Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | bje  | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2020 08:48 | | Subject: | Re: Please give notice before deleting a listing | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, starbeanie writes:
| | Minifigs have different rules than parts. Stickers are classified as parts. When
you remove a sticker from the sheet, you have used it. The Sheet itself is no
longer New.
|
Might be, but the listing policy page was only updated today to reflect that.
Previously of course you could list and state in the comments, exactly as this
seller did and it was not against official published listing policy.
| | This was discussed way back when.
|
That is not the way to make a policy. It is of course understood that a sticker
sheet missing stickers is not complete and hence not new, but there was nothing
in the previously published rules prohibiting a seller from listing as new.
| |
And no I don't agree with how mini-figures are listed.
In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, mockingbird writes:
| | Before deleting an item listed for sale, please give a notice to the seller.
That way the seller can change the listing to comply with the rules (instead
of having to enter everything again).
The e-mail does not give the full listing details, so it is not always clear
what is wrong with the listed item. Also the reason given is not clear.
I just recieved an e-mail stating that a few stickers I listed are deleted.
Reason given: "Item is incorrectly defined as New/Used or Complete/Incomplete/Sealed"
It concerns a few incomplete sticker sheets. I have more incomplete sheets listed
and they are not deleted or mentioned in the e-mail.
Is it wrong to list incomplete sticker sheets as 'new' (with a picture
of the actual sheet and clearly stated in the comments that it is incomplete)?
The stickers still on the sheet are new (never used).
Just to be save I changed the remaining incomplete sticker sheets to 'used'.
And I will re-list the deleted items as 'used'. Hopefully I can still
fing the pictures of the deleted items.
|
Sticker sheets missing stickers must be listed as Used.
|
Why can't partial sheets be sold as new, but indicating incomplete? After
all, it happens a lot with minifigures, even though parts are missing and there
is no formal incomplete setting.
|
|
|
 |
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2020 07:37 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things - Technic | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | Hmm, I agree it's good to move some stuff out of the vanilla Technic category,
but I do think it's best to keep things that are really very much Technic
in Technic categories - especially the turntable.
|
Trouble is some of those turntables are used almost as much in non-Technic sets
than in Technic, making it almost impossible to say that it is more of Technic
part than not.
19/33 for Technic, or
or
* | | 2856c03 (Inv) Technic Turntable 56 Tooth Extended Arms with Light Bluish Gray Top (2856 / 2855)
Parts: Technic |
0/3 for Technic
It is specifically the turntables which led me to think that this category can
do with some changes.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2020 04:39 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things - Minifigs | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Since we have sub-categories in minifigure categories, please consider moving
all unclassified minifigures to sub-category "other" in each main category
Collectible Minifigures and Ninjago minifigures is classified with an "other"
category included, thus there is no need for the curly brackets next to the name
of the main category to serve as an indicator that there are minifigures that
do not belong to any of the sub-classes, such as these:
Star Wars: 47 unclassified figures out of 1168;
Town: 330 unclassified figures out of 2754;
City: 426 unclassified figures out of 1408;
Classic Town: 570 unclassified figures out of 755;
Space: 3 unclassified figures out of 207;
Racers: 12 unclassified figures out of 83;
Alpha Team: 9 unclassified figures out of 31;
Castle: 92 unclassified figures out of 551;
Duplo: 341 unclassified figures out of 866.
Furthermore, Superheroes minifigures have a sub-category "Super Heroes Other",
which should ideally be renamed just "Other"; and
Star Wars have unclassified minifigures (47) and a sub-category "Star Wars Other"(30)
which should ideally be renamed just "Other" after including all those presently
not classified.
