Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Turez  | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 10:46 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | infinibrix: I think breaking down some of this stuff might make more sense
than renaming Minifigs to Figures and then piling everything into the same place.
Response: You and I have spoken about this in another thread. I really
don't understand the logic behind adding additional item types. In a way
it would be like having a Town Sets, Space Sets, Castle Sets, etc. system of
item types instead of categorizing all these as sets and sorting them within
that item type. Figures are figures and can be further sorted within the Figures
item type.
bje: Animals will then only be figures if they are used in a set with
marked personalities or functions such as Pepper the soundcheck assistant.
Response: Yes, that's certainly one valid way to do it. Honestly,
I think the simpler way would be to just consider all animals figures. I'm
just not sure if the inventories system could handle this change.
jonwil: How do you draw the distinction between an animal and a figure?
Response: Don't know. That's why I think it would be easier to
consider all animals figures to avoid debates.
|
It took me some time to fully understand your idea. But I think I get it now.
1. You want to rename the current category "Minifigs" to "Figures". Why? I can
hardly think of a word that is so strong connected with LEGO like "Minifig"/"Minifigure".
"Figure", in contrast, is random and meaningless. Every brand can have figures,
but LEGO has minifigures. Compare the following pages:
https://www.google.com/search?q=figures&hl=de&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVg7b6_orpAhVjqHEKHRULDfwQ_AUoAnoECA0QBA&biw=1536&bih=734
https://www.google.com/search?q=minifigures&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6mrO__orpAhUTUhUIHSJZCXkQ_AUoAnoECA0QBA&biw=1536&bih=734
And see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_minifigure
Removing the name/category "Minifigs" from one of the largest LEGO websites seems
really strange to me.
2. You want to put all animals into the renamed "Figures" category. For example,
the inventory of
would then have "2035 Parts, 12 Figures"? Very odd...
And
would have "5 Parts, 2 Figures"?
So that would also mean that we go away from the idea that set inventories should
display the parts like they come in a new set? Because when the built dragon
is a figure, its single parts need to be removed from the inventory. That means
all changes concerning built animals from the last years have to be reversed?
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemItemID=1764
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemItemID=1795
etc...
Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a good solution. If you ask me, the reason
why there is a category called "Minifigs" is because people are especially interested
in minifigs (= LEGO figures mainly consisting of legs, torso and head). Minifigs
define the play value or collection value of a set. Therefore, people (buyers,
sellers, kids, collectors) want to know how many minifigs are in a set. They
usually don't need to know how many spiders, frogs, parrots etc. are in a
set and I'm sure nobody would understand why all this should be mixed up
in the same category now.
I already said how I would handle minifigs:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1192617
I would also not vote against keeping the status quo (with statues = minifigs
etc.). Of course a few minior adjustments could be made (to better clarify how
to handle droids or one-piece-minifigs, for example). But all in all, I think
the current classification works quite well, even if it is not consistent in
some cases and has no clear definition yet.
It should also be considered that Brickset takes minifigs classification and
images from BrickLink. So changes on that topic here on BrickLink will likely
affect thousands of minifig collectors (yes, minifig collectors, not figure collectors
 ) on both BrickLink and Brickset, the two biggest lego websites in the world
(apart from lego.com).
Regards,
Jonas
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 01:33 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
|
But it could be sooner than that in the absence of further feedback. Anyway,
here are some additional comments/questions in chronological order of posting.
infinibrix: I think breaking down some of this stuff might make more sense
than renaming Minifigs to Figures and then piling everything into the same place.
Response: You and I have spoken about this in another thread. I really
don't understand the logic behind adding additional item types. In a way
it would be like having a Town Sets, Space Sets, Castle Sets, etc. system of
item types instead of categorizing all these as sets and sorting them within
that item type. Figures are figures and can be further sorted within the Figures
item type.
bje: Animals will then only be figures if they are used in a set with
marked personalities or functions such as Pepper the soundcheck assistant.
Response: Yes, that's certainly one valid way to do it. Honestly,
I think the simpler way would be to just consider all animals figures. I'm
just not sure if the inventories system could handle this change.
jonwil: How do you draw the distinction between an animal and a figure?
Response: Don't know. That's why I think it would be easier to
consider all animals figures to avoid debates.
bje: I found some more exceptions.
Response: I updated the guidelines to cover all exceptions with the same
wording so that we wouldn't have to keep expanding the list of exceptions.
By the way, the clock you posted would still be considered gear. It's predominantly
an item of gear that includes a bonus set.
cosmicray: Could you give an example, or two, or gear/games that will
remain in gear?
Response: Sure. Here are several games that would still be gear:
[G=G31397]
[G=GA04]
Those games are not significantly constructed from bricks like these games are:
[G=3843]
[G=40161]
But, using my own statement about figures above, it's clear why all games
were considered gear in the past. 
cosmicray: I'm trying to visualize . . . the small bits of cardboard
. . supplied with . . . sets. The cardboard bits were integral to the play
value of the sets. Will those bits, not being plastic, end up under Educational?
Response: No. The Educational & Dacta category is for themed items in
that line. Harry Potter and Soccer items would not be categorized as Educational
& Dacta. I believe you're asking about parts in this category:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=P&catString=246
The way I interpret the revised guidelines nothing would change here. But the
more important question is how do you interpret these items based on the
revised guidelines? If the guidelines don't clearly address the items you're
asking about, then they're flawed.
dcarmine: Where do posters go?
Response: The way I interpret the revised guidelines, they would be gear
because they do not naturally fit into one of the other five item types.
And then wildchicken13 and others had additional comments about figures. So
it looks like there will be two sticking points with these new definitions:
1. What should be considered a figure?
2. How do we make a clear distinction between sets and gear?
Oddly enough, both of these have long been contentious on BrickLink. I always
assumed that it was because no written guidelines existed, but now I understand
that perhaps the reason no written guidelines existed is because of the difficulty
in formulating them.
Still soliciting feedback . . .
|
|
| Author: | BricksThatStick | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2020 18:59 | | Subject: | Assistance Needed with 9V Battery Box Images | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| If anyone out there can help with some images for the catalog it would be greatly
appreciated:
Randy and SezaR are in the process of simplifying the 9V battery box inventories.
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1189975
The box part without the bottom cover for some of these have kindly been submitted
by SezaR here:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogImagePendingApproval.page?uID=552064&catID=411&catType=P
Thats the top part of these 3 complete boxes:
But now we need a favor from the community...
If any of you has any of these below and can submit an image of them without
the bottom battery cover then we can add a complete set of these at once and
its all nice and neat
If you can please maintain the orientation of the box with the existing images
and have it against a white background if possible:
The top box of this one:
Will be this entry:
The top box of this one:
Will be this entry:
The top box of this one:
Will be this entry:
The top box of this one:
Will be this entry:
The top box of this one:
Will be this entry:
The top box of this one:
Will be this entry:
Many thanks in advance
|
|
| Author: | Adjour | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2020 00:59 | | Subject: | Re: Condition(s) for Used Items | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I've never understood the lack of grading descriptions on items, especially
figs. I know I often sell a fig at a good price because I'm the one with
the description when there are lots of cheaper ones with no notes.
I know personally I don't buy figs without descriptions unless I absolutely
have to.
I grade my instructions too, same thing. I don't understand used, expensive
items with absolutely no comments on it.
To each their own I guess.
|
|
| Author: | grimsbricksuk | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2020 00:53 | | Subject: | Re: Condition(s) for Used Items | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| It’s not too difficult, I mean over on BrickOwl they manage to give used items
different condition levels & it works very well.
In Catalog, tonnic writes:
| | I think it is a (very) difficult one.
What I think is ‘in a not so good condition’ can be called good by another seller
(or maybe the other way around but since I am a real nitpicker this would rarely
happen...).
I bought minifigs that were mentioned ‘in very good condition’ that I had to
send back due to scratches and dents.
I did not need my readingglasses to see the problems.
Therefore I guess a lot of sellers have different ideas regarding the condition
of the Lego they sell.
So, in my opinion, sellers should mention the condition when needed or at
least when there is (more than average) playwear or if something is in really
good to newlike condition.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 23:53 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts D sect | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Excellent work as always. I'm all caught up and I've added some comments
below.
In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Dino – For a themed line of sets and other items from 2012.
|
Even though we're not really working at the category level at the moment
(in a sense, anyway) this category should only be for package-defined Dino sets.
And the Dinosaurs category should only be for package-defined Dinosaurs sets.
So here a new category titled Dinosaur needs to be created and a number of items
in the Dino category need to be moved.
| | Dish - For items parabolic in shape used to direct radio waves , including
modified items.
|
Except that some items in this category were not designed to direct radio waves,
but only to function as coverings. Also, since the Scala dish is used in other
themes, I disagree that it should go to the Scala themed category. I haven't
checked, but it was probably moved out of that category. Instead, the
part title should probably be updated, including the removal of the word Scala.
| | Disney® ™- For items trademarked to or licensed from The Walt Disney Company.
|
Here the site should have an overall disclaimer somewhere about all trademarks
and copyrights. It is impractical to have the copyright mark or trademark in
every place in the catalog where these are used.
| | Door Frame - For items structurally holding doors or glass.
|
I noticed that this category should be titled Door, Frame. Also, there is overlap
between this category and Window (which makes sense because some frames are used
for both doors and windows). So really, it needs to be retitled to Door and
Window Frame.
| | Duplo, Aircraft - For Duplo items of the Aircraft, Tail and Propeller
categories.
|
I do like what you've done here, but decided not to go with it because if
there are changes in other categories, then the corresponding Duplo category
would have to be updated in definition and contents. We cannot know if future
administrators will do this, so it is more prudent to define each Duplo category
unto itself instead of tying it to another catalog category.
| | batteries produce electricity, they are not used to store it.
|
I learned something. Thank you.
