|
 |
| | | Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Oct 26, 2018 19:20 | | Subject: | New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 247 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 26, 2018 19:27 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
 I don’t see the “World domination” bullet.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Oct 26, 2018 20:16 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I am so looking forward to the sticker sheet restructuring. Can we also require
colors for them. White, clear, mirrored silver, mirrored gold.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 26, 2018 20:32 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | I am so looking forward to the sticker sheet restructuring. Can we also require
colors for them. White, clear, mirrored silver, mirrored gold.
|
Honestly, I don't see the point in changing the actual colors. Sticker sheets
always appear at or close to the top of an inventory when classified as N/A
and we have no arguments between people about defining colors of individual sheets.
I did go in a few years ago and submit a bunch of change requests to add the
search term "Mirrored" to all mirrored sticker sheets. I think we could do that
for any sticker sheet which had an overall pattern (reflective, mirrored, holographic,
etc.). Many of them are already that way.
So instead of classifying by color, would you settle for the color being defined
in the title? I have no problem with the idea of renaming sticker sheets to
reflect the color or surface type in theory, but I wonder if it would be worth
all the effort. How important do you consider it? What would be some benefits?
Are you willing to help by submitting catalog change requests?
BTW, the project of renaming every sticker sheet would never truly be completed
because many older sticker sheets are difficult or impossible to obtain.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Oct 26, 2018 21:51 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Adding it to the title would be fine. I would be willing to help. It's useful
for people who want to use stickers sheets for MOC's. But I also understand
the amount of effort involved.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | I am so looking forward to the sticker sheet restructuring. Can we also require
colors for them. White, clear, mirrored silver, mirrored gold.
|
Honestly, I don't see the point in changing the actual colors. Sticker sheets
always appear at or close to the top of an inventory when classified as N/A
and we have no arguments between people about defining colors of individual sheets.
I did go in a few years ago and submit a bunch of change requests to add the
search term "Mirrored" to all mirrored sticker sheets. I think we could do that
for any sticker sheet which had an overall pattern (reflective, mirrored, holographic,
etc.). Many of them are already that way.
So instead of classifying by color, would you settle for the color being defined
in the title? I have no problem with the idea of renaming sticker sheets to
reflect the color or surface type in theory, but I wonder if it would be worth
all the effort. How important do you consider it? What would be some benefits?
Are you willing to help by submitting catalog change requests?
BTW, the project of renaming every sticker sheet would never truly be completed
because many older sticker sheets are difficult or impossible to obtain.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 05:43 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | I am so looking forward to the sticker sheet restructuring. Can we also require
colors for them. White, clear, mirrored silver, mirrored gold.
|
So instead of classifying by color, would you settle for the color being defined
in the title?
|
This roadmap looks excellent. Thank you!
What do you guys think of removing Sticker from the Parts category? (I'd
think Sticker should be a category on its own.)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 15:37 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| i don't mind removing from parts as long as the bottom half of this page
still functions. It's amazingly useful.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogTree.asp?itemBrand=1000&itemType=P
In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | I am so looking forward to the sticker sheet restructuring. Can we also require
colors for them. White, clear, mirrored silver, mirrored gold.
|
So instead of classifying by color, would you settle for the color being defined
in the title?
|
This roadmap looks excellent. Thank you!
What do you guys think of removing Sticker from the Parts category? (I'd
think Sticker should be a category on its own.)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 15:46 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | This roadmap looks excellent. Thank you!
|
You're welcome. 
| | What do you guys think of removing Sticker from the Parts category? (I'd
think Sticker should be a category on its own.)
|
I'm really glad we're having this discussion because I had never thought
of that. This would create a 7th major category (sets, parts, books, stickers,
etc.) and all the stickers in both parts and gear could be moved.
I'm not sure what the benefits would be, but it is definitely an interesting
idea. There are currently 3,870 sticker sheets in the catalog (parts and gear),
so this category would be just a little smaller than the Catalogs category.
Again, though: coding. I just checked and I don't have the ability to add
a new major category like this one. I asked for a new inventories section some
time ago and it never happened, so don't hold your breath. Still, like I
said, fascinating idea and I'm glad you thought of it.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 13:24 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
Those decisions sound great.
Here is a list of my suggestions:
Obviously – approve of many of the variant entries which were submitted by me
and others. There should never be a standalone "A" or "B" entry without the opposing
variant listed. I was taking photos until they no longer got approved. I can
take photos of any entry which you can inform me will get approved, but I am
not going to waste my time taking photos with items sitting on hold for years
or which will be deleted, which is why I stopped submitting photos and entries
almost entirely.
There are way too many entries for dual-colored molded arms. Categorize them
instead by the forearm color rather than by the upper arm color. Such as “Yellow”
and “Light Flesh” would be the most important. This will eliminate many entries.
Allow decorated hips and legs to be added again to the catalog.
Allow parts of items which normally are not intended to be separated, but can
be – such as technic figure parts, etc. (BrickOwl is ahead of Bricklink here,
and has catalog entries for Technic Figure parts.)
Allow every unreleased set to be added. This will ensure that bricklink will
remain the best Lego database, even apart from selling. Also, allow unreleased
sets to show up in the search. Allow unreleased sets to be sold (even if that
means that only ‘used’ ones will be sold - it is possible to have the parts for
many of them). Also, allow inventories for all unreleased sets to be added.
Allow any and all unreleased parts not normally found in sets to be added to
the catalog. (This includes things such as 4x2 inverted slopes, various liftarms,
etc. and even test print legs and torsos and such.) Enough people have these,
that it would be good to have entries for them. They were officially produced
even if not released in sets. It shouldn’t matter, as long as they exist. People
should be allowed to have watches for these parts and to have a place to list
them. Many people don’t list parts if there is not an entry for them.
Allow all stickered assembly parts to have entries, no matter how complicated
– especially with older sets. Even if they can currently be listed as custom
entries, there is no way for someone to have watch lists for these and price
guide data, etc.. And most people will NOT take custom photos and list custom
entries. So most of those parts will not be listed at all, and probably many
then have the stickers ripped off and sold as regular pieces instead.
Allow entries for alternate sticker parts. For example, with older trains, there
were many extra stickers included that were not placed in the instructions, but
could be used for alternates.
