|
 |
| | | Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 06:21 | | Subject: | Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 299 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| In my continual quest to make your lives marginally better, I have just now put
together a list with photos of the different types of figures the LEGO Group
has produced over the years.
This list is not yet official and will change. It will have more detailed descriptions
of figures and hopefully better photos. It will also move from the current location
to an unknown location in the Catalog Help Center section. Or, of course, it
could also get shot down.
I have also asked that the item type Minifigs be retitled to Figures
in light of the wide range of figures of all different sizes we include in this
one section - no word on if this will happen or not. So the six item types would
be:
Sets
Parts
Figures
Books
Catalogs
Gear
This is truly a sneak peak for everyone - the people at the BrickLink office
haven't even seen it yet:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
Your thoughts on this list and the item type retitle? Do you find this list
of figure types useful or is it something not needed?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 06:57 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The idea of using the name FIGURES is a good one. Although possibly CHARACTERS
is better, meaning things like Scooby Doo and built animal characters like the
TLM snail could be in there. It is confusing when, for example, Unikitty is a
minifigure but the snail from the same movie and Scooby Doo are animals.
Some comments:
Minifigure - maybe there should be a disclaimer that although the standard style
is shown, this could contain figures with molded heads, dress / skirt slopes,
etc and what defines a figure as a minifigure - that is, what is the standard
going to be that has to be met for a minifigure to be a minifigure. I think the
definition of what it means to be a minifigure is very important to get right.
Droids - there aren't any! Are these going to be minifigures? If so, see
above.
There are a lot of duplo figure styles. Can't these be lumped into one, with
a sub-duplo category. Otherwise why not have many styles shown for different
types of minifigure? For example, I don't see the original minifigures with
non-moving arms and legs. Surely they are as different to modern minifigures
as the early and later duplo brick figures are to each other.
Custom minifigure-scale figures - I don't think custom is a good word to
use here. Maybe molded-body, or non-standard? Custom has a very different meaning
in the LEGO world and it may be confusing. Also are these just one piece figures
or ones that contain no minifigure parts (although arms and hands here!), or
would Spongebob and friends go here?
And where would these go?
[m=col18-2]
Are these a minifigure with a non-standard torso (but still a minifigure due
to head, hair and legs) or a "custom" as they don't contan a torso. Of course,
LEGO has defined them as a minifigure.
Most of those points can be resolved by having a well defined definition of what
constitutes a minifigure.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:25 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, yorbrick writes:
| | The idea of using the name FIGURES is a good one. Although possibly CHARACTERS
is better
|
I don't think we need to be that technical with this item type. The casual
user needs a basic item type name which is immediately identifiable. Figures
would encompass a wide range of items and Minifigs inaccurately described
that section of the catalog almost from the beginning.
| | I think the definition of what it means to be a minifigure is very important to get right.
|
This page is not intended to define what a minifigure is. That is handled by
this page (updating it is on my list of things to do):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
The list of figure types is only intended to be an informative overview of the
different types/sizes of figures which have been produced.
| | Droids - there aren't any!
|
To answer all of your questions: the list is just a framework right now and I'm
mainly interested in hearing whether members want it or not. We can worry about
the details later.
I will say that if such a list needs to become bogged down in minutiae beyond
the point of usability, then it was clearly not a good idea.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:43 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think "figures" is good, as in my understanding of English it refers more to
physical shape than "characters". "Characters" I expect to be animate, while
the category also includes trophy statuettes, game pawns, statues/sculptures,
skeletons etc.
In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, yorbrick writes:
| | The idea of using the name FIGURES is a good one. Although possibly CHARACTERS
is better
|
I don't think we need to be that technical with this item type. The casual
user needs a basic item type name which is immediately identifiable. Figures
would encompass a wide range of items and Minifigs inaccurately described
that section of the catalog almost from the beginning.
| | I think the definition of what it means to be a minifigure is very important to get right.
|
This page is not intended to define what a minifigure is. That is handled by
this page (updating it is on my list of things to do):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
The list of figure types is only intended to be an informative overview of the
different types/sizes of figures which have been produced.
| | Droids - there aren't any!
|
To answer all of your questions: the list is just a framework right now and I'm
mainly interested in hearing whether members want it or not. We can worry about
the details later.
