Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Adjour  | | Posted: | May 3, 2020 14:01 | | Subject: | Re: Ants | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | Except for the coloring, is there any difference between [p=62575cx1] and ?
|
Without having both parts to examine, I cannot say. But any differences would
likely be extremely minor.
|
Yeah, they are different molds, its hard to see in the photo but in person they
are clearly not the same part
|
 |
| Author: | Adjour | | Posted: | May 3, 2020 14:00 | | Subject: | Re: Ants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | Except for the coloring, is there any difference between [p=62575cx1] and ?
Also, how do we go about numbering in such a case in general? 62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
And yes, Robert, I know the catalog team has different priorities right now,
but this one just came up and I wonder.
|
I have both of these. They look different in person. I don't have them in
front of me at the moment but one sits taller and one looks longer.
|
|
| Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | May 3, 2020 12:56 | | Subject: | Re: Ants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | Except for the coloring, is there any difference between [p=62575cx1] and ?
|
Without having both parts to examine, I cannot say. But any differences would
likely be extremely minor.
| | Also, how do we go about numbering in such a case in general?
|
We haven't updated this page yet, but everything about item numbering is
here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=168
| | 62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
|
No, this is clearly not an assembly. It was renumbered to maintain compatibility
with Peeron. This happened in 2010 before Peeron died.
| | I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
|
I think this is a reasonable request and I see no reason why it should not be
accommodated. If no one objects within the next day or so I'll make it happen.
| | I know the catalog team has different priorities right now
|
I am not a spokesperson for the team, but I think it would be fair to say that
our priority is always the catalog and any issues that affect it.
|
https://brickset.com/parts/design-62575
https://brickset.com/parts/design-23714
I would suggest that we use the designID that LEGO uses as the main partnumber.
23714 for the plain version,
62575* for the multicolored version with 23714pb* as an alternate,
and a catalog relationship between them.
|
That makes sense to me, but it would set a new standard. Probably in line with
what BL would want for XP, but not how it is classically done.
Specifically which type of relationship can we currently choose?
The relation between plain parts and their multicolored, stickered or printed
versions on Bricklink is currently an implied relation only, by means of the
part number. There should be a new relation type defined for this relation type.
Is this in reach of the current catalog admin? And then to systematically set
the relation between each patterned part and it's base part.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | May 3, 2020 12:30 | | Subject: | Re: Ants | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I do not see a designID on the multicolored ants.
[p=62575cx1]
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | May 3, 2020 12:29 | | Subject: | Re: Ants | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | Except for the coloring, is there any difference between [p=62575cx1] and ?
|
Without having both parts to examine, I cannot say. But any differences would
likely be extremely minor.
| | Also, how do we go about numbering in such a case in general?
|
We haven't updated this page yet, but everything about item numbering is
here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=168
| | 62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
|
No, this is clearly not an assembly. It was renumbered to maintain compatibility
with Peeron. This happened in 2010 before Peeron died.
| | I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
|
I think this is a reasonable request and I see no reason why it should not be
accommodated. If no one objects within the next day or so I'll make it happen.
| | I know the catalog team has different priorities right now
|
I am not a spokesperson for the team, but I think it would be fair to say that
our priority is always the catalog and any issues that affect it.
|
https://brickset.com/parts/design-62575
https://brickset.com/parts/design-23714
I would suggest that we use the designID that LEGO uses as the main partnumber.
23714 for the plain version,
62575* for the multicolored version with 23714pb* as an alternate,
and a catalog relationship between them.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 3, 2020 10:51 | | Subject: | Re: Ants | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | Except for the coloring, is there any difference between [p=62575cx1] and ?
|
Without having both parts to examine, I cannot say. But any differences would
likely be extremely minor.
| | Also, how do we go about numbering in such a case in general?
|
We haven't updated this page yet, but everything about item numbering is
here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=168
| | 62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
|
No, this is clearly not an assembly. It was renumbered to maintain compatibility
with Peeron. This happened in 2010 before Peeron died.
| | I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
|
I think this is a reasonable request and I see no reason why it should not be
accommodated. If no one objects within the next day or so I'll make it happen.
| | I know the catalog team has different priorities right now
|
I am not a spokesperson for the team, but I think it would be fair to say that
our priority is always the catalog and any issues that affect it.
|
|
| Author: | whoa220 | | Posted: | May 3, 2020 10:15 | | Subject: | Re: Ants | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| | Honestly I think they are the same lego peace but recolered. |
| Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | May 3, 2020 10:06 | | Subject: | Ants | | Viewed: | 219 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Except for the coloring, is there any difference between [p=62575cx1] and ?
Also, how do we go about numbering in such a case in general? 62575 is the LEGO
design number for the marbled version, 23714 for the plain version. Is the former
really seen as an assembly (cx1)?
I would suggest 62575cx1 renumbered to 23714pb01 and 62575 listed as an alternative
number. Before making such a request, I'd like to be sure about any differences
and guide lines.
And yes, Robert, I know the catalog team has different priorities right now,
but this one just came up and I wonder.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 2, 2020 10:51 | | Subject: | Re: Adding missing items to the catalog | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, aladar123 writes:
| | For those who might have this question.
Do not bother adding, if no photo it will be removed after some time.
|
It's true that we don't typically approve catalog entries without photos.
There are a few exceptions, though. We're currently working on updating
our catalog guidelines and plan to explicitly state those exceptions in the new
guidelines.
The reason we don't add items without photos is because past experience has
repeatedly shown us that we may never get a photo if we don't require one
up front. This happens not only for rare items, but for common items with multiple
for-sale listings.
