Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | infinibrix  | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2020 07:23 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigue Complete Build Inconsistencies? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, yorbrick writes:
| | If rules are there to be broken though, why not have yet another version?
We now have a listing for
the head
the head, body and trash can lid
the head, body, trash can lid and trash can.
So might as well go for a full house and have the head and body. It makes it
harder to list and buy/sell by spreading the listings like this. And there are
other characters that come with things that might be important/unimportant depending
on the buyer/seller. It just shows how much an incomplete minifigure feature
is needed. In this case, the complete figure could be the group of four items,
and anything else is incomplete.
|
In truth the Oscar probably only warrants one entry which in my opinion is of
course the more complete one! though I don’t have a major issue with this as
long as there are no more than two entries for any one minifig however the thing
I have a bigger issue with is that we are using a completely different reference
number for each? idea078 and idea079 when they are both centred around the same
minifig and so it might be an idea if we’re going to do this sort of thing that
we just use idea078 for the fully accessorised entry and then just add a ‘b’
or something for any alternative barebone entries - idea078b
If the same additional letter is used each and every time at least people can
look to check to see if there is a barebone version of the same minifig and know
how to search for it
We already have some examples of this in the catalog where these minifigs are
the same and use a similar refernece to define a different colour:-
And here it’s the same minifig but without the proton pack though again it would
benefit from using the same letter at the end each time - gb001b instead of gb001i
And then from there a minifig like this would benefit from an additional non
backpack entry - sw0824b
or at least thats my thinking....
|
 |
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2020 06:44 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigue Complete Build Inconsistencies? | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, bje writes:
| | I fully agree, for what it is worth. I have no problem with BL defining what
a minifigure is, what it must consist of, how it must inventoried or indeed how
it must be listed. But then BL must have clear written rules and they must allow
catmins to actually apply those rules consistently.
|
But defining clear written rules for how ALL minifigs MUST be listed doesn’t
always serve its purpose for the benefit of the catalog as the Oscar minifig
has shown and it’s better to have a catalog that best serves those customers
who shop here rather than blindly following strict rules that are detrimental
to the way a particular minifig appears in the catalog?
I also have full confidence in the catmins judgement as to what they feel should
constitute the final minifig for each catalog entry as they still follow the
same guideline rules set out for the majority or minifig entries but that doesn’t
mean that other members of the community shouldn’t be able to challenge a minifig
entry or voice an opinion on what parts they feel should or should not be included.
In the end the catmins will decide whether a minifig entry warrants special circumstances
or not but once decided we then all adhere to what is expected based on the final
photo and so it’s not as if rules are not in place for us all to follow?
|
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Nov 14, 2020 05:55 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigue Complete Build Inconsistencies? | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, chetzler writes:
| | | | In the end rather than following hard and fast rules I would go with what seems
worthy of being complete enough for the catalog and what someone unfamiliar with
Bricklink would expect to be included.
|
I've thought this for a long time. There are some some strange minifigure
entries in the catalog. For catalog purposes, guidelines are better than rules.
If the rules are always blindly adhered to, there seems little need for a catmin--anybody
could do the job by just following the rules. I'd rather have thoughtful
people make a decision about what is the most reasonable inventory for a figure
without being bound to a set of rules that can't possibly account for all
current all future cases.
Below is what I always thought was a reasonable exception to the "no hand-held
accessories" rule as the accessories are meant to be an extension of the fig's
alien arms. This exception has existed for a long time, so clearly there is
precedent for going with reasonable vs pedantic.
|
and maybe extending that further to characters that are always seen to look a
certain way for instance Shredder always wearing gauntlets, Karlof always shown
with big fist hands, and a werewolf with claws etc...
Vader on the other hand is'nt always weilding a Lighsaber thereby making
it more of a handheld accessory intended to be added/removed
Either way we have many Ironman minifigs with blue boosters under their legs
but are they any more essential to those minifigs compared to some of the other
parts I've mentioned? I guess in the end those parts don't matter too
much one way or the other as everyone will just follow and include what is shown
in the picture but yes descisons made on a case by case basis is better than
sticking to strict rulings that trip over themselves with their own inconsistencies
especially where key componenets for certain minifigs appear to be missing?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Nov 13, 2020 15:52 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigue Complete Build Inconsistencies? | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, runner.caller writes:
| | | | In Inventories, axaday writes:
Two admins pointed out the rule that every part of
a minifig has to attach together. The trash can is flat inside and cannot attach
to Oscar. He only stays in by gravity.
|
What about the dolla dolla bill in this fig's bag?
|
Yes the Dollar in the bag should'nt be included as to me its no different
to any other minifig tile accessory such as a map, catapult, gamer pad etc...
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Nov 13, 2020 11:32 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigue Complete Build Inconsistencies? | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, BulbaNerd4000 writes:
| |
Is it too much to ask for both?
-Tony Stark
Why don't we make just make an entry for each one?
|
I'm not against this idea but I have a feeling the Admins/Bricklink will
be plus you also have to consider how far we can stretch things because if you
give every minifig two entries does that actually benefit Bricklink for the better?
I mean do we really want to see caped and non caped versions for each and every
minifigure for example? Well I would'nt have a problem with that either but
there are certainly some minifigs that would benefit a lot more from having two
entries and it may be better starting at these before overcomplicating the catalog
with too many entries when there is only one single part different between them
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Nov 13, 2020 11:16 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigue Complete Build Inconsistencies? | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, popsicle writes:
| | In Inventories, infinibrix writes:
| | In Inventories, axaday writes:
| | In MY era, Oscar never came out of the trashcan. He was just a hand puppet,
not a costume. But also in my era, Snuffy was never seen by anyone except Big
Bird and was possibly an imaginary friend. I know he now walks around in the
open. So I don't know what change may have come for Oscar in that time.
|
Either way given TLG only gave him a very basic minifig head as a body and did'nt
include arms or even his legs if he has them I think its clear that this area
of the minifig is supposed to be hidden out of view therefore making him seem
incomplete without the trash can to serve its purpose 
|
You make a very good point. So I'm back to where I started, confused
What I'm less confused about, is that it can't be easy for those
making catalog listing policies.
|
Ha ha yeah but I think thats the thing, maybe we need less stict policy/rules
on how minifigs are handled and deal with them on a case by case basis by cataloging
them in a way that best serves the majority of the community. If I'm alone
with suggesting Oscar should have a trash can then by all means we should leave
him without it though I'm not sure if that is the case?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Nov 13, 2020 10:49 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigue Complete Build Inconsistencies? | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, axaday writes:
| | In MY era, Oscar never came out of the trashcan. He was just a hand puppet,
not a costume. But also in my era, Snuffy was never seen by anyone except Big
Bird and was possibly an imaginary friend. I know he now walks around in the
open. So I don't know what change may have come for Oscar in that time.
|
Either way given TLG only gave him a very basic minifig head as a body and did'nt
include arms or even his legs if he has them I think its clear that this area
of the minifig is supposed to be hidden out of view therefore making him seem
incomplete without the trash can to serve its purpose
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Nov 13, 2020 10:35 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigue Complete Build Inconsistencies? | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, axaday writes:
| | I have sympathy with you and the admins are discussing all of this right now
and I believe you will get some of what you are asking for.
I added the non-can Oscar. Two admins pointed out the rule that every part of
a minifig has to attach together. The trash can is flat inside and cannot attach
to Oscar. He only stays in by gravity.
|
Okay that explains a lot because I did'nt realise it was'nt actually
attached to the trash can though that said I think if we want to try and make
the catlog minifig entries appear as complete as possible then I'd personally
say that the trash can should probably be included with the rest of the minifig
but saying that as mentioned I would'nt have a problem with two entries for
certain minifigs either although whether the Oscar warrants the need for two
compared to some of the more elaborate entries I'm not so sure.
The ghostbusters minifigs are a good example of where there is a benefit for
two entires (with/without proton pack) and I hope this can be followed through
to other similar minifigs of which we're probably only talking about less
than 1% anyway
In the end rather than following hard and fast rules I would go with what seems
worthy of being complete enough for the catalog and what someone unfamiliar with
Bricklink would expect to be included. Both a chima eagle without wings and Oscar
without a trash can I'm sure most people would see as incomplete especially
if it then means they then end up having to buy the additional parts (handheld
items aside) separately which almost defeats the purpose of a complete minifig
entry
On the otherhand jay without a jet pack and Moroff without his backpack still
seem complete enough to be worthy of being cataloged barebone and in truth I
think this would be the most common way to buy and sell them anyway if users
were given the choice?