I will say that if such a list needs to become bogged down in minutiae beyond
the point of usability, then it was clearly not a good idea.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In General, yorbrick writes:
| | The idea of using the name FIGURES is a good one. Although possibly CHARACTERS
is better
|
I don't think we need to be that technical with this item type. The casual
user needs a basic item type name which is immediately identifiable. Figures
would encompass a wide range of items and Minifigs inaccurately described
that section of the catalog almost from the beginning.
| | I think the definition of what it means to be a minifigure is very important to get right.
|
This page is not intended to define what a minifigure is. That is handled by
this page (updating it is on my list of things to do):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
The list of figure types is only intended to be an informative overview of the
different types/sizes of figures which have been produced.
| | Droids - there aren't any!
|
To answer all of your questions: the list is just a framework right now and I'm
mainly interested in hearing whether members want it or not. We can worry about
the details later.
I will say that if such a list needs to become bogged down in minutiae beyond
the point of usability, then it was clearly not a good idea.
|
Figures is a good choice and user friendly. For now I like what I see.
Some details will come later ok. I for one would like the Homemaker figures finally
having a place in the catalog. I also hope there is room to eventually include
special assemblies that represent figures, such as Galidor, Hero Factory, Bionicle
and etc. Later.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | iprice | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:02 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In my continual quest to make your lives marginally better, I have just now put
together a list with photos of the different types of figures the LEGO Group
has produced over the years.
This list is not yet official and will change. It will have more detailed descriptions
of figures and hopefully better photos. It will also move from the current location
to an unknown location in the Catalog Help Center section. Or, of course, it
could also get shot down.
I have also asked that the item type Minifigs be retitled to Figures
in light of the wide range of figures of all different sizes we include in this
one section - no word on if this will happen or not. So the six item types would
be:
Sets
Parts
Figures
Books
Catalogs
Gear
This is truly a sneak peak for everyone - the people at the BrickLink office
haven't even seen it yet:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
Your thoughts on this list and the item type retitle? Do you find this list
of figure types useful or is it something not needed?
|
You appear to be missing at least one sort - large figures with round yellow
heads, separate hair pieces and posable jointed arms with round open stud hands
with ball wrists.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-twXvraYLa8M/VNFCNCKIqiI/AAAAAAABvD0/di2vVvZiFQg/s1600/20150203_104058.jpg
Are they missing because they are not complete figures in themselves and require
bricks for their bodies etc.?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:06 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, iprice writes:
| | You appear to be missing at least one sort - large figures with round yellow
heads, separate hair pieces and posable jointed arms with round open stud hands
with ball wrists.
|
I think these figures were from the Homemaker line.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:11 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, iprice writes:
| | You appear to be missing at least one sort
|
The list is obviously just an incomplete framework. At this point I'm looking
more for commentary on two things and we can worry about the details of that
list later.
1. Is this list of figure types something you find useful?
2. How do you feel about retitling the item type?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | novabrick | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:19 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | 1. Is this list of figure types something you find useful?
|
From the view of a "professional" who basically has seen everything I can't
learn much from it but maybe it helps newcomers find what they're looking
for.
| | 2. How do you feel about retitling the item type?
|
Figure is a more general term and it was probably overdue to change from Minifig
which is for me just the orginal standard LEGO minifig in all its forms. Just
take Scala dolls. They clearly don't say minifig to anyone.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:46 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | 1. Is this list of figure types something you find useful?
|
In this incarnation, no. As you say, it's "thrown together." With proper
consideration, this presentation would be helpful to the newbies, sure.
| | 2. How do you feel about retitling the item type?
|
I think using "Figure" is problematic as it, to my mind, would beg for things
like the big Hero Factory, big Bionicle, those old big figure Knights, and maybe
something I'm forgetting. Figure as a word is a broad encompassing concept.
Figure also would not be the first thing I think of as a place to locate small
robots, droids, and other "bot" kind of things that are presumably to continue
to be included in this section.
Then it gets confusing when you get to "Big Figure" which is the label for the
larger minifigs like the Troll and Hulk and Thanos.
I think we need to address the distinction that needs to be made...or you're
suggesting we make...then figure out what to call the section. Cart before the
horse again.
I could tear this apart for the next two days, but I have to visit the dentist
for pain of another sort.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:54 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | I could tear this apart for the next two days, but I have to visit the dentist
for pain
|
I'm sorry to hear that you're in pain. I've had toothaches, as I'm
sure we all have, and they're definitely not fun. I trust the dentist will
be able to help you feel better.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:59 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | I'm sorry to hear that you're in pain. I've had toothaches, as I'm
sure we all have, and they're definitely not fun. I trust the dentist will
be able to help you feel better.
|
The pain is the extraction from my wallet.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 10:42 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I could tear this apart for the next two days, but I have to visit the dentist
for pain of another sort.
|
Plenty of these around:
[p=3069bpx7]
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | novabrick | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:14 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| |
Your thoughts on this list and the item type retitle? Do you find this list
of figure types useful or is it something not needed?