Any head with any type of printing on both sides should named “dual-sided”, not
merely heads with a face on both sides. (I am not sure why the current catalog
administrators are so stubborn about changing this.) [Maybe the head category
is now big enough to divide these into one-sided and two-sided.]
Friends legs now are produced differently. The new catalog numbers are because
of this – the new numbers are NOT alternates for the same part. See Forum Post
1050503
Please put “Batman I” and “Spiderman” as subcategories of “Super Heroes”.
Allow the actual Lego element ID number for printed parts and various other things
to actually be added to the catalog as an alternate. This is extremely annoying,
especially considering that Lego uses those numbers everywhere, and nothing comes
up when searching that number at Bricklink.
Allow catalog codes from instruction booklets to be added to searchability, as
well as entries for instruction booklet variations. (I know this one probably
lands outside your jurisdiction and ability to implement.)
Allow sets and set inventories to be added for the Pick-A-Models.
Allow official sets from special events (even though they do not have factory
manufactured packaging, but do have official instructions), such as Toys-R-Us
Builds to be added as sets and inventories. (I know there is a Star Wars one,
and a Scobby Doo Mystery Machine Build, for example.) One such example in the
catalog is “ TRU01-1”. But the catalog administrators will not allow more to
be added.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 15:36 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | Here is a list of my suggestions:
|
Wow, sounds like you've been storing these up! Okay, let's get into
them.
| | Obviously – approve of many of the variant entries
|
Here's the thing with part variants: they're highly disruptive to everyone
involved. Sellers have to reorganize their listings for a variant that I suspect
average buyers (meaning the majority) simply don't care about. Some sellers
don't. In addition to that, inventories must be adjusted and this is a task
which may take literally decades. Until it happens, we are left with parts marked
for deletion.
So because of the disruptiveness and amount of work involved for everyone, BrickLink
tries to find a balance between people who care about part variants and people
who don't. Speaking for myself, when I make a MOC I don't care if a
tire has staggered treads or a band in the center or numbers molded on the side
- it's a tire and I use it as such.
That's not to say that there are not ways to handle part variant changes
which would be better for everyone, but those ways would involve programming
some code and those resources are scarce. I definitely understand both sides
of the part variant issue and I can see why you're frustrated that variants
aren't accepted more readily, but we try to limit the number of variants
in transition at any given time to strike the balance I mentioned earlier. If
we split listings right now for every part variant in the catalog (including
correcting A and B entries), then it would be an absolute madhouse for
years. I hope you understand that.
| | There are way too many entries for dual-colored molded arms.
Allow decorated hips and legs to be added again to the catalog.
Allow Technic Figure parts.
Any head with any type of printing on both sides should named “dual-sided" . . . maybe the head category is now big enough to divide these into one-sided and two-sided.
Friends legs now are produced differently.
|
I have combined all of these into one suggestion and added it to the roadmap.
| | Allow every unreleased set to be added. Also, allow unreleased
sets to show up in the search. Allow unreleased sets to be sold
|
I am only looking for suggestions which I can actually implement. I can approve
additional unreleased sets, but I cannot code the site to allow other things
to occur. I'm in full agreement with you and other members that we need
to allow more unreleased sets to be added. My major concern with these, though,
are the inventories. The parts in an unreleased set inventory should not show
up in the catalog parts database as they do now - fixing this requires coding,
though. Still, I'm for unreleased sets being added. This does not require
a suggestion, though; only a slight change in catalog policy.
| | Allow any and all unreleased parts not normally found in sets to be added to
the catalog.
|
Again, this is just a policy change, but I will definitely keep it in mind.
| | Allow all stickered assembly parts to have entries, no matter how complicated
|
A policy change. When I say policy change, I don't necessarily mean written
policies; only the policies of approving or disapproving items. If the written
policies don't expressly forbid an item being added and it is an actual LEGO
part manufactured by TLG and not modified after the fact by another party, then
I don't see why it shouldn't be added to the catalog.
| | Allow entries for alternate sticker parts. For example, with older trains, there
were many extra stickers included that were not placed in the instructions, but
could be used for alternates.
|
These are already allowed. For example, see the alternate license plates for
the VW Beetle:
| | Please put “Batman I” and “Spiderman” as subcategories of “Super Heroes”.
|
You'll have to clarify that one a bit more and I'd have to look into
it a bit more.
| | Allow the actual Lego element ID number for printed parts and various other things
to actually be added to the catalog as an alternate.
|
I've no problem at all with this, but again it would be an informal policy
change rather than an extended project. Another thing that has been desperately
need for a long time is the ability to add PCCs to Duplo figures, but that's
a coding issue.
| | Allow catalog codes from instruction booklets to be added to searchability, as
well as entries for instruction booklet variations. (I know this one probably
lands outside your jurisdiction and ability to implement.)
|
Yep, this is code.
| | Allow sets and set inventories to be added for the Pick-A-Models.
|
A policy change which definitely could happen.
| | Allow official sets from special events
|
Another one like the PAM sets. It might be a bit before this happens, though,
if it does.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 01:32 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thank you for letting me know. It used to be a bricklink policy not to allow
this practice. I am glad to know that this is no longer the case.
| | | | Allow entries for alternate sticker parts. For example, with older trains, there
were many extra stickers included that were not placed in the instructions, but
could be used for alternates.
|
These are already allowed. For example, see the alternate license plates for
the VW Beetle:
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 13:40 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
Catalogue administrator - a promotion? More work and still in a queue for development
(despite the fact that the catalogue is the single most important asset of the
organisation - it is what brings both buyers and sellers to the site and is known
throughout the planet as the most comprehensive database of its kind for Lego.
You need a developer (one with SQL experience and knowledge) dedicated to it
and in your control.
Okay - our fist suggestions:
1. Get the dimensions field added to the catalogue page display as well as in
stores.
2. Introduce a level above the categories for the purposes of reporting and searching
e.g. Bricks would cover all sub categories of bricks e.g. modified, decorated
round etc. Without the catalogue it is unlikely Bricklink would still be here.
Just those two thoughts will take development time and careful planning and I
am sure those that are more heavily invoiced with the catalogue and inventory
updates will have tons more they wish to see.
Good luck getting any of that done - a roadmap is an interesting start and welcome
but it has to fill out with actions rather than just remaining a blueprint (as
the other one has done).
