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.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
)
)
)