This is another category that is used catalog-wide. Like you, I focused only
on parts and forgot that. So I had to make the definition quite generic and
it may not be useful now for determining what should be included in the Parts:
Food & Drink category. Here are some of the 353 items categorized as Food &
Drink:
| | Friends . . . This really should not be a category that have parts.
|
Agreed that some, perhaps most or even all, of the Friends parts could go elsewhere.
| | Glass - For items that are transparent or opague flat coverings fixed
on all ends in Windows and Door Frames
|
Except that not all glass is completely fixed. Some glass swivels within the
frame like a door. I did what I could with this definition.
| | HO Vehicles - For vehicles and related items released from the mid 1950s
to the mid 1960s to HO scale
|
I think these would actually fit better into the Gear item type instead of the
Parts item type.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 18:56 | | Subject: | Re: Pending items in catalog | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Rus_Numis writes:
| | How long does it usually take for item to be finally added to Catalog when it
is in "Pending" status? I tried to add a few items released in 2020 in my store
but I didn't find them in Catalog. When I tried to add an item I got notified
that this item is already in Catalog but pending approval. It's been a week
now since my attempt and items still not there.
|
What items are they?
Like in most jobs, the catmins are drawn to items that are submitted with a nice
pictures and named following convention. Items with no picture, a poor description
or a controversial existence can be slow, because they always have plenty to
do and they might have to do 10 times the work to do the hard stuff.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 18:49 | | Subject: | Re: Pending items in catalog | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Rus_Numis writes:
| | How long does it usually take for item to be finally added to Catalog when it
is in "Pending" status?
|
Whenever an image has been uploaded, we try to make a decision within three months
at the most. Items without images are usually not approved.
However, for most items we get them approved in far less than three months.
We don't keep records, but I would guess the average time for item approval
is 2 to 3 days.
|
|
| Author: | Rus_Numis | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 18:30 | | Subject: | Pending items in catalog | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| How long does it usually take for item to be finally added to Catalog when it
is in "Pending" status? I tried to add a few items released in 2020 in my store
but I didn't find them in Catalog. When I tried to add an item I got notified
that this item is already in Catalog but pending approval. It's been a week
now since my attempt and items still not there.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 16:30 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts FGH | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Definitions – Section F parts
Felt - For items made from a pressed mass of fibers . Note 1
Fence - For items that are structures with posts for support, used to
divide open areas. Note 2
Flag - For items that have the function or the appearance of a cloth piece
for attachment to a pole on one side or molded flag and and pole assemblies.
Note 3
Foam - For items made of sponge rubber. Note 4
Food & Drink - For items that are figure-scale solid or liquid sustenance
Note 5
Friends - For a themed line of sets and related items. Note 6
Definitions – Section G parts
Garage - For items unique to the type of building used to store automobiles
and their accessories. Note 7
Glass - For items that are transparent or opague flat coverings fixed
on all ends in Windows and Door Frames. Note 8
Definitions – Section H parts
Hinge - For items of modified bricks, plates and cylinders that connect
in pairs such that only one degree of movement is allowed when connected. Note
9
HO Vehicles - For vehicles and related items released from the mid 1950s
to the mid 1960s to HO scale. Note 10
Hook - For items that are curved at one end and function to catch hold
of objects and their jib mountings and accessories.
Hose - For pipes of varying lengths that can be bent and the couplings
of those pipes. Note 11
Hose, Pneumatic 4mm D. - For hollow hoses of varying lengths that transport
air for pneumatic functions and that are four millimeters in diameter.
Hose, Ribbed 7mm D. - For hollow, ribbed hoses of varying lengths that
are seven millimeters in diameter.
Hose, Rigid 3mm D. - For hollow, semi-rigid hoses of varying lengths that
are three millimeters in diameter.
Hose, Soft 3mm D. - For hollow, soft hoses of varying lengths that are
three millimeters in diameter.
Hose, Soft Axle - For solid, flexible hoses that have pin-like couplings
and are shaped like Technic axles.
Notes
1. The process of making felt does respectfully not really include water.
2. Door and Glass can also be construed as barriers to entry.
3. Respectfully, cloth pieces should not mount poles, it is against nature and
will probably look weird.
4. Similar to the definitions of cloth, felt etc. All parts are used in the process
of building sets, not just foam sponge parts.
5. There are no liquid items in the category.
6. This really should not be a category that have parts. All the parts in this
category can be moved to other categories such as plants or utensils.
7. Rather consider Door and Door Frames for these parts as the modified bricks
required in the modern variants are not part of this category so the parts in
the category cannot be used to construct a garage.
8. As opposed to a door which is designed to swivel.
9. All hinges should be movable on only 1 axis, else it is by definition not
a hinge.
10. Redundancy – HO Scale is the same thing as 1:87.
11. Respectfully, no LEGO item transports liquid and the terms excludes both
rigid and solid hoses from a hose part definition. Generally hoses have couplings
and joints
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 15:45 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | […]
I'm just bored. I've been on BrickLink for a while, but I haven't
been active on the forum until very recently. You don't have to listen to
my answers if you don't want to.
|
I, for one, welcome any new participant to the forum
|
+1
Besides, you hardly ever see wild chickens anymore
|
Apparently, they still exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_chicken
|
Yep, the the feral chicken is more fascinating than their still domesticated
cousin. We ran across them in one of our backcountry hikes. They certainly don't
behave as they did when still domesticated.
But "feral" chickens are still derived from domestic chickens who have returned
to the wild.
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 15:23 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | […]
I'm just bored. I've been on BrickLink for a while, but I haven't
been active on the forum until very recently. You don't have to listen to
my answers if you don't want to.
|
I, for one, welcome any new participant to the forum
|
+1
Besides, you hardly ever see wild chickens anymore
|
Apparently, they still exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_chicken
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 15:01 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | […]
I'm just bored. I've been on BrickLink for a while, but I haven't
been active on the forum until very recently. You don't have to listen to
my answers if you don't want to.
|
I, for one, welcome any new participant to the forum
|
+1
Besides, you hardly ever see wild chickens anymore
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 14:54 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | […]
I'm just bored. I've been on BrickLink for a while, but I haven't
been active on the forum until very recently. You don't have to listen to
my answers if you don't want to.
|
I, for one, welcome any new participant to the forum
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 14:41 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, cosmicray writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| | So each car from Cars could become minifigs too?
|
Some of them already are:
|
So, the sellers who are listing individual cars from should create
catalog entries, and move those listings out of the 8639 set (where they are
cluttering things up) ? Out of the first 25 listings, 14 are individual cars.
A few of them, it would appear, already have catalog entries.
Can I do the same thing for , and (finally) have a home for the two
racers ? (which to date I have in Custom listings)
Nita Rae
|
The cars entries, together with the sp00x line are an experiment. We needed the
cars to be minifigs so we could easily compare with partout value over a period
of time.
But at this moment, we do not want such things to be added. We need to figure
out the best way moving forward first.
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 13:53 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
Where do posters go?
|
Posters would fall under gear because they are not made of LEGO bricks.
|
Ok, thanks for that.
Not to offend you, but why are you answering most of the questions?
You don't seem to be an Admin, I haven't seen you on the forum before
now. Do you have some qualification that I don't know about that makes you
take on answering these questions? How can I know that what you are telling
me is true?
Just want to understand why you are answering these questions.
Donna
|
I'm just bored. I've been on BrickLink for a while, but I haven't
been active on the forum until very recently. You don't have to listen to
my answers if you don't want to.
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 1 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility
|
yorbrick: The description of how to handle games is to unspecific.
Response: Please suggest better terminology.
wildchicken13: The new definition of figures is not helpful.
Response: Please suggest better terminology. Also, you may be confused
by the term "minifigure." BrickLink categorizes something like 40 different
types of figures together and calls them all minifigures. This is obviously
a mistake on our part and I'm trying to get that changed.
|
Yeah, it looks like I am not the only one who is confused by the term. Creating
a precise definition of the word "minifigure" is challenging. Both the current
definition ("mini figure") and the proposed definition ("autonomous entity")
open a lot of room for interpretation.
One suggestion would be to go by what the LEGO Group officially designates as
a minifigure. LEGO usually lists all the minifigures in a set in the official
description, and sometimes they also appear on the box. For example, on LEGO.com,
the official description for
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/super-hero-airport-battle-76051
says: "Includes minifigures of Captain America, Winter Soldier, Scarlet Witch,
Iron Man, War Machine, and Agent 13, plus an Ant-Man microfigure and a buildable
Giant-Man figure." Under this definition,
would all be classified as minifigures,
would be classified as a microfigure, and
would be classified as a buildable figure. Minifigures, microfigures, and buildable
figures would all be separate subcategories under the figure category.
Furthermore, on LEGO.com, the official description for
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/the-rise-of-voldemort-75965
says: "Includes 4 minifigures: Harry Potter™ with wand and Triwizard Challenge
outfit, Lord Voldemort™ with wand, Peter Pettigrew with wand and a Death Eater™."
Under this definition,
would all be considered minifigures, but
would not be considered minifigures because they are not listed as minifigures
in the description.
Some problems with this definition:
1. Not every minifigure comes in a set.
2. Not every set has an official description on LEGO.com.
3. Not every figure is mentioned in the official description of every set. For
example, in description for the Rise of Voldemort set, no mention is made of
Baby Voldemort or the Grave Statue. What should these be categorized as?
4. One set description may list a minifigure that is not listed in another set
description.
Perhaps a better idea would be to define a minifigure along the lines of what
resembles a traditional minifigure, i.e. whether or not it contains a torso assembly.
Under this definition,
would be a considered a minifigure because it contains a torso assembly, even
though it is not listed as a minifigure in the official set description, but
would not be considered a minifigure because it does not contain a torso assembly,
even though it is listed as a minifigure in the official set description. Figures
that are currently categorized as minifigures but do not contain a torso assembly
could be placed in separate subcategories under the figure category.
| | wildchicken13: Perhaps we could do a similar thing for figures, i.e. give
them
two separate catalog entries, one under parts and the other under figures?
Response: We're trying to move away from duplicate catalog entries
for the same item. In the instance you mentioned, one catalog entry is for a
set, while the other catalog entry is for the part that comes in the set.
|
Yeah, I don't like the idea of duplicate catalog entries, either. I recognize
that a part and a set consisting of a single part are technically two different
items, though.
| | wildchicken13: I'm just wondering where to draw the line between an assembly
that is a "part" and one that is something else ?