Again - good luck with the new role.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | Good luck getting any of that done - a roadmap is an interesting start and welcome
but it has to fill out with actions rather than just remaining a blueprint (as
the other one has done).
|
The programming stuff is, as you say, out of my control. The projects you see
on the catalog roadmap, however, are things I have the ability to accomplish.
If you've been paying attention to inventories over the past year, you'll
see that this is not just idle talk. There were more changes to inventories
in the past year than any other year in BrickLink's history.
Not all of the catalog projects on the roadmap will be accomplished and some
of them may not even be attempted. But I can promise that you will definitely
see some catalog changes in the next 12 months.
| | Again - good luck with the new role.
|
Thank you!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Oct 28, 2018 02:57 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | Good luck getting any of that done - a roadmap is an interesting start and welcome
but it has to fill out with actions rather than just remaining a blueprint (as
the other one has done).
|
The programming stuff is, as you say, out of my control. The projects you see
on the catalog roadmap, however, are things I have the ability to accomplish.
If you've been paying attention to inventories over the past year, you'll
see that this is not just idle talk. There were more changes to inventories
in the past year than any other year in BrickLink's history.
Not all of the catalog projects on the roadmap will be accomplished and some
of them may not even be attempted. But I can promise that you will definitely
see some catalog changes in the next 12 months.
| | Again - good luck with the new role.
|
Thank you!
|
Your comments are noted and understood - so as far as development goes it remains
status quo. Pity really - getting the data right in the database is only half
of the equation - the other half - getting it out in a meaningful and helpful
way is the other half and so much more needs to be done there. That helps both
sides of the market sellers and buyers.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 14:04 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | Okay - our fist suggestions:
1. Get the dimensions field added to the catalogue page display as well as in
stores.
2. Introduce a level above the categories for the purposes of reporting and searching
e.g. Bricks would cover all sub categories of bricks e.g. modified, decorated
round etc. Without the catalogue it is unlikely Bricklink would still be here.
Just those two thoughts will take development time and careful planning and I
am sure those that are more heavily invoiced with the catalogue and inventory
updates will have tons more they wish to see.
Good luck getting any of that done - a roadmap is an interesting start and welcome
but it has to fill out with actions rather than just remaining a blueprint (as
the other one has done).
|
I would just like to quickly point out that the Catalog admins don't have
the ability to make developmental changes to the site. It won't be their
fault if your suggestions can't be implemented in a timely way. This road
map contains projects and ideas that don't require the BL office to facilitate.
Good ideas though!
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Oct 28, 2018 03:03 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | Okay - our fist suggestions:
1. Get the dimensions field added to the catalogue page display as well as in
stores.
2. Introduce a level above the categories for the purposes of reporting and searching
e.g. Bricks would cover all sub categories of bricks e.g. modified, decorated
round etc. Without the catalogue it is unlikely Bricklink would still be here.
Just those two thoughts will take development time and careful planning and I
am sure those that are more heavily invoiced with the catalogue and inventory
updates will have tons more they wish to see.
Good luck getting any of that done - a roadmap is an interesting start and welcome
but it has to fill out with actions rather than just remaining a blueprint (as
the other one has done).
|
I would just like to quickly point out that the Catalog admins don't have
the ability to make developmental changes to the site. It won't be their
fault if your suggestions can't be implemented in a timely way. This road
map contains projects and ideas that don't require the BL office to facilitate.
Good ideas though!
Jen
|
Pity really. Comments understood. Best we leave at that. When the single most
important element of your organisation (e.g. the catalogue) has no programmer
involved and has no direct influence on development plans - something is not
quite right?????
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 14:19 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
Should this be included?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1101957
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
Yes, and it is now added.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
Yes, and it is now added.
|
Thank you!
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 15:31 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| |
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
Oh my, well since you asked (takes deep breath for theatrical effect) …
Games that are really sets are currently in Gear. This may be more of establishing
a clear/clean definition, but I do know that some of those games sure look like
a set when I open the box and peer at the various bags of elements.
Pearl Light Grey / Flat Silver / etc
While BL has always had it's own take, there has been some hidden truth over
on the S@H site, where you can order spare/replacement parts. Once upon a time
you could see the underlying color code beneath the part display. Not sure if
it's still there, nor would this help for older sets (unless the element
number got reused for a more recent set).
Part dimensions
I commented upon this in another thread recently. Part dimensions are nominally
shown on the catalog page in studs (X, Z) or brick height (Y). When I enable
custom dimensions for my store, they show up on beneath each part listing in
mm (or cm, I forget). Would be nice to see these on the catalog page (as the
underlying database seems to tracking them).
Minifig dimensions
When enabling custom dimensions, I see that none of my minifigs have dimensions
in the main database . Why, and it's corollary , how does IC make intelligent
packaging choices without this ?
That's all I can think of for now, but I'm sure I'll be back in a
day or two with others.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 28, 2018 03:11 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, cosmicray writes:
| | Oh my, well since you asked (takes deep breath for theatrical effect) …
|
Okay, now let it out. Breathe slowly . . .relax.
| | Games that are really sets are currently in Gear. This may be more of establishing
a clear/clean definition, but I do know that some of those games sure look like
a set when I open the box and peer at the various bags of elements.
|
Yes, I know exactly what you're talking about. On the list.
| | Pearl Light Grey / Flat Silver / etc
|
This is also on the list of projects.
| | Part dimensions
I commented upon this in another thread recently. Part dimensions are nominally
shown on the catalog page in studs (X, Z) or brick height (Y). When I enable
custom dimensions for my store, they show up on beneath each part listing in
mm (or cm, I forget). Would be nice to see these on the catalog page (as the
underlying database seems to tracking them).
|
This is a programming issue which I have no control over.
| | Minifig dimensions
When enabling custom dimensions, I see that none of my minifigs have dimensions
in the main database . Why, and it's corollary , how does IC make intelligent
packaging choices without this ?
|
Again, this is a programming issue. I look forward to hearing more of your ideas
for catalog development or improvement.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Oct 28, 2018 19:21 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
A couple from me:
1) Delete all rendered part images in the catalog that don't exist as real
parts. I estimate there are about 1600 images to delete, maybe more as people
discover them.
2) Add up to 75 "early" minifigs to the catalog to finally resolve the issue
of the solid stud head. We would start from 1978 minifigs and proceed forward
in time.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 01:30 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
A couple from me:
1) Delete all rendered part images in the catalog that don't exist as real
parts. I estimate there are about 1600 images to delete, maybe more as people
discover them.