This is a good example:
It's been in the catalog for 11 years and there are nine different sellers
with the part for sale, but none have sent us an image for the catalog.
|
|
| Author: | mokibricks | | Posted: | May 2, 2020 10:39 | | Subject: | Re: Adding missing items to the catalog | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, aladar123 writes:
| | Hi,
I recently bought a holder for trading cards, and it has a list of all the possible
cards (SW Series 2) with their numbers. Does it help if I add all the items to
the catalog? I have a few more where I will also add the images of the cards,
but in many cases, I won't.
Thanks,
Tamas
|
For those who might have this question.
Do not bother adding, if no photo it will be removed after some time.
Tamas
|
|
| Author: | James2506 | | Posted: | May 1, 2020 20:32 | | Subject: | Re: Why oh why Batman Sh016b | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Thanks for such a long effort and providing other examples. I follow but don’t
agree - I think any change for a new part should equal a new number, but it’s
not up to me!
Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, James2506 writes:
| | I think each variant should get a fresh number. Certainly the faces do even
though the rest of the fig remains the same. It just happened with Mr Freeze
too - the dark Peary grey now has two unique numbers when all that changed was
the neck bracket and weapon.
How do we ask Admins to consider changing the naming first given?
|
I am sure an admin will see this thread.
It's not a for sure thing. They also have to weigh in how it will affect
stores to have the name change. They may have labelled things. Just adding
a or b on the end is much gentler for that.
|
When minfigs assembly is exactly the same but there is just one minior change
in part variant minfigs is classified as variant minfig and gets a or b or c
if there are more variants.
In Batman case all three are the same just one part is in differnt part variant
in sh016 and sh016a and now sh016b is the same assembly as sh016a just cape is
in diffrent part variant. It is a quite common practice (not always consistent,
but I try to keep it consistent)
Minfigs gest new number when assembly is diffrent for example wjhen for this
Batmon would be added totally differnt part
Example with Mr Freeze is good it got nee number as assembly is different, this
minfig has additiona parts so it makes an assembly different.
so few example
assembly the same just the head has different color
assembly the same just cape variant changed
but
new numbers as totally different heads are in there
but when print on the head si only small variation minfig is consider also variant
and gets an a
* | | trn227 (Inv) Overalls with Tools in Pocket, Blue Legs, Red Short Bill Cap, Glasses with Brown Thin Eyebrows
Minifigures: Train |
brown eybrows vs red eyebrows, very minor difference beside that minfigs are
identical
recently added
these have different numbers as they are different assemblies, every one have
additional parts there, but for example if suddenly LEGO would start produce
cupcae in different mold variant and it would be discovered then one with mold
variant of such part would get variant with the same number and added a
when you look through catalog teher really a lot of "a" and "b" variants of minifigs
in very different themes
So important is how significant if change of similar character or minfigs. Slight
change, only different part variant but whole assembly the same. This is minfig
variant with the same number but with a added. Only slight change in prinbt also
only a variant. Significant print change or aditional parts added which makes
it different assembty, new number.
some more examples
only chane of color of the photoreceptor
but here more significant print change
ok there are meny meny more examples 
so numeration of those batmans stays as they are as those minfigs hase the same
assemblies only parts are in different mold variants
normal cape vs spongy cape
type of mask also mold variant
the same here only mask mold change
but here different heads, so different assemblies and new numbers
(btw name should be change here to get rid of type 1, 2 and 3, describtion of
faces exspressions should be here as all heads have different prints like here
for example https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?pg=1&catString=971&catType=M&v=1)
Hope this is more clear now why ve have minfigs variants marked as a nad b
|
|
|
| Author: | BRCook | | Posted: | May 1, 2020 17:44 | | Subject: | Dimensions for instant checkout | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I have had some issues with items not having size dimensions (particularly for
newer items - come up as 0x0x0 or ?x?x?).
This has caused me problems with instant checkout because even though there are
no dimensions it is not forcing a quote request (which is what I thought should
happen).
Anyone have any similar experiences or suggestions for a fix (Admins?)
Thanks in advance
Brendan
|
| Author: | skikyssing | | Posted: | May 1, 2020 04:50 | | Subject: | search | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I'm not getting the suggestions in the drop down box when typing in searches
anymore...
It seems that this is for everyone.
Why do you have to change something that works perfectly? 
|
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 12:39 | | Subject: | Re: Set 1775 alternative stickers | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | I've just added [P=4867pb24] in hope that it will be accepted. Here's
a photo of the set. It's not mine, so I can't prove anything about it.
The building instructions are generic.
/Jan
|
Sticker of this set do not show such sticker
so for set
should be added stickered parts which have applied stickers from showed sticker
set and they are already there.
So question is if this set was in variants for other airlines like this one
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catID=67&catXrefLevel=0&catType=S&q=4032&catLike=W
There are 13 version of ser 4032 for diffrent ailines and each one have differebnt
sticker sheet.
So question is does this set also exists in variants for different airlines.
If yes then should be new set entry crated like in 4032 example. But for that
I think proof with boxed specimen would be needed?
Then such stickered part could be added for new set variant but not for current
1775 set.
I found only such informations about set 1775
- Promotional release with TWA and Qantas airlines.
- Also available in the US from LEGO Shop at Home.
I coudn't found any mentiones about promotional release for SAS.
Maybe it is internal release only for employees of SAS Hosting Service as it
is on sticker and they included for them exclusive sticker sheet?
These are my thoughts.
|
|
| Author: | pikachu3 | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 09:15 | | Subject: | Re: Help with this color | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, BrickPhaisan writes:
| | Hello, I am new here and I have a problem with part 3002, since I have two parts
of this color that I do not know very well how to classify. Let's see if
someone knows how to tell me what color it is? to me it looks blue-purple.