This is of course not necessary if admins and members are comfortable knowing
that the curly brackets next to main categories names for minifigures refer to
an inconsistent treatment of unclassified items for some categories of minifigures.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2020 03:45 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things - Sundries | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Please consider:
* | | 2650 Hook Slider, Arm Base with Hinge with 3 Fingers
Parts: Hook |
to hinge
* | | 6040pb01 Propeller Housing with Red and White Danger Stripes Pattern (Stickers) - Sets 1782 / 6441 / 6442 / 6557 / 6559 / 6560 / 6599
Parts: Propeller |
to "aircraft" as these are probably not so much a component part of a propeller
or can better be used on the vehicle rather than to accessorise the propeller
* | | 2566 Bar 1.2L with Top Stud and 4 Bar Arms Up (Palm Tree Top)
Parts: Bar |
to "bar"
* | | 4022c02 (Inv) Train Buffer Beam with Black Train Coupling and Black Magnet Cylindrical (4022 / 2920 / 73092)
Parts: Train |
* | | 4022c01 (Inv) Train Buffer Beam with Black Train Coupling with Pin and Black Magnet Cylindrical (4022 / 4023 / 73092)
Parts: Train |
* | | 29085c01 Train Buffer Beam with Sealed Magnets - Type 3 (flat closed bottom)
Parts: Train |
[p=clikits108]
* | | 74188c01 Magnet Brick, Modified 2 x 4 Sealed Base with Extension Plate with 2 Studs and Hole
Parts: Magnet |
all to "magnet" by definition;
to "baseplate, raised" or "baseplate, road"
Please consider amending the definition of "string" to include "strands joined
to form a net", to avoid a new category for "net" only and consider renaming
the category to "string and net" and then consider:
to "string and net"
to "crane" by definition;
and deorated variants to "Baseplate, Road" or "Baseplate, Raised"
And possibly all the sports filed sections to "Baseplate, Raised"
Sports mask, helmet, chest protector, hockey player body, promo body and promo
parts, should these not be large figure parts by definition rather sports items?
All of "Vehicle, Mudguard Fast Food Racer" such as and to
"vehicle, base"
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2020 02:44 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things - Windows etc | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Window, Glass, Door, Door Frame, Windscreen
Consider please:
Window sashes and the like and shutters and the like do not
meet the definition of a window.
Consider making a new category "window, sashes and shutters" containing the 13
items that are sashes and shutters, or alternatively, combine these with glass
and rename glass to "glass, shutter and sashes" with a minor adjustment to the
definition of "glass" to include these items.
Also, consider combing "Window" and "Door Frame" into one category for all frames
and assemblies featuring doors, glass, shutters and sashes.
Please consider:
to windscreen, by definition
Please consider:
part 2352*
and assemblies;
and assemblies;
to window (or new combined category "window and door frames") by definition;
Roll cages:
These are not windscreens by definition. Also not windows or glass. Consider
please:
to category "vehicle"
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2020 02:12 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things - Technic | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Main "Technic" parts category:
Please consider cleaning this parts category up and moving items belonging to
underlying categories, such as:
Turntables from "technic" to "turntable" eg:
Tipper drums, bumper, digger buckets, air scoops, froklift forks from "technic"
to "vehicle"
Slopes from "technic" to "slope" or "slope, decorated" as the case may be eg:
* | | 2744pb021 Technic Slope 6 x 1 x 1 2/3 with Gauges, Red Rectangles and Olive Green Buttons Pattern (Sticker) - Set 79121
Parts: Technic |
Hooks from from "technic" to "hook" eg:
Propeller and propeller parts from "technic" to "propeller" eg:
* | | 99012pb03 Technic Rotor Blade Small with Axle and Pin Connector End with White Stripe on Dark Azure Background Pattern on Top (Sticker) - Set 70129
Parts: Technic |
Please move regardless:
Seats from "technic" to "technic, figure accessory", by definition:
and all decorated items of same;
and
[p=x136] to "Technic, Shock Absorber" by definition
Other considerations:
Saw Blades could possibly move to "Technic, Disk", by definition
* | | 37495 Technic Circular Saw Blade 9 x 9 with Frictionless Axle Hole and Teeth in Alternating Directions
Parts: Technic |
* | | 61403 Technic Circular Saw Blade 9 x 9 with Pin Hole and Teeth in Same Direction
Parts: Technic |
* | | 41125 Technic Circular Saw Blade with Pin Hole and Six Teeth (Large Shuriken Throwing Star)
Parts: Technic |
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2020 01:21 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Please consider:
-Moving watch parts currently under gear item "watch" such as :
[g=bb1051b]
from gear to parts under a category "watch" such that the completed and built
watch item is the human accessory, which will then have an inventory consisting
of parts, not gear. By my count this would require a category consisting of 66
parts;
-Adjusting the definition of a item type "part" to include parts used to build
gear items;
-Moving all items under gear item "sticker sheet" to parts "sticker sheet";
-Moving the speech bubbles and decorated speech bubbles such as from
gear "office supplies" to parts "minifigure, bodywear".
