|
 |
| | | Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 15:10 | | Subject: | Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 207 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| First, let me thank you all for your assistance with these projects. Thanks
to your hard work and discussion we have completed four projects within the last
month and three are ongoing:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
The seventh project consists of moving every 47th item in the Set item type to
the Gear item type. This is necessary because the Set item type just seems larger
than the Gear item type. When these items are moved, perhaps we can also give
them funny titles.
On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles. Here are some examples of different
ways set numbers are included or not included in minifigure titles:
I realized that standardizing this would be as simple as a single sentence added
to the appropriate section of this page (which hasn't been updated since
2010):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=179
But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 15:39 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | First, let me thank you all for your assistance with these projects. Thanks
to your hard work and discussion we have completed four projects within the last
month and three are ongoing:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
The seventh project consists of moving every 47th item in the Set item type to
the Gear item type. This is necessary because the Set item type just seems larger
than the Gear item type. When these items are moved, perhaps we can also give
them funny titles.
On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles. Here are some examples of different
ways set numbers are included or not included in minifigure titles:
I realized that standardizing this would be as simple as a single sentence added
to the appropriate section of this page (which hasn't been updated since
2010):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=179
But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
I like it when it's exclusive to that set. They then show up when you search
for them, and it let's you know that the figure is only in one set. However
setting this as standard means if the figure gets included in another set than
the title requires revising. Just another thing for the inventories/catalog admins
to remember. Once the figure is in two sets I can actually click on the figure
to see what sets it's in, I don't think more is needed in the title.
ie. (Multiple Sets) would than be redundant.
Tyson.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 15:42 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Another thing to consider is the set number crossing over of part numbers in
searches. Sometimes searching is difficult enough already.
Tyson.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 16:33 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | First, let me thank you all for your assistance with these projects. Thanks
to your hard work and discussion we have completed four projects within the last
month and three are ongoing:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
The seventh project consists of moving every 47th item in the Set item type to
the Gear item type. This is necessary because the Set item type just seems larger
than the Gear item type. When these items are moved, perhaps we can also give
them funny titles.
On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles. Here are some examples of different
ways set numbers are included or not included in minifigure titles:
I realized that standardizing this would be as simple as a single sentence added
to the appropriate section of this page (which hasn't been updated since
2010):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=179
But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
I do like the idea of minifigs only ever included in 1 set showing up as unique
to a set. There are, however, minifigs that are unique to gear items and books
as well, so conceivably this would need to be done for all those as well. It
would be a bit of extra work to complete an inventory, as the name change would
have to be done in the case where a minifig is released as part of another set/book/gear.
Personally I do not think that it such a major issue to do a name change as part
of an inventory (I have done one of those, took about two minutes), so this should
not be a major objection.
As regards figs in more than one set, I should think that a simple policy should
just be that unique figs are identified with the set number, anything appearing
in more than one set/book/gear does not get anything tagged on to the name. That
way it becomes consistent in that either it is clearly identified as unique to
a set, or not unique.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 17:12 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles.
|
The general trend of opinion is to remove set numbers from minifigure titles
(pretty much everyone I've heard from privately and publicly agrees or would
be okay with it). No problem there from me, but we must consider that in recent
years there has been a move away from describing minifigures in the titles and
simply including the set number.
In the past all three of the minifigures below would have included figure descriptions
in the titles. Now they simply include the set number to differentiate between
them:
[M=sw345]
[M=sw936]
[M=sw956]
For figures like this we would have to replace set numbers with at least basic
figure descriptions to differentiate them.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 19:09 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles.
|
The general trend of opinion is to remove set numbers from minifigure titles
(pretty much everyone I've heard from privately and publicly agrees or would
be okay with it). No problem there from me, but we must consider that in recent
years there has been a move away from describing minifigures in the titles and
simply including the set number.
In the past all three of the minifigures below would have included figure descriptions
in the titles. Now they simply include the set number to differentiate between
them:
[M=sw345]
[M=sw936]
[M=sw956]
For figures like this we would have to replace set numbers with at least basic
figure descriptions to differentiate them.
|
I prefer as they are. I don't like much description on minifigs, heads, tiles
and etc. If I could have my way i would just imitate LEGO's own way and would
call MiniHead Nr. 59 or Tile 2x2 Nr. 14 etc adding keyords like Moustache
Glasses Beard or Boat Computer etc respectively. But only keywords (as tags)
, meaning I would get rid of conectors like "with" "and" and so on, saving characters
in the proccess.
I would like to see every set in which the minifig comes in inside brackets,
just like the tech minifig in your original list. That would be so amazing!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 19:16 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
Right now the titles are mixed, but you're saying you prefer just the set
number in the title with no further descriptors. We could go that route, too.
As I mentioned, we've been heading that way the last few years. It is the
easier route, but breaks down for figures which appear in more than a few sets.
| | I would like to see every set in which the minifig comes in inside brackets,
just like the tech minifig in your original list. That would be so amazing!
|
I agree that it would be amazing to see a minifigure with 46 different set numbers
in its title:
Perhaps not amazing in the way you mean, though. 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 19:28 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
Right now the titles are mixed,
|
Sorry for not being clear, I was just referring to the three medical droids in
your example.
| | but you're saying you prefer just the set
number in the title with no further descriptors. We could go that route, too.
As I mentioned, we've been heading that way the last few years. It is the
easier route, but breaks down for figures which appear in more than a few sets.
| | I would like to see every set in which the minifig comes in inside brackets,
just like the tech minifig in your original list. That would be so amazing!
|
I agree that it would be amazing to see a minifigure with 46 different set numbers
in its title:
Perhaps not amazing in the way you mean, though.
|
I saw that coming 
I don't know how many minifigs are in a similar situation, but these days
the same minifig hardly appears on more than say, 5 sets?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 19:19 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The general trend of opinion is to remove set numbers from minifigure titles
(pretty much everyone I've heard from privately and publicly agrees or would
be okay with it).
|
This consensus seems to have arrive in a couple hours on a major national holiday
in the US.
Initially, the parenthetical set numbers are very useful. The minifigs are often
put in the catalog a while before the set gets inventoried. So all the people
that want to buy and sell them can get right to it. They aren't in any inventory
then and are hard to find without the set number. Also for the person who comes
along and inventories the set it is handy to easily see that the minifigs are
already available.
I still use it after that. No, it wouldn't be giant deal. But there are
Spidermen that are very similar, but the best one is in 76083. And I remember
that set number because it has a fantastic vulture and the best Spiderman. A
few extra clicks and I can get to it anyway, but 76083 would bring him up on
my screen if it were in his name. It isn't. Maybe if it said "Homecoming".
Actually, it should. He's pretty similar to the Civil War Spiderman, but
Civil War Spiderman (who doesn't say Civil War in his name) has weird looking
arms.
| | In the past all three of the minifigures below would have included figure descriptions
in the titles. Now they simply include the set number to differentiate between
them:
[M=sw345]
[M=sw936]
[M=sw956]
For figures like this we would have to replace set numbers with at least basic
figure descriptions to differentiate them.
|
I don't really agree with the premise. I don't think people looking
for that droid are going to hit upon the right keywords. Possibly they'll
be looking for the tan one or the blue one... But if they just put in 2-1B,
the list isn't going to be really long. If I were looking for a 2-1B, that's
how I would search and I would appreciate how it showed me all the options.
I really don't see someone bothering to come up with the search that will
limit it down to 1.
I realize that you could have used Batman as an example instead of 2-1B and it
would have been better for your point. But most Batman minifigs already have
at least something to describe them, though "short legs" isn't the most helpful
description maybe. And it is still largely a wash. If I were looking for an
Arctic Batman, that search would work. But if I am looking for a Batman for
a project that isn't in some specific crazy suit, I'm most likely going
to have to scroll through a list anyway to find the one that looks right to me.
There are dozens of Batman minifigs that are just plain Batman. I doubt anyone
will type "heavy armor Batman" in a search bar. There is one. That's what
I called him and I don't know what else I would call him. But I think it
is more window dressing that strong utility. Maybe they would search for "armor
batman"?
The difference between and is apparently the size of the
vest. I don't think any search that ever gets typed in narrows which of
those you want and I am surprised if that written detail is how someone decides
which to get. In MY opinion, the arms are more important. sh299 has this weird
black stripe on his arms. But I don't really think everyone is gonna agree
with me on that and I lot won't care. I really think the person who goes
to the search bar and winds up buying either of those just typed Spider-man.
And he may have typed Spiderman first and not gotten anything. If there is
any word other than Spider-man that is going to help someone find the one they
want, it is probably Spiderman. After that, they're just going to scroll
through the list. Spiderman minifigs are too similar for the detailed descriptions
to really matter.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 19:37 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The general trend of opinion is to remove set numbers from minifigure titles
(pretty much everyone I've heard from privately and publicly agrees or would
be okay with it).
|
This consensus seems to have arrive in a couple hours on a major national holiday
in the US.
|
I ain't say it was a consensus. I only said everyone so far (at that time)
was in favor of removing set numbers. I've noticed that only a few people
typically comment on these changes and they're usually the same people.
I appreciate all input, of course, and wish more people would join in the discussions,
but once I've heard from the core group I have a general idea of how things
are going with a given issue.
| | Initially, the parenthetical set numbers are very useful.
|
Yes, of course. There's nothing wrong with having these until they go into
a set inventory.
| | I don't really agree with the premise. I don't think people looking
for that droid are going to hit upon the right keywords.
|
I definitely see what you're saying, but I wouldn't want to remove set
numbers and have three figures with the exact same titles. Of course there is
precedent in every direction for this issue, including nothing but a name:
What we're trying to do here is find some standard approach and implement
it. It sounds like just having the set number in parentheses at the end of the
minimally-descriptive title (perhaps only the figure name) would work well for
you?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 19:54 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | It sounds like just having the set number in parentheses at the end of the
minimally-descriptive title (perhaps only the figure name) would work well for
you?
|
Yes, that's what I generally (maybe always?) do.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mockingbird | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 17:16 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles.
But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
I don't think a set number should be in the minifig title. It is redundant
information, the set(s) a minfig is used in can easily be found.
When I search for a set, I want the search result to show me the set, not the
minifigure(s). The inventory of the set will show me the minifigures.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 20:25 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| [StormChaser] writes:
| | Do you want minifigure titles to include set numbers?
Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful or can you live without them?
|
No and maybe.
I do not use the set number information in the title of minifigs, however, I
could see a use for the set number being used only when the minifig is unique
to a set. Then removed when the minifig does not become unique to a set. However,
on reflection, I would go with removing the set information completely from the
title.
[StormChaser] writes:
| | the format would be this …
|
Since we are contemplating change the titles en masse, I think it would be a
better time now to agree on a consistent standard. My suggestion would be:
Character-Name
For a minifig of a character unique to the catalog. If the character name is
not known then their occupation or role title would be used.
Character-Name – differentiation
For minifigs of the same character but some differentiation.
Character-Name (Settting) – differentiation
For minifigs of the same character with similar details but from a different
setting (i.e, or different role, or occupation).