But thats just my take on the subject...
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Nov 13, 2020 07:29 | | Subject: | Minifigue Complete Build Inconsistencies? | | Viewed: | 209 times | | Topic: | Inventories | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Whilst I’m sure we all understand and appreciate that minifigs have to be listed
as per the instructions and whilst for the most part this might be a good guideline
to follow can we not also try and gauge what we feel the majority of the community
would consider more fitting as a complete minifigure along with what might be
considered unnecessary as part of a complete minifigure?
For instance we have Oscar the Grouch in his trash can marked for deletion??
To be replaced with this:-
I’m not sure anyone would consider the newer entry complete for instance would
anyone actually display the Oscar minifig without the trash can either way the
instructions point to the parts being arrow directed down into the trash can
anyway?
Then compared with these minifigs that have non-essential accessories:-
The yoda has a part only useful with the actual build and if you want Jay In
his kimono outfit you have to specifically purchase him with the multiple part
jet pack whilst the other ninja characters in matching outfits are sold standalone
as should be the same for all?
I’m then confused further as we have Ghostbusters characters in the catalog with
and without their proton packs so are they supposed to be fully accessorised,
barebone or a mix of both, which is it?
To be honest I like the two options given for the Ghostbusters minifigs and whilst
the majority of minifgs should only have one entry I think it would make sense
to have two entries for certain minifigs like the Jay without jetpack and other
minifigs like this one with an option to buy with and without a backpack:-
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Oct 22, 2020 13:25 | | Subject: | Re: Incomplete Minifigures? | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, steamingpile writes:
| | I understand the desire to eliminate the incomplete minifigures from the listings.
But is there any chance that actual "minifigure" listings could come without
all the accessories?
For example sw0824 has 3 actual minifigure parts, and a 14 piece backpack. Wouldn't
the acutal minifigure end at the 3 actual minifigure parts, and not include the
random bricks?
|
If I were the king, we would make a category for Brick Built Minifigure Accessories
that would include backpacks and weapons that are official builds. Then the
minifigure listings would lose all backpacks and minifigs that come with a hat
and a hair option would have both in the inventory. A BUNCH of Chima minifigs
would disappear.
|
I agree that some re-thinking should be considered as if we’re going to say that
multi-part backpacks and capes are an essential part of a minifigure build then
why stop at just those parts because if we’re saying we want minifigs to appear
exactly as they appear in the instructions then I agree that minifigs should
also include satchels, sword holders, weapons and accessories too?
The only obstacle I can see is where you have for example Indiana Jones iaj001
which appears in 12 sets and the accessories given by each set may vary from
including the whip, satchel and pistol to perhaps not including one of those
parts or perhaps even coming with him wearing handcuffs instead?
However logic says that you don’t accessorise and photo him wearing handcuffs
you simply accessorise him with the most common accessories for that minifig.
If the first uploader accessorises and photos him with satchel, whip, and pistol
then those should then become the MUST include parts for that minifigure or even
if the first photo uploader doesn’t include the pistol that may still seem a
valid upload to go with, On the other hand if someone photos and uploads without
the satchel or whip then someone may request to revise the photo to include what
they consider a vital component to the overall look of Indiana Jones so that
it does include these elements
I know it’s not a perfect solution but then does it really need to be? As long
as the photo includes the more relevant parts associated with the minifig in
question and buyers can see what they will get I think this is more helpful to
buyers than leaving them having to hunt around looking for a satchel or lightsaber
hilt?
When I first arrived here I found it strange that none of the minifigure photos
showed accessories and I really didn’t know what to expect would be included
either?
I think it’s fair to say that I think minifgs should either be properly fully
accessorised or listed barebone which for Indiana Jones would be just the hat,
head, torso and legs. Obviously not all minifigs are as simple as this so what
constitutes barebone would need careful consideration but minifigures are a huge
part of the market on Bricklink and so I feel having options would be of greater
benefit to the platform, in fact it would be nice if there were two options for
most minifigs for example iaj001 could be a fully accessorised Indiana Jones
with iaj001b (The ‘b’ representing the fact that the minifig is bare bone with
just the main minifig components head legs torso etc..
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Oct 9, 2020 12:03 | | Subject: | Re: Please show part numbers in Shopping Cart | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | The shopping cart while checking out shows a picture and description of
the part you want to buy, but no part number.
Please add the part number somewhere here.
Thank you.
|
+1
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2020 10:02 | | Subject: | Re: Compulsory message before negative/neutral fb | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, peregrinator writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
| | The feedback page encourages to resolve issues before leaving feedback:
Please try to resolve any disputes before posting a complaint. Feedback must
not be used to communicate with your trading partner or ask them a question
|
Why not require the user leaving the feedback to check a box saying "[] I have
tried to resolve this issue with my trading partner before posting this"?
|
+1
or if not this the pop up prompt to the buyer as also suggested
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2020 09:56 | | Subject: | Re: Compulsory message before negative/neutral fb | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, psusaxman2000 writes:
| | In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
|
| | While a pop up message sounds all well and good, they only work for a short time.
Once someone knows that it is there, they tend to just ignore them.
|
but your talking as though people regularly leave negative feedback because buyers
will only see the pop up warning in situations where they are about to leave
negative feedback?
Its also more geared towards newbies who may not be aware that communication
is key on sites like Bricklink and ebay rather than just leaving feedback without
a second thought!
| | I like the idea of having some secondary or hybrid concept and I think it could
help eliminate some work for the admins with feedback removal. How about if
when sending a non-positive feedback, the system puts a set hold time (say 2
days) before it is officially posted, but also sends as an email and/or message
to the other party giving them a chance to respond. The response would then
allow the parties to (hopefully) better align and come to a better resolution.
There would obviously have to be some kind of limit on this for those transactions
that are actually bad and need to be noted as such, but this would give some
help to the process.
|
I think it's just overcomplicating things if the buyer is confronted with
a pop up warning prior to leaving negative feedback where Bricklink suggests
it might be worth contacting the seller before committing to the feedback, that
should be good enough.
In the end some buyers will take note of that and show willingness to see if
the situation can be resolved with the seller whilst others won't and for
those that don't there's little point delaying the inevitable feedback
from being posted
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Oct 1, 2020 07:06 | | Subject: | Re: Compulsory message before negative/neutral fb | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Shintaku writes:
| | | | The feedback page encourages to resolve issues before leaving feedback:
Please try to resolve any disputes before posting a complaint. Feedback must
not be used to communicate with your trading partner or ask them a question
|
Yes that is actually suggested and I would welcome it to become compulsory.
|
I think a pop up type message might be better that says something along the lines
of:-
"You are about to leave a Negative feedback but have you considered contacting
the seller first? Most sellers will be keen to resolve issues given fair opportunity
to do so?"
If the buyer is able to leave a kind of draft negative that appears after a certain
time it will just put the sellers back up and make them feel like they're
being blackmailed and having to resolve because of the impending negative rather
than because they want to resolve off their own back!
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Sep 30, 2020 08:41 | | Subject: | Re: Color question | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, Bendix writes:
| | Duplo snowflake of set 10899, Frozen Ice Castle is listed as Trans Clear
Maybe the correct color should be Trans Milky or Trans White?
|
Having checked the part on the Lego site, Lego refer to its colour as Trans White
which translates to Trans Clear on Bricklink and the important thing here is
to always catalog the colour not as we see it but as the colour description given
by Lego/Bricklink otherwise you end up creating additional sub-categories of
colour which Lego themselves don't recognise and which leave sellers with
no clear indication of where they should list their item for sale also there
are other colours that vary in shade such as Pearl Gold and yellow and if you
start doing sub categoris for one colour I'm not sure where it would end?
Bricklink would have an even bigger colour pallette with no clear certainty as
to where an item should be listed?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Sep 23, 2020 09:36 | | Subject: | Re: Anyone use counter scale? | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, infinibrix writes:
| | In Inventories, novabrick writes:
| | In Inventories, nielnc3 writes:
| | Hey, we are thinking about buying a counter scale to help with inventory - we
are hoping to find one that can count small, very light pieces such as 1x1 tile,
1x1 round plate, etc all the way up to 2x4 bricks.. does anyone use a counter
scale to help be more efficient pulling orders? Or to help with adding inventory
more quickly? Thanks for the feedback.
|
We have one. But there is always an error margin. Since not all parts are the
same weight to the last microgramm, especially used ones. So there can be a bit
of fluctuation. We only use it on really high digit counts like 5000+.
