| 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.
|
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
Germany, Niedersachsen
USA, Oklahoma
United Kingdom, England