|
i think there is something missing:
And what about assemblies from LEGO bricks which form characters like
[m=sw028] and
Then there are figures with special heads like
or
Those are all in the moment listed as Minifigs (figures) and maybe should be
added for completenes sake.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:46 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In my continual quest to make your lives marginally better, I have just now put
together a list with photos of the different types of figures the LEGO Group
has produced over the years.
|
Cool thanks, this is helpful in itself, maybe more so for new users who might
have all of Bricklink's and TLG's terminologies down pat yet (think legos )
| |
This list is not yet official and will change. It will have more detailed descriptions
of figures and hopefully better photos. It will also move from the current location
to an unknown location in the Catalog Help Center section. Or, of course, it
could also get shot down.
I have also asked that the item type Minifigs be retitled to Figures
in light of the wide range of figures of all different sizes we include in this
one section - no word on if this will happen or not. So the six item types would
be:
Sets
Parts
Figures
Books
Catalogs
Gear
|
Thanks long overdue
| | This is truly a sneak peak for everyone - the people at the BrickLink office
haven't even seen it yet:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
Your thoughts on this list and the item type retitle? Do you find this list
of figure types useful or is it something not needed?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 07:59 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| [StormChaser] writes:
| | I have asked that the item type Minifigs be retitled to Figures
|
This gets my vote. The term 'figures' is the correct term to use in
this context (toys).
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | 3001Bricks | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 08:16 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Mini Dolls are only used in Friends, correct? I would vouch for renaming that
to something containing the word "Friends". That is a common search term related
to these figures, while 'Doll' is not.
besides that, well done, great work!
G
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 08:25 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Gmid writes:
| | Mini Dolls are only used in Friends, correct?
|
No, incorrect. There are Elves and Disney characters too and soon TLM2.
For example:
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 11:04 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, StormChaser writes:
| | In my continual quest to make your lives marginally better, I have just now put
together a list with photos of the different types of figures the LEGO Group
has produced over the years.
|
It would be helpful to mainly choose pictures with some indication of scale,
such as you did with the Scala and Fabuland pictures. And I would list the statuette,
microfigure, minifigure and minidoll on top as for a newby these terms are the
most relevant to distinguish. Perhaps sort by ascending size.
I would group by scale, so that the baby and children are grouped together with
minifigure scale. - Not counting the use of statuette as an object in minifig
scale, nor the use of a minifig as a statue in microfig scale.
Simply group by the size of a door frame that matches the scale of the figure.
[m=cty008]
and so on upto Galidor and Scala.
Hans-Peter
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 12:21 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I suggest you usability test this proposal. Calling the section "Figures."
Get images of all types of figures as shown in your demo page (a few of each),
plus robots, mechs, full assembled bionicles, large-figure knights, dragons,
animals (single piece and assembled), and anything else that could be construed
as a "figure". Create sheets of figures, perhaps 2 of each kind, jumble them
up on a page, print it out.
Have a few different sheets, meaning the selection on sheet 1 is different than
the selection on sheets 2 and 3...but all sheets have 2 images from each figure
category.
Find some people to sample. The larger the group, the better the data.
Take one page to random people, note their familiarity with the LEGO line: (1)
not familiar to (5) expert familiar, and with the question:
I have a web site, this is my product line, I want to have a section titled "figures".
Which of these items would you expect to find in that section?
Give them a different page. Change the question.
I have a web site, this is my product line, I want to have a section titled "figurines".
Which of these items would you expect to find in that section?
Give them a different page. Change the question.
I have a web site, this is my product line, I want to have a section titled "minifigs".
Which of these items would you expect to find in that section?
...and so on, changing the label. You don't necessarily have to get carried
away with multiple labels. But maybe three different labels.
Do NOT ask them what they'd call the section. That would be a later phase
of testing.
Record the results and analyze. Then figure out the next step.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 12:32 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I suggest you usability test this proposal. Calling the section "Figures."
[…]
I have a web site, this is my product line, I want to have a section titled "figures".
Which of these items would you expect to find in that section?
|
This question is flawed.
You should add things that are clearly not figures, like cars or houses, and
things on the line, like Cars (the movie) characters.
As you’re proposing it, you’re showing only things that could be construed as
“figures,” so people will try to find some that wouldn’t be.
The other questions don’t show that flaw as you’re trying to subcategorize figures
and show (what you expect to be) different subcategories on each page.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 13:09 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I suggest you usability test this proposal. Calling the section "Figures."
[…]
I have a web site, this is my product line, I want to have a section titled "figures".