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 25, 2020 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: Was a decision made about smooth slopes? | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Brickitty writes:
| | Back at the beginning of July there was a thread about removing 5 entries for
"smooth slopes," and the consensus seemed to be strongly in favor of removing
them.
|
| | I'm curious if a decision was made about those entries
|
Site management put the brakes on. We were therefore unable to address the issue.
|
I've parked those I thought should be redone in a stockroom. Are the brakes
on permanently, ie a screeching halt, or is it a temporary issue which will
be addressed later? Eventually I would like to drive again.
I think the only issue site management should have is with programming resources
since those seem forever to be taxed by overwork when something does not suit
them them and freely available when it does. I do not particularly see that this
can be a programming issue.
Or do we go for the unwritten rule thingie again when we consider it inconsistent
to have some variants allowed for textures and others not?
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2020 03:31 | | Subject: | Re: Make neutral feedback actually NEUTRAL | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, bje writes:
| | […]
Scene at Bricklink office: Some user made a new suggestion!!! Lets see the votes:
200 Yes votes;
10 No votes;
700 000 Abstains
% wanting the suggestion: 200/700210 = 0.02%
Obviously members do like this suggestion, so we can ignore it. Yes!! Less work
on a Friday!!
|
A “not” missing? “members do not like”
|
Friday typo, my normal curve got distributed to the weekend
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2020 02:37 | | Subject: | Re: Make neutral feedback actually NEUTRAL | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, CanadaFirst writes:
|
snip
| |
Yep, voted yes. Pretty simply equation really: If there are 3 options, and one
of them accounts of 98% of the cases and the other two options are left for the
other 2%, that is just bad design. That means these are not meaningful options.
|
When I read this, I had the disturbing thought that BL do not understand statistics.
Scene at Bricklink office: Some user made a new suggestion!!! Lets see the votes:
200 Yes votes;
10 No votes;
700 000 Abstains
% wanting the suggestion: 200/700210 = 0.02%
Obviously members do like this suggestion, so we can ignore it. Yes!! Less work
on a Friday!!
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 12:40 | | Subject: | Re: About Braille Bricks | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | I guess this is more a question to “corporate” admins (aka Russell) than the
member admins but I feel that getting every one (non-admin included)’s opinion
will be healthful.
So, it appears the LEGO Braille bricks are (finally) soon to be released ( https://www.newelementary.com/2020/08/free-lego-braille-bricks-released-by.html
).
They’ll only be made available for free to blind children through the LEGO Foundation.
They won’t be buyable.
Will there be a policy to forbid their sale on BL? (to prevent encouraging collecting
/ second market, IOW, stealing from children¹)
And if so, will the bricks still be in the catalogue or not?
(Will it be possible to enforce a ban if they are?)
——
¹ Nah, I’m strictly objective, no way I’m sneaking my opinion here  
|
It has always been my intention to purchase some of these and donate it myself
as there is no official Braille partner here. This school would most definitely
gain from such a donation: http://www.pioneerschool.org.za/
I sincerely hope that admins will allow these to be sold on BL in order to reach
a wider audience than what TLG is aiming for.
|
I think this is a difficult one. If they are not going to sell them, then it
seems a bit wrong that they allow others to sell them if they are not a commercial
product.
I showed the original story to a partially sighted friend who teaches Braille
and he was quite positive about them but did point out that they are way too
big so probably best for younger kids only, like a sighted kid sounding out a
word letter by letter.
|
I think here we are privileged (?) that the government will not allow something
as a donation unless there is certification all along the transaction's entire
route. So from the sale on BL, the import, the distribution to the school - everything
has to be aboveboard and with a proper paper trail. I think under those circumstances,
the sale as a non-commercial product can be managed with all of the parties including
BL.
