as we have written rules, there is not much point in discussing
what should or should not be a figure and until we have the ability to sort figures
by type, if we ever have it, then there is not much point in going into the minutiae
of different types.
I encourage you to keep thinking about these things, though, because when I get
to rulemaking I will open the rules for discussion and possible modification
before they're implemented (something which has rarely happened in the past).
I look forward to your input then.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 04:45 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | This is why I think the definitions of each category need to be considered carefully
so that inconsistencies do not appear.
|
I do appreciate your feedback and you can see that I incorporated some of it
into the page, but again, these are not category definitions. They change nothing
in the catalog. We haven't the ability to sort figures by what type they
are. If we ever do have that ability, then we can have a serious discussion.
Until then, I hope you are able to somehow locate the ability to be pleased that
I volunteered my time to make a list in the first place.
I believe you may have missed the disclaimer at the beginning of the description
of this list:
. . . figure types should not be considered definitive.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 20:51 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I have read your suggestions, took them to heart, and updated the page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
I added three new types close to the beginning and added a disclaimer that this
is only an experimental project. The purpose of the framework on that page is
to gauge desirability. If members want to keep this list and BrickLink agrees
to keep it, then it will be improved with better descriptions, better photos,
and better ordering of the entries on the list (possibly by chronological order?).
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 20:01 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Rainey writes:
| | I like it! It just helped me learn a few things! I do think that you need to
get rid of the repeat after the title though.
|
That part is just a placeholder. It will be filled in with further information
about each kind of figure if we decide to keep this as a permanent catalog feature.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 18:27 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | It's differently inaccurate. And as I've stated elsewhere, it has the potential to create confusion with regards to the half-dozen or so other "figures" which are in the catalog but not in this section. Not asking you to agree, but asking do you get the point I'm putting forward.
|
I absolutely do get your point. I agree that we would be wise to include all
figures of all sizes in the same place. We already do include nearly all of
them in the same place and that place is Minifigs. Some we don't and those
are the ones which you're concerned about.
The problem is that once we get them there we have no easy way to find the specific
kind of figure you're looking for. They're all mixed together and only
sorted by theme. There is currently discussion behind the scenes on how we can
better sort figures and I have suggested that figure type be given consideration
as one way of sorting.
| | But isn't that what good labelling *should* do? Isn't the point to accurately
define which items are included?
|
Yes, and the place for that is here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
An item type is simply a quick and dirty method of splitting things. We only
have six item types and we will not get any more.
An item type is simply not the place for any kind of specific definition and
the current title indicates that only minifigures are housed there when, in fact,
we put nearly all figures there. Figures is a more inclusive title and thus,
more accurate. The ways in which the word Figures is inaccurate stem from policies,
and policies can be changed.
| | So if it already doesn't accurately define what's in there, why change
it so it doesn't accurately define what's in there?
|
Because the change would be from less accuracy to perfect accuracy provided
that additional changes were made to what was included or what should be included
in this item type. You want those changes made first, but I think we must first
start with reconsidering the idea that this section is only for minifigures.
Clearly, it already is not.
You see the item name change as the last step and I see it as the first step,
so perhaps it's just a difference of opinion.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:37 | | Subject: | Seventh Catalog Project - Complete So Soon? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Wow, it's hard to believe that we accomplished this in just two days. Very
impressive work, everyone! We are finished with this, right?
One of the benefits of the change logs is that it gives us a picture of how many
figures had set/gear/book numbers in their titles. This is not precise because
it was necessary to change some existing titles to avoid confusion, but I believe
I have accounted for the differences.
So, roughly, we can say that around 2,100 figures had other item numbers in their
titles and those have now been removed. The total number of affected figures
was about one fifth of all the figures in the catalog.
I feel pretty good about this change because, as those of you who have done the
actual work have seen, set numbers were a lazy way out of usefully describing
figures so that people could find them (and, honestly, figure names are, too).
I point no fingers, because I have added many figures to the catalog and only
described them with a brief name and a set number.
Anyway, if we're done with all the categories, then I'll put this project
to rest in the Completed Projects section of the catalog roadmap. We still need
to check for duplicate titles and orphaned figures, but that shouldn't take
much more work.
Thanks again to everyone who made this happen.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| | | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | Robert after working through Star wars category and seeing this mess (especially
in Han Solo, Obi-Wan and Luke names) I now admit that I started to like your
Standardize Figure Titles project
|
|
I'm glad to hear that. You may appreciate it even more if you looked at
all 10,000+ figures together and saw the diverse range of titling methods which
have been applied. Not only is there no standardized title for figures, but
dashes, commas, and round brackets have been used in a number of different (and
thus ultimately confusing) ways.
And there are entire categories of figures which are simply titled Figure 1,
Figure 2, Figure 3, etc.
The problem with that project and why I shelved it for now is that it is very
complicated to create simple rules for a standard way of titling all figures.