[Give.Me.A.Brick] writes:
| | I would get rid of connectors like "with" "and" and so on, saving characters in the process.
|
I disagree, I have relied upon the “with” and other prepositions in searches.
The differentiation should use prepositions wisely (in lowercase).
[axaday] writes:
| | …batman … Spider-man – spiderman
|
axaday seems to have put in a lot of thought over this, and I understand the
appeal with keeping it simple, and have duplicate titles. However,
[axaday] writes:
| | …they're just going to scroll through the list. Spiderman minifigs are too similar for the detailed descriptions to really matter.
|
… is one approach to using the title, but without the differentiation descriptors
someone else will want to find the minifig quickly and not scroll through a long
list (i.e. axaday’s note on Batman).
[StormChaser] writes:
| | but I wouldn't want to remove set numbers and have three figures with the exact same titles.
|
Why? Is three a magical number? There are several minifigs with duplicate titles,
even before removing the set number, these need to be addressed for example:
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 20:40 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | Since we are contemplating change the titles en masse, I think it would be a
better time now to agree on a consistent standard.
|
Yes, I was looking through minifigures a little bit ago and I see that this project
will involve more than just removing set numbers from minifigure titles.
| | I disagree, I have relied upon the “with” and other prepositions in searches.
|
Are you quite sure? I just checked and BrickLink automatically excludes the
word "with" from searches. The site also excludes the word "no," which is why
some items I recently found (and corrected) which had the term "No Pattern" in
the title were not usefully titled.
| | Why? Is three a magical number? There are several minifigs with duplicate titles,
even before removing the set number, these need to be addressed for example:
|
Good find on those two figures. Yes, we need to address this. I am of the belief
that, generally speaking and allowing for some exceptions, items in the catalog
should not have exactly the same title.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 20:51 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| [StormChaser] writes:
| | Good find on those two figures. Yes, we need to address this. I am of the belief
that, generally speaking and allowing for some exceptions, items in the catalog
should not have exactly the same title.
|
I have found 29 duplicate titles of minifigs in the catalogue!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 01:47 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | I disagree, I have relied upon the “with” and other prepositions in searches.
|
Are you quite sure? I just checked and BrickLink automatically excludes the
word "with" from searches. The site also excludes the word "no," which is why
some items I recently found (and corrected) which had the term "No Pattern" in
the title were not usefully titled.
|
Indeed 'with' is excluded from the search criteria, but 'without'
is not. This makes the distinction still useful.
See the bottom of page for a list of all words that are automatically excluded
from search criteria:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=29
Better still would be if some words such as 'with' and 'no' would
be removed from this list of stop words, but that is likely out of reach of even
the programming staff of Bricklink. The list is intended to be used for searching
through flowing texts in the English language only, not for searching through
descriptive titles in which these 'common' words might nog be so common
nor meaningless.
For now, deciding upon catalog titles means taking this exclusion list into account.
Hans-Peter
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 20:55 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | There are several minifigs with duplicate titles,
even before removing the set number, these need to be addressed for example:
|
A quick list of minifig names that are duplicates:
Bionicle Mini - Barraki Takadox
Breastplate - Blue with Red Arms, Black Legs with Red Hips, Dark Gray Grille
Helmet, Red Plume
Catwoman
Fire - Reflective Stripes, Black Legs, White Fire Helmet, Brown Eyebrows, Thin
Grin
Genie - Minifig only Entry
Geonosian
Goblin King
Governor's Daughter
Gungan Soldier
Hot Dog Man - Minifig only Entry
Hoth Rebel Trooper
Imperial Shuttle Pilot
Jar Jar Binks
Kingdoms - Lion King
Lifeguard - Minifig only Entry
Mermaid
Mime - Minifig only Entry
Monster
Mr. Freeze
Naida Riverheart
Overalls Blue over V-Neck Shirt, Blue Legs, Red Short Bill Cap
Plain White Torso with White Arms, Black Legs, Black Male Hair (Soccer Player)
Porsche 919 Hybrid Driver
Red Vest and Zipper - Black Legs, White Construction Helmet
Scarecrow
Scout Trooper
The Penguin
The Riddler
Truck Driver
Werewolf
Zombie Driver
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 10:55 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| ... and the list showing names and their minifigs:
Bionicle Mini - Barraki Takadox
Breastplate - Blue with Red Arms, Black Legs with Red Hips, Dark Gray Grille
Helmet, Red Plume
Catwoman
Fire - Reflective Stripes, Black Legs, White Fire Helmet, Brown Eyebrows, Thin
Grin
[M=cty090]
[M=cty023]
Genie - Minifig only Entry
Geonosian
[M=sw320]
[M=sw062]
Governor's Daughter
Gungan Soldier
[M=sw013]
[M=sw302]
Hot Dog Man - Minifig only Entry
Hoth Rebel Trooper
[M=sw291]
[M=sw259]
Imperial Shuttle Pilot
[M=sw802]
[M=sw042]
Jar Jar Binks
[M=sw301]
[M=sw017]
Kingdoms - Lion King
Lifeguard - Minifig only Entry
Mermaid
Mime - Minifig Only Entry
Monster
Mr. Freeze
Naida Riverheart
Overalls Blue over V-Neck Shirt, Blue Legs, Red Short Bill Cap
[M=cty202]
Plain White Torso with White Arms, Black Legs, Black Male Hair (Soccer Player)
Porsche 919 Hybrid Driver
Red Vest and Zipper - Black Legs, White Construction Helmet
Scarecrow
Scout Trooper
[M=sw505]
[M=sw005]
The Penguin
The Riddler
Truck Driver
Werewolf
Zombie Driver
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 04:41 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
That Genie changes name too.
As a minifigure he is just called Genie.
whereas as a set he is called Genie of the Lamp, and also the license name Disney
is in there too.
Note it is not Genie "with a lamp" but "of the Lamp", so it is part of his name.
The minifigure (only) name should really change to reflect this.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 04:58 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Note it is not Genie "with a lamp" but "of the Lamp", so it is part of his name.
The minifigure (only) name should really change to reflect this.
|
I just checked and TLG refers to this character as both Genie and Genie of the
Lamp. So either is technically appropriate as the official title. TLG, like
BrickLink, is not known for its consistency.
I do plan to go through and correct identical titles from the list qwertyboy
so kindly supplied. When I do that, I'll fix it along with the rest.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Note it is not Genie "with a lamp" but "of the Lamp", so it is part of his name.
The minifigure (only) name should really change to reflect this.
|
I just checked and TLG refers to this character as both Genie and Genie of the
Lamp. So either is technically appropriate as the official title. TLG, like
BrickLink, is not known for its consistency.
I do plan to go through and correct identical titles from the list qwertyboy
so kindly supplied. When I do that, I'll fix it along with the rest.
|
Robert -
I was the one who recently went through and standardized all of the CMF set entry
names (over 500 of them). I have not got around to standardizing all of the minfigure
entries with the set names yet, but I plan to when my in-laws leave after the
holiday break. So the genie entry will be changed shortly with all the other
500+. I just wanted to let you know so that you don't do work that I have
planned to finish. 
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 20:33 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| What about 'Dimensions Minifigs'? There are bunch of minifigs with the
word Dimensions Team Pack or Dimensions Fun Pack as their only
differentiation. If set numbers are to go ahead are these titles going to be
replaced with the relevant dimensions set numbers?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 20:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | What about 'Dimensions Minifigs'? There are bunch of minifigs with the
word Dimensions Team Pack or Dimensions Fun Pack as their only
differentiation. If set numbers are to go ahead are these titles going to be
replaced with the relevant dimensions set numbers?
|
Whatever solution we achieve will be applied consistently. If set numbers, then
yes, the extra portions of the titles would be removed. Even among those figures
there is not titling consistency:
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 22, 2018 23:10 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | First, let me thank you all for your assistance with these projects. Thanks
to your hard work and discussion we have completed four projects within the last
month and three are ongoing:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
The seventh project consists of moving every 47th item in the Set item type to
the Gear item type. This is necessary because the Set item type just seems larger
than the Gear item type. When these items are moved, perhaps we can also give
them funny titles.
On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles. Here are some examples of different
ways set numbers are included or not included in minifigure titles:
I realized that standardizing this would be as simple as a single sentence added
to the appropriate section of this page (which hasn't been updated since
2010):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=179
But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
If it were my own database and I was doing it for myself, I do not think I would
include set numbers in the title. However, if it does help people out, I cannot
think of any harm that it would do to have the extra information and it might
help some people find a figure better in certain cases. I was also thinking,
when there are, say, 50 differet Luke Skywalker figures (I didn't actually
do any sort of count, so I don't know the actual number) how is someone to
know the difference between 5 different Luke Hoths without the set numbering
helping with the identification. It would seem in those cases that that would
really help distinguish the entries better. So, because it seems that it would
help others, I would for making that consistence, as long as the figure probably
appears in 3 or less sets.
Andrew
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | speshy | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 08:37 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I would only want to see set numbers in the title of a minifig if the minifig
appears in one unique set only. Once it is released in a second set, I'd
like the set number removed from the title.
In catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | First, let me thank you all for your assistance with these projects. Thanks
to your hard work and discussion we have completed four projects within the last
month and three are ongoing:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
The seventh project consists of moving every 47th item in the Set item type to
the Gear item type. This is necessary because the Set item type just seems larger
than the Gear item type. When these items are moved, perhaps we can also give
them funny titles.
On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles. Here are some examples of different
ways set numbers are included or not included in minifigure titles:
I realized that standardizing this would be as simple as a single sentence added
to the appropriate section of this page (which hasn't been updated since
2010):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=179
But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 11:16 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hello,
Here are my initial thoughts on this subject. There are several reasons that
I like the current system of using set numbers on minifigs.
1) I think a minifig that only appears in one set should have a set number. I
would be willing to go as high as 3 set numbers in the Name before I feel it
would be annoying. It is useful for searches and anything useful should not be
easily discarded.
2) When a new minifig is added to the catalog and before the set it appears in
is inventoried and approved, the only way you can find it is with its name or
the set number in the title. It would not yet have the link for 'Item Appears
In.' This is the most important reason to keep the number.
3) Brickset links to our minifigs in searches, but only if the set number is
in the Name description:
https://brickset.com/search?query=40108&scope=All
https://brickset.com/minifigs/twn215/balloon-vendor-(40108)
Nice to know the only listing to buy this minifig is on BrickLink! That's
good (free) advertising.
I do also think that adding some more descriptors would be nice on some figs.
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | DadsAFOL | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 12:25 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
I know you are working within the "no new development" constraints, but if you
could get a few minutes of dev time, this could be better solved with a dynamic
append to the display name based on the "appears in" reference. So the set
number(s) is never in the actual description text. This solves the issues of
maintaining changes if the same figure already in the database is reused later,
or some correction to the association is made.
Minifigure Name [In Set 1000-1]
Minifigure Name [In Multiple Sets]
A user option could be enabled for "Show Minifigure Set References". Search
results could add another tab that shows "Results Contain Figures", so searching
"Set 1000" would show me that set, and all of the contents of that set.