My thinking was not also only on the size but also for the fact hat we have 11
official languages and schooling is not available in all 11, the situation is
even worse for Braille books in for example SeSotho. So my thinking was they
could be used as mother tongue teaching aids, even if they are not used by the
children directly.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 12:05 | | Subject: | Re: About Braille Bricks | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | I guess this is more a question to “corporate” admins (aka Russell) than the
member admins but I feel that getting every one (non-admin included)’s opinion
will be healthful.
So, it appears the LEGO Braille bricks are (finally) soon to be released ( https://www.newelementary.com/2020/08/free-lego-braille-bricks-released-by.html
).
They’ll only be made available for free to blind children through the LEGO Foundation.
They won’t be buyable.
Will there be a policy to forbid their sale on BL? (to prevent encouraging collecting
/ second market, IOW, stealing from children¹)
And if so, will the bricks still be in the catalogue or not?
(Will it be possible to enforce a ban if they are?)
——
¹ Nah, I’m strictly objective, no way I’m sneaking my opinion here
|
It has always been my intention to purchase some of these and donate it myself
as there is no official Braille partner here. This school would most definitely
gain from such a donation: http://www.pioneerschool.org.za/
I sincerely hope that admins will allow these to be sold on BL in order to reach
a wider audience than what TLG is aiming for.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 06:02 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, paulvdb writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
|
snip
| |
I think it was primarily introduced in the beginning to get IC working for most
parts. Since many don't (or at least didn't) have dimensions it would
be almost impossible to use IC. But in my opinion the goal should have been to
get dimensions for all parts in the catalog and then gid rid of weight bound.
|
If you look at the dimensions you have in your store, you will see there was
a huge bunch of them done right when IC started, and then a trickle afterwards.
You'll probably find that most decorated parts, torso, legs assys and heads
are wither missing or wrong.
| |
Of course that would have required additional programming effort to make it easier
to submit missing dimensions. It's taking a lot of work to post these in
the forum and then wait for someone at BL to manually add them. There really
should have been shipping dimension fields in the add and change item forms so
that we could submit them there like most other changes to the catalog.
|
Yes please. Mooted some months ago already and since then no news.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:58 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| |
Weights are additive. It doesn't really matter if one part is 1g and another
100g. The order is 101g. And while volumes are (approximately) additive if all
the parts individually fit into a certain box size, individual part dimensions
cannot necessarily be warped. A 5x5x5 cm part is not the same as a 1x5x25 cm
part, even though the volume is the same. If the total parcel size doesn't
matter, the seller need not have a restriction and all parts will pass that size
check. Whereas if the parcel size does matter, then the size check is necessary.
Are there situations where weight bound is important?
|
When IC was launched we sent a message to BL development asking why they had
not included weight/volume as a packaging method and were told that did not fit
the design. That is because they used the US postal system as their focus., and
this is why we have always suggested that a regional based system would have
been better - taken longer for sure, and more complicated, of course, but much
better for those that want to automate their checkout.
|
We recently went from no volume restrictions for postage to freight restrictions
with additional restrictions on top of that. Freight has always used the volume
restrictions with those 5 000 factors, so for domestic, we've never had a
purely weight bound system. The USA changed over to a volume system last year.
So personally, I do not see any reason for any shipping method with only a weight
restriction.
As a buyer, I do have a forwarder which use a weight only system, but of course
it still has to be shipped in the country of origin, so again, even where the
extraordinary circumstance exists, it is negated by the fact that the regional
setting would need to be applied first and foremost.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:49 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, bje writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, bje writes:
|
|
|
snip
| |
Thanks, I didn't check that non IC search function before, it's quite
well hidden. I've got a poster that's got packing dimensions as if it's
unfolded. Hope that's not true for all posters in the catalog.
|
I think some posters get their dimensions off the catalogue dimensions, which
I believe are generally measured to open, not as it is when you receive it in
the box. The catalogue dimensions being something different to how you would
pack it of course.
| |
As for the warning, it could show up in the to-do items in the My Store menu.