Setup takes like weighing 250 or something of a part and then add the whole lot
to get a fairly accurate number. I wouldn't trust it by just weighing a single
part and go up from there.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
|
I should add that the weights I've used are just an example I have no idea
what 100 of any part actually weigh 
| | Yes and if sellers intend to rely on scales they should always ensure that the
customer gets either the correct amount or a couple extra rather than being short.
Therefore if you count and weight 100 parts at 28g probably safer to ensure that
the weight is around 29g on the scales to allow for marginal errors as from a
customers perspective its not very acceptable to find parts missing when they
have been weighed and estimated instead of properly counted
|
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Sep 23, 2020 09:32 | | Subject: | Re: Anyone use counter scale? | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, novabrick writes:
| | In Inventories, nielnc3 writes:
| | Hey, we are thinking about buying a counter scale to help with inventory - we
are hoping to find one that can count small, very light pieces such as 1x1 tile,
1x1 round plate, etc all the way up to 2x4 bricks.. does anyone use a counter
scale to help be more efficient pulling orders? Or to help with adding inventory
more quickly? Thanks for the feedback.
|
We have one. But there is always an error margin. Since not all parts are the
same weight to the last microgramm, especially used ones. So there can be a bit
of fluctuation. We only use it on really high digit counts like 5000+.
Setup takes like weighing 250 or something of a part and then add the whole lot
to get a fairly accurate number. I wouldn't trust it by just weighing a single
part and go up from there.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
Yes and if sellers intend to rely on scales they should always ensure that the
customer gets either the correct amount or a couple extra rather than being short.
Therefore if you count and weight 100 parts at 28g probably safer to ensure that
the weight is around 29g on the scales to allow for marginal errors as from a
customers perspective its not very acceptable to find parts missing when they
have been weighed and estimated instead of properly counted
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Sep 22, 2020 08:52 | | Subject: | Re: Change entry for minifigs, NEW / INcomplete | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Pazzo writes:
| | Hi all,
recently some of our parts/sets/minifigs are removed from my inventorie.
Before you would get a notification, but nowadays items are removed without further
notice.
I do understand that it is necessary to list the items correctly, but I do have
a problem with removing minifigs from the inventorie.
For example:
SW0105: Lando Calrissian, Cloud City Outfit (Smooth Hair)
We do have this minifig in stock, it is new, but the cape is missing
We do not have an option to list the minifig as NEW and INcomplete, but the minifig
IS completly new!!
Either change the way we can add this to our inventorie (like sets) or let us
list them as new! It would be incorrect if we would list them as USED, as clearly
they are NOT.
just my 2 cents,
be cool and have fun!
Eric
|
I've also just had that very same Lando minifigure removed because of the
missing cape and yet there is surely some value to be added to the bricklink
marketplace by giving people access to rare minifigures like this. See here...
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1223220
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Aug 1, 2020 18:51 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Project - Moving Things | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, I won't promise anything will happen.
But this is the plan:
1. I'm opening discussion right now, in this thread, on changes in
item type and and category for any items wrongly categorized. I expect discussion
will probably focus on parts and last around two weeks.
2. I'll post all changes deemed worth making on this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
3. The catalog team will discuss internally during the month of September.
This will give everyone time to prepare for item movements. I'll post public
updates/reminders occasionally during August and September.
4. The actual changes will be made on October 1st, 2020. A record of
the changes will be retained for reference purposes for two years on the page
linked to above.
I know some of you are excited about this. It's the first time BrickLink
has been widely open to correcting some longstanding categorization issues.
I'm excited, too. I will fully read and carefully consider every post made
in this thread. To help me out, please:
1. Snip replies (remove extraneous content before replying).
2. Stay on point (don't post digressions).
3. Keep everything in this one thread.
4. Don't expect miracles. Some ideas may have to be added to the
roadmap as separate projects.
5. Try to limit complaints. Or, if you believe everything is already
properly categorized and don't like change, complain loudly and often. Site
management will be watching.
Thanks to everyone for the input you're about to provide. I don't know
how this will go, but I expect it to be interesting.
|
Whilst I feel the 'modified' categories work quite well as a place to
seach for the more unusual bricks and plates, I've always felt that clips
are quite a specific thing that people may wish to search for and so would the
catelog benefit from moving parts with clips to their own categories?
Plates with Clips:-
4085
15712
92280
6019
63868
11476
Bricks with clips:-
60476
30241b
60583b
30237
Whilst you could do the same with bricks with pins, connectors, sockets and handles
I fear people may struggle to determine all those different aspects and even
more so if the part contains a clip aswell as a handle or pin but when it comes
to peoples understanding of what a clip is I think everyone shares that same
idea? Though the catalog describes the part 4081b as having a clip but to me
its more of a pin socket?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jul 11, 2020 11:10 | | Subject: | Re: Dark Green | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Colors, infinibrix writes:
| | In Colors, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Colors, misbi writes:
| | Now that TLG has acquired BL, isn't it about time that we set about resolving
conflicting colour names? The flesh/nougat adjustment shows that it's possible,
so when are we going to rename BL Dark Green to Earth Green?
Obviously there are many others which need aligned over time, but currently Dark
Green should be an immediate priority.
|
I can't see why this would be a priority at all. Dark Green is clearly a
better name than Earth Green. TLC has come up with some odd color names over
the years. I think it would be best for Bricklink to keep their color names.
David
|
I think the change of ALL colour names should be a priority because however bizarre
Legos colour names may seem to us it is the manufacture who made those decisions
for their product and so it’s their name choices that should take precedence?
If an established and well-known paint brand names one of their colours ‘Bright
Yellowish Green’ distributors and retailers should follow that colour guide because
by re-labelling it as ‘Lime’ they only create confusion for their customers.
The customer knows the brand of paint they want and they know the colour that
the manufacture calls it and yet the customer is expected to somehow work it
out for themselves or if they’re lucky stumble across a third party colour guide?
The variations of the Lego product are confusing enough at the best times so
why create further confusion in areas that are easily fixed?
|
Bricklink has been around for 20 years. Bricklink being owned by LEGO is a recent
thing, so for a couple decades Bricklink customers have become used to the Bricklink
color names. Changing them because TLC bought Bricklink is not logical.
|
You could say that Lego have been around longer still and yet naming them different
to what Lego(The actual Manufacture) call them is logical?
and I appreciate you may have been with BL from near the start but I would still
have to adapt to the offical Lego names the same as anyone else
| | Furthermore, you compare color names for LEGO parts to color names for well-known
paint brands. You mention "The customer knows the brand of paint they want and
they know the colour that the manufacture calls it," however, that's not
the case with LEGO. Very few LEGO customers are going to know that TLC calls
regular green "Dark Green" and that they call dark green "Earth Green." Changing
names like that at this point would cause a lot of confusion.
David
|
But not all Lego enthusiasts use Bricklink simply because they find it too complicated
or are unaware of its presense or what it can offer them however that may be
about to change with the release of XP along the wider community slowly being
made more aware of Legos aquisition of the site
Many people simply use Brickset and/or the official Lego sites as their reference
point after all going direct to the official manufacure to look up parts from
a set would seem like the logical step to take for your average Lego household
not yet fully accustomed to BL?
Whatever confusion this might cause for existing BL users will be nothing compared
to the confusion that awaits future BL users that are expected to know all this
stuff?
Exisitng members ar'nt going to go anywhere and so Bricklinks target market
needs to be encouaging new users and making things as simple for them as possible!
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jul 11, 2020 08:33 | | Subject: | Re: Dark Green | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, hpoort writes:
| | In Colors, infinibrix writes:
| | | | In Colors, infinibrix writes:
| | I think the change of ALL colour names should be a priority because however bizarre
Legos colour names may seem to us it is the manufacture who made those decisions
for their product and so it’s their name choices that should take precedence?
If an established and well-known paint brand names one of their colours ‘Bright
Yellowish Green’ distributors and retailers should follow that colour guide because
by re-labelling it as ‘Lime’ they only create confusion for their customers.
The customer knows the brand of paint they want and they know the colour that
the manufacture calls it and yet the customer is expected to somehow work it
out for themselves or if they’re lucky stumble across a third party colour guide?