Thanks in advance
|
Hard to tell for sure without other colors in your photo to compare it to, but
it looks like this to me: https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15210784018
Technically it’s supposed to be Blue, but it’s a harder, more fragile plastic
that looks a bit darker than normal.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 09:04 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Is this entire project now dead . . . ?
|
No, this project is not dead. We're still continually working on this page
and still planning to make it official on June 1st:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
| Author: | BrickPhaisan | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 08:18 | | Subject: | Re: Help with this color | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, BrickPhaisan writes:
| | Hello, I am new here and I have a problem with part 3002, since I have two parts
of this color that I do not know very well how to classify. Let's see if
someone knows how to tell me what color it is? to me it looks blue-purple.
Thanks in advance
|
He reviewed the entire catalog color by color of this type, and this figure does
not appear in those colors ...
|
|
| Author: | ErwinNL | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 08:05 | | Subject: | Re: Help with this color | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, BrickPhaisan writes:
| | Hello, I am new here and I have a problem with part 3002, since I have two parts
of this color that I do not know very well how to classify. Let's see if
someone knows how to tell me what color it is? to me it looks blue-purple.
Thanks in advance
|
I am not 100% sure (color in photo) but did you know about: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp
|
| Author: | BrickPhaisan | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 08:03 | | Subject: | Help with this color | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Hello, I am new here and I have a problem with part 3002, since I have two parts
of this color that I do not know very well how to classify. Let's see if
someone knows how to tell me what color it is? to me it looks blue-purple.
Thanks in advance
|
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 07:06 | | Subject: | Set 1775 alternative stickers | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I've just added [P=4867pb24] in hope that it will be accepted. Here's
a photo of the set. It's not mine, so I can't prove anything about it.
The building instructions are generic.
/Jan
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:49 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
Change the buying process, don’t ask anything to experienced buyers.
Change the selling process, don’t ask anything to experienced sellers.
Change the catalogue, don’t ask anything to catalogue admins BL appointed!
“Hobby project” indeed.
|
I guess if you think about it, LEGO just made lego.com move up one place in the
best LEGO websites.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:43 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
Change the buying process, don’t ask anything to experienced buyers.
Change the selling process, don’t ask anything to experienced sellers.
Change the catalogue, don’t ask anything to catalogue admins BL appointed!
“Hobby project” indeed.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:43 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Is this entire project now dead, given LEGO has re-mapped the catalog to make
it logical for new users (new users that obviously have no interest at all in
themes, part types, etc)?
|
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
I guess it is time to save a "community catalog" again, before the old one is
removed and the re-mapped one becomes the new BL standard.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:36 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Is this entire project now dead, given LEGO has re-mapped the catalog to make
it logical for new users (new users that obviously have no interest at all in
themes, part types, etc)?
|
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:25 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Is this entire project now dead, given LEGO has re-mapped the catalog to make
it logical for new users (new users that obviously have no interest at all in
themes, part types, etc)?
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 17:11 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | | | The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured out yet
|
Why not use the differentation which is already written under Specific Considerations
and Exceptions?
"Items are sets when significantly brick-built [...]."
|
The problem is now in defining what "significantly brick-built" is since that
is open to interpretation.
|
Not glued for one. Consisting of mostly parts in the parts catalogue (gear parts
are gear at this time) for two. Also having instructions might help.
Also, since we seem to be moving to having defined figures types, are we going
to see inventory pages upated for figures, which can then include animals, large
figures and minifigures etc, or are we getting a definition for figures in the
help pages and then lumping eveything on the inventory pages under minifigs?
|
The "Minifigs" section in the inventories would need to be renamed, also. This
would go along with having the main item type renamed. We would also have to
figure out where else the term "Minifigs" is in use in any other parts of the
site to have it coincide with these changes. All of these things will require
assistance from the BrickLink team once our plan is finalized.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 17:04 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | | | The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured out yet
|
Why not use the differentation which is already written under Specific Considerations
and Exceptions?
"Items are sets when significantly brick-built [...]."
|
The problem is now in defining what "significantly brick-built" is since that
is open to interpretation.
|
Not glued for one. Consisting of mostly parts in the parts catalogue (gear parts
are gear at this time) for two. Also having instructions might help.
Also, since we seem to be moving to having defined figures types, are we going
to see inventory pages upated for figures, which can then include animals, large
figures and minifigures etc, or are we getting a definition for figures in the
help pages and then lumping eveything on the inventory pages under minifigs?
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 16:47 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | | | The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured out yet
|
Why not use the differentation which is already written under Specific Considerations
and Exceptions?
"Items are sets when significantly brick-built [...]."
|
The problem is now in defining what "significantly brick-built" is since that
is open to interpretation.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 16:42 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | However if the six main catalog entries is all you currently have to work with
and it’s kind of a quick fix then I understand why you feel the need to continue
with your current plan of changes but correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression
that you do not envisage there ever being much need to extend beyond the six
catelog entries which seems a bit short sighted when you have so many very different
items bundled together like this?
|
This is essentially the crux of the matter. To go beyond the six main item types
would take significant reprogramming of the site, and that is just not going
to happen. So it isn't that we in the catalog don't want to provide better
solutions, it is that we in the catalog can only provide solutions that don't
require significant reprogramming and fit in the context of what we have. In
this sense, the "Minifigs" item type cannot be expanded upon to create more item
types and must be looked at as it stands. And as it stands, "Minifigs" does not
accurately describe what is cataloged under that type, nor has it for a long
time. The easiest solution is to rename it "Figures" to accurately describe what
is cataloged under that type and then come up with guidelines for what can be
a figure. I hope that explains things a bit better from where we are coming from.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay thanks Randy I understand but you never know perhaps Lego will one day put
a team together to work on improving theses things
|
Oh yeah. That is definitely the hope!