Response: If this isn't clear from the definitions, then the definitions
are flawed. Again, please suggest revisions. This is, in theory at least, your
reference catalog.
|
I'm not sure what to suggest for this one. I don't see a huge problem
with categorizing assemblies such as
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
as parts since they almost always go together and the last one is even included
in assembled form in official LEGO sets, but I don't think
should be considered parts because they are made up of many different elements
that do not always go together like that. Perhaps these items should be moved
to their own category, or perhaps they should be eliminated from the catalog
entirely, since there don't seem to be that many for sale, and sellers wanting
to sell these items could list them as a custom item.
| | bje: Are you going to rename the minifigs section in inventories to assembled
figures?
Response: We don't have the ability to rename many things. We can't
rename item types, for example, or "Minifigs" would already be "Figures." Renaming
sections of inventories is beyond our ability.
bje: Then we ought to make the school supplies an exception as well.
Response: Done.
CPgolfaddict: In my opinion the right solution here is to change the catalog
so that an item can appear in more than one item type and/or more than one category.
Response: This has been suggested before. We don't have the ability
to modify the site in this way.
manganschlamm: Question: Will animals be now figures as well?
Response: I think there would be nothing wrong with that and I wouldn't
be at all opposed. I haven't discussed it with anyone else, though. What
is your preference here?
If anyone had questions/comments that weren't addressed or need further clarification,
just say so.
|
|
|
| Author: | dcarmine | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
Where do posters go?
|
Posters would fall under gear because they are not made of LEGO bricks.
|
Ok, thanks for that.
Not to offend you, but why are you answering most of the questions?
You don't seem to be an Admin, I haven't seen you on the forum before
now. Do you have some qualification that I don't know about that makes you
take on answering these questions? How can I know that what you are telling
me is true?
Just want to understand why you are answering these questions.
Donna
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 12:20 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
Where do posters go?
|
Posters would fall under gear because they are not made of LEGO bricks.
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jonwil writes:
| | No that Minnie Mouse set isn't a "figure" any more than the Minnie Mouse
BrickHeadz set is a "figure".
But the Baby Minnie Mouse figure from the Primo/Baby sets, the Minnie Mouse figure
from the "fabuland style" sets, the Duplo Minnie Mouse figure and the Minnie
Mouse minifig are all "figures" and should be treated as such.
|
Perhaps Figures should be subdivided into:
anthropomorphic animals
anthropomorphic robots
sentient humanoids
I am moderately serious about the above, but what it points out is the difficulty
in plugging assemblies into a cataloging system that is purely hierarchical in
nature. We would would be better served, with a few broad categories, and then
attribute tag the individual entries.
Nita Rae
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 11:48 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
Under Exceptions, where it says "Educational Materials - These are considered
books to keep them together in one place, even when only a sheet of paper or
a piece of cardboard."
I'm trying to visualize in my mind, the small bits of cardboard, that have
been supplied with (for example) certain Soccer sets (and maybe Harry Potter
sets). The cardboard bits were integral to the play value of the sets. Will those
bits, not being plastic, end up under Educational ?
Nita Rae
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 11:39 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
Could you give an example, or two, or gear/games that will remain in gear. I'm
trying to mentally follow how they will be sorted out, one from the other.
Nita Rae
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 1 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
|
snip
| |
bje: Then we ought to make the school supplies an exception as well.
Response: Done.
|
some more exceptions:
Human furniture
[g=4016g] and related
Some in the fast food toy category:
Clocks as in
|
|
| Author: | edk | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 09:33 | | Subject: | Re: set 558 - counter part drum with sticker | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, sebastianlego writes:
| | gray color comparison, from top:
Dark bluish
Light bluish
Light gray
Dark gray on sword
unknown gray on drum
|
That color of LG also appears in classic space sets in this part.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 09:29 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jonwil writes:
| | The description for lists Plankton by name and the instructions depict
Plankton (who in this set is a single printed 1 x 1 round brick and not part
of a larger build) right next to Spongebob, Patrick and Krabs.
|
We do not have to go by TLG's definitions, or at least no one has said so
yet. The catalog still (as of right now) has some measure of autonomy.
As for single-piece figures, I think we should avoid things like this:
These are duplicate catalog entries for the same item (one entry as a part and
one as a figure). Figures like Plankton and Rick would ordinarily just be decorated
parts, but as you can see there is inconsistency in how they're handled in
the catalog. Inconsistencies like these are what the new definitions page aims
to address.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 09:09 | | Subject: | Re: set 558 - counter part drum with sticker | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, sebastianlego writes:
| | gray color comparison, from top:
Dark bluish
Light bluish
Light gray
Dark gray on sword
unknown gray on drum
|
I'm not sure the reason for this color difference, but it is highly unlikely
that BrickLink will add a new color solely for this winch drum. It's also
unlikely that the site will add a new catalog entry solely for the drum color
difference. There is variance, sometimes significantly noticeable, between parts
in the same colors.
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 09:03 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| | So each car from Cars could become minifigs too?
|
Some of them already are:
|
So, the sellers who are listing individual cars from should create
catalog entries, and move those listings out of the 8639 set (where they are
cluttering things up) ? Out of the first 25 listings, 14 are individual cars.
A few of them, it would appear, already have catalog entries.
Can I do the same thing for , and (finally) have a home for the two
racers ? (which to date I have in Custom listings)
Nita Rae
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 08:39 | | Subject: | Category Definitions Discussion - Parts E sect | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Definitions – Section E parts
Electric - For items that control, transmits, conducts or receive electricity,
radio and IR signals, batteries, cameras and sensors;
Electric, Battery Box - For cases designed to hold portable electricity
producing devices and their accessories. Note 1
Electric, Light & Sound - For electrical items that produce visible light
and/or audible sounds and their accessories. Note 2
Electric, Motor - For items that changes electricity into motion for the
purpose of work, and their accessories. Note 3
Electric, Programmable - For advanced electronic devices that can perform
a range of tasks. Note 4
Electric, Train - For electrical items used with the 4.5V, 9V, 12V, RC
or other LEGO train systems.
Electric, Wire & Connector - For items designed to connect electrical
items over a distance and their accessories. Note 5
Electronics - For advanced electronic devices that can perform only a
single task.
Energy Effect - For items and multipacks that are the effects of energy
production, release or transformation such as flames, water, polymers and plasma.
Note 6
Notes:
1. Respectfully, batteries produce electricity, they are not used to store it.
2. Probably fibre optic cables are more for transmission than for light, consider
to move this to Electric or amend this definition to include light transmission.
3. Electrical only and there are accessories included in this category;
4. Devices that can only perform 1 task are not programmable. I do not know if
all of the parts in this category actually meet the definition of device, programmable
or even tasks.
5. Probably the transmission items should stay within the Electric definition.
6. Consider adding multipacks to line definitions. The polymers is to add slime
to the energy effects example.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 08:34 | | Subject: | Category Definitions Discussion - Parts D sect | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I've stopped the split for sets and parts. I am not a DUPLO expert, so I'll
keep these generic to tie in with the main catalogue so as to avoid confusion
with categories in the main catalogue.
Definitions – Section D parts
Dino – For a themed line of sets and other items from 2012. Note 1
Dish - For items parabolic in shape used to direct radio waves , including
modified items. Note 2
Disney® ™- For items trademarked to or licensed from The Walt Disney Company.
Note 3
Door - For items that are flat, fixed at one edge and used to close the
entrance to something. Note 4.
Door Frame - For items structurally holding doors or glass. Note 5
Duplo - For Duplo-branded sets and related items. Note 6
Duplo, Aircraft - For Duplo items of the Aircraft, Tail and Propeller
categories. Note 7
Duplo, Animal - For Duplo items of the Animal , Air, Body Part, Dinosaur,
Land and Water categories. Note 8
Duplo, Baseplate - For Duplo items of the Baseplate and Baseplate, Road
and -Raised categories
Duplo, Boat - For Duplo items of the Boat category.
Duplo, Brick - For Duplo items of the Brick, -Arch, Modified, Round and
Slope and Slope, Curved Categories. Note 9
Duplo, Brick, Promotional - For Duplo items of the Brick, Promotional
category.
Duplo, Cloth - For Duplo items of the Cloth category.
Duplo, Doll - For items of clothing and other accessories intended to
be worn or used by Duplo Dolls. Note 10
Duplo, Figure Wear & Utensil - For Duplo items of the Minifigure Body
Wear, Head Gear and – Accessory, Shield, Utensil and Weapon categories. Note
11
Duplo, Food & Drink - For Duplo items of the Food & Drink category
Duplo, Furniture - For moveable household items intended for use by Duplo
figures.
Duplo, Plant - For Duplo items of the Plant and Plant Tree categories.
Duplo, Plate – For Duplo items of the Plate, Plate Decorated, - Modified
and - Round categories.
Duplo, Vehicle - For Duplo items of the Crane, Riding Cycle, Vehicle,
Vehicle Base, Wheel & Tire Assembly categories .
Notes:
1. We have animal, dinosaur with the same definition and I do not see items such
as figures or otherwise using this category. If this is just a set line change
to “For a themed line of sets from 2012”
2. Correctly, these are parabolic antennas or radio telescopes. The definition
should differentiate from crockery. Modified is defined already and saves the
category being created. The Scala dish should probably move to Scala parts
3. Not a parts issue, but Disney is a registered mark and BL is probably not
entitled to use it as a category name or something used to describe part/set
names for the BL catalogue, without the mark being acknowledged. Perhaps add
the fact that these are licensed themes. I am not sure if Disney is registered
everywhere, so the ® and ™ mark should be used, even when used for part descriptions.
That should aid members to know when we have items that are strictly enforced
for marks. The same goes for every other instance of Disney and probably every
other mark, including figure names such as Jango Fett™ or SpongeBob™.
4. Probably container doors should move here as should the garage doors and garage
door sections. A window glass is probably also an opening barrier set in a frame.