Which of these items would you expect to find in that section?
|
This question is flawed.
|
If you can provide a better example, I'm all for it. The prejudice I'm
working with is that some people will expect find Bionicles and other BIG, non
minifigure-type figures in a section labelled "Figures".
So, in that sense, if all the test pictures are included, as in my example...and
as you suggest...then the label of "Figures" cognitively fails to accomplish
its intended purpose...which I believe is to restrict the contents of the section
to what's there now and not include the Bionicles and Hero Factory (which
are sets) and so on.
I think with "FIGURES" being a top-tier heading it will create more problems
than it will resolve. I don't know that, but I suspect that.
In my world, Grandma refers to the Bionicles as "the Lego figures."
I don't know what the right word to replace "Minifigs" in top tier is. I
suspect the StormChaser wants to restrict that term to the "little people" actual
"minifigs" and separate it from the duplo and whatnot.
I kind of think I know what's going on, but I'm not sure the StormChaser
has clearly articulated the reason for relabelling the section, why he finds
the current labelling problematic, and what the intended result of the renaming
is supposed to achieve.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 13:46 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | If you can provide a better example, I'm all for it. The prejudice I'm
working with is that some people will expect find Bionicles and other BIG, non
minifigure-type figures in a section labelled "Figures".
|
This type of figure too, although I guess at least they have a distinct subcategory
of "Buildable Figures" inside SW sets.
I think just a sentence at the top to say that buildable figures are to be found
in the set listings should be fine.
Looking again at the list, I don't think "Standard Minifigures" should be
used as name. Unless, of course, there will also be a section for "non-standard"
minifigures.
For example, I don't think any of these are standard minifigures:
[m=sw532]
[m=sw493]
First two, non-standard heads. Third non-standard torso. Fourth and fifth, non-standard
legs.
To me a standard minifigure would mean a pair of legs (and probably just the
jointed normal ones), a regular torso assembly, a regular head, and possibly
a hairpiece or headgear, especially as this is what is pictured. Deviations from
that would be non-standard but still minifigures. Thus in any guide, I think
it might be better to show a few examples of the class of figures where there
are variations in the definition of what is contained.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:33 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm not sure the StormChaser has clearly articulated the reason for relabelling the section, why he finds the current labelling problematic, and what the intended result of the renaming is supposed to achieve.
|
I apologize for not doing this. I will address all three of these below, but
the most important point to understand is this: the only change which would occur
is to remove Mini from Figures.
What is the reason for renaming this item type?
I have asked for a name change because the current name does not accurately describe
the contents of this section of the catalog.
Why is the current labelling problematic?
The label Minifigs is not accurate because in this item type we include many
different sizes of figures which vary in size from tiny to vary large. We also
include a range of different styles of figures at these different scales.
What is the intended result of renaming this section?
Renaming from Minifigs to Figures would present a more accurate picture of what
users can expect to find in this item type and that is the intended result.
This name change is not intended to and will not define which items are included
in this section.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | TheBrickGuys | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:56 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 16:59 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| From what I understand, you want to rename the catalog section "Minifigs" to
"Figures", correct?
I obviously can't see what is happening in the back end of BL - renaming
the item type might be simple. Then again, it might be a pretty major undertaking,
depending on how it is coded. One thing that would break is the relationship
between the item type and the one-letter-identification that is used throughout
BL. For the forum, adding a nice little reference to a catalog item for a minifig
requires you to type "[M=blahblah]". Renaming the type to "Figure" _might_ cause
it to become "[F=blahblah]". Furthermore, images on BL are pointed to using the
same one-letter-identification. The relationship between item types and the one-letter-identification
might break, or it might be OK.
In short, I think this kind of change would need some dev eyes on the code. Remember
what happened a month or so ago - the breaking of store inventories - that would
pale in comparison if the code is not all that flexible set up...
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:46 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In my ongoing effort to make your life marginally crazier...
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm not sure the StormChaser has clearly articulated the reason for relabelling the section, why he finds the current labelling problematic, and what the intended result of the renaming is supposed to achieve.
|
I apologize for not doing this. I will address all three of these below, but
the most important point to understand is this: the only change which would occur
is to remove Mini from Figures.
What is the reason for renaming this item type?
I have asked for a name change because the current name does not accurately describe
the contents of this section of the catalog.
|
Good reason.
| | Why is the current labelling problematic?
The label Minifigs is not accurate because in this item type we include many
different sizes of figures which vary in size from tiny to vary large. We also
include a range of different styles of figures at these different scales.
|
I agree it is not accurate.