We would love to revisit these discussions in the future if we were to get developers
assigned to us. However, with the current problems currently cropping up from
some changes that seem to going on behind the scenes, I am less than confident
that the current team at BrickLink are up to the task of completely redesigning
the database and structure of the site which your suggestions would entail.
Thank you for all of your thoughts in this discussion, though. They are very
much appreciated and help to drive us forward.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 16:39 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser 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.
|
There were two things that were contentious: how to classify figures and the
distinction between sets and gear. The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured
out yet, but there is progress on figures. Share what you think:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
Looks good to me. The detailed figure classification is much better than a one-sentence-definition
and makes future adjustments easier (hopefully).
Just two thoughts (in addition to Jean's comment):
"Transformed Humans - Humans in another form are figures. A person transformed
into a rat is an example of this distinction and is a figure."
I would leave that out for at least four reasons:
- We would have duplicate catalog entries because the rat
would be a figure in some sets and a part in other sets.
- It was not always clear that the rat is a human in some sets. If you ask me,
the catalog classification should not depend too much on how a story develops.
Otherwise we would always be at risk of misclassifying things just because the
next part of a story hasn't been published yet.
- There is a (minior, but anyway) risk that the classification would be a spoiler
for anyone who don't know the story background yet.
- There is a gray rat in
but it is unknown if it is *the* rat or a normal animal (other versions of Hagrid's
Hut contain normal rats).
"Figure Size - There are currently no restrictions on size or complexity of figures."
I think there should be a restriction so that the content of a set like
cannot be classified as a figure. I would also say that large brick-built figures
which consists of a significant number of parts from a set should not have an
entry under the figures category. After all they would cause similar inventory
problems like Special Assemblies ( https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1188426
). And to have brick-built figures without an inventory is not really an option
(sellers want to check if a figure is complete and buyers want to know which
parts they get when buying a figure).
Example: The mech in
should not be a figure simply because of its size and part count.
(This is what I wanted to say with "small" in my previous answer.)
------------------------
| | The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured out yet
|
Why not use the differentation which is already written under Specific Considerations
and Exceptions?
"Items are sets when significantly brick-built [...]."
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 16:32 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | However if the six main catalog entries is all you currently have to work with
and it’s kind of a quick fix then I understand why you feel the need to continue
with your current plan of changes but correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression
that you do not envisage there ever being much need to extend beyond the six
catelog entries which seems a bit short sighted when you have so many very different
items bundled together like this?
|
This is essentially the crux of the matter. To go beyond the six main item types
would take significant reprogramming of the site, and that is just not going
to happen. So it isn't that we in the catalog don't want to provide better
solutions, it is that we in the catalog can only provide solutions that don't
require significant reprogramming and fit in the context of what we have. In
this sense, the "Minifigs" item type cannot be expanded upon to create more item
types and must be looked at as it stands. And as it stands, "Minifigs" does not
accurately describe what is cataloged under that type, nor has it for a long
time. The easiest solution is to rename it "Figures" to accurately describe what
is cataloged under that type and then come up with guidelines for what can be
a figure. I hope that explains things a bit better from where we are coming from.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay thanks Randy I understand but you never know perhaps Lego will one day put
a team together to work on improving theses things
|
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 16:03 | | Subject: | Re: 75149 need sticker counter parts added | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, POPS_BLOCK_SHOP writes:
| | Looked up set 75149 Star Wars and there are no counter parts for the stickers.
How can these be added? I have all of them.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1191009
|
| Author: | POPS_BLOCK_SHOP | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 15:59 | | Subject: | 75149 need sticker counter parts added | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Looked up set 75149 Star Wars and there are no counter parts for the stickers.
How can these be added? I have all of them.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | However if the six main catalog entries is all you currently have to work with
and it’s kind of a quick fix then I understand why you feel the need to continue
with your current plan of changes but correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression
that you do not envisage there ever being much need to extend beyond the six
catelog entries which seems a bit short sighted when you have so many very different
items bundled together like this?
|
This is essentially the crux of the matter. To go beyond the six main item types
would take significant reprogramming of the site, and that is just not going
to happen. So it isn't that we in the catalog don't want to provide better
solutions, it is that we in the catalog can only provide solutions that don't
require significant reprogramming and fit in the context of what we have. In
this sense, the "Minifigs" item type cannot be expanded upon to create more item
types and must be looked at as it stands. And as it stands, "Minifigs" does not
accurately describe what is cataloged under that type, nor has it for a long
time. The easiest solution is to rename it "Figures" to accurately describe what
is cataloged under that type and then come up with guidelines for what can be
a figure. I hope that explains things a bit better from where we are coming from.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 10:32 | | Subject: | Re: 3626cpb2463 Fright knight head | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Whoever submitted it obvious thought the ghostly wisps around the eyes were eyelashes.
|
Or because it looks like their mother in law?
(Yes, I’m ashamed to encourage that non-PC stereotype.)
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 09:58 | | Subject: | Re: 3626cpb2463 Fright knight head | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Whoever submitted it obvious thought the ghostly wisps around the eyes were eyelashes.
In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Torso looks male.
In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| |
* | | 3626cpb2463 Minifigure, Head Alien Female Bright Light Blue Long Eyelashes and Cheek Lines, White Eyes, Blue Open Mouth Smile with Teeth Parted and Fangs Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
I notice the head of the Fright Knight from CMF S19 is listed as female. Has
LEGO ever confirmed that this character is meant to be female? I couldn't
find the online bios like they used to do.
|
|
Yes the torso is a "male" or at least gender neutral one without the typical
curves given to female adult torsos. I just found it strange that the head was
listed as female, given most / all people on youtube and other reviews talk of
him / he / his when referring to the Fright Knight.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 09:07 | | Subject: | Re: 3626cpb2463 Fright knight head | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Torso looks male.