5. Probably the garage door frames and counterweights should move here. Glass
is defined already as being windows.
6. We are of course again assuming that everybody knows what Duplo is. Fully
40% of all Duplo parts, excluding vehicular and decorated, are in this category.
Probably there should be some cleanup of this. Consider categories that are
overheads rather like for instance an Animals category that could have ALL of
the animal categories in the main catalogue, similar to Duplo Bricks which contain
all of the Brick categories in the main catalogue. Probably having a Duplo category
with parts in it is akin to having a category called Part.
7. Trying to tie the main catalogue into the Duplo sub-catalogue with this. This
so that Duplo specific definitions need not be made, else there might be confusing
definitions across different sections of the catalogue.
8. Only Animal, Accessories are at present dealt with in the Duplo main category.
Probably a good time to introduce hyperlinks across the sections of the definitions
as well
9. Probably some of the decorated bricks should be moved to avoid confusion.
10. This might be a knowledge problem on my side, but are there specific furniture
items for Duplo Dolls, or must this be rather Duplo, Doll Accessory, similar
to the Bellville Figure Accessory, for consistency across sub parts of the catalogue?
11. Probably some cloth items will have to move .
|
|
| Author: | jonwil | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 08:29 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The description for lists Plankton by name and the instructions depict
Plankton (who in this set is a single printed 1 x 1 round brick and not part
of a larger build) right next to Spongebob, Patrick and Krabs.
By the same token LEGO explicitly depicts the Nexo Knights Book of Monsters alongside
the figures on the box (and identifies it by name as well) but its not listed
in the Bricklink catalog at all (either as a minifig or as a named assembly of
parts in some other category)
|
|
| Author: | jonwil | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| How do you draw the distinction between an animal and a figure?
The Rock Monster is an animal yet the very similar monsters from
Power Miners such as and are figures.
Then you have which is only ever depicted as a stuffed animal and
not a figure (no different to
* | | 98382pb004 Teddy Bear with Black Eyes, Nose, Mouth and Stitches, Dark Tan and Medium Azure Stomach and Bright Pink Spot Pattern (The Simpsons Bobo)
Parts: Animal, Land |
from The Simpsons in that regard
IMO)
|
|
| Author: | sebastianlego | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 07:20 | | Subject: | Re: set 558 - counter part drum with sticker | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| gray color comparison, from top:
Dark bluish
Light bluish
Light gray
Dark gray on sword
unknown gray on drum
|
|
| Author: | jonwil | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 07:10 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| No that Minnie Mouse set isn't a "figure" any more than the Minnie Mouse
BrickHeadz set is a "figure".
But the Baby Minnie Mouse figure from the Primo/Baby sets, the Minnie Mouse figure
from the "fabuland style" sets, the Duplo Minnie Mouse figure and the Minnie
Mouse minifig are all "figures" and should be treated as such.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 02:59 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility
|
|
snip
| |
manganschlamm: Question: Will animals be now figures as well?
Response: I think there would be nothing wrong with that and I wouldn't
be at all opposed. I haven't discussed it with anyone else, though. What
is your preference here?
|
Depends probably on how autonomous entity is interpreted. If you use TLG's
set descriptions, only some animals are autonomous, and others blend into scenery.
Consider:
* | | 35074pb02 Bird, Friends / Elves, Feet Joined with Magenta Body and Bright Light Orange Eyes Pattern (Pepper)
Parts: Animal, Air |
and
The cow has only ever been described as a cow. It is not named in any set and
it serves no particular purpose other than to complete the scenery in the set
it is found in.
The bird on the other hand, is treated by TLG in various forms:
Pet- 41341, 853775
Bird - 41373
Named - Pepper in 41349
Named Function - Pepper Soundcheck in 41390, Pepper Pet in 41334
This ends up with dual use. If TLG described and used the animal as something
with no character or personality and just required to complete the model, then
it will be parts by definition (cow part).
If TLG, however, decides that for a particular set the animal does something
specific or is given a personality, then it will be a figure by definition (Pepper
Soundcheck Assistant).
If you are to differentiate between animals setting the scenery (that is background
needed for the model to be the thing that model represents and not needed for
being autonomous), then some animals are going to be parts. Animals will then
only be figures if they are used in a set with marked personalities or functions
such as Pepper the soundcheck assistant. So sometimes that bird will be a figure
called Pepper and at other times a part in the animal, air category
You are probably going to have to introduce some form of description in the definition
that can include a reference to personality of function. Probably if TLG gives
it a name (in other words gives it personality) in a specific set, then it should
be a figure in that set. Personally I would not like to see the
in as figures in the inventory for that set, as those are used as
wall hooks in that set.
Back to Pepper = two entries then: (a) as a figure named Pepper. Its inventory
will consist of one part named Bird, Friends / Elves, Feet Joined with Magenta
Body and Bright Light Orange Eyes Pattern in the animal, air category and
(b) as a part in the animal, air category which has no reference to the name
Pepper. You could conceivably use the same method for other parts and figures.
|
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 00:26 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
On the subject of categorizing figures in general I think breaking down some
of this stuff might make more sense than renaming Minifigs to Figures and then
piling everything into the same place.
It’s a difficult one but I guess you have to start with defining a minifigure
and at the moment I can only think of two ways of doing this where by you define
it by Size after all a clue is in the word MINIfigure which does unfortunately
leave a lot of ambiguity or better still you define minifig by the fact it uses
a Torso Assembly?
Torso Assembly may be a good clear cut way of defining a minifig because almost
all traditional minifigs from a Dementor to a Lord Garmadon use the all-important
standard Torso design that holds a minifig together and its probably the one
key part that really defines what a minifigure looks like when we think of a
minifigure and with that in mind you could categorise as Follows:-
Minifigure – Anything that uses the Standard Torso Assembly design
Modified Figure – Anything from droids, to brick built Droids, to Skeletons and
stuff like Gollum, Slimer, Unikitty, Scurrier, Scooby etc..
Microfigure – Anything very small consisting of a single or maximum of two parts
such as Baby, Baby Yoda, Palpatine Hologram, Baby Groot, Trophy figures and all
those game figures etc..
You are then left with things like Cave Troll, Big Hulk etc. which can either
go under ‘Modified Figure’ or a separate ‘Large Figure’ Category?
Likewise are animals/creatures separated so that Polar bears, Wargs and Horses
go under ‘Modified Figure’ and stuff like baby dinos, spiders and snakes under
‘Microfigure’ or do they have their own ‘Animal category’?
Lots to think about....
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 00:25 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 1 | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility
|
yorbrick: The description of how to handle games is to unspecific.
Response: Please suggest better terminology.
wildchicken13: The new definition of figures is not helpful.
Response: Please suggest better terminology. Also, you may be confused
by the term "minifigure." BrickLink categorizes something like 40 different
types of figures together and calls them all minifigures. This is obviously
a mistake on our part and I'm trying to get that changed.
wildchicken13: Perhaps we could do a similar thing for figures, i.e. give
them
two separate catalog entries, one under parts and the other under figures?
Response: We're trying to move away from duplicate catalog entries
for the same item. In the instance you mentioned, one catalog entry is for a
set, while the other catalog entry is for the part that comes in the set.
wildchicken13: I'm just wondering where to draw the line between an assembly
that is a "part" and one that is something else ?
Response: If this isn't clear from the definitions, then the definitions
are flawed. Again, please suggest revisions. This is, in theory at least, your
reference catalog.
bje: Are you going to rename the minifigs section in inventories to assembled
figures?
Response: We don't have the ability to rename many things. We can't
rename item types, for example, or "Minifigs" would already be "Figures." Renaming
sections of inventories is beyond our ability.
bje: Then we ought to make the school supplies an exception as well.
Response: Done.
CPgolfaddict: In my opinion the right solution here is to change the catalog
so that an item can appear in more than one item type and/or more than one category.
Response: This has been suggested before. We don't have the ability
to modify the site in this way.
manganschlamm: Question: Will animals be now figures as well?
Response: I think there would be nothing wrong with that and I wouldn't
be at all opposed. I haven't discussed it with anyone else, though. What
is your preference here?
If anyone had questions/comments that weren't addressed or need further clarification,
just say so.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 00:02 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts C sect | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
I'm caught up now. This is the only one I had a comment on. Classic, as
a word, is utterly meaningless and I'm trying to get away from it. Some
of the items in the category are package-defined as Classic sets, so the category
will remain for those. The remaining sets will probably need to be moved to
a new category that better defines what they are.
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 23:34 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| | So each car from Cars could become minifigs too?
|
Not "Minifigs", but "Figures".
See https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1192672
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 22:43 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
So each car from Cars could become minifigs too?
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 18:41 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Okay, then
should be considered parts because that is how they appear in unopened sets,
but
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
should not because they don't appear that way in unopened sets. Under the
current definition, anyways; the new one is a bit more vague and could include
things like the four parts above. But sometimes people use things like individual
minifigure legs in their builds (https://moc.bricklink.com/pages/moc/mocitem.page?idmocitem=1284
look at the base), so obviously there should be a separate catalog entry for
the individual legs, but where would it go? Should there be a separate category
for "sub-parts"? Or should the individual legs be considered parts and the
leg assemblies go in a separate category for assemblies? It's not a huge
problem right now, but it creates uncertainty for buyers and sellers who are
looking to buy/sell a part that is assembled from other parts, whether they should
buy/sell whole thing or break it down into its constituent elements first. Sometimes,
it doesn't really matter, but sometimes there is a significant price/availability
difference between the two, such as in the case of
1074 lots, average price $0.1614, vs.
17 lots, average price $0.4703 and
19 lots, average price $1.0323.
As someone who is familiar with BrickLink, I know which variants to look for,
but the casual user might not and end up purchasing the more expensive/harder
to find one without knowing. I know that I did a few times when I was new to
BrickLink.
In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | The proposed update has made me question the definition of a part.
The old definition: "Individual elements that make up a set."
The new definition: "Individual elements and assemblies used during the
process of building models." (emphasis mine)
The addition of "and assemblies" is significant. Under the old definition, parts
such as
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
|
This one never came assembled.