You could actually take this a step further and enable the dynamic append for
all objects -- animals, parts assemblies, the proposed sub-sets function,
etc. This would be extremely useful for printed torsos, decorated tiles, and
other generally unique parts.
-Jason
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 04:39 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
I know you are working within the "no new development" constraints, but if you
could get a few minutes of dev time, this could be better solved with a dynamic
append to the display name based on the "appears in" reference. So the set
number(s) is never in the actual description text. This solves the issues of
maintaining changes if the same figure already in the database is reused later,
or some correction to the association is made.
Minifigure Name [In Set 1000-1]
Minifigure Name [In Multiple Sets]
A user option could be enabled for "Show Minifigure Set References". Search
results could add another tab that shows "Results Contain Figures", so searching
"Set 1000" would show me that set, and all of the contents of that set.
You could actually take this a step further and enable the dynamic append for
all objects -- animals, parts assemblies, the proposed sub-sets function,
etc. This would be extremely useful for printed torsos, decorated tiles, and
other generally unique parts.
-Jason
|
I think this is one of the better suggestions on this topic.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 10:49 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Catalog, DadsAFOL writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | But before we change anything, let us discuss. Do you want minifigure titles
to include set numbers? Do you find set numbers in minifigure titles useful
or can you live without them? Once we decide and get written policy in place,
then we only need to examine the titles of all the minifigures and adjust as
necessary. If we go with including set numbers, then the format would be this
(with the words Multiple Sets instead of individual set numbers for figures that
appear in more than one set):
Minifigure Name (Set 1000-1)
Minifigure Name (Multiple Sets)
If we go with not including set numbers, then we just need to remove existing
set numbers from titles. I don't have a preference either way on this one.
Thoughts?
|
I know you are working within the "no new development" constraints, but if you
could get a few minutes of dev time, this could be better solved with a dynamic
append to the display name based on the "appears in" reference. So the set
number(s) is never in the actual description text. This solves the issues of
maintaining changes if the same figure already in the database is reused later,
or some correction to the association is made.
Minifigure Name [In Set 1000-1]
Minifigure Name [In Multiple Sets]
A user option could be enabled for "Show Minifigure Set References". Search
results could add another tab that shows "Results Contain Figures", so searching
"Set 1000" would show me that set, and all of the contents of that set.
You could actually take this a step further and enable the dynamic append for
all objects -- animals, parts assemblies, the proposed sub-sets function,
etc. This would be extremely useful for printed torsos, decorated tiles, and
other generally unique parts.
-Jason
|
I think this is one of the better suggestions on this topic.
|
I really like this suggestion, too, but the reality is that we will most likely
*not* get any developer time. Therefore, we are left to solve issues with what
we have available. It is an unfortunate scenario that we work in.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Nov 23, 2018 21:55 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
It would be nice that if one minifig has the set number in its name, then all
of the minifigs from that set should include the set number.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Pretty_Pieces | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 00:10 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Imho, there is no need to include the set number in minifig titles. If I am
looking for figs from a specific set, I pull up that set, and click the included
minifigures link.
If I am trying to identify a minifig in my hand, chances are I don’t have the
set number yet, which is when a descriptive title helps. And since I don’t know
all the licenses or characters, descriptions that are obvious to the uninitiated
are particularly helpful. Often, I need to start with the torso and work up
to the fig.
When I search a set/gear number in the catalog, having a clutter of figs to wade
through is unhelpful.
But here’s the kicker: when I print out my packing list, I *really* don’t want
a quarter page of useless set numbers on every fig. It could easily turn a one
page printout into several.
My two cents.
Dawn
Pretty_Pieces
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 03:52 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Pretty_Pieces writes:
| | Imho, there is no need to include the set number in minifig titles. If I am
looking for figs from a specific set, I pull up that set, and click the included
minifigures link.
|
Right, but remember that your experience with the catalog is different than mine
and mine is different than Randy's. Some people do want the item numbers
there and would use them.
| | When I search a set/gear number in the catalog, having a clutter of figs to wade
through is unhelpful.
|
We already use set numbers in every single sticker sheet title and every stickered
part title. When I search for 10261 (the roller coaster) I get 32 results and
only 11 of those are minifigures. Like it or not, we're stuck with set numbers
in titles anyway and I don't think adding minifigures into the mix will change
things too much for the worse.
| | But here’s the kicker: when I print out my packing list, I *really* don’t want
a quarter page of useless set numbers on every fig.
|
And you won't have these. Most modern figures appear in only one or two
sets and we won't add set numbers beyond three sets. I don't think this
change will affect your printing packing lists much at all (if any).
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. It's always good to hear additional
perspectives.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 01:21 | | Subject: | Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles.
|
A couple of people have suggested we begin at the beginning with standardized
titles for all minifigures. I agree and thank Lauren_Luke and mfav for mentioning
it. The necessity of standardized titles becomes apparent if you look at all
10,000+ minifigures together.
It's easy to suggest that we standardize minifigure titles, but it gets complex
when you actually start looking into it. My goal was to come up with standards
which could be used for any figure in the entire catalog. I spent most of today
on them and still am not sure that I'm satisfied with the results - these
rules are still not perfected and any instances where they need improvement (with
examples) would be appreciated.
Here are the guidelines I've come up with and am presenting for commentary
and modification. All of these sound complicated and they are - they'd be
intended more for the use of administrators, although they would be public in
the Help section. The result of these rules would be titles which are somewhat
less aesthetically pleasing (see the Arctic Batman example later in this post),
but which are consistent catalog-wide. They follow fairly well with what has
been done in the past:
Preliminary Section of Title:
The preliminary section of the title is not used for standard-sized minifigures.
This section describes the figure type (mini doll, microfigure, big figure,
Duplo figure, Technic figure, 4 Juniors figure, etc.). This section of the title
is not intended for the theme of a figure, does not include commas, and is separated
from the rest of the title with a dash.
To be truly consistent every figure should be titled the same way. Examples
are Figure, Technic and Figure, Belville, and Figure, Minifigure and Figure,
Microfigure and Figure, Statuette. However, it is possible to add too much to
titles and thus this approach was not used.
First Section of Title
The occupation or type of the figure goes here. These words would include firefighter,
pilot, race driver, doctor, knight, superhero, robot, droid, skeleton, zombie,
alien, etc. and should be used in identical ways for similar figures. Additional
occupations are listed in ascending alphabetical order up to a maximum of three
and are separated by a forward slash. Theme-specific words are used where appropriate.
For example, a Star Wars trooper is identified as Trooper, 212th Battalion or
Trooper, Clone, 41st Kashyyyk.
For figures which have no apparent occupation, the word "character" is used followed
by the theme without a comma. An example is Character Minecraft. For plain
figures with no torso pattern which also have no occupation, the term "plain
torso" is used, followed by the color. An example is Plain Torso, Red.
Second Section of Title:
This section includes the name of the figure if it has a name and is separated
from the first section by a comma. Additional names or name-type descriptors
are separated with a forward slash. For figures without a name, descriptions
are used. For multiple figures with the same name, the name is followed by a
comma and further descriptors separated by commas.
No two figures should have exactly the same title, but all descriptions should
be limited to the minimum necessary to differentiate one figure from another.
When describing a figure, characteristics should be listed in this order and
ended once the first differing characteristic is listed: torso assembly, hair/headgear,
body wear such as backpacks when applicable, head, and legs assembly. Titles
of individual items used for descriptors should be shortened where possible and
descriptor colors should be eliminated where possible. When descriptor colors
are required they should be placed after descriptors. The word "pattern" should
not be used in minifigure titles.
The sole exceptions for this section are Duplo figures which always include complete
descriptions in their titles.
Third Section of Title:
The set number in which the minifigure appears is included in round brackets
(parentheses) in ascending order and the -1 identifier is not used in the set
number unless it is greater than one. This information is only included for
figures which appear in three or fewer sets and combination/value packs are not
included. For figures which appear in more than three sets the term (Multiple
Sets) is used. The (Multiple Sets) identifier is necessary for consistency in
appearance and shows that the figure is in more than three sets. It also allows
members to easily identify figures for which this section of the title is missing.
Coda Section of Title:
This section is used for any additional information necessary and is separated
from the rest of the title with a dash. This information usually relates to
commerce, such as describing that a collectible minifigure entry is for only
the figure.
And that's everything. Let's see these rules in action: for each figure
below I've shown how titles would appear with these changes (several required
research to see if the colors included in the titles were actually necessary).
4 Juniors Figure - Pilot, Airplane (4619, 4620)
Primo Figure - Character Disney, Minnie Mouse (2592, 2594)
Race Driver, Stripes Red and Black, Classic Helmet Red (Multiple Sets)
[M=cty287]
Firefighter, Fire Suit with Utility Belt Brown, Fire Helmet, Airtanks (4427,
853378)
Supervillain, Bane, Black Suspenders (6860)
Superhero, Batman, Arctic (76000)
Mini Doll - Character Friends, Andrea, Halter Top, Skirt (3938)
Basketball Player, Basket Torso, Sunglasses (3390)
[M=Belvmale7a]
Belville Figure - King, Cross and Dots (5808)
Technic Figure - Construction Worker/Race Driver, Two Belts (Multiple Sets)
Scala Figure - Character Emma, Sweater (3200)
Soccer Player, Hair Brown, Arched Eyebrows and Stubble (3425) - White Team Player
2
Duplo Figure Brick - Base Red with Number 1 Race, Hair Brown, Head Yellow (9051,
9053)
I am going to apply these rules soon to the low-impact category 4 Juniors so
that we can see what they'll look like for an entire category. Beyond that,
I'll wait to see what kind of feedback everyone has before doing anything
further.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 02:49 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
snip
| |
Here are the guidelines I've come up with and am presenting for commentary
and modification. All of these sound complicated and they are - they'd be
intended more for the use of administrators, although they would be public in
the Help section. The result of these rules would be titles which are somewhat
less aesthetically pleasing (see the Arctic Batman example later in this post),
but which are consistent catalog-wide. They follow fairly well with what has
been done in the past:
Preliminary Section of Title:
The preliminary section of the title is not used for standard-sized minifigures.
This section describes the figure type (mini doll, microfigure, big figure,
Duplo figure, Technic figure, 4 Juniors figure, etc.). This section of the title
is not intended for the theme of a figure, does not include commas, and is separated
from the rest of the title with a dash.
To be truly consistent every figure should be titled the same way. Examples
are Figure, Technic and Figure, Belville, and Figure, Minifigure and Figure,
Microfigure and Figure, Statuette. However, it is possible to add too much to
titles and thus this approach was not used.
First Section of Title
The occupation or type of the figure goes here. These words would include firefighter,
pilot, race driver, doctor, knight, superhero, robot, droid, skeleton, zombie,
alien, etc. and should be used in identical ways for similar figures. Additional
occupations are listed in ascending alphabetical order up to a maximum of three
and are separated by a forward slash. Theme-specific words are used where appropriate.
For example, a Star Wars trooper is identified as Trooper, 212th Battalion or
Trooper, Clone, 41st Kashyyyk.