2) Add up to 75 "early" minifigs to the catalog to finally resolve the issue
of the solid stud head. We would start from 1978 minifigs and proceed forward
in time.
|
I agree with all of these.
However, a question I have is:
There are lots of parts that never appeared in sets. Would we simply remove them
and wait for someone else to resubmit proof that it existed? Also, there are
a lot of bionicle parts that only appeared in random colors in certain random
bionicle part assorment kits. There are actually many pieces that would appear
in colors only in those kits, and therefore would not have been linked to any
inventory, since those kits contain random elements.
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Oct 28, 2018 21:55 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
One from me that I am sure many others would like to see: Create catalog entries
for full sets of Collectible Minifigures for each series that has been released.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Oct 28, 2018 22:11 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I have asked for this twice with a no confirmed with consideration. FYI.
I'm willing to help on the Bionicle Hero Factory Large Figure Parts restructuring.
Just send me marching orders.
Tyson.
In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
One from me that I am sure many others would like to see: Create catalog entries
for full sets of Collectible Minifigures for each series that has been released.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 02:37 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, leopard37 writes:
| | I'm willing to help on the Bionicle Hero Factory Large Figure Parts restructuring.
Just send me marching orders.
Tyson.
|
Thank you for being willing to help, Tyson. This is really a difficult problem
and I'm sure it won't happen for a bit because I'm not sure what
should happen. Many things need to be considered before diving into it.
However, I would like to get something going, so keep an eye on this page for
any projects moved into progress:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
When it happens there will be instructions on how to assist. Thanks again for
your willingness.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 10:10 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In regards to Constraction/CCBS Parts Cleanup, wouldn't following the minifigure
categories not make sense?
Heads, Limbs (could be split to Arms and Legs), Body, Weapons, etc...
Not sure what to call general ball joint attachment pieces eg.
Perhaps instead of limbs they just become Constraction liftarms...
Tyson.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, leopard37 writes:
| | I'm willing to help on the Bionicle Hero Factory Large Figure Parts restructuring.
Just send me marching orders.
Tyson.
|
Thank you for being willing to help, Tyson. This is really a difficult problem
and I'm sure it won't happen for a bit because I'm not sure what
should happen. Many things need to be considered before diving into it.
However, I would like to get something going, so keep an eye on this page for
any projects moved into progress:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
When it happens there will be instructions on how to assist. Thanks again for
your willingness.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Oct 28, 2018 22:59 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
One from me that I am sure many others would like to see: Create catalog entries
for full sets of Collectible Minifigures for each series that has been released.
Cheers,
Randy
|
And can we inventory the cases? I have never actually asked, but assumed not
since no one did it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 02:33 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | And can we inventory the cases? I have never actually asked, but assumed not
since no one did it.
|
This is a question for Marek. You might be more specific as to what you mean
by cases - I'm not sure what you're talking about.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 05:43 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | And can we inventory the cases? I have never actually asked, but assumed not
since no one did it.
|
This is a question for Marek. You might be more specific as to what you mean
by cases - I'm not sure what you're talking about.
|
A case of 60 in all but the cast with Mr Gold is the same breakdown of minifigs.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 12:09 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | A case of 60 in all but the cast with Mr Gold is the same breakdown of minifigs.
|
Okay, I understand you now. This item:
is currently inventoried with 60x of this:
You're saying you would like to see the set of 60 inventoried with the specific
figures and quantities of each because for cases of 60 they are always the same.
This is definitely a question for Marek, but thank you for clarifying exactly
what you were talking about.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 12:26 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | A case of 60 in all but the cast with Mr Gold is the same breakdown of minifigs.
|
Okay, I understand you now. This item:
is currently inventoried with 60x of this:
You're saying you would like to see the set of 60 inventoried with the specific
figures and quantities of each because for cases of 60 they are always the same.
This is definitely a question for Marek, but thank you for clarifying exactly
what you were talking about.
|
I have parted out many of them and they have always been the same as Whitefang's
reviews. And it is kind of a pain in the neck to do it here. You have to part
out 60 random ones and uncheck delete on all of them and put in the various numbers
of different sets. And if you want to part them out to minifigs and accessories
you have to do each one individually.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 14:10 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | A case of 60 in all but the cast with Mr Gold is the same breakdown of minifigs.
|
Okay, I understand you now. This item:
is currently inventoried with 60x of this:
You're saying you would like to see the set of 60 inventoried with the specific
figures and quantities of each because for cases of 60 they are always the same.
This is definitely a question for Marek, but thank you for clarifying exactly
what you were talking about.
|
I have parted out many of them and they have always been the same as Whitefang's
reviews. And it is kind of a pain in the neck to do it here. You have to part
out 60 random ones and uncheck delete on all of them and put in the various numbers
of different sets. And if you want to part them out to minifigs and accessories
you have to do each one individually.
|
Even if there is the odd difference, they can be handled like any other inventory
- with alternates.
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 16:04 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | A case of 60 in all but the cast with Mr Gold is the same breakdown of minifigs.
|
Okay, I understand you now. This item:
is currently inventoried with 60x of this:
You're saying you would like to see the set of 60 inventoried with the specific
figures and quantities of each because for cases of 60 they are always the same.
This is definitely a question for Marek, but thank you for clarifying exactly
what you were talking about.
|
I will think about it.
I'm open to the possiblity of doing this, but must check everthing. I know
that inventories of these boxes are specific and repeatable.
I think it was not know when first series occur that these minifigs are distributed
in pattern. Then all other was only done like this because first one was done
in this way
My only concern now for example (which comes immediately) is what we do with
in box
It is not in all boxes.
Is it the inventory of this box alternate, extra? Or maybe put it in differently?
Box has always 60. So my question is does this one replaces randomly other pack
from known pattern of distribution in this box or is added as an extra as 61th
pack. If first occur so then to which one is it alternate? 
Or resolve it with a note like this "Mr. Gold appears randomly in some boxes"
?
With all others I don't see any problem.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 16:21 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | A case of 60 in all but the cast with Mr Gold is the same breakdown of minifigs.
|
Okay, I understand you now. This item:
is currently inventoried with 60x of this:
You're saying you would like to see the set of 60 inventoried with the specific
figures and quantities of each because for cases of 60 they are always the same.
This is definitely a question for Marek, but thank you for clarifying exactly
what you were talking about.
|
I will think about it.