This one used to come assembled, but that was changed many years ago.
This one always comes assembled.
| | should not even be considered "parts" in the first place because they are, in
my experience, never included in assembled form in official lego sets (other
experiences may differ, there being many official lego sets). However, the new
definition refers to "models" instead of "sets", so this implies that we are
no longer constrained by what is included in official, boxed lego sets. Where
do you draw the line between an assembly that is a "part" and one that is something
else? Should assemblies such as the ones above even be considered parts in the
first place?
|
There are of course also the torso assemblies and legs assemblies that always
come assembled in sets. And some others as well.
|
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 18:13 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| That makes a lot of sense. Some buyers might look under part, others might look
under figure. It doesn't make much sense to create separate listings in both
categories since they are the same exact thing, whereas a part and a set consisting
of a single part are not; one can be purchased directly from the LEGO Group,
the other cannot. All that would do is just create confusion for buyers looking
for a particular item and sellers trying to list a particular item. It makes
much more sense to have a single listing in two different categories.
In Catalog, CPgolfaddict writes:
| | In my opinion the right solution here is to change the catalog so that an item
can appear in more than one item type and/or more than one category.
Otherwise there will always be some exceptions.
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | dcarmine | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 17:33 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
Where do posters go?
|
|
| Author: | CPgolfaddict | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 16:56 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In my opinion the right solution here is to change the catalog so that an item
can appear in more than one item type and/or more than one category.
Otherwise there will always be some exceptions.
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 16:27 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Sorry, I'm using the terms kind of interchangeably. But the LEGO Group uses
the term "minifigure" in it's official writing (set descriptions, boxes,
etc.), so if we limit the definition to include only official minifigures, then
it would make sense to use the term "minifigure." For example,
is currently categorized as a minifigure in the BrickLink catalog, even though
it is not listed as a minifigure in the official set description. Jonas is saying
that you shouldn't classify things as minifigures which are not considered
as such by LEGO, as is evidenced by the set description. However, if you use
the term "figure" instead of "minifigure" and you loosen the definition to include
things that are not official minifigures, then you could categorize the grave
statue and other things that are not official minifigures as figures. But that
opens up a lot of room for interpretation, and one could argue that
[p=3062bpb001]
is a figure since it "represents an autonomous entity," even though it has never
been listed as a minifigure in an official lego set and consists of only a single
part.
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | But the new classification isn't minifigs, it will be called figures, which
is a much broader term.
In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | Yeah, when trying to decide whether or not something can be classified as a minifigure,
I consult the box and/or set description (if available) to see if lego describes
it as a minifigure and depicts it alongside the other minifigures. That is the
reason why I am okay classifying
as a figure, since it is depicted alongside Patrick and SpongeBob on the box
of 3815-1, but not
[p=3062bpb001]
which is not. Perhaps the new category definitions should say that if a minifigure
is from a set, then it must be listed as such in the official description and/or
depicted as such on the box. Of course, not all minifigures come from sets, but
if it is from a set and it is not listed as a minifigure in the the official
description, then it probably shouldn't be considered a minifigure.
In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
In such cases, I would simply try to stick as close as possible to the official
classification.
For example: The official description of
says "Includes 3 minifigures: SpongeBob™, Patrick and Plankton" and the box shows
these three minifigures. Therefore,
[p=3062bpb001]
should be classified as a part (of a (mini)figure) since LEGO does not describe
the part itself as a figure.
Another example:
Official description: "Includes 4 minifigures: Harry Potter™ with wand and Triwizard
Challenge outfit, Lord Voldemort™ with wand, Peter Pettigrew with wand and a
Death Eater™."
BL currently has 6 minifigs in the inventory. The Grave Statue is build out of
minifigure parts, but it is part of the grave model and not really an autonomous
entity. Baby Voldemort is an autonomous entity but has nothing to to with a "classic"
minifigure. So as said, I personally would follow the description and classify
both of them as parts. The Grave Statue could maybe be a counterpart so it can
be sold and bought as one item. Another benefit: The PCC for Baby Voldemort could
be added to BL. That is not possible at the moment because minifigs cannot have
PCCs.
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 15:31 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| But the new classification isn't minifigs, it will be called figures, which
is a much broader term.
In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | Yeah, when trying to decide whether or not something can be classified as a minifigure,
I consult the box and/or set description (if available) to see if lego describes
it as a minifigure and depicts it alongside the other minifigures. That is the
reason why I am okay classifying
as a figure, since it is depicted alongside Patrick and SpongeBob on the box
of 3815-1, but not
[p=3062bpb001]
which is not. Perhaps the new category definitions should say that if a minifigure
is from a set, then it must be listed as such in the official description and/or
depicted as such on the box. Of course, not all minifigures come from sets, but
if it is from a set and it is not listed as a minifigure in the the official
description, then it probably shouldn't be considered a minifigure.
In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
In such cases, I would simply try to stick as close as possible to the official
classification.
For example: The official description of
says "Includes 3 minifigures: SpongeBob™, Patrick and Plankton" and the box shows
these three minifigures. Therefore,
[p=3062bpb001]
should be classified as a part (of a (mini)figure) since LEGO does not describe
the part itself as a figure.
Another example:
Official description: "Includes 4 minifigures: Harry Potter™ with wand and Triwizard
Challenge outfit, Lord Voldemort™ with wand, Peter Pettigrew with wand and a
Death Eater™."
BL currently has 6 minifigs in the inventory. The Grave Statue is build out of
minifigure parts, but it is part of the grave model and not really an autonomous
entity. Baby Voldemort is an autonomous entity but has nothing to to with a "classic"
minifigure. So as said, I personally would follow the description and classify
both of them as parts. The Grave Statue could maybe be a counterpart so it can
be sold and bought as one item. Another benefit: The PCC for Baby Voldemort could
be added to BL. That is not possible at the moment because minifigs cannot have
PCCs.
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
|
|
| Author: | paulvdb | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 15:02 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | The proposed update has made me question the definition of a part.
The old definition: "Individual elements that make up a set."
The new definition: "Individual elements and assemblies used during the
process of building models." (emphasis mine)
The addition of "and assemblies" is significant. Under the old definition, parts
such as
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
|
This one never came assembled.
This one used to come assembled, but that was changed many years ago.
This one always comes assembled.
| | should not even be considered "parts" in the first place because they are, in
my experience, never included in assembled form in official lego sets (other
experiences may differ, there being many official lego sets). However, the new
definition refers to "models" instead of "sets", so this implies that we are
no longer constrained by what is included in official, boxed lego sets. Where
do you draw the line between an assembly that is a "part" and one that is something
else? Should assemblies such as the ones above even be considered parts in the
first place?
|
There are of course also the torso assemblies and legs assemblies that always
come assembled in sets. And some others as well.
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 14:59 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Yeah, when trying to decide whether or not something can be classified as a minifigure,
I consult the box and/or set description (if available) to see if lego describes
it as a minifigure and depicts it alongside the other minifigures. That is the
reason why I am okay classifying
as a figure, since it is depicted alongside Patrick and SpongeBob on the box
of 3815-1, but not
[p=3062bpb001]
which is not. Perhaps the new category definitions should say that if a minifigure
is from a set, then it must be listed as such in the official description and/or
depicted as such on the box. Of course, not all minifigures come from sets, but
if it is from a set and it is not listed as a minifigure in the the official
description, then it probably shouldn't be considered a minifigure.
In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
In such cases, I would simply try to stick as close as possible to the official
classification.
For example: The official description of
says "Includes 3 minifigures: SpongeBob™, Patrick and Plankton" and the box shows
these three minifigures. Therefore,
[p=3062bpb001]
should be classified as a part (of a (mini)figure) since LEGO does not describe
the part itself as a figure.
Another example:
Official description: "Includes 4 minifigures: Harry Potter™ with wand and Triwizard
Challenge outfit, Lord Voldemort™ with wand, Peter Pettigrew with wand and a
Death Eater™."
BL currently has 6 minifigs in the inventory. The Grave Statue is build out of
minifigure parts, but it is part of the grave model and not really an autonomous
entity. Baby Voldemort is an autonomous entity but has nothing to to with a "classic"
minifigure. So as said, I personally would follow the description and classify
both of them as parts. The Grave Statue could maybe be a counterpart so it can
be sold and bought as one item. Another benefit: The PCC for Baby Voldemort could
be added to BL. That is not possible at the moment because minifigs cannot have
PCCs.
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 14:28 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
In such cases, I would simply try to stick as close as possible to the official
classification.
For example: The official description of
says "Includes 3 minifigures: SpongeBob™, Patrick and Plankton" and the box shows
these three minifigures. Therefore,
[p=3062bpb001]
should be classified as a part (of a (mini)figure) since LEGO does not describe
the part itself as a figure.
Another example:
Official description: "Includes 4 minifigures: Harry Potter™ with wand and Triwizard
Challenge outfit, Lord Voldemort™ with wand, Peter Pettigrew with wand and a
Death Eater™."
BL currently has 6 minifigs in the inventory. The Grave Statue is build out of
minifigure parts, but it is part of the grave model and not really an autonomous
entity. Baby Voldemort is an autonomous entity but has nothing to to with a "classic"
minifigure. So as said, I personally would follow the description and classify
both of them as parts. The Grave Statue could maybe be a counterpart so it can
be sold and bought as one item. Another benefit: The PCC for Baby Voldemort could
be added to BL. That is not possible at the moment because minifigs cannot have
PCCs.
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
| Author: | Adjour | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 13:54 | | Subject: | Re: Instructions | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, markim writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | In Catalog, Adjour writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Exactly. As a major sticker seller, I'm having to deal with all the duplication's.
I just want consistency.
In Catalog, Adjour writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | They don't care about the sticker sheets either but we split those up.
In Catalog, Adjour writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Why aren't there separate catalog entries for the US vs. Foreign instructions
on set entries? They have different id codes printed on them. Lego differentiates
between them if you are reprinting them.