I will continue thinking about it, though.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:33 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm not sure the StormChaser has clearly articulated the reason for relabelling the section, why he finds the current labelling problematic, and what the intended result of the renaming is supposed to achieve.
|
I apologize for not doing this. I will address all three of these below, but
the most important point to understand is this: the only change which would occur
is to remove Mini from Figures.
What is the reason for renaming this item type?
I have asked for a name change because the current name does not accurately describe
the contents of this section of the catalog.
Why is the current labelling problematic?
The label Minifigs is not accurate because in this item type we include many
different sizes of figures which vary in size from tiny to vary large. We also
include a range of different styles of figures at these different scales.
What is the intended result of renaming this section?
Renaming from Minifigs to Figures would present a more accurate picture of what
users can expect to find in this item type and that is the intended result.
This name change is not intended to and will not define which items are included
in this section.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 08:15 | | Subject: | Re: Unofficial LEGO color guide | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Abels_Bricks writes:
| | I just purchased this and wonder if should be added as its an amazing resource and there is this item
|
That item was added because it was supposedly sold through official TLG channels.
If you can provide evidence that the book you purchased is currently for sale
or was ever sold by TLG, then yes, it can be added.
Otherwise, it is not an official LEGO item and would not be accepted into the
catalog.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:54 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In General, mfav writes:
| | I could tear this apart for the next two days, but I have to visit the dentist
for pain
|
I'm sorry to hear that you're in pain. I've had toothaches, as I'm
sure we all have, and they're definitely not fun. I trust the dentist will
be able to help you feel better.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:25 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In General, yorbrick writes:
| | The idea of using the name FIGURES is a good one. Although possibly CHARACTERS
is better
|
I don't think we need to be that technical with this item type. The casual
user needs a basic item type name which is immediately identifiable. Figures
would encompass a wide range of items and Minifigs inaccurately described
that section of the catalog almost from the beginning.
| | I think the definition of what it means to be a minifigure is very important to get right.
|
This page is not intended to define what a minifigure is. That is handled by
this page (updating it is on my list of things to do):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
The list of figure types is only intended to be an informative overview of the
different types/sizes of figures which have been produced.
| | Droids - there aren't any!
|
To answer all of your questions: the list is just a framework right now and I'm
mainly interested in hearing whether members want it or not. We can worry about
the details later.
I will say that if such a list needs to become bogged down in minutiae beyond
the point of usability, then it was clearly not a good idea.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:11 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In General, iprice writes:
| | You appear to be missing at least one sort
|
The list is obviously just an incomplete framework. At this point I'm looking
more for commentary on two things and we can worry about the details of that
list later.
1. Is this list of figure types something you find useful?
2. How do you feel about retitling the item type?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 06:21 | | Subject: | Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 299 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| In my continual quest to make your lives marginally better, I have just now put
together a list with photos of the different types of figures the LEGO Group
has produced over the years.
This list is not yet official and will change. It will have more detailed descriptions
of figures and hopefully better photos. It will also move from the current location
to an unknown location in the Catalog Help Center section. Or, of course, it
could also get shot down.
I have also asked that the item type Minifigs be retitled to Figures
in light of the wide range of figures of all different sizes we include in this
one section - no word on if this will happen or not. So the six item types would
be:
Sets
Parts
Figures
Books
Catalogs
Gear
This is truly a sneak peak for everyone - the people at the BrickLink office
haven't even seen it yet:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
Your thoughts on this list and the item type retitle? Do you find this list
of figure types useful or is it something not needed?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 23:50 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I did Angry Birds and am working LOTR
|
I'm not sure precisely where we are with this, but all requests have been
approved. I've done all my categories and Scala.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I actually did a few. But I wasn't sure I was supposed to since there will
be another project to do that.
|
Yes, but that may not happen for some time. Until then, we definitely don't
want any figures to have identical titles. In fact, if you wouldn't mind
going back through Harry Potter and fixing these, then I would appreciate it.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 14:37 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I will do L this afternoon
|
Thanks for your help with this project. Some figure are only differentiated
by set numbers in the titles. I noticed this especially with Harry Potter figures
and I will go back through this theme and add brief identifying features to figures
which now have identical titles as a result of changes.
As you're doing future categories, please remember to do this for any figures
which will match existing titles when the set number is removed.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 05:44 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6591-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Marek, maybe the real reason that you don't approve this is because I would
have higher inventory submitted than you so you have more inventory to submit
and get approved and then you approve mine? 
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogStores.asp
P.S. you figure I am just kidding?
|
Kidding or not, the implication that an administrator is stalling or denying
requests to make a profit by having a personal store featured over someone else's
is not acceptable.
Marek's store is closed right now and has been since September 5th, so he
has nothing to gain from doing this. The page you linked to is only populated
by stores which have made the highest contributions within the past two weeks.
And, of course, Marek would never do something like what you have joked about,
nor would any of us.
|
|
| 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.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