But the question is "why is it problematic?" You've stated it's inaccurate,
but how is it a problem? People can't find things they're looking for
in this section? It causes a me to irritate you with questions like this? What's
the problem?
How does changing it to "Figures" which is similarly but differently inaccurate
resolve the issue?
| | What is the intended result of renaming this section?
| | Renaming from Minifigs to Figures would present a more accurate picture of what
|
users can expect to find in this item type and that is the intended result.
|
I'm simply not convinced that it will present a more accurate picture of
what users can expect to find in this space. I argue that Figures is no more
or less accurate than Minifigures in this position. It's differently inaccurate.
And as I've stated elsewhere, it has the potential to create confusion with
regards to the half-dozen or so other "figures" which are in the catalog but
not in this section.
Not asking you to agree, but asking do you get the point I'm putting forward.
I've not seen it stated, but if you intend to move ALL the other "figures"
into the section, then I don't have any further argument with "Figures" as
a label. I only have an issue if some figures are in the section and some
figures are not in the section.
| | This name change is not intended to and will not define which items are included
in this section.
|
But isn't that what good labelling *should* do? Isn't the point to accurately
define which items are included?
Seems to me your statement of the problem at question 1
| | current name does not accurately describe the contents of this section
|
is the same as your statement of the solution at question 3
| | name change...will not define which items are included in this section.
|
So if it already doesn't accurately define what's in there, why change
it so it doesn't accurately define what's in there?
Sorry. Sorry to make you crazy. I just don't grasp the benefit to the site
visitor. I get the intention, but think the execution is flawed.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 18:27 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | It's differently inaccurate. And as I've stated elsewhere, it has the potential to create confusion with regards to the half-dozen or so other "figures" which are in the catalog but not in this section. Not asking you to agree, but asking do you get the point I'm putting forward.
|
I absolutely do get your point. I agree that we would be wise to include all
figures of all sizes in the same place. We already do include nearly all of
them in the same place and that place is Minifigs. Some we don't and those
are the ones which you're concerned about.
The problem is that once we get them there we have no easy way to find the specific
kind of figure you're looking for. They're all mixed together and only
sorted by theme. There is currently discussion behind the scenes on how we can
better sort figures and I have suggested that figure type be given consideration
as one way of sorting.
| | But isn't that what good labelling *should* do? Isn't the point to accurately
define which items are included?
|
Yes, and the place for that is here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
An item type is simply a quick and dirty method of splitting things. We only
have six item types and we will not get any more.
An item type is simply not the place for any kind of specific definition and
the current title indicates that only minifigures are housed there when, in fact,
we put nearly all figures there. Figures is a more inclusive title and thus,
more accurate. The ways in which the word Figures is inaccurate stem from policies,
and policies can be changed.
| | So if it already doesn't accurately define what's in there, why change
it so it doesn't accurately define what's in there?
|
Because the change would be from less accuracy to perfect accuracy provided
that additional changes were made to what was included or what should be included
in this item type. You want those changes made first, but I think we must first
start with reconsidering the idea that this section is only for minifigures.
Clearly, it already is not.
You see the item name change as the last step and I see it as the first step,
so perhaps it's just a difference of opinion.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 19:03 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The problem is that once we get them there we have no easy way to find the specific
kind of figure you're looking for. They're all mixed together and only
sorted by theme. There is currently discussion behind the scenes on how we can
better sort figures and I have suggested that figure type be given consideration
as one way of sorting.
|
Have them let you edit the HTML and it'll all be good. Barring editing the
HTML in conjunction with these other changes...well, it'll be difficult enough
to achieve the desired outcome being able to edit HTML with the db. Just editing
the db alone will be...more difficult by a lot.
If you can edit that, I say do it right away.
But this is another of those obscure pages that's not readily located, as
are most of the informational pages. Buried. Somewhere or other.
And another instance where the pertinent information is divorced from the label.
Like having the bottle of medicine, but having to drive to the factory to find
out how to use it correctly. If you can find the factory.
| | You see the item name change as the last step and I see it as the first step,
so perhaps it's just a difference of opinion.
|
I don't think it's a difference of opinion. It's a difference of
perspective, and now you've provided some of that. So thank you.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | superchicken77 | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 17:45 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I haven't read all the replies so I apologize if it's been said, but
instead of a picture of each, maybe one picture of each group through the years
with a timeline?
For example, original minifig 1975, modern minifigure 1978. Like the image found
here, but for each category (duplo, hero factory etc.)
http://b1creative.com/blog/the-history-of-the-lego-minifigure/
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In my continual quest to make your lives marginally better, I have just now put
together a list with photos of the different types of figures the LEGO Group
has produced over the years.