Print Versions
Building instructions labeled "NA" or "V39" may be printed on US standard letter
size paper
Building instructions labeled "IN" or "V29" may be printed on EU standard A4
paper
|
I sell a lot of instructions. Honestly I don't think many people care. I've
only had variant requests/questions 3 times and it was all for the same Slave
1 book.
|
|
I am not interested in/ wont get into the catalog politics.
I am simply saying I don't think its important or high priority, even if
someone did so in the past with stickers.
I'm not sure how much work that would be for the admins, let alone people
like me, who may now have to change 1300 + listings for something that doesn't
really matter. IMO.
|
|
Totally agree with you there
Do you find customers care about these variations?
|
Nope. In fact they ask why the same sticker has 2 different listings if there
is no difference. Once you put the stickers on the Lego you can't tell which
it came from.
|
But should your question then be why they do make a difference in stickers in
stead of why they do not do it in instructions?
With the argument that your buyers do not care?
|
This. I read it the opposite as well, which is why I was confused.
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| If it a part was changed to a minfigure and then back again, it suggests to me
that there is some ambiguity in the category definitions, and I don't think
that the new definitions help much. The new definition for figure says that it
can be a "single part or part assembly", but when is a single part a part and
when is it a figure?
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | is numbered like a minifig
it was a part, became a minifig then was changed back to a part
In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | That's why the category name is being changed from Minifigs to Figures
|
LOL I didn't even notice that. Well then it makes sense that
and
would be classified as a figure since they are figure-shaped. But I still have
a hard time accepting
[p=3062bpb038]
as a figure. It is a single part and it is not even figure-shaped. But Lotso
is also a single part, isn't he? Perhaps we could do what is currently done
for sets that consist of only a single part, such as baseplates and power functions,
and have separate entries for the part and the set (or, in this case, figure).
|
|
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 13:31 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| New definitions:
"Figures - A single part or part assembly that represents an autonomous entity,
except parts that are photographs, holograms, or video screens."
"Parts - Individual elements and assemblies used during the process of building
models."
Under the new definitions,
are clearly considered figures, since they represent an autonomous entity. But
[p=3899pb006]
could be considered either a part or a figure, since they represent autonomous
entities, but they are also an individual element.
[p=3062bpb038]
could also be considered either a part or a figure under the new definitions.
I think the ambiguity arises when the figure consists of only a single part.
Some sets that consists of only a single part (baseplates, power functions, brick
separators, etc) currently have two separate listings, one under sets and the
other under parts. For example,
is basically (though technically not) the same thing as
in bright green. Perhaps we could do a similar thing for figures, i.e. give them
two separate catalog entries, one under parts and the other under figures?
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| is numbered like a minifig
it was a part, became a minifig then was changed back to a part
In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | That's why the category name is being changed from Minifigs to Figures
|
LOL I didn't even notice that. Well then it makes sense that
and
would be classified as a figure since they are figure-shaped. But I still have
a hard time accepting
[p=3062bpb038]
as a figure. It is a single part and it is not even figure-shaped. But Lotso
is also a single part, isn't he? Perhaps we could do what is currently done
for sets that consist of only a single part, such as baseplates and power functions,
and have separate entries for the part and the set (or, in this case, figure).
|
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 13:11 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Are we going to move the brickbuilt gear items as well?
[g=40080] but
|
|
snip
| |
New definitions:
"Sets - Parts packaged together that can be combined to build or accessorize
a model or models, even if there are no instructions for building a specific
model."
"Gear - Accessories intended for human use such as watches, clothing, video games,
and any items that do not fit naturally into other categories."
Those items could fit under either category under the new definitions. They are
parts packaged together that can be combined to build a model, but they are also
intended for human use.
|
Then we ought to make the school supplies an exception as well (same as games),
since at present one of those pencil hoders is a set and one is a gear. If the
definitions cannot provide some basis for consistency, they do not work as definitions.
|
Hmm... I'm not sure that it makes sense to make another category just for
school supplies. Do they come in a box with instructions? To me, that would make
them a set. When I think of gear, I think of things that are made by the lego
company, but are not actually made of lego bricks (watches, bags, etc).
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:59 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | That's why the category name is being changed from Minifigs to Figures
|
LOL I didn't even notice that. Well then it makes sense that
and
would be classified as a figure since they are figure-shaped. But I still have
a hard time accepting
[p=3062bpb038]
as a figure. It is a single part and it is not even figure-shaped. But Lotso
is also a single part, isn't he? Perhaps we could do what is currently done
for sets that consist of only a single part, such as baseplates and power functions,
and have separate entries for the part and the set (or, in this case, figure).
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:57 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Are we going to move the brickbuilt gear items as well?
[g=40080] but
|
|
snip
| |
New definitions:
"Sets - Parts packaged together that can be combined to build or accessorize
a model or models, even if there are no instructions for building a specific
model."
"Gear - Accessories intended for human use such as watches, clothing, video games,
and any items that do not fit naturally into other categories."
Those items could fit under either category under the new definitions. They are
parts packaged together that can be combined to build a model, but they are also
intended for human use.
|
Then we ought to make the school supplies an exception as well (same as games),
since at present one of those pencil hoders is a set and one is a gear. If the
definitions cannot provide some basis for consistency, they do not work as definitions.
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:50 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Are we going to move the brickbuilt gear items as well?
[g=40080] but
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
New definitions:
"Sets - Parts packaged together that can be combined to build or accessorize
a model or models, even if there are no instructions for building a specific
model."
"Gear - Accessories intended for human use such as watches, clothing, video games,
and any items that do not fit naturally into other categories."
Those items could fit under either category under the new definitions. They are
parts packaged together that can be combined to build a model, but they are also
intended for human use.
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:46 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, manganschlamm writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | The proposed update has made me question the definition of a part.
The old definition: "Individual elements that make up a set."
The new definition: "Individual elements and assemblies used during the
process of building models." (emphasis mine)
The addition of "and assemblies" is significant. Under the old definition, parts
such as
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
should not even be considered "parts" in the first place because they are, in
my experience, never included in assembled form in official lego sets (other
experiences may differ, there being many official lego sets). However, the new
definition refers to "models" instead of "sets", so this implies that we are
no longer constrained by what is included in official, boxed lego sets. Where
do you draw the line between an assembly that is a "part" and one that is something
else? Should assemblies such as the ones above even be considered parts in the
first place?
|
I guess that loosening the definition of parts was needed in view of an increasing
number of parts that did not come in sets, like e.g. the BAM parts. The latter
never came in any set and they are also not necessarily assembled in a specific
way (like one particular minfigure).
|
Yeah, I realize that not all parts and minifigures come in official sets anymore.
But I'm just wondering where to draw the line between an assembly that is
a "part" and one that is something else. It is reasonable to categorize the above
three assemblies as "parts" since they almost always go together, as well as
assemblies like minifig torsos and leg assemblies. But it doesn't seem reasonable
to categorize
as a single part, and a buyer looking for it would never look under parts unless
they had enough experience buying on BrickLink to know where to look. But in
my selling experience, most buyers on this site don't have much experience
and wouldn't know where to look. Shouldn't we organize the catalog to
make it easy for buyers to find what they are looking for? Or is that not the
purpose of the BrickLink catalog?
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:44 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Are we going to move the brickbuilt gear items as well?
[g=40080] but
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:41 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| That's why the category name is being changed from Minifigs to Figures
In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
I don't know about you, but when I hear the word minifigure,
does not come to mind. However, on the box, it is depicted alongside the other
minifigures in the set, so in that sense, it could be considered a minifigure.
But if I were a buyer looking for
[p=3062bpb038]
or
I would not look under minifigures since neither of them resemble traditional
minifigures (i.e. legs assembly, torso assembly, head, etc.). I would look under
parts for 3062bpb038 since it is just a single part, and I wouldn't know
where to look for bob027 under both the current and proposed categorization systems
because it is neither a part nor a set. Just my two cents. Those with more buying
experience probably know where to look, but many buyers do not have much experience
on this site. After all, isn't the purpose of the catalog to make it easy
for buyers to find what they are looking for?
| | Hinge plate's and turntables used to come assembled.
|
Sorry, I was not aware of that. It's been a while since I've built a
lego set out of the box.
| | And dissembling hinge plates is not advised. They tend to break
|
In that case, it's probably best to keep the assembled version in the catalog.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:37 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Always gets me confused:
but not
[p=3899pb006]
Even though all of them are named characters. Personally, I think if TLG names
a character in a set, it ought to be a figure and not a part.
Are you going to rename the minifigs section in inventories to assembled figures?
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:32 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
I don't know about you, but when I hear the word minifigure,
does not come to mind. However, on the box, it is depicted alongside the other
minifigures in the set, so in that sense, it could be considered a minifigure.
But if I were a buyer looking for
[p=3062bpb038]
or
I would not look under minifigures since neither of them resemble traditional
minifigures (i.e. legs assembly, torso assembly, head, etc.). I would look under
parts for 3062bpb038 since it is just a single part, and I wouldn't know
where to look for bob027 under both the current and proposed categorization systems
because it is neither a part nor a set. Just my two cents. Those with more buying
experience probably know where to look, but many buyers do not have much experience
on this site. After all, isn't the purpose of the catalog to make it easy
for buyers to find what they are looking for?
| | Hinge plate's and turntables used to come assembled.
|
Sorry, I was not aware of that. It's been a while since I've built a
lego set out of the box.
| | And dissembling hinge plates is not advised. They tend to break
|
In that case, it's probably best to keep the assembled version in the catalog.
|
|
| Author: | manganschlamm | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:31 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | The proposed update has made me question the definition of a part.
The old definition: "Individual elements that make up a set."
The new definition: "Individual elements and assemblies used during the
process of building models." (emphasis mine)
The addition of "and assemblies" is significant. Under the old definition, parts
such as
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
should not even be considered "parts" in the first place because they are, in
my experience, never included in assembled form in official lego sets (other
experiences may differ, there being many official lego sets). However, the new
definition refers to "models" instead of "sets", so this implies that we are
no longer constrained by what is included in official, boxed lego sets. Where
do you draw the line between an assembly that is a "part" and one that is something
else? Should assemblies such as the ones above even be considered parts in the
first place?
|
I guess that loosening the definition of parts was needed in view of an increasing
number of parts that did not come in sets, like e.g. the BAM parts. The latter
never came in any set and they are also not necessarily assembled in a specific
way (like one particular minfigure).