For figures which have no apparent occupation, the word "character" is used followed
by the theme without a comma. An example is Character Minecraft. For plain
figures with no torso pattern which also have no occupation, the term "plain
torso" is used, followed by the color. An example is Plain Torso, Red.
Second Section of Title:
This section includes the name of the figure if it has a name and is separated
from the first section by a comma. Additional names or name-type descriptors
are separated with a forward slash. For figures without a name, descriptions
are used. For multiple figures with the same name, the name is followed by a
comma and further descriptors separated by commas.
No two figures should have exactly the same title, but all descriptions should
be limited to the minimum necessary to differentiate one figure from another.
When describing a figure, characteristics should be listed in this order and
ended once the first differing characteristic is listed: torso assembly, hair/headgear,
body wear such as backpacks when applicable, head, and legs assembly. Titles
of individual items used for descriptors should be shortened where possible and
descriptor colors should be eliminated where possible. When descriptor colors
are required they should be placed after descriptors. The word "pattern" should
not be used in minifigure titles.
The sole exceptions for this section are Duplo figures which always include complete
descriptions in their titles.
Third Section of Title:
The set number in which the minifigure appears is included in round brackets
(parentheses) in ascending order and the -1 identifier is not used in the set
number unless it is greater than one. This information is only included for
figures which appear in three or fewer sets and combination/value packs are not
included. For figures which appear in more than three sets the term (Multiple
Sets) is used. The (Multiple Sets) identifier is necessary for consistency in
appearance and shows that the figure is in more than three sets. It also allows
members to easily identify figures for which this section of the title is missing.
Coda Section of Title:
This section is used for any additional information necessary and is separated
from the rest of the title with a dash. This information usually relates to
commerce, such as describing that a collectible minifigure entry is for only
the figure.
And that's everything. Let's see these rules in action: for each figure
below I've shown how titles would appear with these changes (several required
research to see if the colors included in the titles were actually necessary).
|
snip
I find it easier to apply rather than discuss in the air as it were, so following
on from the above and using a few of the catalog items I've submitted, let
me see if I can get these correct from the word go. IMO, this would make it easy
to see where problems can be caused and also how easy it is to add to the catalog,
as well as for catmins when you start renaming. Maybe a sandbox forum topic for
this should be used, so these can be tested efficiently and in one place?
Anyway:
would become: Character CUUSOO, Grandmother (21315)
would become: Microfigure - Character CUUSOO, Jack (21315)
would become: Plain Torso, Red (Gear 81087)
would become: Mini Doll - Character Friends, Mia, Dark Azure Plaid Shirt, Dark
Purple Shorts, (10749, 41345)
would become: Snowman, 2 x 2 Curved Top Brick as Legs (60201)
A few problems I had:
Gear numbers are not set numbers, so the set number should be the standard and
gear items should be stated as such.
The snowman is strictly not a minifig, but I do not think that something like
is Parts Figures or Figure from Parts should be used, in this case, the identifier
should be the part that does not conform to it being a standard Figure.
I'll work through a few more later, but for the time being, is this moving
in the right direction?
Thank you for providing the detailed rules as you envisage them, IMO this approach
will make things easier to add and identify.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 03:44 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | I find it easier to apply rather than discuss in the air as it were, so following
on from the above and using a few of the catalog items I've submitted, let
me see if I can get these correct from the word go.
|
Great, thanks for testing these out! The interpretation of others will allow
me to see where explanatory flaws lie.
| | Maybe a sandbox forum topic for
this should be used, so these can be tested efficiently and in one place?
|
We're not really changing anything yet except 4 Juniors, so I don't think
there's a need for anyone to post a huge number of examples and no need for
anything separate.
| |
would become: Character CUUSOO, Grandmother (21315)
|
Seeing it in print makes me realize that there's already a problem with the
rules. In this case this figure is a grandmother so we'd want to indicate
that first in the title. Yet her name is also Grandmother. So properly formatted
according to the rules, the title should look like this:
Grandmother, Grandmother (21315)
Remember that we want to list the occupation/type first in the title. This groups
similar figures like grandmothers together and there are six of them in the catalog.
When an occupation exists, the "Character" portion of the title isn't necessary
and what follows is any official figure name or any necessary descriptors.
This would be an easy update: if the occupation/type exactly matches the figure
name, then the occupation/type would be excluded from the title. This change
would make the current title completely in compliance with the rules. Thanks
for finding this one.
| |
would become: Microfigure - Character CUUSOO, Jack (21315)
|
Okay, so for this one microfigures already exist in the catalog. Search "microfigure"
and you can see them. Here we would use statuette to describe the figure size/type.
Also, CUUSOO was only two sets. Everything after was Ideas. So here I'd
go with:
Statuette - Character Ideas, Jack (21315)
| |
would become: Plain Torso, Red (Gear 81087)
|
This one is perfect except for the word Gear. Russell taught me a little trick
to thinking about catalog items: since they all have different item numbers,
we don't really need to worry about whether they're sets or gear. Also,
if an item moves from one to the other, then we'd have to go back and change
figure titles.
| |
would become: Mini Doll - Character Friends, Mia, Dark Azure Plaid Shirt, Dark
Purple Shorts, (10749, 41345)
|
When we go through every minifigure title in the catalog we will find errors.
Here's an example of an error: the following figure has exactly the same
top as the figure you mention, but it is incorrectly described as a different
color in the title:
So for this incarnation of Mia, we would cut the color from the top altogether.
It is unnecessary because the top only comes in one color. We would go in order
through the figure characteristics until we found the difference and remember
that we're only looking for differences in otherwise identical figures.
For this figure the title would be:
Mini Doll - Character Friends, Mia, Plaid Shirt, Ponytail, Eyes Green and Freckles,
Shorts (10749, 41345)
The part about descriptors could be modified to say that instead of going in
order we would only identify any difference after the torso, I suppose, and that
all affected figures would get the same title treatment up to the difference.
I worded it the way I did because of the wide variety of similar Town figures,
but we could reexamine that approach. It seems silly for one figure to have
all that information and the other to have nothing - it will result in long titles
and short titles for otherwise similar figures and will look odd.
| |
would become: Snowman, 2 x 2 Curved Top Brick as Legs (60201)
|
Here we would only need the additional descriptors in the title if other snowmen
existed (and they do). I would like to keep numbers like 2 x 2 out of titles
when possible because they aren't necessary and skew results when viewing
by title (which is, I believe, the default view). I should have mentioned that
in the guidelines as well. So I'd go more with:
Snowman, Brick Curved Top as Legs (60201)
| | A few problems I had:
Gear numbers are not set numbers, so the set number should be the standard and
gear items should be stated as such.
|
I've addressed that above. We can safely ignore adding Gear or Set to the
title.
| | The snowman is strictly not a minifig, but I do not think that something like
is Parts Figures or Figure from Parts should be used, in this case, the identifier
should be the part that does not conform to it being a standard Figure.
|
As you look through minifigures you will find many examples of non-minifigure
parts used in figures. I think just briefly describing the part would be fine
and I think I need o do some more work on the part in the rules about descriptors.
It would probably be best to go straight to the most significant difference
and this approach is already used for numerous figures.
| | I'll work through a few more later, but for the time being, is this moving
in the right direction?
|
Yep, you did fine and you identified some problems with the guidelines. Thank
you. I am doing the 4 Juniors figures strictly by the rules as we speak and
we can identify further problems once we see them all together in a group.
This time challenge yourself by finding some minifigures which really strain
the rules and let's see how well they work under stress.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 03:54 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | On a more serious note, this project actually consists of standardizing
whether set numbers appear in minifigure titles.
|
A couple of people have suggested we begin at the beginning with standardized
titles for all minifigures. I agree and thank Lauren_Luke and mfav for mentioning
it. The necessity of standardized titles becomes apparent if you look at all
10,000+ minifigures together.
It's easy to suggest that we standardize minifigure titles, but it gets complex
when you actually start looking into it. My goal was to come up with standards
which could be used for any figure in the entire catalog. I spent most of today
on them and still am not sure that I'm satisfied with the results - these
rules are still not perfected and any instances where they need improvement (with
examples) would be appreciated.
Here are the guidelines I've come up with and am presenting for commentary
and modification. All of these sound complicated and they are - they'd be
intended more for the use of administrators, although they would be public in
the Help section. The result of these rules would be titles which are somewhat
less aesthetically pleasing (see the Arctic Batman example later in this post),
but which are consistent catalog-wide. They follow fairly well with what has
been done in the past:
Preliminary Section of Title:
The preliminary section of the title is not used for standard-sized minifigures.
This section describes the figure type (mini doll, microfigure, big figure,
Duplo figure, Technic figure, 4 Juniors figure, etc.). This section of the title
is not intended for the theme of a figure, does not include commas, and is separated
from the rest of the title with a dash.
To be truly consistent every figure should be titled the same way. Examples
are Figure, Technic and Figure, Belville, and Figure, Minifigure and Figure,
Microfigure and Figure, Statuette. However, it is possible to add too much to
titles and thus this approach was not used.
First Section of Title
The occupation or type of the figure goes here. These words would include firefighter,
pilot, race driver, doctor, knight, superhero, robot, droid, skeleton, zombie,
alien, etc. and should be used in identical ways for similar figures. Additional
occupations are listed in ascending alphabetical order up to a maximum of three
and are separated by a forward slash. Theme-specific words are used where appropriate.
For example, a Star Wars trooper is identified as Trooper, 212th Battalion or
Trooper, Clone, 41st Kashyyyk.
For figures which have no apparent occupation, the word "character" is used followed
by the theme without a comma. An example is Character Minecraft. For plain
figures with no torso pattern which also have no occupation, the term "plain
torso" is used, followed by the color. An example is Plain Torso, Red.
Second Section of Title:
This section includes the name of the figure if it has a name and is separated
from the first section by a comma. Additional names or name-type descriptors
are separated with a forward slash. For figures without a name, descriptions
are used. For multiple figures with the same name, the name is followed by a
comma and further descriptors separated by commas.
No two figures should have exactly the same title, but all descriptions should
be limited to the minimum necessary to differentiate one figure from another.
When describing a figure, characteristics should be listed in this order and
ended once the first differing characteristic is listed: torso assembly, hair/headgear,
body wear such as backpacks when applicable, head, and legs assembly. Titles
of individual items used for descriptors should be shortened where possible and
descriptor colors should be eliminated where possible. When descriptor colors
are required they should be placed after descriptors. The word "pattern" should
not be used in minifigure titles.
The sole exceptions for this section are Duplo figures which always include complete
descriptions in their titles.
Third Section of Title:
The set number in which the minifigure appears is included in round brackets
(parentheses) in ascending order and the -1 identifier is not used in the set
number unless it is greater than one. This information is only included for
figures which appear in three or fewer sets and combination/value packs are not
included. For figures which appear in more than three sets the term (Multiple
Sets) is used. The (Multiple Sets) identifier is necessary for consistency in
appearance and shows that the figure is in more than three sets. It also allows
members to easily identify figures for which this section of the title is missing.