I already have that green dot showing there permanently because it keeps telling
me to send notifications for parts which I simply don't want to do. It would
be good if those to-do items could be dismissed and the warning was clearer,
because now the green dot is just a fixed part of the interface for me that I
don't even pay attention to. If that function would work better and items
without dimensions would show up in the to do list, it may motivate people to
submit them.
|
I think it has to happen when you list or part out, but then the system of updating
them must also be a lot simpler. The current shortcut of just having something
to make another thing work in some manner is sort of weird.
| |
I've submitted 2 packing dimensions a while ago and neither seems to have
been implemented so far. I guess if they will, I'll have motivation to measure
a couple more.
|
THAT is a very very sore point - I picked up some from May this morning not done
yet. I don't think the issue is that members are not motivated, it is that
is so difficult to pick up on errors that most sellers just probably pad their
costs or restrictions or simply pay in and worry about it next time.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 05:05 | | Subject: | Re: Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, bje writes:
|
snip
| |
Hmm, I never really understood these "volume bound" and "weight bound" concepts
very well,
|
Weight bound - measures for IC by weight only so if you have a volume/size restriction,
it gets ignored on checkout.
Volume bound: first checks for weight then for your volume/size restrictions.
If no packing dimensions, no IC, if packing dimensions are set, weight is ignored
at checkout insofar as the restrictions go, but not total package weight.
At issue is if the item is default to weight, it will ignore all of your volume
and size restrictions if you do not enter packing dimensions yourself. You have,
however, no way of knowing this, unless you manually check each listing in your
store.
| | so I'm not an expert, but I feel like parts that don't have
packing measurements entered should just have some kind of default large size.
|
Then you get to the issue again with instructions which are mostly just set to
be 1 cm high. Imagine your cart has 10 collectable minifig instructions in set
to a height of 10cm which is probably packet size... No good.
| | If parts are going to disqualify IC entirely, it means they cannot be bought
in my store, and that's not a good user experience either. Someone pointed
out a set to me that IC didn't accept and it has been taking up space for
several years because it was impossible to buy it, and all that time I had no
idea.
|
That is why you have the report on your inventory page which shows you the items
not qualifying for IC - you should run that once in awhile, it is an eye-opener.
Or maybe what you suggest is OK but then there should at least be
| | a warning for the seller or something like that.
|
Flagging an item on listing, how would that work, an error message perhaps? Or
actually showing the current dimensions and weight on the listing page with big
red letters if there is nothing. That might be achievable. But I think they also
have to fix the reporting so items with errors actually show up.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 13, 2020 04:26 | | Subject: | Do not default new parts as weight bound | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| When new parts are added to the catalogue and these parts have only a catalogue
weight, please do not default the item to weight bound for packaging type. Just
as IC is not possible if the item does not have a weight entered for the catalogue,
it should be just as impossible for IC if the volume is patently a problem.
This seems to be the only workaround at this time to make the inventory search
function for "Instant Checkout Unavailable" useful.
Case in point this part, which do not appear on that list even though all of
the information to determine whether or not IC should be applied, is not provided:
* | | 67138 Aircraft Fuselage Forward Bottom Curved 6 x 24 x 1 1/3 with 4 x 21 Recessed Center and 12 x 6 Wings, 20 Holes
Parts: Aircraft |
This part qualifies for IC, will fit my requirements for medium letter by weight,
but is in fact a small packet due to its height, the cost difference is 250%.
The argument that IC is useful enough without being too precise is not valid
if BL do not give sellers the reporting tools required. Setting defaults with
the potential of causing sellers financial loss, without giving sellers the opportunity
to address the issue on listing the item, is not useful.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 10:20 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Tile Round | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
snip
| | | | | |
Hmm, on the one hand I understand the proposed moves from Tile to Plate, on the
other hand Plate,Modified is already quite big and Tile,Modified isn't.
|
Not requesting a consideration for Plate, Modified, but Plate, Round, so the
size of Plate Modified is not really at issue.
|
Well the same is true for Plate,Round, but it was more a general comment on the
trend to move things with some studs missing from the smaller Tile categories
to the bigger Plate categories. Tile, Round is quite small.
|
My idea is that such a part with a few studs missing is a plate and not a tile.