This list is not yet official and will change. It will have more detailed descriptions
of figures and hopefully better photos. It will also move from the current location
to an unknown location in the Catalog Help Center section. Or, of course, it
could also get shot down.
I have also asked that the item type Minifigs be retitled to Figures
in light of the wide range of figures of all different sizes we include in this
one section - no word on if this will happen or not. So the six item types would
be:
Sets
Parts
Figures
Books
Catalogs
Gear
This is truly a sneak peak for everyone - the people at the BrickLink office
haven't even seen it yet:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
Your thoughts on this list and the item type retitle? Do you find this list
of figure types useful or is it something not needed?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | MontagueBrick | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 19:39 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In my continual quest to make your lives marginally better, I have just now put
together a list with photos of the different types of figures the LEGO Group
has produced over the years.
This list is not yet official and will change. It will have more detailed descriptions
of figures and hopefully better photos. It will also move from the current location
to an unknown location in the Catalog Help Center section. Or, of course, it
could also get shot down.
I have also asked that the item type Minifigs be retitled to Figures
in light of the wide range of figures of all different sizes we include in this
one section - no word on if this will happen or not. So the six item types would
be:
Sets
Parts
Figures
Books
Catalogs
Gear
This is truly a sneak peak for everyone - the people at the BrickLink office
haven't even seen it yet:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
Your thoughts on this list and the item type retitle? Do you find this list
of figure types useful or is it something not needed?
|
I like it! It just helped me learn a few things! I do think that you need to
get rid of the repeat after the title though.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 20:01 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Rainey writes:
| | I like it! It just helped me learn a few things! I do think that you need to
get rid of the repeat after the title though.
|
That part is just a placeholder. It will be filled in with further information
about each kind of figure if we decide to keep this as a permanent catalog feature.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 20:40 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In my continual quest to make your lives marginally better, I have just now put
together a list with photos of the different types of figures the LEGO Group
has produced over the years.
This list is not yet official and will change. It will have more detailed descriptions
of figures and hopefully better photos. It will also move from the current location
to an unknown location in the Catalog Help Center section. Or, of course, it
could also get shot down.
I have also asked that the item type Minifigs be retitled to Figures
in light of the wide range of figures of all different sizes we include in this
one section - no word on if this will happen or not. So the six item types would
be:
Sets
Parts
Figures
Books
Catalogs
Gear
This is truly a sneak peak for everyone - the people at the BrickLink office
haven't even seen it yet:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
Your thoughts on this list and the item type retitle? Do you find this list
of figure types useful or is it something not needed?
|
Here is something I just threw together.
John P
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 20:51 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I have read your suggestions, took them to heart, and updated the page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
I added three new types close to the beginning and added a disclaimer that this
is only an experimental project. The purpose of the framework on that page is
to gauge desirability. If members want to keep this list and BrickLink agrees
to keep it, then it will be improved with better descriptions, better photos,
and better ordering of the entries on the list (possibly by chronological order?).
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 23:05 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I have read your suggestions, took them to heart, and updated the page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
I added three new types close to the beginning and added a disclaimer that this
is only an experimental project. The purpose of the framework on that page is
to gauge desirability. If members want to keep this list and BrickLink agrees
to keep it, then it will be improved with better descriptions, better photos,
and better ordering of the entries on the list (possibly by chronological order?).
|
I like what I am seeing, Robert, and I think the page could be a fantastic resource
for all users if kept available. As much as I know about the catalog, it is still
fascinating to see all these types of figures on one page and *not* have to leave
BrickLink to find it! 
I also like the suggestion of moving away from "Minifigure" as an item type in
favor of "Figure". Even if "Figure" is not perfect, it is much better than "Minifigure",
and the page you have created makes that point very clearly.
However, Niek brought up a lot of good points about how changing the item type
name could lead to a bunch of unforeseen consequences behind the scenes, and
I am in total agreement with him. We have no idea what a change like this could
do throughout the entire website. I would definitely run this by the development
team before even asking for that name to be changed as there are undoubtedly
a large number of unknown pages, forms, database queries, stored procedures,
etc. that reference that item type.