I'm open to the possiblity of doing this, but must check everthing. I know
that inventories of these boxes are specific and repeatable.
I think it was not know when first series occur that these minifigs are distributed
in pattern. Then all other was only done like this because first one was done
in this way
My only concern now for example (which comes immediately) is what we do with
in box
It is not in all boxes.
Is it the inventory of this box alternate, extra? Or maybe put it in differently?
Box has always 60. So my question is does this one replaces randomly other pack
from known pattern of distribution in this box or is added as an extra as 61th
pack. If first occur so then to which one is it alternate?
Or resolve it with a note like this "Mr. Gold appears randomly in some boxes"
?
With all others I don't see any problem.
|
I have never bought a case from Mr Gold's wave. They are too expensive.
So I wouldn't be able to inventory that one from sealed set contents. But
I could do about 10 of the series.
We may not be able to get the information of who is not in a case with Mr Gold,
so a note is probably best. You are almost sure of getting one without him.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 02:50 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | One from me that I am sure many others would like to see: Create catalog entries
for full sets of Collectible Minifigures for each series that has been released.
|
Here's why I think that hasn't happened:
Set Collections or "Kits" - Please limit submissions of multi-set Set
entries to ways that LEGO itself is known to have packaged and distributed such
things, including sets released as promotional items through other companies.
If you can demonstrate that these full sets were released that way, then I'll
approve them immediately. I don't think they were, though.
I believe current and former CAs have done an excellent job at keeping the catalog
straight when it comes to this issue. The question for us now is do we want
to change the rules to start making exceptions (and these definitely would be
exceptions)?
That's a tough question. I am keeping an informal list of difficult issues
like this for further consideration and I will add this to my list. It is not
beyond catalog precedent to make specific, well-defined exceptions to rules.
Allowing some specific Duplo assemblies is an example of that in the past (and
you see how well that turned out).
So yes, it definitely is something which people say they want. I don't know
the answer right now, though. People also clamored for things like this and
got angry when they weren't added to the catalog:
It has sold once in two months and there are only four for sale.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 08:28 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | One from me that I am sure many others would like to see: Create catalog entries
for full sets of Collectible Minifigures for each series that has been released.
|
Here's why I think that hasn't happened:
Set Collections or "Kits" - Please limit submissions of multi-set Set
entries to ways that LEGO itself is known to have packaged and distributed such
things, including sets released as promotional items through other companies.
If you can demonstrate that these full sets were released that way, then I'll
approve them immediately. I don't think they were, though.
I believe current and former CAs have done an excellent job at keeping the catalog
straight when it comes to this issue. The question for us now is do we want
to change the rules to start making exceptions (and these definitely would be
exceptions)?
That's a tough question. I am keeping an informal list of difficult issues
like this for further consideration and I will add this to my list. It is not
beyond catalog precedent to make specific, well-defined exceptions to rules.
Allowing some specific Duplo assemblies is an example of that in the past (and
you see how well that turned out).
So yes, it definitely is something which people say they want. I don't know
the answer right now, though. People also clamored for things like this and
got angry when they weren't added to the catalog:
It has sold once in two months and there are only four for sale.
|
The reason for the Groot situation? It is wayyyyyy past the time when that figure
was on everyone's mind, and the decision to include it in the catalog was
wayyyyyy past due. Most of them were sold a long time ago on other venues, and
BrickLink lost out on the opportunity because of its stubbornness to not allow
it into the catalog. However, when other opportunities arise for these assemblies
now, a precedent has been set.
The Collectible Minifigures should be the exception to the rule that is currently
there. In my opinion, BrickLink and its users have lost out on a wonderful opportunity
to buy and sell these in an easier way over the years. You have the power to
change it or not by creating the exception to the rule. Creating exceptions is
not unheard of, as long as they are spelled out. You said yourself that you work
for the people. The catalog should work for the people.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | novabrick | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 04:18 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
I just skimmed through so someone may already suggested this
May I suggest merging Hero Factory and Bionicle parts( and possible some of the
old slizer Technic Ball parts like [p=bb78])
And maybe split it up in weapons, ball joints and everything else while at it.
At this moment I know where to find stuff but it usually takes a while. We mostly
handle unsorted lots and switching between bionicle and hero factory is inconvenient
to say the least.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 12:01 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | I just skimmed through so someone may already suggested this
May I suggest merging Hero Factory and Bionicle parts( and possible some of the
old slizer Technic Ball parts like [p=bb78])
And maybe split it up in weapons, ball joints and everything else while at it.
|
Yes, it has been mentioned several times. I was in favor of not making any major
changes here, but it seems I'm being slowly outvoted. The existence of the
category Large Figure Parts is, of itself, a precedence for moving away from
themed categories for these things.
Let me do this: does anyone want to argue in favor of keeping large figure
parts (Galidor, Ben 10, Star Wars, Hero Factory, certain Technic sets like Throwbot
/ Slizer, Bionicle, etc.) in separate categories by theme (as they are, somewhat,
now)? Does anyone agree with the theory that new buyers might tend to be attracted
to themed categories? Do any Bionicle fans, for example, find it easier to locate
Bionicle parts when they're all in one place?
If you have an opinion, please speak up. Only a tiny percentage of members use
the forum and each person who speaks presents a viewpoint representing, in theory,
a bunch of other members who don't come here or take the time to comment.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 12:05 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| As mentioned before, I think the only part necessary would be if it's strictly
a Bionicle part that it have Bionicle in the title, that way it would come up
in searches. Parts that bridge several themes would then become generic parts
like other places in the catalog.
Tyson.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | I just skimmed through so someone may already suggested this
May I suggest merging Hero Factory and Bionicle parts( and possible some of the
old slizer Technic Ball parts like [p=bb78])
And maybe split it up in weapons, ball joints and everything else while at it.
|
Yes, it has been mentioned several times. I was in favor of not making any major
changes here, but it seems I'm being slowly outvoted. The existence of the
category Large Figure Parts is, of itself, a precedence for moving away from
themed categories for these things.
Let me do this: does anyone want to argue in favor of keeping large figure
parts (Galidor, Ben 10, Star Wars, Hero Factory, certain Technic sets like Throwbot
/ Slizer, Bionicle, etc.) in separate categories by theme (as they are, somewhat,
now)? Does anyone agree with the theory that new buyers might tend to be attracted
to themed categories? Do any Bionicle fans, for example, find it easier to locate
Bionicle parts when they're all in one place?