The variations of the Lego product are confusing enough at the best times so
why create further confusion in areas that are easily fixed?
|
Once again, no thank you.
|
But if it’s just a preference thing why stop there... Why not just ignore the
Lego part numbers too and use our own/old peeron codes? But wait we already do?
I’ve never understood why the biggest Lego market place ignore Legos colour system
and ignores Legos official part numbers. Granted you can search by the Lego references
but we are still presented with this 3626cpb0730 instead of this 6003296?
|
You are presented with both on the catalog item page. Because for more than half
of the parts the official Design Id (BL: Part number) or Element Id (BL: PCC)
is not known, is not referring to the part (single part or combination) refers
to a technical difference (such as ABS versus PC or PE) that is not distinguished
on Bricklink and because there is relational information hidden inside the Bricklink
numbering system.
|
I don't see 6003296 here:-
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3626cpb0730#T=C&C=90
and I would argue that an official Lego part number should mean more to a larger
group of people compared to an unofficial reference like this 3626cpb0730 either
which way I think I'd rather see the official part numbers displayed in the
prominent spots and have those other references searchable but hidden from view
instead? If its all about having the ability to differenciate between different
variaitions of the same part why not just add a letter on the end 6003296b, 6003296c,
6003296d? The description will explain the differences and so does it really
require the part reference iteself to try to explain those differences?
| | And for the color names: because Bricklink and the whole AFOL market had to choose
their own naming systems long before LEGO published their color names - which
are confusing at best.
|
I'm aware and appreciate that but as Lego have long since published their
colour names we should be making a better attempt to mirror what they use or
if we still strongly feel we cannot bring ourselves to use them we should use
the power and persuasion of the AFOL community to suggest to Lego to adopt Bricklinks
colour system instead?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jul 11, 2020 05:36 | | Subject: | Re: Dark Green | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, randyf writes:
| | In Colors, infinibrix writes:
| | I think the change of ALL colour names should be a priority because however bizarre
Legos colour names may seem to us it is the manufacture who made those decisions
for their product and so it’s their name choices that should take precedence?
If an established and well-known paint brand names one of their colours ‘Bright
Yellowish Green’ distributors and retailers should follow that colour guide because
by re-labelling it as ‘Lime’ they only create confusion for their customers.
The customer knows the brand of paint they want and they know the colour that
the manufacture calls it and yet the customer is expected to somehow work it
out for themselves or if they’re lucky stumble across a third party colour guide?
The variations of the Lego product are confusing enough at the best times so
why create further confusion in areas that are easily fixed?
|
Once again, no thank you.
|
But if it’s just a preference thing why stop there... Why not just ignore the
Lego part numbers too and use our own/old peeron codes? But wait we already do?
I’ve never understood why the biggest Lego market place ignore Legos colour system
and ignores Legos official part numbers. Granted you can search by the Lego references
but we are still presented with this 3626cpb0730 instead of this 6003296?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jul 11, 2020 04:26 | | Subject: | Re: Dark Green | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, crazylegoman writes:
| | In Colors, misbi writes:
| | Now that TLG has acquired BL, isn't it about time that we set about resolving
conflicting colour names? The flesh/nougat adjustment shows that it's possible,
so when are we going to rename BL Dark Green to Earth Green?
Obviously there are many others which need aligned over time, but currently Dark
Green should be an immediate priority.
|
I can't see why this would be a priority at all. Dark Green is clearly a
better name than Earth Green. TLC has come up with some odd color names over
the years. I think it would be best for Bricklink to keep their color names.
David
|
I think the change of ALL colour names should be a priority because however bizarre
Legos colour names may seem to us it is the manufacture who made those decisions
for their product and so it’s their name choices that should take precedence?
If an established and well-known paint brand names one of their colours ‘Bright
Yellowish Green’ distributors and retailers should follow that colour guide because
by re-labelling it as ‘Lime’ they only create confusion for their customers.
The customer knows the brand of paint they want and they know the colour that
the manufacture calls it and yet the customer is expected to somehow work it
out for themselves or if they’re lucky stumble across a third party colour guide?
The variations of the Lego product are confusing enough at the best times so
why create further confusion in areas that are easily fixed?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jul 10, 2020 15:21 | | Subject: | Re: Dark Green - who's going to crack first? | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, misbi writes:
| | In Colors, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Colors, misbi writes:
| | Now that TLG has acquired BL, isn't it about time that we set about resolving
conflicting colour names? The flesh/nougat adjustment shows that it's possible,
so when are we going to rename BL Dark Green to Earth Green?
Obviously there are many others which need aligned over time, but currently Dark
Green should be an immediate priority.
|
The Flesh / Nougat change had nothing to do with trying to align with LEGO colors.
In general we try to align new colors or color name changes with official LEGO
color names, and that has been a policy for a long time. But even in the Flesh
/ Nougat change, we did not follow the LEGO name in every case.
|
Fair enough, but uniquely with Dark Green, there is a direct clash/contradiction
between BL and LEGO.
|
Misbi, its been raised before and I'm with you all the way and whilst I would
prefer Lego to adopt BL names I would settle for any colour description so long
as that same description is widely used by 'Everyone!' including Lego
and Bricklink. Having different descriptions for colours depending on what site
your on or who you talk to only creates uneccessary confusion? I would rather
clear transparency between myself, my suppliers and my customers than being overly
concerned about the use of colour descriptions that are not to my personal choosing
or liking!
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2020 07:12 | | Subject: | Re: Stop showing estimated shipping charges | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| If Bricklink dealt with the issue of unecessary hidden fees the problem would
be resolved for the most part!
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2020 02:53 | | Subject: | Re: sw0527a r2-d2 misprint? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, infinibrix writes:
| | In Help, spacecaptain writes:
| | has anyone seen this? the head is rotated 45 degrees. it came in 75257. i
can't find any pictures anywhere.
|
Almost certainly a misprint but something that I think will be worth something
to the right person as its set at a nice rotating angle and whilst you can always
set heads at a full 90 degrees where its facing out from the side that angle
always looks a bit forced. I think someone would appreciate something like that
for a display scene compared with always having their astromech droids facing
forwards the whole time
In fact rather than re-releasing almost identical R2-D2's it would be a nice
touch if Lego intentionally made some like this to give a bit more variation
to what is otherwise a difficult minifigure to make look unique when compared
with other minifig characters.
I have lots of those heads and they look to all be facing forwards from what
I can tell
|
Of course with it being a relatively new set there is always the possibility
that someone doing the set inventory assumed it was the same version as what
appears in the other sets but given the Lego site has images of this minifig
facing forwards I can't imaging it to be an intentional difference?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2020 02:41 | | Subject: | Re: sw0527a r2-d2 misprint? | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Help | |
|
| In Help, spacecaptain writes:
| | has anyone seen this? the head is rotated 45 degrees. it came in 75257. i
can't find any pictures anywhere.
|
Almost certainly a misprint but something that I think will be worth something
to the right person as its set at a nice rotating angle and whilst you can always
set heads at a full 90 degrees where its facing out from the side that angle
always looks a bit forced. I think someone would appreciate something like that
for a display scene compared with always having their astromech droids facing
forwards the whole time
In fact rather than re-releasing almost identical R2-D2's it would be a nice
touch if Lego intentionally made some like this to give a bit more variation
to what is otherwise a difficult minifigure to make look unique when compared
with other minifig characters.
I have lots of those heads and they look to all be facing forwards from what
I can tell
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 17:04 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| |
problem is it is not just bad buyers but bad sellers, my suggestion here was
made because of a seller who left retaliatory feedback for a deserved negative
they had received from a buyer.
|
But that’s just my point with the ebays feedback system Sellers can’t leave negative
feedback for buyers which means they can’t leave retaliatory feedback in any
shape or form! Meaning the buyer is able to give their honest opinion without
fear of retaliatory feedback!
It’s a change I’ve been calling for some time:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1168664
I feel its only important that we understand how a seller performs(Feedback wise!)
because it goes without saying that there will always be a few difficult customers
and its how sellers deal with those tricky customers that’s important and for
those customers that are impossibly unreasonable they can be reported and dealt
with by Bricklink!
|
While I do agree such a system would be useful it could also have drawbacks too.
|
Well every system has drawbacks but presumably the current system has big enough
drawbacks for you to warrant posting your concerns in the first place? Hopefully
any drawbacks you associate with the ebay system will be outweighed with what
you are already experiencing right now with the current system?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:07 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| |
problem is it is not just bad buyers but bad sellers, my suggestion here was
made because of a seller who left retaliatory feedback for a deserved negative
they had received from a buyer.
|
But that’s just my point with the ebays feedback system Sellers can’t leave negative
feedback for buyers which means they can’t leave retaliatory feedback in any
shape or form! Meaning the buyer is able to give their honest opinion without
fear of retaliatory feedback!