Coda Section of Title:
This section is used for any additional information necessary and is separated
from the rest of the title with a dash. This information usually relates to
commerce, such as describing that a collectible minifigure entry is for only
the figure.
And that's everything. Let's see these rules in action: for each figure
below I've shown how titles would appear with these changes (several required
research to see if the colors included in the titles were actually necessary).
|
I'm against it and I don't like it. It complicate too much in nicley
named in my opinon Star Wars minifigs, many of them have their on specific names
which function quite well, why change them?
[m=sw004]
Dart Vader is Darth vader adding something like supervillain or Dark Lord of
Sith (which suit better in this case is completly unnecessary
| | For example, a Star Wars trooper is identified as Trooper, 212th Battalion or
Trooper, Clone, 41st Kashyyyk.
|
No this is Clone Trooper not Trooper, Clone
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Clone_trooper
Proper two-segment name
Battle Droid not Droid, Battle
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_droid
Atromech Droid not Droid, Astromech
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Astromech_droid
Such constructed names are also on official Lego boxes and I would like to see
that in Licence characters main name should be the same as on Lego box, then
descripton could be added to differate those with the same name.
We have also in Star Wars name additional names for characters which Lego did
not identyfied but comes from official sources or can easly identifable from
fig appearence comparing with wooipedia for example or other SW encyclopedia
like in this example
[m=sw804]
So name of character is in bracket because Lego never identify this minifig as
being Corporal Rostok but it can easy be compare with external movie sources
and it is him https://i.pinimg.com/originals/01/4d/94/014d94e4ae1884ca7bea0aaeaab72c4a.jpg
So for Star Wars constructtion of names should be diffrent approach, maybe all
licenced ones could have different system (but also consistent) then non licenced
ones Mostly (not old ones only) Licenced ones have their own names on the boxes,
City minifigs for examples aren't named on boxes (so in this case your ruules
can be apply, here I could agree)
Maybe something like this
Name from official Lego box, specific description if the name from box is the
same, (name of character if not identify by Lego) (set nuber if it appear only
in one set)
So please don't meess in licence minifigs
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 04:30 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| |
So for Star Wars constructtion of names should be diffrent approach, maybe all
licenced ones could have different system (but also consistent) then non licenced
ones Mostly (not old ones only) Licenced ones have their own names on the boxes,
City minifigs for examples aren't named on boxes (so in this case your ruules
can be apply, here I could agree)
Maybe something like this
Name from official Lego box, specific description if the name from box is the
same, (name of character if not identify by Lego) (set nuber if it appear only
in one set)
So please don't meess in licence minifigs
|
I would really like Robert's approach such as to include at least the occupation.
For MOC-building, I would search for a term as 'farmer' whether this
may be a themed character named Bob or Vader or Mickey I would not care.
Whether listed as 'Trooper, clone' (consistent but incorrect) or 'Clone
trooper' (correct as it is a name) should not bother me either as it does
not matter for searching.
Several times I spent hours trying to find a minifig (or bodypart) by description
only to find out that it was named something simple as 'Ron' without
any further info making it hard to find if you don't know the character by
theme. So please do include the profession (or something like 'grandmother'
and major characteristics.
Hans-Peter
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 04:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | I would really like Robert's approach such as to include at least the occupation.
For MOC-building, I would search for a term as 'farmer' whether this
may be a themed character named Bob or Vader or Mickey I would not care.
|
So you like see this
[m=sw432] as
Farmer, Luke Skywalker
This is his occupation, this is what he was doing on Tatooine
I don't Like it after change according to this rule
Luke Skywalker (Tatooine, Smiling)
I like this better, there is more similar naming based of his outfits used on
what planets, places.
Luke Skywalker, Tatooine sw432
Luke Skywalker, Hoth sw089
Luke Skywalker, Dagobah sw106
Luke Skywalker, Cloud City sw103
Luke Skywalker, Endor sw018
(only some examples here)
Yes now it is also inconsistent still becose we have also
Luke Skywalker, Jedi Knight sw207
Luke Skywalker, Pilot sw019
There is also
Luke Skywalker, Old sw887
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 05:05 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | So you like see this
[m=sw432] as
Farmer, Luke Skywalker
This is his occupation, this is what he was doing on Tatooine
I don't Like it after change according to this rule
|
For this we'd probably do something like:
Hero, Luke Skywalker, Additional Descriptors as Necessary (Set Number)
And:
Villain, Darth Vader, Additional Descriptors as Necessary (Set Number)
We can definitely discuss those terms, though. They don't necessarily have
to be any one specific thing like occupation. Or, we could simply go with this
if you preferred (and maybe this would be a better approach anyway):
Character Star Wars, Luke Skywalker, Additional Descriptors as Necessary (Set
Number)
In the past specific themes appear to have been titled independently of the whole,
at least in some cases, and that's what catalog-wide figure title standardization
would correct. I'm thinking in terms of all 10,000 figures and not just
one theme.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 05:43 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Character Star Wars, Luke Skywalker, Additional Descriptors as Necessary (Set
Number)
|
Have to be there fill Star Wars? There is abbreviation used SW very very comon
insted of full "Star Wars". Luke at the parts:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?pg=3&q=SW&catLike=W&itemBrand=1000
then the name would be shorter.
But is it really necessarily here in Star wars, all are in Star wars category
and besides two all have sw in number, so it would be another reapeat of Star
Wars or sw.
BTW these exceptions
[m=30564]
[m=x162]
may I please you to consider fianlly changing their numbers to sw... as all others
Sw minifigs have.
There were many votes do do it but it always being dicarded
Now we heave here inconsistency after moving to minifig section this one
[m=sw978]
Following these above this one should also have part number left because it has
it own part number: 87561
Now if it is sw978 these two with parts number should be changed to sw... it
the same case
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 05:57 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | may I please you to consider fianlly changing their numbers to sw... as all others
Sw minifigs have.
|
Taking a hard look at item numbers is another huge project which is on my distant
radar. Item numbers aren't changed very often because it can have negative
effects in a number of ways, but I think it's a little foolish to still be
using item numbers from other websites.
This is a project where we will have to tread carefully, but it is something
which needs to be done.
| | Following these above this one should also have part number left because it has
it own part number: 87561
Now if it is sw978 these two with parts number should be changed to sw... it
the same case
|
I left the part number in place for Han Solo in Carbonite, but changed it to
an alternate item number. The word didn't crumble or anything, so it may
not hurt to give these two figures SW numbers and move the existing numbers to
additional item numbers.
Do this for me, please. Submit a separate forum catalog request so that I can
have it handy and reference it when asking higher up.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 08:48 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | For this we'd probably do something like:
Hero, Luke Skywalker, Additional Descriptors as Necessary (Set Number)
|
Wouldn't it be okay to leave a piece out when it genuinely doesn't make
sense? Just say "Luke Skywalker, Tatooine Outfit (Set-1)" Unless a parsing
program is going to be running through the listings.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 04:39 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I'm against it and I don't like it.
|
I almost get the sense that you simply don't care for it.
But you're definitely right: I got my examples wrong.
| | It complicate too much in nicley
named in my opinon Star Wars minifigs, many of them have their on specific names
which function quite well, why change them?
|
Yes, this was my own problem, too. It reduces the aesthetic appeal of some titles
and I'm with you - I don't like it either.
But in Star Wars the droids, for example, are scattered everywhere and some of
them won't even appear when you search for droid:
[M=sw441]
| | Darth Vader is Darth vader adding something like supervillain or Dark Lord of
Sith (which suit better in this case is completly unnecessary
|
Yes, it is unnecessary for this figure. The only thing it would be necessary
for is across-the-board standardization. You mention later in your post that
we should not mess with licensed lines, but I'm unsure why these figures
deserve special treatment that other figures are denied.
Star Wars figure titles are, generally speaking, usually just the figure name,
sometimes with a set number and sometimes not. Literally the only things I'm
suggesting adding to that are type classifications at the beginning and set numbers
where they don't already exist.
| | No this is Clone Trooper not Trooper, Clone
|
You're right. Please consider these titles and see if you would consider
them acceptable:
[M=sw522]
Trooper, 212th Battalion Trooper (75036)
[M=sw374]
Trooper, Death Star Trooper (9492)
[M=sw126]
Trooper, Clone Trooper Episode Three (7261, 7655)
As a side note, why are we using Ep.3 in that title? Ep. is a poor substitute
for Episode and the number 3 is stripped from searches anyway.
So hopefully these examples will demonstrate that almost nothing would change
with Star Wars titles and the change would be an improvement in that it would
group similar figures together. I do apologize for the misleading examples I
gave.
By the way, here are some Star Wars examples of poor titling which need to be
standardized. How does adding non-searchable numbers like 1, 2, and 3 at the
end give anyone an idea which figures these are? Essentially these figures have
identical titles and I, not being very familiar with Star Wars, would have to
examine the photos closely to find the differences. There are more besides just
these, too.
[M=sw678]
[M=sw708]
[M=sw734]
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 05:17 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | But in Star Wars the droids, for example, are scattered everywhere and some of
them won't even appear when you search for droid:
[M=sw441]
|
You can add here "Destroyer droid" as additional name without a problem
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Droideka
| | Star Wars figure titles are, generally speaking, usually just the figure name,
sometimes with a set number and sometimes not. Literally the only things I'm
suggesting adding to that are type classifications at the beginning and set numbers
where they don't already exist.
|
I agree about set numbers
| | You're right. Please consider these titles and see if you would consider
them acceptable:
[M=sw522]
Trooper, 212th Battalion Trooper (75036)
|
maybe differentiate normal Imperial Trooper from Clone Troopers
I think in Star wars consistently we can add more types of Troopers to the names
Rebel Troopers, Imperial Troopers, Clone Troopers etc. I will look at it in the
evening.
So this one could better be like this
Clone Trooper, 212th Battalion Trooper (75036)
because this is typical Clone Trooper
| |
[M=sw374]
Trooper, Death Star Trooper (9492)
|
As I wrote above maybe
Imperial Trooper, Death Star Trooper (9492)
but I think this name is also as regular name in some
[m=sw208]
| |
[M=sw126]
Trooper, Clone Trooper Episode Three (7261, 7655)
|
I would leave only
Clone Trooper Episode Three (7261, 7655)
his occupation is being Clone Troper
| |
As a side note, why are we using Ep.3 in that title? Ep. is a poor substitute
for Episode and the number 3 is stripped from searches anyway.
|
I don't know. I agree here it should be "Episode" full not abbrevaition
| |
So hopefully these examples will demonstrate that almost nothing would change
with Star Wars titles and the change would be an improvement in that it would
group similar figures together. I do apologize for the misleading examples I
gave.
By the way, here are some Star Wars examples of poor titling which need to be
standardized. How does adding non-searchable numbers like 1, 2, and 3 at the
end give anyone an idea which figures these are? Essentially these figures have
identical titles and I, not being very familiar with Star Wars, would have to
examine the photos closely to find the differences. There are more besides just
these, too.
[M=sw678]
[M=sw708]
[M=sw734]
|
I will look at them later.