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:14 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | I like that plan. It solves the whole box and instruction issue for them too.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
|
Yes, a good move here. However, there is still ambiguity in what "significantly
brick-built" means.
Maybe they should just include regular bricks / LEGO parts as opposed to significantly
brick built. That would exclude the games with cardboard pieces and so on plus
it would mean any real minifigures or parts are in sets not games.
Creationary, for example, the whole point is that it is not brick-built at least
at the start of the game. Plus there is no right way to build it. Where would
that go?
I guess problem ones are like this one:
[g=852676]
where the lego parts are only really used as game pieces, and the minifigures
are not real figures. That one feels more like a game.
But this one:
[g=g574]
has real buildable figures but the board is pre-assembled.
And this one, very similar:
[g=852750]
but you build the board on a piece of gear (plus the similar Castle one).
And this one:
[g=852751]
where there are many buildable figures, and some small builds with a pre-glued
board.
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:08 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The proposed update has made me question the definition of a part.
The old definition: "Individual elements that make up a set."
The new definition: "Individual elements and assemblies used during the
process of building models." (emphasis mine)
The addition of "and assemblies" is significant. Under the old definition, parts
such as
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
should not even be considered "parts" in the first place because they are, in
my experience, never included in assembled form in official lego sets (other
experiences may differ, there being many official lego sets). However, the new
definition refers to "models" instead of "sets", so this implies that we are
no longer constrained by what is included in official, boxed lego sets. Where
do you draw the line between an assembly that is a "part" and one that is something
else? Should assemblies such as the ones above even be considered parts in the
first place?
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:54 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| But see Plankton and Giant-man here
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1192566
he becomes a minifig if you add a robot body?
Hinge plate's and turntables used to come assembled. And dissembling hinge
plates is not advised. They tend to break
In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
This is a hard one. If I were a buyer looking for any of those three things,
I would not look in the minifigure section. For Plankton and Lotso, I would look
under parts. For the Giant Man, I wouldn't know where to look because it's
neither a complete set nor an individual part. Perhaps you could make the Part:Special
Assembly it's own category? I've been buying and selling on BrickLink
for years and I didn't even know that Part:Special Assembly existed. In my
experience, when you buy a lego set, the parts that come in a box are always
fully disassembled; even
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
is always fully disassembled. I can't remember about
and
but I believe these "parts" always come disassembled, too. Has anyone ever experienced
anything to the contrary?
|
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | I like that plan. It solves the whole box and instruction issue for them too.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
|
Yeah, I like that plan, too. If it has a set number, comes in a box, has instructions,
and is mostly made out of lego bricks, it should be a set.
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:46 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
This is a hard one. If I were a buyer looking for any of those three things,
I would not look in the minifigure section. For Plankton and Lotso, I would look
under parts. For the Giant Man, I wouldn't know where to look because it's
neither a complete set nor an individual part. Perhaps you could make the Part:Special
Assembly it's own category? I've been buying and selling on BrickLink
for years and I didn't even know that Part:Special Assembly existed. In my
experience, when you buy a lego set, the parts that come in a box are always
fully disassembled; even
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
is always fully disassembled. I can't remember about
and
but I believe these "parts" always come disassembled, too. Has anyone ever experienced
anything to the contrary?
|
|
| Author: | chetzler | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:38 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
Then the item numbers need to be standardized (or re-standardized). Some of
them were changed somewhat recently for reasons that are not discernible to me:
[G=3843]
[G=G3844]
[G=3845]
[G=G3846]
[G=G3847]
I can't see what purpose the "G" suffix serves. It has been inconsistently
applied and it prevents the item in question from being found when "3847" is
the search string.
|
It is because there are pieces with the same number and when you try to add those
pieces to an inventory, the system adds the game instead and there is no way
on the user end to prevent that.
|
Ah, I see. I didn't realize that gear couldn't get a -1, -2... suffix.
Making them sets would indeed solve the problem. I withdraw my somewhat uninformed
comment
|
|
| Author: | BricksThatStick | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
Then the item numbers need to be standardized (or re-standardized). Some of
them were changed somewhat recently for reasons that are not discernible to me:
[G=3843]
[G=G3844]
[G=3845]
[G=G3846]
[G=G3847]
I can't see what purpose the "G" suffix serves.
|
Its added when there is a part with the same number.
| | It has been inconsistently
applied and it prevents the item in question from being found when "3847" is
the search string.
|
Once they are classed as sets they can have a suffix like sets and the problem
is solved.
Then they also can have catalog entries for the boxes added for them
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
As Manganschlaum points out, animals are entities.
Minnie Mouse is an entity too, but should every Minnie be a figure?
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
Then the item numbers need to be standardized (or re-standardized). Some of
them were changed somewhat recently for reasons that are not discernible to me:
[G=3843]
[G=G3844]
[G=3845]
[G=G3846]
[G=G3847]
I can't see what purpose the "G" suffix serves. It has been inconsistently
applied and it prevents the item in question from being found when "3847" is
the search string.
|
It is because there are pieces with the same number and when you try to add those
pieces to an inventory, the system adds the game instead and there is no way
on the user end to prevent that.
|
|
| Author: | chetzler | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:25 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
Then the item numbers need to be standardized (or re-standardized). Some of
them were changed somewhat recently for reasons that are not discernible to me:
[G=3843]
[G=G3844]
[G=3845]
[G=G3846]
[G=G3847]
I can't see what purpose the "G" suffix serves. It has been inconsistently
applied and it prevents the item in question from being found when "3847" is
the search string.
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:56 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think they should be particularly because of
[p=3062bpb001]
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
|
|
| Author: | manganschlamm | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:56 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
Question: Will animals be now figures as well?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:51 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I like that plan. It solves the whole box and instruction issue for them too.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:45 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:43 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So [g=40198]
[g=40161]
[g=853373]
[g=G3856]
will finally be considered sets?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:35 | | Subject: | Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 307 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 09:30 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| |
I have one of these from but mine have all 4 studs as solid studs
and no hollow studs. Are the renders for this part correct or is mine an undocumented
variant?
|
This part was produced over a 25-year time period, so I have little doubt that
variants exist. If someone can document that with comparison photos, please
let us know so that we can add an additional note.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 09:27 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts B sect | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | 1. I am just going to mention or request that you perhaps have a little think
about themed parts again. What is the requirement for a part to have a themed
category and should that requirement not be in the definition of what the parts
for that category is?
|
It should not be difficult to guess: there is no requirement.
Yes, themed parts do not some reconsideration. This categories page you're
generously assisting with is just one of 27 Catalog Help pages we're planning
to update before 2020 ends. We've got seven of them done and this will make
the eighth.
At some point in that process themed parts will almost certainly have to be addressed
and the category definitions page can then be updated as necessary.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 08:53 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
| | I agree. If there are studs on top, then it is a "Plate, modified". If there
are no studs on top, then it is a "Tile, modified".
|
Should the hollow stud count as a stud as it is different to studs on normal
plates. To me, a jumper is a tile with a hollow stud in the middle.
And what about this one? It has a stud on it, its just that there is a bar in
between the surface and the stud.
* | | 30256 Support 2 x 2 x 5 Bar on Tile Base with Solid Stud and Stop Ring
Parts: Support |
Although I would say a 2x2 jumper and the bar above are in the same family as
this one, which is clearly not a plate.
Making up taxonomy rules is very difficult!
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 08:12 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | I don't see the definition of Plate, Modified and Tile, Modified helping
to choose between them for parts like .
|
From the present definition of Tile, none of those would be Tile, Modified.
Tile - For items nearly identical to plates for which all corners are square
and the tops are smooth, meaning without studs or other protuberances.
So they would all have to move to Plate, Modified.
|
I agree. If there are studs on top, then it is a "Plate, modified". If there
are no studs on top, then it is a "Tile, modified".
|
|
| Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 07:14 | | Subject: | Re: Instructions | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | But we differentiate between
and the only difference is the number tells you whether it was formatted for
printing on US vs. EU standard paper.
just the same as the instructions.
|
Sticker sheets are considered parts - that's why there is this fussiness.
I agree - this is really splitting hairs, and I have commented on more than
one occasion that you could switch the two entries around back and forth and
likely no one would notice.
But fixing something like this is like removing a variant from the catalog that
people have spent time distinguishing. I actually have a list of parts (other
than stickers) where the variant is clearly out of the BrickLink scope, but removing
them from the catalog is something I'm not ready to pursue at this time.
|
Still thinking about removing variants from the catalog? Why even consider this,
when there are so many great suggestions to approach this differently?
One simple change to the search features would totally solve most if not all
of the variants problems:
* when a user searches for the (undetermined) base type, include all variants
in the search results or wanted list match
* when a user searches for the specific variant, include only those lots for
sale that are guaranteed by the sellers to be of that specific variant.
This would allow for including all known variants on Bricklink as it would give
both sellers and buyers the freedom to distinguish at will and not have these
bottomless discussions about whether or not to recognize a variant without clear
rules.
In January I posted in detail about what this small technical change / policy
change would mean for the technique and interface. This triggered some additional
suggestions that would even make it better. I am still waiting for a well thought
reply from Bricklink about this.
Hans-Peter
|
|
| Author: | markim | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 05:57 | | Subject: | Re: Instructions | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | In Catalog, Adjour writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Exactly. As a major sticker seller, I'm having to deal with all the duplication's.
I just want consistency.
In Catalog, Adjour writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | They don't care about the sticker sheets either but we split those up.
In Catalog, Adjour writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Why aren't there separate catalog entries for the US vs. Foreign instructions
on set entries? They have different id codes printed on them. Lego differentiates
between them if you are reprinting them.
Print Versions
Building instructions labeled "NA" or "V39" may be printed on US standard letter
size paper
Building instructions labeled "IN" or "V29" may be printed on EU standard A4
paper
|
I sell a lot of instructions. Honestly I don't think many people care. I've
only had variant requests/questions 3 times and it was all for the same Slave
1 book.
|
|
I am not interested in/ wont get into the catalog politics.
