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.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