It’s a change I’ve been calling for some time:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1168664
I feel its only important that we understand how a seller performs(Feedback wise!)
because it goes without saying that there will always be a few difficult customers
and its how sellers deal with those tricky customers that’s important and for
those customers that are impossibly unreasonable they can be reported and dealt
with by Bricklink!
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 07:49 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | That, of course, is the real issue. IMO we need an auxiliary buyer feedback system
that is completely anonymous, where the results are amalgamated before presenting
them (privately) to the seller. These results could then be used to weed out
sellers who consistently perform poorly and lower the reputation of the site.
I have always felt that public feedback was not enough to raise the selling standards
of the site. For many BrickLink sellers, their standards are sky-high and represent
their passion for the hobby. For others, they do nothing but dull the effect
of the excellent sellers, cause problems for us in the Help Desk, and in general
apply a lot of pressure on us to implement a heavy-handed "sellers will only
get paid when the buyer is happy" system where BrickLink controls all the money.
|
The only problems I have with anonymous feedback is that think it may head in
a direction where the feedback left may become even more sinister!
The thing is there are always people out there that look to destroy and ruin
things simply because they can and/or they get a kick out of doing things like
that and similarly there are people who I’m sure would love to put a neutral/negative
against a sellers otherwise flawless feedback simply because they can and have
the power to do so without being bought to task about why they did this?
There may be others that begrudge a seller somewhat simply because they didn’t
agree to discount something when asked? and then you may have other competitor
sellers who may be looking to bring a high performing seller down a few pegs?
From a sellers point of view if I make a right hash of an order or end up
non-intentionally messing the customer around with mistakes, oversights or forgetting
to ship their order and I get a negative then I guess I have to just take that
on the chin but if a buyer leaves what I consider to be unfair negative then
I would at least like to be able to see who has complained and what I have done
wrong so that I can improve or choose to block the buyer if I don’t feel its
justified!
In fact I would also say that perhaps make it common knowledge to everyone using
Bricklink that by choosing to leave a negative for someone you are also choosing
to never deal with that store/person again and so perhaps put in place an auto-blocking
feature?
Presumably if someone leaves a negative they are unhappy with the way a store
performs and in which case for that same person to continue to shop in your store
for a second time would seem a bit sinister to me or am I wrong here?
Either way in some cases I’m sure people will be able to work out who left the
negative feedback anyway based on the feedback comments or the way an email conversations
went beforehand but on the other hand what if a buyer complains and still leaves
positive and yet the seller receives a negative from someone else and wrongly
assumes it’s the buyer who complained meaning you still end up with some retalitory
feedback injustices!
The only way I think this really works is as I’ve mention before with the ebay
style where sellers can’t leave anything but positive feedback for buyers and
buyers can leave whatever they feel appropriate so that the feedback system is
used to help keep all sellers on their toes and performing to high standards.
At the end of the day if there are severe feedback injustices left by buyers
I’m sure they can be reported and removed by admins where appropriate and rather
than rely on sellers feedback to attempt to tackle bad buyers, I’m sure if these
buyers are that that bad it should just be a case of reporting any outrageous
buyer behaviour to the admins so that with enough reported incidents they can
be weeded off the site for good and with it all the feedback they've left
for people!
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 06:08 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| |
It would be absolutely crazy to remove an entire theme such as Galaxy Squad from
both sets and minifigures, to rebrand the humans into a minifigure section called
Classic Space and the aliens into a completely different section called Aliens,
chuck all the sets in an unsorted Space section, but keep the name of the theme
alive in part names such as "Galaxy Squad Armor".
Oh, wait a minute ... that is exactly what BL is planning with XP.
More than ever minifigures need the correct numbering as that is the only link
to the theme within XP.
|
I think it goes without saying that I would never want to see Galaxy Squad humans
separated from Galaxy Sqaud Aliens so whatever happens they’d need to be grouped
together for sure be that under ‘gs’ or ‘sp’
Where it gets more difficult is with things like skeletons but as a general rule
I’d say plain skeletons remain under ’gen’ but if they are associated with a
pirate theme and wear pirate hat then they should probably be a ‘pi’ code whereas
if they came from a castle theme wearing armour or knight helmet then they should
be a ‘cas’ code but obviously a plain skeleton from a castle set should still
be ‘gen’ but what about this one: cas328 with the red eyes I’m not so sure ’cas’
or ‘gen’?
These codes seem to be placed correctly cas329, cas378
whereas many such as gen009, gen011, gen021, gen037, gen135, gen036 perhaps need
moving?
Then you have oddities like gen027 and gen147 that look almost the same but would
seem strange to separate under ‘hol’ and ‘twn’ so ‘gen’ would seem like the only
suitable option for these?
All in all its a bit of a nightmre to try and organise for the best 
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2020 04:54 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | No thoughts on this from anyone? It really must be just me then?
|
Item numbers for figures are a mess. We're working on it.
See this forum post for a poetically eloquent description of the mess:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1187433
|
Yes I can see it’s definitely a challenge especially since many minifg codes
have become well established with people even though they may not make too much
sense structure wise!
I guess the reason I asked was mainly because I could see some Ideas codes had
been changed to Ghostbuster codes whilst Dimensions Ghostbuster minifgs and the
Ideas Pirate minifigs hadn’t been altered in the same way?
Either way I guess there would need to be a rule of thumb on want constitutes
a minifig range being given its own theme code abbreviation. For instance do
you start giving the ghostbuster minifigs the ‘gb’ code when there are at least
8 minifigs in the range for example?
On the other hand if there are only 2 or 3 ghostbusters minifigs do they perhaps
always just start off with a miscellaneous code which might also include everything
from Santa to ET?
Do we also start to catalog things not necessarily by Legos themes but by what
the community itself classes as the best match for Space, Castle, Pirates etc...
with anything that does'nt fit among the established themes classed as miscellaneous?
For instance do you envisage that stuff like Galaxy Squad might come under space
‘sp’? instead of ‘gs’?
|
As a huge minifigure collector who categorizes their entire collection by the
BrickLink item numbers, I would not be in favor of any renumbering of huge swaths
of the BrickLink catalog as it stands. Small sections, okay, but not lumping
Galaxy Squad into the Classic Space figures, etc. I think having minifigures
classified according to the themes they occur in is how they should be classified
for now, and the catalog manages to currently do that relatively okay for the
majority of the minifigures.
But, once again, this gets back to the database design. We are stuck in a system
that only categorizes things in a flat manner, so moving large amounts of items
around, renumbering large amounts of items, etc., would cause a nightmare for
anyone and everyone involved.
Having a system that allowed tags on items would allow minifigures to be categorized
in more than one way and then all figures could just be given sequential codes
starting from figure000001 all the way up to however many figures there
are and then into the future. So figure009866 might be classified as "Space",
"Galaxy Squad", and "Alien", whereas figure013022 might be classified
as "Licensed", "Space", "Star Wars", and "Alien". No more thinking about how
to structure item numbers, no more worrying about what *specific* category a
minifigure should go in, no more having users even think about numbering since
the system could just assign the next figure number automatically! This is really
where the whole system needs to get to.
Cheers,
Randy
|
To be honest I don’t have too much concern about stuff like Galaxy Squad remaining
‘gs’ and was more interested in other people’s opinions of where we think it
might go though I would just say that if the system remained as it is we could
potentially run out of abbreviations if we continue to use them on every sub-theme
like this but I guess I have bigger issue with the minifigs from both the ‘dim’
and ‘idea’ categories taking precedence over existing categories which are better
suited for them because to me it’s a bit like categorising a Star Wars minifig
from an advent calendar as ‘adv’ or from polybag as ‘pol’ when it should still
be ‘sw’?
On the same token if it goes the way your suggesting then I guess that would
blow everything out the water all together and whilst it could work the only
real issue I would have is with the length of the codes which would also take
away the ability to memorize them for instance without even looking I know that
sw0707 is Yoda and are we going to have more instances where we end up forgetting
which minifig code we came to pick once at the storage location?
