|
 |
| | | Author: | infinibrix  | | Posted: | Jun 13, 2020 12:39 | | Subject: | Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 103 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I don't know if its just me but with regards to the ideas and dimensions
themes would'nt it make sense to only give minifigures the 'idea'
and 'dim' codes if they don't already belong to an established and
existing theme? For instance all the Ideas Pirates of Barracuda Bay minifigs
should perhaps be given 'pi' numbers instead of 'idea' numbers?
Likewise dimensions Gimli, Gandalf, Legolas should maybe have a 'lor'
number instead of 'dim' same goes for Slimer and Stay Puft Marshmallow
man which also have 'dim' numbers instead of 'gb'
With the original ghostbusters minifigs from Ecto-1 it looks like they were already
changed from 'idea' numbers to 'gb' numbers with an i on the
end which might be a good way to keep some continuity on the site?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 14, 2020 14:07 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | I don't know if its just me but with regards to the ideas and dimensions
themes would'nt it make sense to only give minifigures the 'idea'
and 'dim' codes if they don't already belong to an established and
existing theme? For instance all the Ideas Pirates of Barracuda Bay minifigs
should perhaps be given 'pi' numbers instead of 'idea' numbers?
Likewise dimensions Gimli, Gandalf, Legolas should maybe have a 'lor'
number instead of 'dim' same goes for Slimer and Stay Puft Marshmallow
man which also have 'dim' numbers instead of 'gb'
With the original ghostbusters minifigs from Ecto-1 it looks like they were already
changed from 'idea' numbers to 'gb' numbers with an i on the
end which might be a good way to keep some continuity on the site?
|
No thoughts on this from anyone? It really must be just me then? 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 14, 2020 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | I don't know if its just me but with regards to the ideas and dimensions
themes would'nt it make sense to only give minifigures the 'idea'
and 'dim' codes if they don't already belong to an established and
existing theme? For instance all the Ideas Pirates of Barracuda Bay minifigs
should perhaps be given 'pi' numbers instead of 'idea' numbers?
Likewise dimensions Gimli, Gandalf, Legolas should maybe have a 'lor'
number instead of 'dim' same goes for Slimer and Stay Puft Marshmallow
man which also have 'dim' numbers instead of 'gb'
With the original ghostbusters minifigs from Ecto-1 it looks like they were already
changed from 'idea' numbers to 'gb' numbers with an i on the
end which might be a good way to keep some continuity on the site?
|
No thoughts on this from anyone? It really must be just me then?
|
I guess no one sort by ID….
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 14, 2020 14:54 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | No thoughts on this from anyone? It really must be just me then?
|
Item numbers for figures are a mess. We're working on it.
See this forum post for a poetically eloquent description of the mess:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1187433
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 14, 2020 21:46 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | No thoughts on this from anyone? It really must be just me then?
|
Item numbers for figures are a mess. We're working on it.
See this forum post for a poetically eloquent description of the mess:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1187433
|
Yes I can see it’s definitely a challenge especially since many minifg codes
have become well established with people even though they may not make too much
sense structure wise!
I guess the reason I asked was mainly because I could see some Ideas codes had
been changed to Ghostbuster codes whilst Dimensions Ghostbuster minifgs and the
Ideas Pirate minifigs hadn’t been altered in the same way?
Either way I guess there would need to be a rule of thumb on want constitutes
a minifig range being given its own theme code abbreviation. For instance do
you start giving the ghostbuster minifigs the ‘gb’ code when there are at least
8 minifigs in the range for example?
On the other hand if there are only 2 or 3 ghostbusters minifigs do they perhaps
always just start off with a miscellaneous code which might also include everything
from Santa to ET?
Do we also start to catalog things not necessarily by Legos themes but by what
the community itself classes as the best match for Space, Castle, Pirates etc...
with anything that does'nt fit among the established themes classed as miscellaneous?
For instance do you envisage that stuff like Galaxy Squad might come under space
‘sp’? instead of ‘gs’?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jun 14, 2020 22:18 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | No thoughts on this from anyone? It really must be just me then?
|
Item numbers for figures are a mess. We're working on it.