Thanks for all of your hard work.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 23:22 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I have read your suggestions, took them to heart, and updated the page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
I added three new types close to the beginning and added a disclaimer that this
is only an experimental project. The purpose of the framework on that page is
to gauge desirability. If members want to keep this list and BrickLink agrees
to keep it, then it will be improved with better descriptions, better photos,
and better ordering of the entries on the list (possibly by chronological order?).
|
Chronogical order and something like “discontinued,” or more simply the era /
production years next to the title.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 04:29 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I have read your suggestions, took them to heart, and updated the page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=88
I added three new types close to the beginning and added a disclaimer that this
is only an experimental project. The purpose of the framework on that page is
to gauge desirability. If members want to keep this list and BrickLink agrees
to keep it, then it will be improved with better descriptions, better photos,
and better ordering of the entries on the list (possibly by chronological order?).
|
It is definitely looking a lot better. Although this one still confuses me:
Minifigure-Scale Character Figure - This is a minifigure-scale character figure.
The BrickLink catalog includes a number of unconventional figures like this.
Rick from the Unikitty! theme, for example, is a single 2 x 3 brick with a printed
face.
Will this contain all minifigure-scale character figures? Angry Birds are understandable.
But what about Scooby Doo and Santa's Little Helper, and other similar characters.
Are they animals or figures? After all, Angry Birds are birds, which are animals.
Cartoon animals that are characters. Just like Scooby Doo and Sant's Little
Helper are cartoon dogs.
Minifigure-Scale Brick Built Figure - This is a minifigure-scale brick built
figure. There are an array of different styles and sizes of figures in various
themes.
As above, do brick built animals like TLM snail go in here (presumably Unikitty
will). Also Rick from Unikitty! is mentioned above as a minifigure scale character
figure. I would have thought he has more in common with Unikitty than with Angry
Birds, as he is made out of standard LEGO bricks (it just happens to be one brick)
rather than an unconventional molded part.
It will also lead to inconsistencies, as for example, these two will be in different
categories:
The first has already been defined as above to be a Minifigure-Scale Character
Figure, yet the second is clearly brick built so must be a Minifigure-Scale Brick
Built Figure.
This is why I think the definitions of each category need to be considered carefully
so that inconsistencies do not appear.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 04:45 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | This is why I think the definitions of each category need to be considered carefully
so that inconsistencies do not appear.
|
I do appreciate your feedback and you can see that I incorporated some of it
into the page, but again, these are not category definitions. They change nothing
in the catalog. We haven't the ability to sort figures by what type they
are. If we ever do have that ability, then we can have a serious discussion.
Until then, I hope you are able to somehow locate the ability to be pleased that
I volunteered my time to make a list in the first place. 
I believe you may have missed the disclaimer at the beginning of the description
of this list:
. . . figure types should not be considered definitive.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 04:56 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | This is why I think the definitions of each category need to be considered carefully
so that inconsistencies do not appear.
|
I do appreciate your feedback and you can see that I incorporated some of it
into the page, but again, these are not category definitions. They change nothing
in the catalog. We haven't the ability to sort figures by what type they
are. If we ever do have that ability, then we can have a serious discussion.
|
Is this not the first step in that process, even if being done unofficially?
If these become accepted Bricklink definitions, then there would clearly be a
hangover from this list into any new sorting of figures. If it is not the first
step, then what is the point of this page? You said it could move into the Catalog
Help Center. It is showing people how to define or classify many different types
of figures, but if these terms cannot be used on bricklink to find what someone
is after, how does it actually help? If anything it will be confusing to tell
people that such and such is a XXX type of figure, then XXX is not used anywhere
else on BL.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:42 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | You said it could move into the Catalog
Help Center.
|
Actually, it is already there. I just meant that if we keep it, then it will
go to a different page. I hijacked the page it's on right now because I
can't create new Help Center pages.
I've updated the list. See if this new approach solves the concerns you
had.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 04:59 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Until then, I hope you are able to somehow locate the ability to be pleased that
I volunteered my time to make a list in the first place.
|
And yes, I am pleased that someone with at least a little power has started this.
The whole catalogue is a bit of a mess since it is so rigid, but the Minifigures
category in particular has started to be full of inconsistencies (either what
is in or what is out) since it has not moved with the times.
A number of mere mortals have flagged up many inconsistencies in the past, and
normally all are shot down as "the catalog doesn't work like that". When
really the catalog should work for the users, not work based on decade old unwritten
rules.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:07 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | But what about Scooby Doo and Santa's Little Helper, and other similar characters.
Are they animals or figures? After all, Angry Birds are birds, which are animals.
Cartoon animals that are characters. Just like Scooby Doo and Sant's Little
Helper are cartoon dogs.
|
Since you've spent some time thinking about this, I don't want to just
brush you off as I sort of did in what I just posted. The answer to this is
that there has never been a written definition of minifigures. This explains
the inconsistency of some figures being considered parts and others considered
figures. It also explains member frustration when some figures have been allowed
and others denied.