As the current system shows a small abbreviation of letters + number combos allows
for codes to be shorter and more memorable
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 14, 2020 21:46 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | No thoughts on this from anyone? It really must be just me then?
|
Item numbers for figures are a mess. We're working on it.
See this forum post for a poetically eloquent description of the mess:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1187433
|
Yes I can see it’s definitely a challenge especially since many minifg codes
have become well established with people even though they may not make too much
sense structure wise!
I guess the reason I asked was mainly because I could see some Ideas codes had
been changed to Ghostbuster codes whilst Dimensions Ghostbuster minifgs and the
Ideas Pirate minifigs hadn’t been altered in the same way?
Either way I guess there would need to be a rule of thumb on want constitutes
a minifig range being given its own theme code abbreviation. For instance do
you start giving the ghostbuster minifigs the ‘gb’ code when there are at least
8 minifigs in the range for example?
On the other hand if there are only 2 or 3 ghostbusters minifigs do they perhaps
always just start off with a miscellaneous code which might also include everything
from Santa to ET?
Do we also start to catalog things not necessarily by Legos themes but by what
the community itself classes as the best match for Space, Castle, Pirates etc...
with anything that does'nt fit among the established themes classed as miscellaneous?
For instance do you envisage that stuff like Galaxy Squad might come under space
‘sp’? instead of ‘gs’?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 14, 2020 14:07 | | Subject: | Re: Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | I don't know if its just me but with regards to the ideas and dimensions
themes would'nt it make sense to only give minifigures the 'idea'
and 'dim' codes if they don't already belong to an established and
existing theme? For instance all the Ideas Pirates of Barracuda Bay minifigs
should perhaps be given 'pi' numbers instead of 'idea' numbers?
Likewise dimensions Gimli, Gandalf, Legolas should maybe have a 'lor'
number instead of 'dim' same goes for Slimer and Stay Puft Marshmallow
man which also have 'dim' numbers instead of 'gb'
With the original ghostbusters minifigs from Ecto-1 it looks like they were already
changed from 'idea' numbers to 'gb' numbers with an i on the
end which might be a good way to keep some continuity on the site?
|
No thoughts on this from anyone? It really must be just me then?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 13, 2020 12:39 | | Subject: | Minifigures being given incorrect codes? | | Viewed: | 103 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I don't know if its just me but with regards to the ideas and dimensions
themes would'nt it make sense to only give minifigures the 'idea'
and 'dim' codes if they don't already belong to an established and
existing theme? For instance all the Ideas Pirates of Barracuda Bay minifigs
should perhaps be given 'pi' numbers instead of 'idea' numbers?
Likewise dimensions Gimli, Gandalf, Legolas should maybe have a 'lor'
number instead of 'dim' same goes for Slimer and Stay Puft Marshmallow
man which also have 'dim' numbers instead of 'gb'
With the original ghostbusters minifigs from Ecto-1 it looks like they were already
changed from 'idea' numbers to 'gb' numbers with an i on the
end which might be a good way to keep some continuity on the site?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 3, 2020 07:43 | | Subject: | Re: Torso: Misprint or Variant? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | […]
As far as I can tell the Lego part number is 4275491 and so if Lego uses this
same part code for all its set appearances then it must be a misprint. I guess
the only way to be sure would be to try using Legos Broken/missing parts service
and then painstakingly check all the sets it appears in and check the toros part
number is the same for all. […]
|
LEGO uses the same element ID for different variants and prints.
E.g. according to BL,
* | | 3626bpb0203 Minifigure, Head Dark Bluish Gray Moustache and Bushy Eyebrows, Black Cheek Lines, White Pupils Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
share the PCC 4524911.
(Happy example with both colour and variant differences. Grey/brown is not a
misprint.)
So you wouldn’t know whether it’s a misprint or a new “revised” print.
|
I’m sure there will be some anomalies but in your example whilst you are correct
that the brown and grey are intentional print differences and not misprints I
don’t think they actually share the same part number it’s just bricklink has
made it seem that way and for understandable reasons...
|
So all of the decorated parts (with their own TLG numbers) must be renumbered
because for sure TLG does not number all of the decorated 1 x 2 tiles the same
number with an pb extension - they give each one a different number as best I
know. And then only keep the number available for a little while and do not supply
it for parts from collectible minifigs etc etc.
| |
The problem is Lego did some weird stuff back in that era where they merged some
head and torsos together using one single part number!? See Brickset link which
shows the combined part (Grey + Torso) as 4227735 and not 4524911
https://brickset.com/parts/4227735/mini-upper-part-no-970
So we are definitely looking at a different part in that instance but if you
search for 4227735 on Bricklink it doesn’t appear probably because a merger of
parts like this wouldn’t have fit in with the way BL do things hence why they
probably just used the same code as the brown version?
As for Lego using the same part number for mold variants this is another example
of where Lego themselves never intended anyone to take those differences so literally
|
Hmm, no, the example of jumper studs was given already. It is not a matter of
being anal to recognise mold differences. You can try it yourself with this part:
Newer parts clutches, older ones fall off. I would like to think that TLG intended
that improvement, that they stopped making the old part becasue it was not doing
the job it was supposed to do and that the new part should be sold with new sets.
However, the old part came in older sets and what will you do if a buyer tells
you the old part you sent him is a fake becasue there is no way for him to know
otherwise?
| | because in Legos eyes whatever stud type was used it’s still the same part number
and it’s the all-important and relevant print decal that warrants a different
part code so in my view it’s just unfortunate the BL community has gone to such
lengths to essentially separate the same parts when most people just want the
correct print decal and don’t really care which mold was used!
|
I have no idea what TLG's intentions are with mold changes and mold variants.
My question was posted in catalogue, not selling. You sell lots, not catalogue
entries. You can refer to the catalogue entry in your listing, you could also
use the catalogue image and you might even end up in the price guide for your
listing, but that all has nothing to do with the catalogue entry as reference
source, which is where my question was posted.
The only requirement BL has for you to list a lot with a refrence to the catalogue
entry, is that you must not mix new and used in the same lot. It is a general
selling offence to sell used as new in a lot, but generally not to mix variants.
So I do not think it unfortunate the catalogue can serve as a reference guide
but also as a sales tool. To do both qually well, will always be a challenge.
If every car manufacturer only makes white cars, there will be no other colours.
This does not mean that all consumers by default mostly want a white car, it
just means that car manufacturers are all the same and treat their customers
all the same, no matter what their customers might say or think.
What does happen in the BL listings though is that you frequenlty get a seller
who tells you that it is too much effort to list properly in variants, but price
their non-specific and incorrect unsorted parts at the high price for the scarcer
out of production part. In essence it is not too much work to look up the part
in priceguide, but it is too much work to list it properly. Strange - doing half
a job for the full gain.
| |
As for the Black Torso in question, this is still quite a current part and the
OP should still be able to determine whether it’s a misprint or intended difference
from using brickset and/or Lego site as a reference source!
|
Nope, the differences in question arised in a certain time period, continued
for awhile and then stopped, as I have them from three different sets from three
different years, as I mentioned from 2008 - 2010. I also have the current catalogue
entry for that torso assembly from prior to that period and after that period.
I would agree that for reference purposes it would not even be important if it
occured in only one set at one time. I've had some misprints on tiles like
that and do not bother with it. This however, stood out for the reasons I gave
above.
The LEGO site does not keep its information nor keep a snapshot of the situation
as it was 10 years ago. The information you refer to is either:
1. kept current with current part numbers and current designs; or
2. Not a historical record of what happened.
The LEGO site is not a reference source by any stretch of the imaginaition as
it is designed as a site to sell current replacement parts, not serve as a reference
work (which is what a catalogue does).
And for reference purposes, the part in question was submitted as new entry.
|
I think you misunderstand me because I’m not necessarily asking that all the
variant information that contributors have put together over the years should
be lost!
However when sellers are expected and pressured into getting certain mold variants
listed correctly this is where I have a problem because many experienced Bricklink
buyers will not always be understanding even though the seller is simply trying
to list as per the correct Lego part number/decal print yet in the eyes of many
hardcore enthusiasts and certainly the BL admins this won’t count for much if
a buyer complains regardless of what you specify in your terms??
Is it therefore the sellers fault that Bricklink has insisted that a straight
forward official Lego part code should be sorted and separated down into multiple
variants which takes time, requires more storage space and adds to confusion
and only caters for the benefit of a very minor few who care about variants?