See this forum post for a poetically eloquent description of the mess:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1187433
|
Yes I can see it’s definitely a challenge especially since many minifg codes
have become well established with people even though they may not make too much
sense structure wise!
I guess the reason I asked was mainly because I could see some Ideas codes had
been changed to Ghostbuster codes whilst Dimensions Ghostbuster minifgs and the
Ideas Pirate minifigs hadn’t been altered in the same way?
Either way I guess there would need to be a rule of thumb on want constitutes
a minifig range being given its own theme code abbreviation. For instance do
you start giving the ghostbuster minifigs the ‘gb’ code when there are at least
8 minifigs in the range for example?
On the other hand if there are only 2 or 3 ghostbusters minifigs do they perhaps
always just start off with a miscellaneous code which might also include everything
from Santa to ET?
Do we also start to catalog things not necessarily by Legos themes but by what
the community itself classes as the best match for Space, Castle, Pirates etc...
with anything that does'nt fit among the established themes classed as miscellaneous?
For instance do you envisage that stuff like Galaxy Squad might come under space
‘sp’? instead of ‘gs’?
|
As a huge minifigure collector who categorizes their entire collection by the
BrickLink item numbers, I would not be in favor of any renumbering of huge swaths
of the BrickLink catalog as it stands. Small sections, okay, but not lumping
Galaxy Squad into the Classic Space figures, etc. I think having minifigures
classified according to the themes they occur in is how they should be classified
for now, and the catalog manages to currently do that relatively okay for the
majority of the minifigures.
But, once again, this gets back to the database design. We are stuck in a system
that only categorizes things in a flat manner, so moving large amounts of items
around, renumbering large amounts of items, etc., would cause a nightmare for
anyone and everyone involved.
Having a system that allowed tags on items would allow minifigures to be categorized
in more than one way and then all figures could just be given sequential codes
starting from figure000001 all the way up to however many figures there
are and then into the future. So figure009866 might be classified as "Space",
"Galaxy Squad", and "Alien", whereas figure013022 might be classified
as "Licensed", "Space", "Star Wars", and "Alien". No more thinking about how
to structure item numbers, no more worrying about what *specific* category a
minifigure should go in, no more having users even think about numbering since
the system could just assign the next figure number automatically! This is really
where the whole system needs to get to.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 04:34 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | As a huge minifigure collector who categorizes their entire collection by the
BrickLink item numbers, I would not be in favor of any renumbering of huge swaths
of the BrickLink catalog as it stands. Small sections, okay, but not lumping
Galaxy Squad into the Classic Space figures, etc. I think having minifigures
classified according to the themes they occur in is how they should be classified
for now, and the catalog manages to currently do that relatively okay for the
majority of the minifigures.
|
It would be absolutely crazy to remove an entire theme such as Galaxy Squad from
both sets and minifigures, to rebrand the humans into a minifigure section called
Classic Space and the aliens into a completely different section called Aliens,
chuck all the sets in an unsorted Space section, but keep the name of the theme
alive in part names such as "Galaxy Squad Armor".
Oh, wait a minute ... that is exactly what BL is planning with XP.
More than ever minifigures need the correct numbering as that is the only link
to the theme within XP.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 06:08 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| |
It would be absolutely crazy to remove an entire theme such as Galaxy Squad from
both sets and minifigures, to rebrand the humans into a minifigure section called
Classic Space and the aliens into a completely different section called Aliens,
chuck all the sets in an unsorted Space section, but keep the name of the theme
alive in part names such as "Galaxy Squad Armor".
Oh, wait a minute ... that is exactly what BL is planning with XP.
More than ever minifigures need the correct numbering as that is the only link
to the theme within XP.
|
I think it goes without saying that I would never want to see Galaxy Squad humans
separated from Galaxy Sqaud Aliens so whatever happens they’d need to be grouped
together for sure be that under ‘gs’ or ‘sp’
Where it gets more difficult is with things like skeletons but as a general rule
I’d say plain skeletons remain under ’gen’ but if they are associated with a
pirate theme and wear pirate hat then they should probably be a ‘pi’ code whereas
if they came from a castle theme wearing armour or knight helmet then they should
be a ‘cas’ code but obviously a plain skeleton from a castle set should still
be ‘gen’ but what about this one: cas328 with the red eyes I’m not so sure ’cas’
or ‘gen’?