In the past, what was and was not a figure was decided on unwritten rules according
to the preferences of the person deciding. One of the self-imposed tasks I face
is ending this practice and creating written rules so that we're all on the
same page. You'll notice that a number of catalog projects mention this.
Until such time as we have written rules, there is not much point in discussing
what should or should not be a figure and until we have the ability to sort figures
by type, if we ever have it, then there is not much point in going into the minutiae
of different types.
I encourage you to keep thinking about these things, though, because when I get
to rulemaking I will open the rules for discussion and possible modification
before they're implemented (something which has rarely happened in the past).
I look forward to your input then.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nordbart | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:29 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | In the past, what was and was not a figure was decided on unwritten rules according
to the preferences of the person deciding. One of the self-imposed tasks I face
is ending this practice and creating written rules so that we're all on the
same page. You'll notice that a number of catalog projects mention this.
Until such time as we have written rules, there is not much point in discussing
what should or should not be a figure and until we have the ability to sort figures
by type, if we ever have it, then there is not much point in going into the minutiae
of different types.
|
Take the minor Planet Pluto. It was considered a planet in the past then more
planet like objects got found in the kuiper belt and the number off planets would
have been inflated...
So the Astronomers got together and created a new definition of what is a Planet
and what isn't.
This unfortunately kicked out Pluto out of the Club of Planets. At least the
scientific definition of one.
Anyway, what I am saying is we need a definition of what is a figure and what
is not. At least here on BrickLink.
We could also start listing them as
"Sub assemblies of antropomorphic appearence with a varying number movable limbs
and other functions for posability."
But this would cast a rather wide net and would include bionicle, galidor and
more.
Guess my definition sucks. I'm sure you can come up with a better one.
nordbart
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:35 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nordbart writes:
| | Anyway, what I am saying is we need a definition of what is a figure and what
is not. At least here on BrickLink.
|
This is project number two on the roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
It will happen, but it is not happening right now. Please give this subject
some thought between now and the time when it does happen so that you may provide
some input at that time.
BTW, I already have written rules laid out for this project (defining all six
item types), but I am giving them some additional consideration before I begin
this project and release them for discussion. Please be patient. 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 05:26 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | It is definitely looking a lot better. Although this one still confuses me:
Minifigure-Scale Character Figure
|
This is my third reply to this post. Perhaps if I had read it more carefully,
then I could have saved some ones and zeros.
Your question here was about policy and I have answered it.
| | Minifigure-Scale Brick Built Figure
|
Your question here was about actual inconsistencies in the additional figure
types I added at your request. I can see what you mean about inconsistencies
and I agree. So, what would you suggest to correct these inconsistencies?
I think the easiest distinction would be between specially-molded figures and
brick-built figures - this would remove having a separate item type for character
figures. Does that sound right?
BTW, did you see that I made the pictures bigger and added little frames around
each photo? I thought it looked better.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 09:26 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together - Updated | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I think the easiest distinction would be between specially-molded figures and
brick-built figures - this would remove having a separate item type for character
figures. Does that sound right?
|
Yes, I think so. It would make finding things much easier if you have something
unidentified in a job lot. [This next bit is assuming that new figures types
are incorporated into the catalogue.] And that is what, to me, the catalogue
should be there for. If you know what something is or what set it came from,
it is easy to find no matter how bad the catalogue is. Whereas if you don't
know what a part (or figure) is, you should be able to follow the (hopefully
written down) definitions of different figure types and work out at least what
category it is, before looking through the entries.
| | BTW, did you see that I made the pictures bigger and added little frames around
each photo? I thought it looked better.
|
Yes, each iteration is an improvement!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | CPgolfaddict | | Posted: | Nov 27, 2018 01:14 | | Subject: | Re: Something I Just Threw Together | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| A lot of catalog issues would be easier to resolve if you could have multiple
relationships between the various catalog entities.
Minifigs could be assigned a theme category (as is today) AND some other physical
category like what is being proposed. AND... you could also leave the existing
theme structure alone while adding the physical category. Mini vs. micro vs.
statue etc.
This is a common catalog structure in eCommerce systems because people approach
finding products from different perspectives. A relationship should be thought
of as a distinct data entity in the catalog/dB.
Item - Item
Item - Item Type
Item - Category
Category - Category
Category - Item Type
etc.
It would take some work. But the long term benefit is the easier delivery of
future catalog features.
BTW... Figures is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Oklahoma
United Kingdom, England
Netherlands, Utrecht
Portugal
Australia, Queensland
Germany, Schleswig-Holstein
South Africa, Western Cape
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Canada, Alberta