If you have an opinion, please speak up. Only a tiny percentage of members use
the forum and each person who speaks presents a viewpoint representing, in theory,
a bunch of other members who don't come here or take the time to comment.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 12:30 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think it would be a lot easier if they were together since there is so much
crossover.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | I just skimmed through so someone may already suggested this
May I suggest merging Hero Factory and Bionicle parts( and possible some of the
old slizer Technic Ball parts like [p=bb78])
And maybe split it up in weapons, ball joints and everything else while at it.
|
Yes, it has been mentioned several times. I was in favor of not making any major
changes here, but it seems I'm being slowly outvoted. The existence of the
category Large Figure Parts is, of itself, a precedence for moving away from
themed categories for these things.
Let me do this: does anyone want to argue in favor of keeping large figure
parts (Galidor, Ben 10, Star Wars, Hero Factory, certain Technic sets like Throwbot
/ Slizer, Bionicle, etc.) in separate categories by theme (as they are, somewhat,
now)? Does anyone agree with the theory that new buyers might tend to be attracted
to themed categories? Do any Bionicle fans, for example, find it easier to locate
Bionicle parts when they're all in one place?
If you have an opinion, please speak up. Only a tiny percentage of members use
the forum and each person who speaks presents a viewpoint representing, in theory,
a bunch of other members who don't come here or take the time to comment.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 14:23 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | I just skimmed through so someone may already suggested this
May I suggest merging Hero Factory and Bionicle parts( and possible some of the
old slizer Technic Ball parts like [p=bb78])
And maybe split it up in weapons, ball joints and everything else while at it.
|
Yes, it has been mentioned several times. I was in favor of not making any major
changes here, but it seems I'm being slowly outvoted. The existence of the
category Large Figure Parts is, of itself, a precedence for moving away from
themed categories for these things.
Let me do this: does anyone want to argue in favor of keeping large figure
parts (Galidor, Ben 10, Star Wars, Hero Factory, certain Technic sets like Throwbot
/ Slizer, Bionicle, etc.) in separate categories by theme (as they are, somewhat,
now)? Does anyone agree with the theory that new buyers might tend to be attracted
to themed categories? Do any Bionicle fans, for example, find it easier to locate
Bionicle parts when they're all in one place?
If you have an opinion, please speak up. Only a tiny percentage of members use
the forum and each person who speaks presents a viewpoint representing, in theory,
a bunch of other members who don't come here or take the time to comment.
|
The only one I would be okay with leaving in its own category would be Galidor.
But if it is combined with the rest, I do not have a problem with that.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 05:02 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
Morning
One more little item which needs attention
Can we get some agreement on standards for reporting stud sizes please. some
are re[porting width and length and ignoring height and others are including
height. This happens quite frequently on 1 x 1 items.
Just set a rule or guideline and reject any that do not meet that.
NB - We are not all that bothered by this as the stud measurements have no real
meaning it is the actual dimensions which are important but until we can both
see that and use it getting some form of standardisation would be nice/helpful.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 05:05 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
Morning
One more little item which needs attention
Can we get some agreement on standards for reporting stud sizes please. some
are re reads 2 x 2 x .33 whilst reads 2 x 2
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 12:35 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | Can we get some agreement on standards for reporting stud sizes please. some
are re[porting width and length and ignoring height and others are including
height. This happens quite frequently on 1 x 1 items.
Just set a rule or guideline and reject any that do not meet that.
|
There are already rules and guidelines set:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=261
However, they could definitely be clarified when it comes to parts which don't
fit easy definitions. Therefore, I've added your project to the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
As for the part you mentioned in a subsequent post, it simply needed a correction
to remove the height and I have fixed it. Thank you for pointing it out.
| | NB - We are not all that bothered by this as the stud measurements have no real
meaning
|
Perhaps not to sellers who only sell and don't use the product. To people
who actually build with LEGO parts, these dimensions can be quite helpful. I
have used them many times.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 13:02 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | Can we get some agreement on standards for reporting stud sizes please. some
are re[porting width and length and ignoring height and others are including
height. This happens quite frequently on 1 x 1 items.
Just set a rule or guideline and reject any that do not meet that.
|
There are already rules and guidelines set:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=261
However, they could definitely be clarified when it comes to parts which don't
fit easy definitions. Therefore, I've added your project to the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
As for the part you mentioned in a subsequent post, it simply needed a correction
to remove the height and I have fixed it. Thank you for pointing it out.
|
That was only a single example - there are plenty more.
| |
| | NB - We are not all that bothered by this as the stud measurements have no real
meaning
|
Perhaps not to sellers who only sell and don't use the product. To people
who actually build with LEGO parts, these dimensions can be quite helpful. I
have used them many times.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 13:23 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | That was only a single example - there are plenty more.
|
If you see any other parts like this for which stud-size dimensions are well
established and which do not comply with standards for dimensions, then you are
welcome to submit a catalog change request to correct the dimensions here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 06:01 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
I think there still are some inconsistencies in the catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=202697
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=235406
I think those issues were never solved.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 12:52 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
Thank you for mentioning this. I have added it to the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
One of the things that contributes to part category confusion is not having specific
written definitions of individual part categories and what should be contained
therein.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 14:27 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
Thank you for mentioning this. I have added it to the list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
One of the things that contributes to part category confusion is not having specific
written definitions of individual part categories and what should be contained
therein.
|
Speaking of this, do you think that 6934a and 6934b could be in the same category?
(Preferrably tiles rather than Scala).
Andrew
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 14:34 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | Speaking of this, do you think that 6934a and 6934b could be in the same category?
(Preferrably tiles rather than Scala).
|
This is part of a project which was just added today:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
Before we go moving things around it would probably be best to have clear written
definitions for each part category. Not having those has led to confusion and
frustration.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 16:18 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
I would like to see the Slope names consistent, in the sense that the first measure
is that of the direction of the slope like these are:
Thus, to name a few, this one should be 8 x 2 x 2:
This 6 x 8 x 2:
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 16:28 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
I would like to see the Slope names consistent, in the sense that the first measure
is that of the direction of the slope like these are:
Thus, to name a few, this one should be 8 x 2 x 2:
This 6 x 8 x 2:
|
Same goes for wedges, at least Wedge, Plate:
Following this logic:
This one should be 12 x 6:
And this one 9 x 4:
To name a few.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 16:33 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
I would like to see the Slope names consistent, in the sense that the first measure
is that of the direction of the slope like these are:
Thus, to name a few, this one should be 8 x 2 x 2:
This 6 x 8 x 2:
|
Same goes for wedges, at least Wedge, Plate:
Following this logic:
This one should be 12 x 6:
And this one 9 x 4:
To name a few.
|
Also about Tile, Modified vs Plate, Modified debate. In my opinion, everything
with a stud* should belong to Plate, Modified. Like this one is:
These should be:
etc.