This is also more than just a time thing as going back to my Leia head example
from another thread. You have this version 3626bpx83 of the part in Light Nougat
which is supposedly used on 8 minifigures, then you have this version 3626cpx83a
used on two minifigs and then this one 3626cpx83 only used on one minifigure
yet they were all given the same part number by Lego so who’s to say only a certain
head should be used on a certain minifig just because a slighty different mold
was used for some batches and a slightly better print was used for other batches?
Also a lot of bricklinkers like yourself are experienced and understand how Bricklink
works but this then just clouds what is expected of other less expereinced users
yet it needs to also make sense for newbie and other general bricklink users
too?
For starters if someone is looking for a head for the female padawan minifigure
are they going to instantly realise there are other search matches and sellers
beyond their small pool of initial search results? This is why even though I
have the same identical stock for this part I list it in two locations with notes
which is not ideal and I’m sure something not everyone would approve of but
again I justify doing this because not everyone is so concerned about variants
or even properly understands how to find what they need?
Also just to end on your other point about the Toros in your op. I have never
suggested the Lego site to be a complete historical reference source however
it is TLG who give their parts a part number and so it is TLG who know what was
or was'nt intended? and before I originally replied to your OP I checked
the Lego site as I knew I had once seen this particular Torso here and therefore
the point I was trying to make is that you already have all the known sets that
the Torso belongs to or at least all the sets that Bricklink or Brickset believe
this Torso belongs to. I have already checked the first set on the list 7635
which has the torso listed as part code 4275491 now if every other set has this
part listed as 4275491 then it should be clear that any different versions of
this torso are unintended misprints or colour variations.
If on the other hand you find one set with either a different part code against
the torso or you can’t even find the torso listed then this may well mean it
came with a different part code and is not a misprint!
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 2, 2020 05:27 | | Subject: | Re: Torso: Misprint or Variant? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | […]
As far as I can tell the Lego part number is 4275491 and so if Lego uses this
same part code for all its set appearances then it must be a misprint. I guess
the only way to be sure would be to try using Legos Broken/missing parts service
and then painstakingly check all the sets it appears in and check the toros part
number is the same for all. […]
|
LEGO uses the same element ID for different variants and prints.
E.g. according to BL,
* | | 3626bpb0203 Minifigure, Head Dark Bluish Gray Moustache and Bushy Eyebrows, Black Cheek Lines, White Pupils Pattern - Blocked Open Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
share the PCC 4524911.
(Happy example with both colour and variant differences. Grey/brown is not a
misprint.)
So you wouldn’t know whether it’s a misprint or a new “revised” print.
|
I’m sure there will be some anomalies but in your example whilst you are correct
that the brown and grey are intentional print differences and not misprints I
don’t think they actually share the same part number it’s just bricklink has
made it seem that way and for understandable reasons...
The problem is Lego did some weird stuff back in that era where they merged some
head and torsos together using one single part number!? See Brickset link which
shows the combined part (Grey + Torso) as 4227735 and not 4524911
https://brickset.com/parts/4227735/mini-upper-part-no-970
So we are definitely looking at a different part in that instance but if you
search for 4227735 on Bricklink it doesn’t appear probably because a merger of
parts like this wouldn’t have fit in with the way BL do things hence why they
probably just used the same code as the brown version?
As for Lego using the same part number for mold variants this is another example
of where Lego themselves never intended anyone to take those differences so literally
because in Legos eyes whatever stud type was used it’s still the same part number
and it’s the all-important and relevant print decal that warrants a different
part code so in my view it’s just unfortunate the BL community has gone to such
lengths to essentially separate the same parts when most people just want the
correct print decal and don’t really care which mold was used!
As for the Black Torso in question, this is still quite a current part and the
OP should still be able to determine whether it’s a misprint or intended difference
from using brickset and/or Lego site as a reference source!
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2020 18:52 | | Subject: | Re: Torso: Misprint or Variant? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| |
Is this a misprint on those torsos I have or is it a differrent torso altogether?
|
As far as I can tell the Lego part number is 4275491 and so if Lego uses this
same part code for all its set appearances then it must be a misprint. I guess
the only way to be sure would be to try using Legos Broken/missing parts service
and then painstakingly check all the sets it appears in and check the toros part
number is the same for all.
If the service is'nt available for your region then for browsing purpses
you can just make out your based in the United States!
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | May 27, 2020 07:44 | | Subject: | Re: Don't show impossible discounts | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | Why does bricklink show this? A simple IF statement could be used to only show
a discount when it is possible for a buyer to achieve. Then it doesn't make
the store look stupid by offering discounts that a buyer cannot possibly take
advantage of.
|
It's worth mentioning that some stores like myself don't list all our
stock at any one time so being able to see the tiered pricing may prompt the
buyer to ask the seller about their stock situation which could result in one
of two things....
It could prompt the seller to adjust their stock allowing the buyer to proceed
at discounted pricing or it could mean that the seller decides to adjust the
bulk quantity down to whatevers left in stock in order to help the buyer out
and get rid of their remaining stock i.e if tiered price is 20x and seller only
has 18x left they may choose to make 18x the new bulk price so if it prompts
buyers to question bulk quantity discrepansies it probably helps to do more good
than harm
|
|
| 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: | 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: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2020 02:50 | | Subject: | Re: When is a Minifigure a Minifigure? | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | It appears that the way I worded my responses irritated you and I apologize for
that. I try to say things as nicely as possible, but sometimes I fail.
|
There are some that irritate me though you’ve never been among those that spring
to mind! just some simple differing viewpoints with regards to the direction
we want the site to go but likewise my response was more of a light-hearted somewhat
sarcastic jokey comment hence the grin at the end so no worries
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 15:37 | | Subject: | Re: When is a Minifigure a Minifigure? | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| | In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | Personally I don’t think we should lose the term minifigure because it’s very
key to how we and Lego describe the majority of their figures and at the moment
there are talks about Minfigs category being changed to ‘Figure’ and possibly
including everything from Lotso Bear to Baby Groot
I did discuss a solution here:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1192727
but I think it may have become a bit lost in the rest of the debate but I would
be interested in others thoughts on this or whether the term minifigure is even
still important or what minifigure should refer to going forward?
Here is my original suggestion:-
“On the subject of categorizing figures in general I think breaking down some
of this stuff might make more sense than renaming Minifigs to Figures and then
piling everything into the same place.
It’s a difficult one but I guess you have to start with defining a minifigure
and at the moment I can only think of two ways of doing this where by you define
it by Size after all a clue is in the word MINIfigure which does unfortunately
leave a lot of ambiguity or better still you define minifig by the fact it usesa
Torso Assembly?
Torso Assembly may be a good clear cut way of defining a minifig because almost
all traditional minifigs from a Dementor to a Lord Garmadon use the all-important
standard Torso design that holds a minifig together and its probably the one
key part that really defines what a minifigure looks like when we think of a
minifigure and with that in mind you could categorise as Follows:-
Minifigure – Anything that uses the Standard Torso Assembly design
Modified Figure – Anything from droids, to brick built Droids, to Skeletons and
stuff like Gollum, Slimer, Unikitty, Scurrier, Scooby etc..
Microfigure – Anything very small consisting of a single or maximum of two parts
such as Baby, Baby Yoda, Palpatine Hologram, Baby Groot, Trophy figures and all
those game figures etc..
You are then left with things like Cave Troll, Big Hulk etc. which can either
go under ‘Modified Figure’ or a separate ‘Large Figure’ Category?
Likewise are animals/creatures separated so that Polar bears, Wargs and Horses
go under ‘Modified Figure’ and stuff like baby dinos, spiders and snakes under
‘Microfigure’ or do they have their own ‘Animal category’?
Lots to think about....”
|
As usual, fun and thought-provoking!
When I first read your subject line "When is a Minifigure a Minifigure?" I thought
it to be a Zen riddle, or maybe that you had started channeling Confucius 
No, I like your style, keeps it interesting. Too few here are willing to 'color
outside of the lines' in expressing themselves. That's a shame, IMO
You make salient points on the question of how to view Lego characters beyond
the classic term Minifigure
-Cory
|
I always knew I could count on you Cory even if it was'nt quite the Zen riddle
post you had hoped for it to be
In future I will have to ensure I post in the correct place, Choose the correct
subject heading and make sure I know what I'm talking about before I post
suggestions that I'm told are beyond the realms possiblity? 