In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| |
* | | 3626cpb2463 Minifigure, Head Alien Female Bright Light Blue Long Eyelashes and Cheek Lines, White Eyes, Blue Open Mouth Smile with Teeth Parted and Fangs Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
I notice the head of the Fright Knight from CMF S19 is listed as female. Has
LEGO ever confirmed that this character is meant to be female? I couldn't
find the online bios like they used to do.
|
|
Yes the torso is a "male" or at least gender neutral one without the typical
curves given to female adult torsos. I just found it strange that the head was
listed as female, given most / all people on youtube and other reviews talk of
him / he / his when referring to the Fright Knight.
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 09:05 | | Subject: | Re: 3626cpb2463 Fright knight head | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Torso looks male.
In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| |
* | | 3626cpb2463 Minifigure, Head Alien Female Bright Light Blue Long Eyelashes and Cheek Lines, White Eyes, Blue Open Mouth Smile with Teeth Parted and Fangs Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
I notice the head of the Fright Knight from CMF S19 is listed as female. Has
LEGO ever confirmed that this character is meant to be female? I couldn't
find the online bios like they used to do.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 09:00 | | Subject: | 3626cpb2463 Fright knight head | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
* | | 3626cpb2463 Minifigure, Head Alien Female Bright Light Blue Long Eyelashes and Cheek Lines, White Eyes, Blue Open Mouth Smile with Teeth Parted and Fangs Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
I notice the head of the Fright Knight from CMF S19 is listed as female. Has
LEGO ever confirmed that this character is meant to be female? I couldn't
find the online bios like they used to do.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 07:57 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts I - M | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| There is no clear definition of the body of a minifigure, minidoll or microdoll.
The convention is that a body refers to the form without the head, thus including
the neck, trunk, hips, legs, arms and hands. Body parts are then every part of
the body excluding the head. The catalogue is also very specific about is included
in the assembly of a minifigure or minidoll, so accessories defined as body wear
are only those fitting around the neck or hips or on the feet. The torso assemblies
and legs assemblies keep to the conventions above. Please also consider how the
definitions of micro doll, mini doll and minifigures tie in with the overall
category definition of figures. I've removed references to figures for these
to avoid a weird definition such as “ the individual neck, trunk, hips, legs,
arms and hands of figures that are not mini dolls and micro dolls, scale model
figures, figure assemblies or any other figures other than what can be construed
as the standard trademarked minifigure”.
Definitions – Section J parts
Jumbo Bricks - For sets and related items for the 3+ age range that are
three times the size of standard LEGO bricks and not compatible with any other
standard bricks.
Definitions – Section L parts
Ladder & Bridge - For complete items, functioning as equipment, and their
accessories, that enable travel between two different elevations or across gaps.
Note 1
Large Figure Part - For component parts of buildable figures. Note
2
Lever - For throttles and their parts that moves around a fixed point
and are used to control machinery. Note 3
Definitions – Section M parts
Magnet - For items that contain a metal part able to attract other metal
parts to itself and accessories for those items. Note 4
Micro Doll, Body Part - For the bodies and the individual neck, trunk,
hips, legs, arms and hands of micro dolls. Note 5
Mini Doll, Body Part - For the individual neck, trunk, hips, legs, arms
and hands of mini dolls.
Mini Doll, Body Wear - For items that fit around the neck, legs assemblies
or on the feet of mini dolls. Most or all also fit minifigures and mini dolls.
Note 6
Mini Doll, Hair - For hair and hair/headgear combinations that are primarily
used on mini dolls. Most or all also fit minifigures and micro dolls.
Mini Doll, Head - For heads fitting on mini doll torso assemblies and
micro doll body parts.
Mini Doll, Headgear - For any type of covering for the head and head cover
accessories that are used primarily on mini doll heads. Most or all also fit
minifigure and micro doll heads.
Mini Doll, Legs Assembly - For complete hips and legs assemblies of mini
dolls.
Mini Doll, Torso Assembly - For complete neck, trunk, arms and hands assemblies
of mini dolls.
Minifigure, Body Part - For the individual neck, trunk, hips, legs, arms
and hands of minifigures. Note 7
Minifigure, Body Wear - For items that fit around the neck, hips or on
the feet of minifigures. Most or all also fit mini dolls and micro dolls. Note
8
Minifigure, Hair - For hair and hair/headgear combinations that that are
primarily used on minifigures. Most or all also fit mini dolls and micro doll
heads.
Minifigure, Head - For heads fitting on minifigure torso assemblies with
no modifications to the head.
Minifigure, Head, Modified – For heads fitting on minifigure torso assemblies
with modifications.
Minifigure, Headgear - For or any type of covering for the head and head
cover accessories that are used primarily on minifigures. Most or all also fit
mini dolls and micro doll heads.
Minifigure, Headgear Accessory - For removable accessories that attach
to minifigure, hair or – headgear. Note 9
Minifigure, Legs Assembly - For complete hips and legs assemblies of minifigures.
Minifigure, Shield - For defensive items, typically carried, that are
primarily used by minifigures. Most or all also can also be used by mini dolls.
Note 10
Minifigure, Torso - For the complete neck and trunk assemblies of minifigures.
Minifigure, Torso Assembly - For complete torso, arms and hands assemblies
of minifigures.
