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.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
Germany, Niedersachsen
United Kingdom, England
South Africa, Western Cape
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