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 10:09 | | Subject: | Re: When is a Minifigure a Minifigure? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | “On the subject of categorizing figures in general I think breaking down some
of this stuff might make more sense than renaming Minifigs to Figures and then
piling everything into the same place.
|
You may not be familiar with what we already include in the Minifigs item
type. Take a look at the bottom of this page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2489
I'm also not sure you understand what we're discussing, which is item
types. There are six:
Sets
Parts
Minifigs
Gear
Books
Catalogs
The site is almost certainly not going to add more item types, so figures (whatever
figures they might be) are going into one of those six item types.
And right now they're spread across three different types: Parts, Minifigs,
and Gear. I think it might be prudent to group them under a single item type
(Figures) to make finding them easier.
|
I’m familiar with those figures but as I say I don’t consider any of them to
be Minifigures and I think they should be separated from minifigures and whilst
I appreciate what you’re saying in that you currently have no movement in being
able to add to those 6 categories hence changing Minifigs to Figures this is
what I’m suggesting should happen in the longer term and however unlikely you
think this change will ever be it certainly won’t be up for consideration by
Lego if there is no interest or discussion about it in the forum, hence my post
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 09:55 | | Subject: | Re: When is a Minifigure a Minifigure? | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | but I think it may have become a bit lost in the rest of the debate
|
The purpose in a single discussion thread is so that we can keep everyone's
input in one place for review. It would be most helpful to us if people commented
within the thread that was opened for that purpose. Input posted outside the
thread may not receive the attention it deserves.
|
Well since your topic was on the broader terms of ‘Item Types’ and my post had
barely been viewed since last night I saw no harm in creating a separate topic
specifically centred around 'Minifigures' and how they might be handled
especially on a forum where after about 20 replies to the OP most other replies
often disappear into the abyss where people either can no longer even see the
original post or they can’t be bothered to read much further on! Either way blame
the design of the forum not the way people post on it?
You then suggest that what I’m discussing is not relevant to what you’re discussing
in your own Topic and in which case does my post belong in your topic or not?
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 07:35 | | Subject: | When is a Minifigure a Minifigure? | | Viewed: | 253 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Personally I don’t think we should lose the term minifigure because it’s very
key to how we and Lego describe the majority of their figures and at the moment
there are talks about Minfigs category being changed to ‘Figure’ and possibly
including everything from Lotso Bear to Baby Groot
I did discuss a solution here:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1192727
but I think it may have become a bit lost in the rest of the debate but I would
be interested in others thoughts on this or whether the term minifigure is even
still important or what minifigure should refer to going forward?
Here is my original suggestion:-
“On the subject of categorizing figures in general I think breaking down some
of this stuff might make more sense than renaming Minifigs to Figures and then
piling everything into the same place.
It’s a difficult one but I guess you have to start with defining a minifigure
and at the moment I can only think of two ways of doing this where by you define
it by Size after all a clue is in the word MINIfigure which does unfortunately
leave a lot of ambiguity or better still you define minifig by the fact it usesa
Torso Assembly?
Torso Assembly may be a good clear cut way of defining a minifig because almost
all traditional minifigs from a Dementor to a Lord Garmadon use the all-important
standard Torso design that holds a minifig together and its probably the one
key part that really defines what a minifigure looks like when we think of a
minifigure and with that in mind you could categorise as Follows:-
Minifigure – Anything that uses the Standard Torso Assembly design
Modified Figure – Anything from droids, to brick built Droids, to Skeletons and
stuff like Gollum, Slimer, Unikitty, Scurrier, Scooby etc..
Microfigure – Anything very small consisting of a single or maximum of two parts
such as Baby, Baby Yoda, Palpatine Hologram, Baby Groot, Trophy figures and all
those game figures etc..
You are then left with things like Cave Troll, Big Hulk etc. which can either
go under ‘Modified Figure’ or a separate ‘Large Figure’ Category?
Likewise are animals/creatures separated so that Polar bears, Wargs and Horses
go under ‘Modified Figure’ and stuff like baby dinos, spiders and snakes under
‘Microfigure’ or do they have their own ‘Animal category’?
Lots to think about....”
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 00:26 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
On the subject of categorizing figures in general I think breaking down some
of this stuff might make more sense than renaming Minifigs to Figures and then
piling everything into the same place.
It’s a difficult one but I guess you have to start with defining a minifigure
and at the moment I can only think of two ways of doing this where by you define
it by Size after all a clue is in the word MINIfigure which does unfortunately
leave a lot of ambiguity or better still you define minifig by the fact it uses
a Torso Assembly?
Torso Assembly may be a good clear cut way of defining a minifig because almost
all traditional minifigs from a Dementor to a Lord Garmadon use the all-important
standard Torso design that holds a minifig together and its probably the one
key part that really defines what a minifigure looks like when we think of a
minifigure and with that in mind you could categorise as Follows:-
Minifigure – Anything that uses the Standard Torso Assembly design
Modified Figure – Anything from droids, to brick built Droids, to Skeletons and
stuff like Gollum, Slimer, Unikitty, Scurrier, Scooby etc..
Microfigure – Anything very small consisting of a single or maximum of two parts
such as Baby, Baby Yoda, Palpatine Hologram, Baby Groot, Trophy figures and all
those game figures etc..
You are then left with things like Cave Troll, Big Hulk etc. which can either
go under ‘Modified Figure’ or a separate ‘Large Figure’ Category?
Likewise are animals/creatures separated so that Polar bears, Wargs and Horses
go under ‘Modified Figure’ and stuff like baby dinos, spiders and snakes under
‘Microfigure’ or do they have their own ‘Animal category’?
Lots to think about....
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 02:29 | | Subject: | Re: Is this Pearl Light Gold? | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, Bricks_NW_UK writes:
| | Good day one and all.
I am trying to identify this colour.
The ones at the bottom are Pearl Gold, are the ones above Pearl Light Gold. I
just don’t recognise the colour
Thanks
Steve
|
Yellow is another colour where you often see a variation sometimes minifig heads
are pale yellow and sometimes much warmer looking yellow. I have lots of yellow
hands mixed together and trying to pick out a matching pair in bad light can
be a challenge at times and some are very obviously different and so I was going
to try and separate them but as already mentioned you always get a few that seem
to sit somewhere in the middle of the two shades!
It makes you wonder though as we have the catelogue separating even the most
minor part variants and yet most people don't seem to be too phased about
such drastically different colours being mixed under the same colour category.
Not that I'm suggesting it should be changed or anything after all if Lego
call them Yellow and Warm Gold who are we to argue even though they do come in
such noticably different shades!
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 22, 2020 05:24 | | Subject: | Re: Torso and Leg Assemblies Categories Split | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | Project number 8 from the Catalog Roadmap: Torso and Leg Assemblies Categories
Split
This has now been completed
The legs categories have just been done so although they show up in the main
list of categories they will not show as a separate category in storefronts until
the daily maintenance later.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogTree.asp?itemType=P
The torsos were completed a few days ago so are already showing up correctly
in stores.
Hopefully that will make it easier for yoy when browsing the categories or looking
for non decorated parts when searching or listing parts for sale.
Paul.
(still remains project number 8 - I'll edit the page shortly)
|
This is much better, thank you. In fact as already mentioned in a previous post
I would go as far as to breakdown even more minifig parts into their own category?
However the only thing I would say is that some of these category names in the
store front are becoming so long that it initially looks like duplicate categories
for the same thing what with the end cut off especially to a novice.
I mentioned previously about giving Minifigure Parts their own section/heading
so they don’t need to have the word ‘Minifigure’ repeated in front of every category
but if they are to remain under the parts category maybe consider shortening
Minifigure to Minifig but also is there any reason that some of these categories
can’t be altered with similar examples to below?:-
‘Minifig Legs’ instead of ‘Minifigure Legs Assembly’
‘Minfig Legs Decorated’ instead of ‘Minifigure Legs Assembly Decorated’
‘Minfig Legs Loose’
‘Minifig Hips’
‘Minifig Torso’ instead of ‘Minifigure Torso Assembly’
‘Minifig Torso Decorated’ instead of ‘Minifigure Torso Assembly Decorated’
‘Minifig Torso Armless’
‘Minifig Arms’
‘Minifig Hands’
Or would doing this sort of thing mess up the categories in other ways with regards
to the category breakdown of Torsos etc?
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
United Kingdom, England