Minifigure, Utensil - For items that are carried and not body wear, are
intended primarily for minifigure use, and are not weapons. Most or all also
can also be used by mini dolls. Note 11
Minifigure, Weapon - For items carried and used in fighting intended primarily
for minifigure use. Most or all also can also be used by mini dolls. Note
12
Modulex, Brick - For bricks and modified bricks in the Modulex building
system, generally not compatible with any other standard bricks. Note 13
Modulex, Window - For windows an decorated windows used in the Modulex
building system.
Monorail - For track, train parts, and 9V electric, train items specific
to a single rail train system.Note 14
Motor, Non-Electric - For clockwork and flywheel motors and their accessories.
Note 15
Notes:
1. So to include the pivot and holder so these do not have to move to hinges
or modified plates/tiles. Also complete added so that part assemblies of bridges
etc are excluded and equipment added so certain bars and modified plates need
not be moved.
2. If these are all used for that category of sets, should they not be under
that definition? Also, consider renaming this entire category including the buildable
figures to “scale model figures” as that is a more accurate description of what
these are, consider adding the scale as well. All scale model figures are posed
in one way or the other. https://thedesignersassistant.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/scale-figure-comparison.png
3. Technically these are throttle levers, parts included to avoid moving those
to bars and cones also to differentiate from joints;
4. There are some parts presently under modified bricks that contain magnets
eg 388c*, are these going to be moved? Else this must rather be vehicle specific
or move to vehicles and trains.
5. See the general note at the start and also other individual definitions to
do with minifigures and mini dolls.
6. I've checked some of these parts and they do fit minifigures as well.
I've added micro dolls if the part can fit on the neck or head of those.
7. I've reverted to minifigure here for the time being, so that the cross
reference in all of the parts above in the mini doll and micro doll categories
is retained. If figures are to be the definitions, then change everything on
top of this section as well. Also, if we use figures then the hat for the piggy
bank under animal accessories should for instance move to to minifigure headgear.
So unless the title changes to figure, body part the minifigure is the thing
that defines what these parts are.
8. This to complement the same conventions as used for mini dolls and micro dolls.
All of what follows use the same conventions.
9. With respect, if it attached directly to the head, it would be headgear. The
accessory part should conceivably be only to accessorise the headgear, not the
head itself. If any of these also fit directly fit mini doll hair or mini doll
headgear then the modifier: “Most or all also fit mini doll hair and headgear”
should be added.
10. I introduce carry here as a modifier to differentiate utensils as well. I
am not sure if these can be fitted to micro dolls, if so, then include those
as well.
11. Utensils then are all items that are not weapons and not body wear. Again,
I am not sure about micro dolls.
12. Excluded war from the definition as by definition no LEGO part can depict
warfare. A weapon thus excludes utensils and body wear. Again, I am not sure
about micro dolls.
13. Bricks are defined. I'm still not there yet with parts that do not have
studs on top, but for the time being these are modified as well. The not compatible
part is added to be the same as for jumbo bricks. This is essentially the convention
I used for Duplo, again to prevent specific categories from getting in-category
definitions not compatible with the rest of the catalogue definitions.
14. Monorail is specific type of train system. Consider rather moving the motors
to Electric, Train so as to avoid having a cluttered definition. Otherwise, amend
the definition of Electric, Train to specifically exclude monorail items.
15. All of these motors are using the clockwork or friction motor design. These
motors are specific to toys. Non-electric can include pneumatic as well.
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 05:55 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 44 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.
|
Your interpretation of what I’ve suggested is non-comparable as it makes it sound
like I’m trying to separate apples and oranges from fruit when I’m talking about
separating Fruit from other food types?
Of course if goes without saying that all sets regardless of theme should be
catalogued under ‘Sets’ however on the subject of this I still think having polybags
under sets isn’t ideal. Do people browsing for sets looking for a gift for someone
really want to be confronted with lots of polybags especially when some only
contain a minifigure? On the other hand someone looking for a suitably sealed
stocking filler may appreciate a separate place to search for that type of product
without having to be confronted with lots of substantial sets?
With regards to the link you provided:-
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogStats.asp?statID=M&inItemType=P&itemType=M
I would suggest that apart from Dr. Octopus (which is a minifiure) the rest are
all buildable figures/characters and should ideally be separated and categorised
as such as they are certainly not the type of things I would expect to see when
browsing for minifigs
However if the six main catalog entries is all you currently have to work with
and it’s kind of a quick fix then I understand why you feel the need to continue
with your current plan of changes but correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression
that you do not envisage there ever being much need to extend beyond the six
catelog entries which seems a bit short sighted when you have so many very different
items bundled together like this?
I think the end goal needs to be a catalog that makes sense to your average shopper
and the more categories you have with clear definitions the simpler and faster
it will be for people to browse and shop!
Some of the defintions that are currenly being thrown around with regards to
what makes a figure a figure only goes to show that they cannot easily be defined
into one category and rather than trying to define by complicated factors like
animal interlect, humanoid form or how we know them as a character in the longer
term it would seem logical to define by the type of build they are be that single
piece figure, brick built character, minfig style character with torso assembly
etc..
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 05:06 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | First, thanks for your detailed answer!
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The LEGO group has made many different kinds of figures (40+) and only one of
them is a minifigure. We lump them all together and call them all minifigures.
This is incorrect.
|
Okay, it is incorrect if you use the term "minifigure" in its official, "narrow"
meaning. But one could also argue that BrickLink and also other sites like Brickset
have established another meaning for its own catalog during the past 20 years
and therefore it also stands for all kinds of figures like mini dolls, scala
dolls etc., as the old definition explains (mini figures = various types of small
figures). To illustrate that:
Categroy: Minifigs (1st meaning: Different types of small figures)
- Standard Minifigures (2nd meaning: "original" minifigures)
- Mini Dolls
- Droids
- Scala Dolls
- Microfigures
- Bionicle Figures
- ...