So I can help you with Star Wars category
I will later also look what else can be made more consistent in there.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 05:31 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I would leave only
Clone Trooper Episode Three (7261, 7655)
his occupation is being Clone Trooper
|
Right, but adding trooper at the beginning of all troopers will group them all
together and fit in with the larger plan for all minifigures. As I said, this
initial identifier doesn't have to be an occupation. It can be a type of
theme-specific minifigure like trooper or droid.
As for destroyer droid, I don't think we need to be that specific (although
we certainly could, I suppose). "Destroyer droid" is an identifier which could
only be applied to a few figures, while "droid" is more inclusive. But I'm
always open to reconsidering anything.
| | So I can help you with Star Wars category
|
I would, of course, appreciate it.
| | I will later also look what else can be made more consistent in there.
|
Once we get the final rules agreed upon and in place, they should take care of
any inconsistencies on their own if applied correctly to all figures. The Star
Wars category is fairly well titled as a whole and the only changes in many cases
would be adding occupation or type identifiers at the beginning of the titles
and set numbers to the ends.
If you find any figures for which this approach would cause problems, please
let me know. And be aware that we're not making any changes right now except
to 4 Juniors figures.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 11:25 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | As for destroyer droid, I don't think we need to be that specific (although
we certainly could, I suppose). "Destroyer droid" is an identifier which could
only be applied to a few figures, while "droid" is more inclusive. But I'm
always open to reconsidering anything.
|
Just notice this inconsistency when digging througt SW minifigs to delete set
numbers
Destroyer Droid and Droideka both names are used in catalog, these are the same
droids, but both names never occur in any entry, some are named Destroyer Droids
some only Droideka. So when you search by one world you never find them all
[m=sw063]
[m=sw164]
[m=sw348]
[m=sw441]
[m=sw441a]
[m=sw447]
[m=sw642]
[m=sw642s]
[m=sw967]
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 12:22 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The precedent started long ago of adding these droids as "minifigs" was very
misguided in my opinion and should not have occurred. Now that we have a Special
Assemblies section, I would like to see all of these moved there in the future
and declassified as "minifigs". However, that is a topic for another day.
Cheers,
Randy
In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | As for destroyer droid, I don't think we need to be that specific (although
we certainly could, I suppose). "Destroyer droid" is an identifier which could
only be applied to a few figures, while "droid" is more inclusive. But I'm
always open to reconsidering anything.
|
Just notice this inconsistency when digging througt SW minifigs to delete set
numbers
Destroyer Droid and Droideka both names are used in catalog, these are the same
droids, but both names never occur in any entry, some are named Destroyer Droids
some only Droideka. So when you search by one world you never find them all
[m=sw063]
[m=sw164]
[m=sw348]
[m=sw441]
[m=sw441a]
[m=sw447]
[m=sw642]
[m=sw642s]
[m=sw967]
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 11:09 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | [a lot of stuff that may cause a huge ruckus]
|
I think this is a good start to the issues that the catalog faces when it comes
to figures. In essence, barring separate database fields that store additional
information (the "tag" system), these suggestions attempt to create that system
within the figure title. It isn't pretty to look at in most cases, but living
and working within the current system that mostly ignores development of the
database necessitates it.
I also think that these suggestions would go a long way toward helping people
find other figures that they would otherwise not know about. Not only is this
a good thing for builders and collectors, but it could (and potentially would)
lead to more sales across all of BrickLink.
I will be monitoring this thread with interest, but I am not going to include
too much in the way of influence unless I strongly object to something. I would
much rather see average users chiming in on this rather than power users like
myself.
And that leads me to my final comments. I would not start making changes too
quickly. Please give this suggestion some time to breath and marinate. If you
want more opinions, you need to give more people the time to respond instead
of rushing into these *huge* projects.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think it's a good start; your presentation isn't sufficiently granular
though. I break it down here.
http://v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/titling.html
Included comments adjacent the visualization I think will be easier to comprehend
than splitting comments here and visualization elsewhere.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 13:37 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I think it's a good start; your presentation isn't sufficiently granular
though. I break it down here.
http://v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/titling.html
Included comments adjacent the visualization I think will be easier to comprehend
than splitting comments here and visualization elsewhere.
|
Liked many things in you revision, namely point 4.2 and 4.3
Points 4.1 4.4 and 4.5 you make good points.
Point 5. I don't think the Occurence field is necessary. StormChaser solution
is the best and very clean: up to 3 sets we have the numbers inside brackets,
more than 3 and it will read (multiple sets). That's near perfection in my
book.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Point 5. I don't think the Occurence field is necessary. StormChaser solution
is the best and very clean: up to 3 sets we have the numbers inside brackets,
more than 3 and it will read (multiple sets). That's near perfection in my
book.
|
I don't think either Occurrence or Sets field is necessary. That's different
than people wanting them.
The data is of two different types. The numbers are set numbers. Saying how many
sets something occurs in is a different type of data.
Using one field to contain both Sets and Occurrence, while human-comprehensible,
potentially leads to logic problems from a database standpoint. Not that it matters
now, but in the spirit of planning for the future, it will solve problems/eliminate
work down the line.
I'm not presenting the data in the spirit of "this is the way I think it
should be", I'm presenting the data in the spirit of "you should be aware
of these issues and discuss them". Because while people may want what they want,
they don't necessarily understand what it entails to get to that point, nor
what it means to subsequent events.
With Stormchaser's proposed, If somebody chooses to search for "multiple
sets" it yields incomplete information as a figure existing in two sets technically
exists in "multiple sets", and there's no corresponding way to search for
a figure that occurs in "one set" or "two sets".
I'm just noting that there's a mix of apples and oranges in this column.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 14:03 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm just noting that there's a mix of apples and oranges in this column.
|
Right, and I did think of that and disliked it. I have most of the 4 Juniors
sets done now according to the guidelines:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=M&catString=516&itemBrand=1000
Honestly, when I see all those set numbers together on one page I don't much
care for the idea of including them at all. For those of you who want set numbers
added to the titles, do you like the way they look?
We could go with including them for one set only and use (Multiple Sets) after
that. This would fix the issue mfav pointed out. But, if I were the only person
deciding, I'd just leave them off completely except for figures which hadn't
yet been included in an inventory. They just look messy to me.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm just noting that there's a mix of apples and oranges in this column.
|
Right, and I did think of that and disliked it. I have most of the 4 Juniors
sets done now according to the guidelines:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=M&catString=516&itemBrand=1000
Honestly, when I see all those set numbers together on one page I don't much
care for the idea of including them at all. For those of you who want set numbers
added to the titles, do you like the way they look?
We could go with including them for one set only and use (Multiple Sets) after
that. This would fix the issue mfav pointed out. But, if I were the only person
deciding, I'd just leave them off completely except for figures which hadn't
yet been included in an inventory. They just look messy to me.
|
I like it. Don't look messy at all to me.
Maybe instead of (Multiple Sets) I'd suggest (3+ sets) to address mfav good
point that multiple is more than 1.
Alternatively anything more than 1 set could be (Multiple Sets) I stade of the
sets numbers indeed. Seems the majority of opinions here anyway.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 15:28 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm just noting that there's a mix of apples and oranges in this column.
|
Right, and I did think of that and disliked it. I have most of the 4 Juniors
sets done now according to the guidelines:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=M&catString=516&itemBrand=1000
Honestly, when I see all those set numbers together on one page I don't much
care for the idea of including them at all. For those of you who want set numbers
added to the titles, do you like the way they look?
We could go with including them for one set only and use (Multiple Sets) after
that. This would fix the issue mfav pointed out. But, if I were the only person
deciding, I'd just leave them off completely except for figures which hadn't
yet been included in an inventory. They just look messy to me.
|
I'm honestly ambivalent about including the set numbers. On the one hand
I'd like a feature of the catalog to easily point out something unique (such
as a figure occurring only in 1 set). On the other hand, I have got issues with
all those numbers - they do look messy (and you've not done a figure that
is included in a book with the ISBN number as item number - 13 digits or three
books will have 39 digits!!). Also, how many inventory submitters are going to
remember to put those numbers in ascending order for name changes? Conversely,
how many submitters are going to remember to put a name change through for the
removal of the set number once the set has been inventoried? Or worse still,
which numbers do you order on: sets, gear or books, i e do you have a naming
convention that set numbers are first in line, ascending, then gear, then books?
So lets go with the work involved - which is easier: name changes for ascending
set numbers if you stick with three max (and I personally like the idea of 3+
sets in stead of multiple sets proposed in the other reply to this), or removing
set numbers from figures names once the inventory comes through? That is for
catmins to decide, as I said previously, if a person can remember to actually
do the name change request, it is not a huge extra effort as part of an inventory
submission to do so. Note that I'm not going with the workload to re-name
most if not all of the figures in the catalog, this will have to be done anyway
so including set numbers is just tacked on to that.
Furthermore, I've tested the searches on some of those 4 Juniors using just
the set numbers, and they do come up correctly as figures in the search results,
so from that perspective it works. But, and this is problematic, under what instance
would you search for a figure using the set number? If you have the figure or
a part of it, and do not know the set, you cannot do the search on that basis.
If you know the set number, then you can find the figure in its inventory. So
it would seem that I am back to my first argument - nice to have, and not necessarily
practical or user friendly in terms of look and feel (circular logic ). If the
workload involved for the name changes referred to above is the same, then I
would just go for leaving the set numbers off altogether unless a set has not
been inventoried as yet and rather forgo the nice to have for a practical look
and feel.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 18:43 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm just noting that there's a mix of apples and oranges in this column.
|
Right, and I did think of that and disliked it. I have most of the 4 Juniors
sets done now according to the guidelines:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=M&catString=516&itemBrand=1000
Honestly, when I see all those set numbers together on one page I don't much
care for the idea of including them at all. For those of you who want set numbers
added to the titles, do you like the way they look?
We could go with including them for one set only and use (Multiple Sets) after
that. This would fix the issue mfav pointed out. But, if I were the only person
deciding, I'd just leave them off completely except for figures which hadn't
yet been included in an inventory. They just look messy to me.
|
I'm honestly ambivalent about including the set numbers. On the one hand
I'd like a feature of the catalog to easily point out something unique (such
as a figure occurring only in 1 set). On the other hand, I have got issues with
all those numbers - they do look messy (and you've not done a figure that
is included in a book with the ISBN number as item number - 13 digits or three
books will have 39 digits!!). Also, how many inventory submitters are going to
remember to put those numbers in ascending order for name changes? Conversely,
how many submitters are going to remember to put a name change through for the
removal of the set number once the set has been inventoried? Or worse still,
which numbers do you order on: sets, gear or books, i e do you have a naming
convention that set numbers are first in line, ascending, then gear, then books?
So lets go with the work involved - which is easier: name changes for ascending
set numbers if you stick with three max (and I personally like the idea of 3+
sets in stead of multiple sets proposed in the other reply to this), or removing
set numbers from figures names once the inventory comes through? That is for
catmins to decide, as I said previously, if a person can remember to actually
do the name change request, it is not a huge extra effort as part of an inventory
submission to do so. Note that I'm not going with the workload to re-name
most if not all of the figures in the catalog, this will have to be done anyway
so including set numbers is just tacked on to that.