Moving a thing from a category because it is in the wrong category, is in my
head not the same as worrying about the size of a category.
| |
| |
| | Therefore
not really in favour of the idea, but fair enough I guess, if many people want
it.
|
| |
| |
and to Tile Modified (so a category for Tile, Round, Modified is not required)
|
Nah, Tile,Round is correct, because Round has priority over Modified
|
When was that priority set?
|
|
snip
| |
But you're advocating Modified should take priority over Round in the case
of that Tile
|
I'm not advocating anything, I am requesting a consideration for something,
as opposed to your statement that one thing takes precedence over another.
| | but at the same time you're suggesting those Round+Modified
Tiles to be moved to Plate,Round - which should, by the same logic, then be Plate,Modified.
|
Ive not dealt with plate, round yet, only tile round. If it needs to move or
if I think another is change is to be requested inside the entire category, I'll
do so. I'm also trying to keep my comments grouped in categories to avoid
jumping all over the place. One thing at a time and one place at a time.
Of course that tile is modified, it is how we deal with the modification. If
you look closely at what remains after stripping put plates and bars, then this
is the only part in the entire tile round category with some attachment. Catmins
must consider if it is worth it to have a definition made such that its verbosity
includes one part only or if that part is better suited somewhere else to make
an easier category and easier definition.
| |
I guess we could change things around to make Modified take priority over Round,
to solve the issue you describe, although then the Modified categories will become
even bigger. It will also mean that anything in Brick,Round that isn't standard,
such as domes, rocket fins, bricks with holes, all end up in Brick,Modified.
|
Again, it is dependent on how catmins stress test the definitions. It can only
mean something if the definition fits. Those definitions are not tested or experimented
on yet, so we cannot know if what is being done here is correct. This is why
it is under consideration - for catmins to decide if the definition needs fine
tuning or if the part needs to move.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 09:55 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Animal Air | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I'm going to try my hand at the figure definitions.
I don't think animals with two uses, one as a part and one as a figure, should
get defined based on the manner in which it is used in a set. Thus, I do not
think:
should be a figure in some sets and a part in others, but if the figure
definition takes precedence over the part definition, then of course some would
have dual functions.
I'm still not happy with that sentient idea and how it should be applied,
but lets see:
https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Ant-thony
https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Smaug
* | | buckbeakc02 (Inv) Hippogriff with Dark Bluish Gray Wings, with Beak, Dark Bluish Gray and White Feathers, and Bright Light Orange Eyes Pattern (HP Buckbeak)
Parts: Animal, Air |
https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki
Minecraft animals
All of these to figures.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 11, 2020 08:12 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Tile Round | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Please consider to Plate Round:
|
Hmm, on the one hand I understand the proposed moves from Tile to Plate, on the
other hand Plate,Modified is already quite big and Tile,Modified isn't.
|
Not requesting a consideration for Plate, Modified, but Plate, Round, so the
size of Plate Modified is not really at issue.
| | Therefore
not really in favour of the idea, but fair enough I guess, if many people want
it.
|
| |
| |
and to Tile Modified (so a category for Tile, Round, Modified is not required)
|
Nah, Tile,Round is correct, because Round has priority over Modified
|
When was that priority set?
| | - if this
would be a Tile,Modified instead of a Tile,Round, then there are many Plate,Rounds
tha should be Plate,Modifieds as well. In fact, there are some of them right
there in your suggestion to move to Plate,Round.
|
I don't understand what you mean here. The plate round fits as those are
all have studs (a stud being a stud whether it is hollow, solid, blocked...).
The tile modified is suggested to make the tile round category smaller and to
get away from the definition where you have a modified category for some items
and for other items it is modified only once you get to the definition, it is
not apparent from the name of the category. Plate, round suffers the same indignity.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