It is the same with some other categories: "Books" also stands for magazines
or Legoland park maps, "Sets" includes service packs and bulk packs, "Catalogs"
includes single pieces of paper.
So the question is: Are people confused by the two meanings? I don't know.
(But I would agree that people would still find minifigs in a retitled category.
 So maybe it's just my personal traditional feeling why I would like to
keep "Minifigs" as one of the six main categories.)
|
I was gone say something like this, great explanation of my thoughts!
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 04:07 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser 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.
|
There were two things that were contentious: how to classify figures and the
distinction between sets and gear. The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured
out yet, but there is progress on figures. Share what you think:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
Thank you to both you and Jonas.
Two immediate issues if I may:
Sentient refers to the quality of having feelings. Rather use animate to distinguish
between characters and objects.
Your definition of a pet is circular: If the pet is named, it is an animal, but
not a figure. If an animal is named it is a figure. Hence, by the mere virtue
of being described as Polly the pet parrot, it becomes a part,
but being described as Polly the parrot, it becomes a figure.
Other matters specifically dealing with Figures:
You should also decide what is the primary criteria. I've made a combination
flowchart/decision tree as in the image. The full detailed image is here:
http://jebricks.co.za/Images_Public/Diagram1.png
Note please, for the sake of brevity, Graphic is your definition of "Representations
of Humans", Figure Function is "Primary Function", Animal includes both your
"Animal" and "Pets" definitions and "Figure Size" is a non-issue.
If you decide to use this on the help page, it is available for use but I would
need the help of a graphics person to jazz it up a bit. I tend not to worry about
nice looks when it comes to functionality.
That makes having character, that is named, as the primary starting point after
excluding sets. Then move on to animate (your current sentient) and then completeness.
See if that accurately describes the process of deciding what is a figure and
what is a set/part/gear. From there, you might be ale to remove certain definitions
and exceptions such as pets and figure size from the definition table and simplify
it.
I remember a discussion in times past as to whether or not the dramatis personae
in sets and what makes them compete as to what the defining standard of what
a minifigure is. I'm not sure if you want to address the issue of accessories
or completeness with these definitions as well. I know some people who think
a cellphone is required to make them complete humans, so where accessories are
construed as required for limb movement or character. In this case refer to
in which the figure has a dual weapon/body movement part. It would be less confusing
if the accessories required for movement are included somewhere. If users feel
that should be separate issue, then note it on the definitions page please.
Also, I do not know if BL's help pages can be sorted such that the definitions
flow a bit better. Part of what is confusing is the fact that you move from animal
to character to limbs missing to determine if something is a figure or not, whereas
the more natural progression would be character, limbs missing, animal. I think
this is a process of definition rather than a single definiton so as to make
for simpler line definitions and a flow in the progress from definition to definition
might help to avoid confusion.
Finally, are you very sure BL can handle single part figures as being under figures
with a part number and part description? Can you please make an example of how
such an item would be named as a figure?
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 23:04 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 53 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.
|
There were two things that were contentious: how to classify figures and the
distinction between sets and gear. The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured
out yet, but there is progress on figures. Share what you think:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 19:33 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | Okay, it is incorrect if you use the term "minifigure" in its official, "narrow"
meaning.
|
Without going too crazily in-depth about this, the word "minifigure" actually
means something very specific and a minifigure is actually a three-dimensional
trademark:
https://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2015/07/lego-mark-wars-toy-giant-snaps-together-two-favorable-3d-trademark-rulings-in-europe/
| | But one could also argue that BrickLink and also other sites like Brickset
have established another meaning
|
Yes, one could argue that - and lose. It's like saying that if I refer to
my vehicle tires by an entirely different name for long enough that eventually
I will be correct in what I'm saying. I won't be. I'll still be
wrong.
But I think we've probably exhausted that topic at this point.
| | Figures: A single part or small part assembly that fits into the Lego
building system and represents a human being, an alien, a droid, a
robot or any other real or fictive character excluding animals. Figures have
at least two distinguishable moulded body parts, at least one of which is a head,
torso, arm, hand, leg or feet.
|
Strangely enough, that's pretty close to what we all came up with the last
time we talked about this! But some thoughts:
| | Figures: A single part or small part assembly
|
Here I would ask how we decide what "small" means. See this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogStats.asp?statID=M&inItemType=P&itemType=M
| | that fits into the Lego building system
|
Which one? Technic, Duplo, Quatro, Belville, Scala? I would change "the" to
"a."
| | and represents a human being, an alien, a droid, a robot or any other real or fictive character excluding animals.
|
So no animals at all? Then how do we define these?
|
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 17:21 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| First, thanks for your detailed answer!
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The LEGO group has made many different kinds of figures (40+) and only one of
them is a minifigure. We lump them all together and call them all minifigures.
This is incorrect.
|
Okay, it is incorrect if you use the term "minifigure" in its official, "narrow"
meaning. But one could also argue that BrickLink and also other sites like Brickset
have established another meaning for its own catalog during the past 20 years
and therefore it also stands for all kinds of figures like mini dolls, scala
dolls etc., as the old definition explains (mini figures = various types of small
figures). To illustrate that:
Categroy: Minifigs (1st meaning: Different types of small figures)
- Standard Minifigures (2nd meaning: "original" minifigures)
- Mini Dolls
- Droids
- Scala Dolls
- Microfigures
- Bionicle Figures
- ...