These codes seem to be placed correctly cas329, cas378
whereas many such as gen009, gen011, gen021, gen037, gen135, gen036 perhaps need
moving?
Then you have oddities like gen027 and gen147 that look almost the same but would
seem strange to separate under ‘hol’ and ‘twn’ so ‘gen’ would seem like the only
suitable option for these?
All in all its a bit of a nightmre to try and organise for the best 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 04:54 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | No thoughts on this from anyone? It really must be just me then?
|
Item numbers for figures are a mess. We're working on it.
See this forum post for a poetically eloquent description of the mess:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1187433
|
Yes I can see it’s definitely a challenge especially since many minifg codes
have become well established with people even though they may not make too much
sense structure wise!
I guess the reason I asked was mainly because I could see some Ideas codes had
been changed to Ghostbuster codes whilst Dimensions Ghostbuster minifgs and the
Ideas Pirate minifigs hadn’t been altered in the same way?
Either way I guess there would need to be a rule of thumb on want constitutes
a minifig range being given its own theme code abbreviation. For instance do
you start giving the ghostbuster minifigs the ‘gb’ code when there are at least
8 minifigs in the range for example?
On the other hand if there are only 2 or 3 ghostbusters minifigs do they perhaps
always just start off with a miscellaneous code which might also include everything
from Santa to ET?
Do we also start to catalog things not necessarily by Legos themes but by what
the community itself classes as the best match for Space, Castle, Pirates etc...
with anything that does'nt fit among the established themes classed as miscellaneous?
For instance do you envisage that stuff like Galaxy Squad might come under space
‘sp’? instead of ‘gs’?
|
As a huge minifigure collector who categorizes their entire collection by the
BrickLink item numbers, I would not be in favor of any renumbering of huge swaths
of the BrickLink catalog as it stands. Small sections, okay, but not lumping
Galaxy Squad into the Classic Space figures, etc. I think having minifigures
classified according to the themes they occur in is how they should be classified
for now, and the catalog manages to currently do that relatively okay for the
majority of the minifigures.
But, once again, this gets back to the database design. We are stuck in a system
that only categorizes things in a flat manner, so moving large amounts of items
around, renumbering large amounts of items, etc., would cause a nightmare for
anyone and everyone involved.
Having a system that allowed tags on items would allow minifigures to be categorized
in more than one way and then all figures could just be given sequential codes
starting from figure000001 all the way up to however many figures there
are and then into the future. So figure009866 might be classified as "Space",
"Galaxy Squad", and "Alien", whereas figure013022 might be classified
as "Licensed", "Space", "Star Wars", and "Alien". No more thinking about how
to structure item numbers, no more worrying about what *specific* category a
minifigure should go in, no more having users even think about numbering since
the system could just assign the next figure number automatically! This is really
where the whole system needs to get to.
Cheers,
Randy
|
To be honest I don’t have too much concern about stuff like Galaxy Squad remaining
‘gs’ and was more interested in other people’s opinions of where we think it
might go though I would just say that if the system remained as it is we could
potentially run out of abbreviations if we continue to use them on every sub-theme
like this but I guess I have bigger issue with the minifigs from both the ‘dim’
and ‘idea’ categories taking precedence over existing categories which are better
suited for them because to me it’s a bit like categorising a Star Wars minifig
from an advent calendar as ‘adv’ or from polybag as ‘pol’ when it should still
be ‘sw’?
On the same token if it goes the way your suggesting then I guess that would
blow everything out the water all together and whilst it could work the only
real issue I would have is with the length of the codes which would also take
away the ability to memorize them for instance without even looking I know that
sw0707 is Yoda and are we going to have more instances where we end up forgetting
which minifig code we came to pick once at the storage location?
As the current system shows a small abbreviation of letters + number combos allows
for codes to be shorter and more memorable
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom, England
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
USA, Oklahoma