Furthermore, I've tested the searches on some of those 4 Juniors using just
the set numbers, and they do come up correctly as figures in the search results,
so from that perspective it works. But, and this is problematic, under what instance
would you search for a figure using the set number? If you have the figure or
a part of it, and do not know the set, you cannot do the search on that basis.
If you know the set number, then you can find the figure in its inventory. So
it would seem that I am back to my first argument - nice to have, and not necessarily
practical or user friendly in terms of look and feel (circular logic). If the
workload involved for the name changes referred to above is the same, then I
would just go for leaving the set numbers off altogether unless a set has not
been inventoried as yet and rather forgo the nice to have for a practical look
and feel.
|
My personal thoughts have gone back and forth on set numbers in the minifig description.
First I was against it, then after reading a lot of the feedback here, I had
changed my mind and thought it was a good idea. But now, after seeing it in practice,
it really clutters up and complicates things unnecessarily.
Finding which set a minifig is in takes 2 extra clicks, so it's really not
a lot of additional effort. In theory if we add the set number into the minifig
name, you could see all the minifigs in a set by just searching the set name.
Except if a minifig appears in more than 3 sets, the set number gets removed
and would no longer show up in the search of the set number. In the situation
where a set has a lot of minifigs, you might see all, most, some, or none
of the minifigs show up, depending on how often the minifigs appear elsewhere.
This seems like it would be more confusing than helpful.
Josh
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 14:35 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
Thank you very much for making a chart. This kind of in-depth, serious analysis
is greatly appreciated. I haven't had time to look it over completely, but
I wanted to explain the first title section in more detail.
The Minifigs section of the catalog is an item type wherein we group most sizes
and types of figure that TLG has ever made with the exception of a few which
we consider parts:
and those we consider gear:
and those we don't include at all:
* | | 7920-1 (Inv) McDonald's Sports Set Number 5 - Blue Hockey Player #4 polybag
3 Parts, 1 Minifigure, 2004
Sets: Sports: Hockey |
Item types are different than categories and we only have one item type (Minifigs)
to use for a wide variety of figures of differing sizes and types. Some of these
we have given descriptive names (statuette, big figure, microfigure, etc.).
Others we have not (Technic figure, Duplo figure, 4 Juniors figure). The first
part of the title is intended to indicate the type of figure, not the theme (although
theme names are used).
Yes, it is inconsistent. However, the alternative is to come up with non-themed
names to describe each size/type of figure. And yes, as I explained in the original
posting, technically this section should be included for all figures and it should
be organized like this:
Figure, Minifigure
Figure, Technic
Figure, Statuette
Figure, Microfigure
Figure, Big
Figure, Primo
Figure, Duplo Brick
Figure, Duplo, Early Brick
Figure, Duplo, Doll
Figure, Duplo LEGO Ville
Figure, Mini Doll
Figure, Belville
Figure, 4 Juniors
Figure, Quatro
Figure, Fabuland
And so on. The word "figure" is necessary to avoid the appearance that these
are just themes. Since we're genuinely stuck with throwing all figures into
one place, I tried to make the best of it. We should retitle that item type
Figures instead of Minifigs and I will ask if this can be done
(I can't change item types like Sets, Books, Catalogs, etc.).
As for the different sizes and giving every one of those different sizes/types
of figures its own name instead of a theme name, I despair.
BTW, don't take my thoughts on figure titles as any sort of gospel. It's
only a starting point for a discussion. If you came up with your own titling
system independently, then what would it look like?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 17:56 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | speshy | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 23:15 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think each fig should, at the very least, include in its title the exact phrasing
that is given it on the LEGO S@H website (English), where possible. I'm
not sure if that's done now as a standard now on BL, but S@H is a good place
to start for standardization. Added details, such as cowl types, torso descriptions,
printing distinctions, etc. are fine.
Random example:
On the website you can see the following in the set description:
Includes 13 LEGO® minifigures: a hotel bellhop, hotel customer, bus driver, ice
cream attendant, skateboarder, street musician, city traffic cop, 2 construction
workers, tourist, IT businessperson, kiosk attendant and a museum caveman.
The minifigure listings on BL should include those words in their respective
titles. This way, if someone is looking for the bus driver, they can type "Bus
driver" and it will show up. If the word order gets complicated (..."Driver,
Bus"...), it may not show up in an otherwise no-brainer search.
K
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 03:02 | | Subject: | Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thank you all for caring enough to provide the fascinating discussion and for
listening as I tried to formulate my own thoughts on figure titles with that
rather convoluted set of rules which I posted.
Some of you were for set numbers and some were against. The only thing we really
all agreed on was that set/book/gear numbers should be in figure titles until
that figure is added to an inventory.
The only point that I haven't yet addressed (I think) is the mention that
Brickset uses item numbers in the titles to link back here. I've checked
this for some figures without set numbers in the titles and Brickset still
links back to us on those figures, so I don't think that would be a valid
reason for keeping item numbers.
So here's what I've done:
Added Figure Title Standardization to the Catalog Roadmap
We absolutely need to standardize figure titles catalog-wide and we will. However,
this particular project was only to decide if we should have set numbers in titles
and I've decided on that. The members who said that we should start at the
beginning with figure titles are right - and in an ideal world we would. For
now, though, we're just going to address the issue at hand.
Progress sometimes comes in fits and starts and we are making slow progress
with catalog issues, even if we're not doing it in the most efficient way
possible.
Updated the Help Center Section to Address Figure Titles
See here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=179
This section had not been updated in over eight years. I added the following
sentence:
Figure titles should not include set, book, or gear numbers; these are only allowed
in the figure title until that figure is added to an inventory and must then
be removed.
Updated Project
I waffled back and forth on set/book/gear numbers in figure titles, but in the
end I don't think we gain much from keeping them. They are something which
need continual management (meaning occasional review and corrections when necessary)
to remain correct and members simply aren't doing this. I certainly don't
have the time to do this regularly and clearly other administrators don't
either. I found an error, BTW, fairly early when selecting a figure at random
which the title said appeared in two sets when it only appeared in one set.
We gain little by keeping numbers in the title once a figure is inventoried,
they must be changed when occurrences of figures change, no one is reviewing
them periodically for corrections, they're something else members have to
think about when looking at titles (and titles don't explain what these numbers
mean), they would need an additional identifier such as (Multiple Sets) to be
consistent catalog-wide, and they lessen the aesthetic appeal of figure titles.
So we are removing set/book/gear numbers from every figure in which they appear
except those figures not yet inventoried. Please submit catalog requests as
necessary if you'd like to help and do not submit any other changes with
your requests unless a serious error is discovered (include a note to me with
your request in that case). The colors project wasn't coordinated so well,
so I'm doing something different here.
Please use this thread to claim some categories which you are checking and correcting.
This should make things go more smoothly. We will go in alphabetical order,
so here are the categories I am claiming and will correct myself:
4 Juniors
Adventurers
Agents
Alpha Team
Aquazone
Atlantis
Avatar
Basic
Batman 1
Belville
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 03:59 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Thank you all for caring enough to provide the fascinating discussion and for
listening as I tried to formulate my own thoughts on figure titles with that
rather convoluted set of rules which I posted.
Some of you were for set numbers and some were against. The only thing we really
all agreed on was that set/book/gear numbers should be in figure titles until
that figure is added to an inventory.
The only point that I haven't yet addressed (I think) is the mention that
Brickset uses item numbers in the titles to link back here. I've checked
this for some figures without set numbers in the titles and Brickset still
links back to us on those figures, so I don't think that would be a valid
reason for keeping item numbers.
So here's what I've done:
Added Figure Title Standardization to the Catalog Roadmap
We absolutely need to standardize figure titles catalog-wide and we will. However,
this particular project was only to decide if we should have set numbers in titles
and I've decided on that. The members who said that we should start at the
beginning with figure titles are right - and in an ideal world we would. For
now, though, we're just going to address the issue at hand.
Progress sometimes comes in fits and starts and we are making slow progress
with catalog issues, even if we're not doing it in the most efficient way
possible.
Updated the Help Center Section to Address Figure Titles
See here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=179
This section had not been updated in over eight years. I added the following
sentence:
Figure titles should not include set, book, or gear numbers; these are only allowed
in the figure title until that figure is added to an inventory and must then
be removed.
Updated Project
I waffled back and forth on set/book/gear numbers in figure titles, but in the
end I don't think we gain much from keeping them. They are something which
need continual management (meaning occasional review and corrections when necessary)
to remain correct and members simply aren't doing this. I certainly don't
have the time to do this regularly and clearly other administrators don't
either. I found an error, BTW, fairly early when selecting a figure at random
which the title said appeared in two sets when it only appeared in one set.
We gain little by keeping numbers in the title once a figure is inventoried,
they must be changed when occurrences of figures change, no one is reviewing
them periodically for corrections, they're something else members have to
think about when looking at titles (and titles don't explain what these numbers
mean), they would need an additional identifier such as (Multiple Sets) to be
consistent catalog-wide, and they lessen the aesthetic appeal of figure titles.
So we are removing set/book/gear numbers from every figure in which they appear
except those figures not yet inventoried. Please submit catalog requests as
necessary if you'd like to help and do not submit any other changes with
your requests unless a serious error is discovered (include a note to me with
your request in that case). The colors project wasn't coordinated so well,
so I'm doing something different here.
Please use this thread to claim some categories which you are checking and correcting.
This should make things go more smoothly. We will go in alphabetical order,
so here are the categories I am claiming and will correct myself:
4 Juniors
Adventurers
Agents
Alpha Team
Aquazone
Atlantis
Avatar
Basic
Batman 1
Belville
|
I only want to claim Star Wars category to correct.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 18:03 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I only want to claim Star Wars category to correct.
|
About half done (this is more than 1000 minfigs to check), will do another bunch
from this category tomorrow
(Han Solo figures names is a mess hard to invent not repeated names for 45
minifigs of Han Solo to get rid of numbers)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 01:44 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I only want to claim Star Wars category to correct.
|
About half done (this is more than 1000 minfigs to check), will do another bunch
from this category tomorrow
(Han Solo figures names is a mess hard to invent not repeated names for 45
minifigs of Han Solo to get rid of numbers)
|
Many more changed, About 4/5 done, left more tough ones with the same name distinguished
only by set number like Han Solo, Luke or Obi-Wan (and few more others)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 02:09 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | Many more changed, About 4/5 done, left more tough ones with the same name distinguished
only by set number like Han Solo, Luke or Obi-Wan (and few more others)
|
I Will finish them on the evening.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:15 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | Many more changed, About 4/5 done, left more tough ones with the same name distinguished
only by set number like Han Solo, Luke or Obi-Wan (and few more others)
|
I Will finish them on the evening.
|
Star wars category finished.
I will only check it again if nothing lef and if no the same names after last
bunch of changes will be approved.
From whole SW category this one stays for now without change
[m=sw388]
it is not connected still to any inventory.
P.S.