*Except for the Inverted Tiles.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Oct 30, 2018 12:13 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
Hello,
I don't know if it is a big enough project for the Roadmap, but I would like
to see the names for the rubber bands cleaned up a bit. The 'Approx'
measurements are a bit off and the actual mm measurements from Lego would be
more useful I believe. I can't find the old post where I wrote it all up
originally, but here is the image I created to illustrate the issue:
Randyf might also be a good resource for any info needed for this project.
Thanks as always,
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 30, 2018 12:23 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | I don't know if it is a big enough project for the Roadmap, but I would like
to see the names for the rubber bands cleaned up a bit.
|
It is a smaller project, but I don't know how much work is involved and other
issues may become apparent once we start looking into it. So I've added
it.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Oct 30, 2018 13:09 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
Found another one in the notes on my desk! 
I would like to see a part category created called "Cardboard Sleeve". This category
would include any cardboard sleeves that originally come in sets. Why is this
important?
(1) These cardboard sleeves could be numbered according to the number on the
cardboard sleeve so that they are searchable.
(2) These cardboard sleeves could then be added to set inventories as they originally
came packaged.
(3) These cardboard sleeves could then be inventoried so they would not need
to be opened to know what is in them.
(4) Additional notes on catalog entries could be completely removed and cleaned
up (such as the ones on part 522).
(5) People would have no reason to keep trying to add the codes on the cardboard
sleeves as PCCs to catalog entries (such as the ones on part 522).
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 30, 2018 13:37 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | I would like to see a part category created called "Cardboard Sleeve". This category
would include any cardboard sleeves that originally come in sets.
|
I have bundled your request into the rubber band standardization project which
Jen just suggested.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 00:55 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
Found another one in the notes on my desk!
I would like to see a part category created called "Cardboard Sleeve". This category
would include any cardboard sleeves that originally come in sets. Why is this
important?
(1) These cardboard sleeves could be numbered according to the number on the
cardboard sleeve so that they are searchable.
(2) These cardboard sleeves could then be added to set inventories as they originally
came packaged.
(3) These cardboard sleeves could then be inventoried so they would not need
to be opened to know what is in them.
(4) Additional notes on catalog entries could be completely removed and cleaned
up (such as the ones on part 522).
(5) People would have no reason to keep trying to add the codes on the cardboard
sleeves as PCCs to catalog entries (such as the ones on part 522).
Cheers,
Randy
|
A great idea!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | paulvdb | | Posted: | Nov 1, 2018 07:15 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| |
Found another one in the notes on my desk!
I would like to see a part category created called "Cardboard Sleeve". This category
would include any cardboard sleeves that originally come in sets. Why is this
important?
(1) These cardboard sleeves could be numbered according to the number on the
cardboard sleeve so that they are searchable.
(2) These cardboard sleeves could then be added to set inventories as they originally
came packaged.
(3) These cardboard sleeves could then be inventoried so they would not need
to be opened to know what is in them.
(4) Additional notes on catalog entries could be completely removed and cleaned
up (such as the ones on part 522).
(5) People would have no reason to keep trying to add the codes on the cardboard
sleeves as PCCs to catalog entries (such as the ones on part 522).
Cheers,
Randy
|
Good idea. We already recently added all the tool packs that came packed in plastic
bags. This seems like a similar thing.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Leftoverbricks | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 11:48 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| |
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
This is great, really appreciate!
In January 2017 I made an elaborate post about tiles / tiles, modified / tiles,
round in an effort to have them better organised in the catalogue. There are
still many inconsistencies in this area.
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1021149
Can this be added the list of future catalogue projects?
Thanks - I'm always willing to help with stuff, especially when it involves
boring or monotonous work.
Martin
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 12:19 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | In January 2017 I made an elaborate post about tiles / tiles, modified / tiles,
round in an effort to have them better organised in the catalogue.
|
| | Can this be added the list of future catalogue projects?
|
It is already on the list. Please see this post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1112878
Thank you for your willingness to help!
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 15:56 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | | | Color Category Updates - A project to standardize the ways in which pearl light gray/flat silver, pearl gold/metallic gold, and potentially also copper colors are handled. An additional suggestion involves distinguishing between pearl dark gray and titanium metallic. This major project could also include the addition of several new colors and should involve discussion with members who have expertise in identifying and understanding color differences.
|
|
|
Date first added: 10/27/2018
Suggested by: WoutR, pikachu3, viejos, and jodawill
Have we ever considered making the jump to using Lego official color names?
| | | | | | Figure Part Changes - A project to change the way certain figure parts are handled in the catalog. This major project includes several facets: reorganizing dual-colored molded arms, adding individual decorated hips and legs, adding individual Technic figure parts, changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories, and potentially reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production methods. This project would need to be implemented in individual steps.
|
|
|
Date first added: 10/27/2018
Suggested by: LordSkylark
I used to want decorated legs assemblies to be inventoried, but I long ago came
to agree with the original policy. Legs never are as good once you have take
them apart. People are free to do with their pieces as they choose, but I don't
think the market for individual decorated legs and hips is very strong.
Dual-molded arms, though, I think I agree with. What about the dual molded legs?
| | | | | | Resolve Solid Stud Heads - A project to add up to 75 minifigures to the catalog to resolve the issue of solid stud heads. This project would start from 1978 minifigures and proceed forward in time.
|
|
|
Date first added: 10/29/2018
Suggested by: viejos
I have a lot of solid stud minifigs. How do I help with this? By waiting?