I am simply saying I don't think its important or high priority, even if
someone did so in the past with stickers.
I'm not sure how much work that would be for the admins, let alone people
like me, who may now have to change 1300 + listings for something that doesn't
really matter. IMO.
|
|
Totally agree with you there
Do you find customers care about these variations?
|
Nope. In fact they ask why the same sticker has 2 different listings if there
is no difference. Once you put the stickers on the Lego you can't tell which
it came from.
|
But should your question then be why they do make a difference in stickers in
stead of why they do not do it in instructions?
With the argument that your buyers do not care?
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 05:23 | | Subject: | Re: Instructions | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | But we differentiate between
and the only difference is the number tells you whether it was formatted for
printing on US vs. EU standard paper.
just the same as the instructions.
|
Sticker sheets are considered parts - that's why there is this fussiness.
I agree - this is really splitting hairs, and I have commented on more than
one occasion that you could switch the two entries around back and forth and
likely no one would notice.
But fixing something like this is like removing a variant from the catalog that
people have spent time distinguishing. I actually have a list of parts (other
than stickers) where the variant is clearly out of the BrickLink scope, but removing
them from the catalog is something I'm not ready to pursue at this time.
|
First, the idea that having a catalogue that correctly identifies things as being
fussy, is no good. A lot of sellers do a proper job of selling, they are knowledgeable
about their product, they attempt to list correctly, add lines of detail to listings
and to provide buyers with the opportunity to buy genuine LEGO parts only. It
is not fussy or splitting hairs or beyond the scope of any catalogue to differentiate
things properly – that is actually what a catalogue is supposed to do.
A failure to do so, reduces the value of the catalogue as an asset to TLG and,
over time, the usefulness of the site.
Second, when you take some time and actually read your preferred payment processor's
new terms effective June 2020, you might find that a catalogue that does a good
job of identifying genuine LEGO parts, is maybe something the site should strive
for. This should go without saying.
Third, redesign your help pages to take images and make help pages for variants.
On the main page for catalogue entries, all that needs to be said is: "Variants
on this page: helppage address". That page could have all the images, without
the current confusion for the changing colours viewed. It can have timelines.
It can exist and be a catalogue of issues. It can be a knowledge base for everything
to do with a part, independent of the fact that you have to first see to existence
in a set inventory. That way you have choices to deal with the sticker issue
as Randy mentioned, or you could deal with it irrespective of the actual sticker
numbers or even part numbers.
Through all of that, maybe BL can help its customers. The very good argument
your customer made for the improvement of his store and thus BL as a whole, can
then turn into something easily achieved. It is just required of BL to actually
provide a method for doing so - be the enabler as is it supposed to be. Your
ever loving fussy volunteers will probably populate the help pages for free.
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 20:11 | | Subject: | Re: Instructions | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thank you for your support of this idea.
In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Then going forward can we stop creating more of them at least?
I've suggested that we go with Sticker Sheet for Set 10248 - (21016/6112603)
to Sticker Sheet for Set 10248 - (21016/6112603)(21015/6112596)
|
I don't know about the others, but I would be on board with this approach.
I would make one slight adjustment to the name by using an "or". So
"Sticker Sheet for Set 10248 - (21016/6112603) or (21015/6112596)"
I tried to have the NA versus International dealt with *very* recently, but was
told in no uncertain terms that no major changes to the catalog were to be made
at this time. It was the same reason we had to halt the sticker project altogether.
I am hoping that we can get back to it and this will be dealt with.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | […]
So, as Studio uses LDraw 3D models and already did use LDraw 3D models in 2017
and the LDraw 3D model for 4447 doesn’t have hollow studs and never had hollows
studs (at least there are no traces of such change and the 3D model didn’t change
since 2010), the renders should show plain studs.
|
So, I stand corrected: the 3D model did have hollow stud, until February 2009,
which is still way older than Studio.
But I still don’t get how the Studio renders used such an obsolete 3D model.
Did BL use a Studio version that is not the same as the released one?
|
|
| Author: | anathema | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 16:43 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | and the LDraw 3D model for 4447 doesn’t have hollow studs and never had hollows
studs (at least there are no traces of such change and the 3D model didn’t change
since 2010), the renders should show plain studs.
|
Actually, it did have hollow studs when originally modelled. I fixed it back
in 2009:
0 !HISTORY 2009-02-08 [anathema] Added pivot holes; BFC'd; corrected stud
type
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 16:11 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
[…]
| | Those are not LEGO renders.
|
|
That was just a guess. They sure are renders and they sure don’t look like usual
LDraw renders.
| | | | They are renders from something else. And the images
definitely show hollow studs.
|
|
I beg to differ.
| | | | I don't know how they could be interpreted
as anything else. If the part really has solid studs, all of the images need
to be replaced.
|
|
The part has solid studs.
| | Those are Studio renders from the 2017 image project.
|
So, as Studio uses LDraw 3D models and already did use LDraw 3D models in 2017
and the LDraw 3D model for 4447 doesn’t have hollow studs and never had hollows
studs (at least there are no traces of such change and the 3D model didn’t change
since 2010), the renders should show plain studs.
(The other parts Studio uses are LDD parts converted to LDraw when the part isn’t
in the official LDraw library, and 1. 4447 has been there for ages, 2. 4447 in
LDD doesn’t have hollow studs either.)
| | We retained all photographs
in that project and only replaced render with render. In this case there were
no official LEGO renders available and our only guideline for accuracy was the
lo-rez LDraw render that was just deleted.
|
But Studio never changed plain studs for hollow studs.
| | I agree, if the actual part only ever had solid studs all of these images need
to be replaced.
|
Yes, at least to show the studs with a better angle.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 16:01 | | Subject: | Re: Instructions | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Then going forward can we stop creating more of them at least?
I've suggested that we go with Sticker Sheet for Set 10248 - (21016/6112603)
to Sticker Sheet for Set 10248 - (21016/6112603)(21015/6112596)
|
I don't know about the others, but I would be on board with this approach.
I would make one slight adjustment to the name by using an "or". So
"Sticker Sheet for Set 10248 - (21016/6112603) or (21015/6112596)"
I tried to have the NA versus International dealt with *very* recently, but was
told in no uncertain terms that no major changes to the catalog were to be made
at this time. It was the same reason we had to halt the sticker project altogether.
I am hoping that we can get back to it and this will be dealt with.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 16:00 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I have red and white.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | All the colour images look like LEGO renders and if you look closely, the studs
aren’t hollow, it’s the angle and the logo that make a shadow that may look like
they are.
|
Those are not LEGO renders. They are renders from something else. And the images
definitely show hollow studs. I don't know how they could be interpreted
as anything else. If the part really has solid studs, all of the images need
to be replaced.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Those are Studio renders from the 2017 image project. We retained all photographs
in that project and only replaced render with render. In this case there were
no official LEGO renders available and our only guideline for accuracy was the
lo-rez LDraw render that was just deleted.
I agree, if the actual part only ever had solid studs all of these images need
to be replaced.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 15:51 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | All the colour images look like LEGO renders and if you look closely, the studs
aren’t hollow, it’s the angle and the logo that make a shadow that may look like
they are.
|
Those are not LEGO renders. They are renders from something else. And the images
definitely show hollow studs. I don't know how they could be interpreted
as anything else. If the part really has solid studs, all of the images need
to be replaced.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Those are Studio renders from the 2017 image project. We retained all photographs
in that project and only replaced render with render. In this case there were
no official LEGO renders available and our only guideline for accuracy was the
lo-rez LDraw render that was just deleted.
I agree, if the actual part only ever had solid studs all of these images need
to be replaced.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 15:40 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | All the colour images look like LEGO renders and if you look closely, the studs
aren’t hollow, it’s the angle and the logo that make a shadow that may look like
they are.
|
Those are not LEGO renders. They are renders from something else. And the images
definitely show hollow studs. I don't know how they could be interpreted
as anything else. If the part really has solid studs, all of the images need
to be replaced.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 15:38 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts B sect | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
This is a difficult area to contend with. My personal opinion is that themed
parts really don't need to exist if we create appropriate generic part categories
that combine like items. I honestly believe it is possible.
[… example for Large Figures parts …]
|
+1
|
++1
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts B sect | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
This is a difficult area to contend with. My personal opinion is that themed
parts really don't need to exist if we create appropriate generic part categories
that combine like items. I honestly believe it is possible.
[… example for Large Figures parts …]
|
+1
|
|
| Author: | edeevo | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 15:24 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts B sect | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | That being said, it is sort of pointless to have a hundred themed categories
for parts. In thinking about it, I do honestly think that a Bellville part is
an oversized part specifically for that theme, but is that reasonably obvious
from the present definition? Also, for instance, back to the ball discussion,
I think Bionicle fans (*), would prefer Bionicle weapons to be under the Bionicle
theme, provided we clearly define what is a part for the Bionicle theme category
of parts.
(*) I only found out yesterday that this was one of TLG's most successful
themes ever. Grrr I am on intensive learning curve here after 10 years
|
Did you also learn that Bionicle was pretty much the theme that saved LEGO from
bankruptcy?
People love to hate on it, but without Bionicle, the modern company may have
never existed as it does now. Personally, I love the theme, and I love a toy
company that is constantly trying out new things.
Cheers,
Randy
|
This has always fascinated me... I have a fond appreciation for the Bionicle
theme nowadays, but I was a little too old to care about them much when they
initially came out (though my younger brothers loved them!)... & if TLG had never
tried to hit that market of "story-based, buildable action figures" for the young
men crowd, they never would have realized how successful it was going to be...
of course, then TLG got a little cocky about it and introduced Galidor not
long after the initial Bionicle success; so there can be drawbacks from trying
new things occasionally...
Life is Good.
~Ed.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
Germany, Niedersachsen
United Kingdom, England
South Africa, Western Cape
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Australia, Queensland
Poland, w. Wielkopolskie
Netherlands, Overijssel
Canada, Alberta