It is the same with some other categories: "Books" also stands for magazines
or Legoland park maps, "Sets" includes service packs and bulk packs, "Catalogs"
includes single pieces of paper.
So the question is: Are people confused by the two meanings? I don't know.
(But I would agree that people would still find minifigs in a retitled category.
So maybe it's just my personal traditional feeling why I would like to
keep "Minifigs" as one of the six main categories.)
By the way, LEGO calls this a minifigure:
"Includes Aaron and Robot Hoodlum minifigures"
| | | | I think the current classification works quite well, even if it is not consistent in
some cases and has no clear definition yet.
|
Then help us write a definition. That's the point of publicly discussing
this: to see what the community thinks and get input on future direction. After
looking at the list above of what we currently consider "Minifigs," write a definition
of that item type and share it.
|
Since I am not a native english speaker, I might not be the right person to to
this. But anyway, here is a draft:
Figures: A single part or small (1) part assembly that fits into the Lego
building system (2) and represents a human being, an alien, a droid, a
robot or any other real or fictive character excluding animals. Figures have
at least two distinguishable moulded body parts, at least one of which is a head,
torso, arm, hand, leg or feet (3).
(1) "Small" because whole sets like the buildable figures should be excluded.
(2) So figures like
and others you have listed are excluded.
(3) The second sentence makes sure that everything from
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2489
is included exept the "Infant Figure" and the "Duplo Vehicle Character Figure"
which are more parts than figures for me.
Parts like
[p=3062bpb036]
or
[p=3062bpb038]
would be excluded.
Too long, I guess?
|
|
| Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 14:38 | | Subject: | Re: City Beautification Project | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Thanks to new functionality from BrickLink we've added hundreds of large,
high-quality additional images for City sets during the past three weeks. These
images are now available for most City sets from 2010-2020.
The actual set images weren't updated, unfortunately, but the additional
images are amazing. I've included representative samples from each year
below. The additional images can be viewed by clicking on any set image, but
the set entry must be visited to zoom in and appreciate the true image quality.
Enjoy!
|
Very nice
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 13:19 | | Subject: | Re: City Beautification Project | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Thanks to new functionality from BrickLink we've added hundreds of large,
high-quality additional images for City sets during the past three weeks.
|
Great wordplay!
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 13:02 | | Subject: | City Beautification Project | | Viewed: | 132 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| Thanks to new functionality from BrickLink we've added hundreds of large,
high-quality additional images for City sets during the past three weeks. These
images are now available for most City sets from 2010-2020.
The actual set images weren't updated, unfortunately, but the additional
images are amazing. I've included representative samples from each year
below. The additional images can be viewed by clicking on any set image, but
the set entry must be visited to zoom in and appreciate the true image quality.
Enjoy!
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | 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?
|
Go to this page and scroll down to the section titled "Different Types of Figures"
please:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2489
The LEGO group has made many different kinds of figures (40+) and only one of
them is a minifigure. We lump them all together and call them all minifigures.
This is incorrect.
| | "Figure", in contrast, is random and meaningless. Every brand can have figures,
but LEGO has minifigures.
|
I understand what you're saying, but the item type name is inaccurate. Scala
dolls are not at all minifigures. I don't think we need or will get another
item type for figures that are not minifigures.
And people looking for minifigures should be able to comprehend where to find
them even if the item type name is changed to Figures.
| | Removing the name/category "Minifigs" from one of the largest LEGO websites seems
really strange to me.
|
The category would not be removed. I'm only suggesting that it be retitled
for accuracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of figures in that item type
that are emphatically not minifigures. And "minifigs" is a slang term, by the
way, that was largely removed from the catalog already.
| | 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...
|
I suggested it, yes. But it might not be a good idea. I haven't looked
into it fully. In the case of this set, it seems like it wouldn't be a good
idea.
| | And
would have "5 Parts, 2 Figures"?
|
No, this set inventory correctly lists the animal figure as a counterpart and
someday we'll list the human figure the same way. So this set would have
something like 17 parts and two figures as counterparts (it's already halfway
there).
| | 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.
|
Not when it's listed as a counterpart. That's where we've been wanting
to go for some time now.
| | If you ask me, the reason why there is a category called "Minifigs" is because people are especially interested in minifigs
|
I don't deny that minifigures sell and collect well. I think at the roundtable
I attended some years back the site said that figures made up a decent percentage
of sales. But if we have a separate category for minifigures because of the
high interest, then what justification exists for sets, parts, books, catalogs,
and gear?
I would say the reason we have these six item types is simply because they're
a way to categorize things, not because the mere existence of any one item type
indicates that it somehow rises above any other item type in importance.
| | 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.
|
The second half is a fair point. We certainly don't have to categorize animals
as figures. The first half is also a fair point and might need to be considered
when talking about moving figures to counterparts.
| | I think the current classification works quite well, even if it is not consistent in
some cases and has no clear definition yet.
|
Then help us write a definition. That's the point of publicly discussing
this: to see what the community thinks and get input on future direction. After
looking at the list above of what we currently consider "Minifigs," write a definition
of that item type and share it.
| | (yes, minifig collectors, not figure collectors)
|
I'm sure there are people who collect different types of figures, not just
minifigures. BTW, here are some additional types of figures that we don't
even consider figures:
Should all of them be considered figures? No. But some should.
|
|
| 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: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 17:55 | | Subject: | Re: set 558 - counter part drum with sticker | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, edk writes:
| | 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.
|
Yes. This is due to the different type of plastic. It should be listed in BrickLink
inventories as Light Gray.
|
|
| 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 | |
| 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: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 00:55 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| | So each car from Cars could become minifigs too?
|
Some of them already are:
|
|
| 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
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
)