I have not familiarized myself with the situation. The transition was long after
1978, right?
| | | | | | Sticker Sheet Restructuring - A project to reduce or eliminate duplicated sticker sheet entries in the catalog. Sticker sheets currently have hundreds of duplicated catalog entries which cause difficulties for anyone wanting to buy or sell a sticker sheet which came in more than one set. This is a major project which could require renumbering thousands of sticker sheets.
|
|
|
Date first added: 10/26/2018
Suggested by: StormChaser
I have always assumed that the 5 digit number on the sticker sheet was the part
number. I used to enter the other as a PCC, but eventually realized that they
were rejecting those submissions.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 16:05 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Have we ever considered making the jump to using Lego official color names?
|
Yes, in fact I suggested it once myself. Then someone pointed out that some
of these names are rather convoluted and silly. Our names are better, but I
would like to include the official colors names on or color chart for cross-reference.
| | I used to want decorated legs assemblies to be inventoried, but I long ago came
to agree with the original policy.
|
Right, and as I say on the Roadmap page, some of these projects may not happen
(or may be modified before occurring). It's an outline of ideas and we can
all discuss them further once we get into the action stages.
| | I have a lot of solid stud minifigs. How do I help with this? By waiting?
|
Yes, that's correct. How you can help right now is by looking over the list
of proposed changes and formulating opinions about them. Once a project gets
underway, you can present an informed opinion and help move things forward.
| | Sticker Sheet Restructuring
I have always assumed that the 5 digit number on the sticker sheet was the part
number. I used to enter the other as a PCC, but eventually realized that they
were rejecting those submissions.
|
This one is still a little ways off. I know people want it and that it will
be useful, but I want to take the time to come up with a solid solution.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 1, 2018 09:06 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Have we ever considered making the jump to using Lego official color names?
|
Yes, in fact I suggested it once myself. Then someone pointed out that some
of these names are rather convoluted and silly. Our names are better, but I
would like to include the official colors names on or color chart for cross-reference.
|
Please do not ever consider switching to using the official LEGO color names
here. They are indeed *very* convoluted and silly. For examples: BL Tan is LEGO
Brick Yellow, BL Magenta is LEGO Bright Reddish Violet, and BL Brown is LEGO
Earth Orange. Just those three alone make me wonder what TLG was thinking (or
smoking?) when naming colors.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 1, 2018 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Have we ever considered making the jump to using Lego official color names?
|
Yes, in fact I suggested it once myself. Then someone pointed out that some
of these names are rather convoluted and silly. Our names are better, but I
would like to include the official colors names on or color chart for cross-reference.
|
Please do not ever consider switching to using the official LEGO color names
here. They are indeed *very* convoluted and silly. For examples: BL Tan is LEGO
Brick Yellow, BL Magenta is LEGO Bright Reddish Violet, and BL Brown is LEGO
Earth Orange. Just those three alone make me wonder what TLG was thinking (or
smoking?) when naming colors.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I still think my suggestion would work:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=635575
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 1, 2018 14:58 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Have we ever considered making the jump to using Lego official color names?
|
Yes, in fact I suggested it once myself. Then someone pointed out that some
of these names are rather convoluted and silly. Our names are better, but I
would like to include the official colors names on or color chart for cross-reference.
|
Please do not ever consider switching to using the official LEGO color names
here. They are indeed *very* convoluted and silly. For examples: BL Tan is LEGO
Brick Yellow, BL Magenta is LEGO Bright Reddish Violet, and BL Brown is LEGO
Earth Orange. Just those three alone make me wonder what TLG was thinking (or
smoking?) when naming colors.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I still think my suggestion would work:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=635575
|
Yep. I voted 'Yes' to that a long time ago!
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 16:22 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | | | | | | | Sticker Sheet Restructuring - A project to reduce or eliminate duplicated sticker sheet entries in the catalog. Sticker sheets currently have hundreds of duplicated catalog entries which cause difficulties for anyone wanting to buy or sell a sticker sheet which came in more than one set. This is a major project which could require renumbering thousands of sticker sheets.
|
|
|
Date first added: 10/26/2018
Suggested by: StormChaser
I have always assumed that the 5 digit number on the sticker sheet was the part
number. I used to enter the other as a PCC, but eventually realized that they
were rejecting those submissions.
|
Yep, the 5-digit number is the LEGO Design ID (BrickLink part number) and the
7-digit number is the Element ID (BrickLink PCC).
There is no reason that all of that information should be in the name of the
sticker sheet when the database is already set up to handle Design IDs/Element
IDs and their ability to be searched in other places.
I feel that all sticker sheets where possible should be renumbered according
to their Design ID, have the Element ID placed as a PCC on color (Not Applicable),
and have their names simplified to include just the set number and other relevant
information that cannot be included elsewhere (such as the background color,
sheet number, etc.).
I also feel that the monikers 'North American Version' and 'International
Version' in sticker names should be replaced with the sticker code located
in one of the corners of the sticker sheet since these stickers do not appear
to have a discernible pattern of distribution at all times.
So, for example:
would be renumbered as 16453, renamed as "Sticker for Set 41056 (Version 22637)",
and have 6061416 placed as the PCC for color (Not Applicable), and
would be renumbered as 17325, renamed as "Sticker for Set 41056 (Version 134071A)",
and have 6070212 placed as the PCC for color (Not Applicable).
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 16:29 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | I feel that all sticker sheets
|
Please save your thoughts for when we actually get into discussing these changes.
I won't remember that you posted an insightful comment about this in a non-related
thread.
I will open the changes to sticker sheets to discussion, as always, before any
change are made and then I will need good feedback.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 16:38 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | I feel that all sticker sheets
|
Please save your thoughts for when we actually get into discussing these changes.
I won't remember that you posted an insightful comment about this in a non-related
thread.
I will open the changes to sticker sheets to discussion, as always, before any
change are made and then I will need good feedback.
|
Oh, I won't forget this stuff. It has been on my mind for at least 5-6 years,
if not longer!
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 17:07 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Please save your thoughts for when we actually get into discussing these changes.
I won't remember that you posted an insightful comment about this in a non-related
thread.
|
Far too many insights pass through my mind for me to remember them all.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 23:09 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
I also feel that the monikers 'North American Version' and 'International
Version' in sticker names should be replaced with the sticker code located
in one of the corners of the sticker sheet since these stickers do not appear
to have a discernible pattern of distribution at all times.
|
This is very true. I have had both variants in North America sets for various
sets.
|
|
|
|
|
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Portugal
United Kingdom, England
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
Canada, Alberta
Poland, w. Wielkopolskie
Germany, Schleswig-Holstein