Robert after working through Star wars category and seeing this mess (especially
in Han Solo, Obi-Wan and Luke names) I now admit that I started to like your
Standardize Figure Titles project
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:45 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | Robert after working through Star wars category and seeing this mess (especially
in Han Solo, Obi-Wan and Luke names) I now admit that I started to like your
Standardize Figure Titles project
|
|
I'm glad to hear that. You may appreciate it even more if you looked at
all 10,000+ figures together and saw the diverse range of titling methods which
have been applied. Not only is there no standardized title for figures, but
dashes, commas, and round brackets have been used in a number of different (and
thus ultimately confusing) ways.
And there are entire categories of figures which are simply titled Figure 1,
Figure 2, Figure 3, etc.
The problem with that project and why I shelved it for now is that it is very
complicated to create simple rules for a standard way of titling all figures.
I will continue thinking about it, though.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:53 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The problem with that project and why I shelved it for now is that it is very
complicated to create simple rules for a standard way of titling all figures.
I will continue thinking about it, though.
|
It might be simplified if you consider two sets of rules. One for named characters
in published stories (whether licensed or not) and another for general archetype
figures.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:59 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | From whole SW category this one stays for now without change
[m=sw388]
it is not connected still to any inventory.
|
Is there a search tool for orphaned minifigs? I found two in my work on this
project and tried to stay alert to it, but it would be good to double check now
that we are done.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:03 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | From whole SW category this one stays for now without change
[m=sw388]
it is not connected still to any inventory.
|
Is there a search tool for orphaned minifigs? I found two in my work on this
project and tried to stay alert to it, but it would be good to double check now
that we are done.
|
Here it is
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?v=3&noIn=Y&catType=M
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:43 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | From whole SW category this one stays for now without change
[m=sw388]
it is not connected still to any inventory.
|
Is there a search tool for orphaned minifigs? I found two in my work on this
project and tried to stay alert to it, but it would be good to double check now
that we are done.
|
Here it is
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?v=3&noIn=Y&catType=M
|
Okay, I just put in a request to fix one that I shouldn't have removed the
number from. I didn't use a fine comb, but it looks like the orphaned ones
are pretty much all Marked for Deletion or super-exclusives.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:47 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
I didn't use a fine comb, but it looks like the orphaned ones
| | are pretty much all Marked for Deletion or super-exclusives.
|
And I lot of Duplo figures. I don't know what is up with those.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 03:04 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I will only check it again if nothing left and if no the same names after last
bunch of changes will be approved.
|
So two slipped also 9 should have small corections to names and that's
it.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 04:01 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
snip
| |
Please use this thread to claim some categories which you are checking and correcting.
This should make things go more smoothly. We will go in alphabetical order,
so here are the categories I am claiming and will correct myself:
4 Juniors
Adventurers
Agents
Alpha Team
Aquazone
Atlantis
Avatar
Basic
Batman 1
Belville
|
Rest of the B's, C and D. I'm assuming you want catalog change requests
and not forum posts like the colors, correct?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 04:03 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Rest of the B's, C and D. I'm assuming you want catalog change requests
and not forum posts like the colors, correct?
|
Okay, so you're taking Bionicle through Duplo. And yes, catalog change requests,
please.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 07:41 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Please use this thread to claim some categories which you are checking and correcting.
This should make things go more smoothly. We will go in alphabetical order,
so here are the categories I am claiming and will correct myself:
|
I like this approach. I will do E, F, and G right now.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 08:06 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Please use this thread to claim some categories which you are checking and correcting.
This should make things go more smoothly. We will go in alphabetical order,
so here are the categories I am claiming and will correct myself:
|
I like this approach. I will do E, F, and G right now.
|
Done. H now
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 09:20 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Please use this thread to claim some categories which you are checking and correcting.
This should make things go more smoothly. We will go in alphabetical order,
so here are the categories I am claiming and will correct myself:
|
I like this approach. I will do E, F, and G right now.
|
Done. H now
|
I and J.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 10:10 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | I will do L this afternoon |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 14:37 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I will do L this afternoon
|
Thanks for your help with this project. Some figure are only differentiated
by set numbers in the titles. I noticed this especially with Harry Potter figures
and I will go back through this theme and add brief identifying features to figures
which now have identical titles as a result of changes.
As you're doing future categories, please remember to do this for any figures
which will match existing titles when the set number is removed.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 14:47 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I will do L this afternoon
|
Thanks for your help with this project. Some figure are only differentiated
by set numbers in the titles. I noticed this especially with Harry Potter figures
and I will go back through this theme and add brief identifying features to figures
which now have identical titles as a result of changes.
As you're doing future categories, please remember to do this for any figures
which will match existing titles when the set number is removed.
|
I actually did a few. But I wasn't sure I was supposed to since there will
be another project to do that.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I actually did a few. But I wasn't sure I was supposed to since there will
be another project to do that.
|
Yes, but that may not happen for some time. Until then, we definitely don't
want any figures to have identical titles. In fact, if you wouldn't mind
going back through Harry Potter and fixing these, then I would appreciate it.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 15:00 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I actually did a few. But I wasn't sure I was supposed to since there will
be another project to do that.
|
Yes, but that may not happen for some time. Until then, we definitely don't
want any figures to have identical titles. In fact, if you wouldn't mind
going back through Harry Potter and fixing these, then I would appreciate it.
|
I will do it. I put them in order by Item Number when I went through and it
wasn't so noticeable.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 15:42 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I actually did a few. But I wasn't sure I was supposed to since there will
be another project to do that.
|
Yes, but that may not happen for some time. Until then, we definitely don't
want any figures to have identical titles. In fact, if you wouldn't mind
going back through Harry Potter and fixing these, then I would appreciate it.
|
I will do it. I put them in order by Item Number when I went through and it
wasn't so noticeable.
|
I finished this. I will now do S, excluding Star Wars which Hygrotus already
called.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 15:44 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I actually did a few. But I wasn't sure I was supposed to since there will
be another project to do that.
|
Yes, but that may not happen for some time. Until then, we definitely don't
want any figures to have identical titles. In fact, if you wouldn't mind
going back through Harry Potter and fixing these, then I would appreciate it.
|
I will do it. I put them in order by Item Number when I went through and it
wasn't so noticeable.
|
I finished this. I will now do S, excluding Star Wars which Hygrotus already
called.
|
I'm in the middle of changes there but now occuiped by inv change requests
so probably finnished them tomorrow
Thank you for leaving Star Wars category for me
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 15:50 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I actually did a few. But I wasn't sure I was supposed to since there will
be another project to do that.
|
Yes, but that may not happen for some time. Until then, we definitely don't
want any figures to have identical titles. In fact, if you wouldn't mind
going back through Harry Potter and fixing these, then I would appreciate it.
|
I will do it. I put them in order by Item Number when I went through and it
wasn't so noticeable.
|
I finished this. I will now do S, excluding Star Wars which Hygrotus already
called.
|
I am uncalling Scala. Did half of it and don't want to finish it...
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 17:57 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I actually did a few. But I wasn't sure I was supposed to since there will
be another project to do that.
|
Yes, but that may not happen for some time. Until then, we definitely don't
want any figures to have identical titles. In fact, if you wouldn't mind
going back through Harry Potter and fixing these, then I would appreciate it.
|
I will do it. I put them in order by Item Number when I went through and it
wasn't so noticeable.
|
I finished this. I will now do S, excluding Star Wars which Hygrotus already
called.
|
I am uncalling Scala. Did half of it and don't want to finish it...
|
Skipping T for now. U, V, W
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 13:34 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | M, N, O now |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 15:18 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
P, Q, R now then I am done for the day
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 18:06 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 18:13 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 18:21 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 18:21 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 18:30 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I believe it is down to:
Scala
Star Wars (Hygrotus is working it)
The Angry Birds Movie
The Hobbit/LOTR (not a lot to do in there)
The Lego Ninjago Movie
Town (lots to do in there)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 20:31 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I believe it is down to:
Scala
Star Wars (Hygrotus is working it)
The Angry Birds Movie
The Hobbit/LOTR (not a lot to do in there)
The Lego Ninjago Movie
Town (lots to do in there)
|
I did Angry Birds and am working LOTR
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2018 23:50 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I did Angry Birds and am working LOTR
|
I'm not sure precisely where we are with this, but all requests have been
approved. I've done all my categories and Scala.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 06:33 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I believe it is down to:
Scala
Star Wars (Hygrotus is working it)
The Angry Birds Movie
The Hobbit/LOTR (not a lot to do in there)
The Lego Ninjago Movie
Town (lots to do in there)
|
I did Angry Birds and am working LOTR
|
Train, then I will start on town, working forwards from the last page here: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=M&catString=67
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 10:46 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I believe it is down to:
Scala
Star Wars (Hygrotus is working it)
The Angry Birds Movie
The Hobbit/LOTR (not a lot to do in there)
The Lego Ninjago Movie
Town (lots to do in there)
|
I did Angry Birds and am working LOTR
|
Train, then I will start on town, working forwards from the last page here: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=M&catString=67
|
I believe this will close it out.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I believe it is down to:
Scala
Star Wars (Hygrotus is working it)
The Angry Birds Movie
The Hobbit/LOTR (not a lot to do in there)
The Lego Ninjago Movie
Town (lots to do in there)
|
I did Angry Birds and am working LOTR
|
Train, then I will start on town, working forwards from the last page here: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=M&catString=67
|
I believe this will close it out.
|
From Star Wars left only Han Solo, Hoth Rebels, Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan I
will deal them on the evenig later today
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 03:07 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Action Plan | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I believe it is down to:
Scala
Star Wars (Hygrotus is working it)
The Angry Birds Movie
The Hobbit/LOTR (not a lot to do in there)
The Lego Ninjago Movie
Town (lots to do in there)
|
I will do ' The Lego Ninjago Movie '...
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:37 | | Subject: | Seventh Catalog Project - Complete So Soon? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Wow, it's hard to believe that we accomplished this in just two days. Very
impressive work, everyone! We are finished with this, right?
One of the benefits of the change logs is that it gives us a picture of how many
figures had set/gear/book numbers in their titles. This is not precise because
it was necessary to change some existing titles to avoid confusion, but I believe
I have accounted for the differences.
So, roughly, we can say that around 2,100 figures had other item numbers in their
titles and those have now been removed. The total number of affected figures
was about one fifth of all the figures in the catalog.
I feel pretty good about this change because, as those of you who have done the
actual work have seen, set numbers were a lazy way out of usefully describing
figures so that people could find them (and, honestly, figure names are, too).
I point no fingers, because I have added many figures to the catalog and only
described them with a brief name and a set number.
Anyway, if we're done with all the categories, then I'll put this project
to rest in the Completed Projects section of the catalog roadmap. We still need
to check for duplicate titles and orphaned figures, but that shouldn't take
much more work.
Thanks again to everyone who made this happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Oklahoma
Canada, Alberta
South Africa, Western Cape
Portugal
Netherlands, Noord-Brabant
Australia, Queensland
United Kingdom, England
Poland, w. Wielkopolskie
