Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | popsicle  | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 12:37 | | Subject: | Re: Why should I... | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Bendix writes:
| | ...upload an item for the catalog - when it is deleted due to unknown reasons?
|
"Why?" So that as a seller you can list and sell the item, usually at a premium
as being among the first to offer the item.
But I get it... and you're right, a reason should be given, even if only
one-worded.
I'm sure it was just an oversight.
Really cool polybag build, btw!
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 12:35 | | Subject: | Re: New Lego Drowned Minifigure | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Just buy one. 
In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | Reaching out to those that have the new drowned Minifigure from Lego Minecraft.
Please contact me, I would like to discuss weights, pictures, dimensions, etc.
Regards,
Theo - The_RealRedHex
|
|
| Author: | crepundi | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 11:45 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Anyway, these parts are all comprised mostly of bars and should stay put. 
Thanks!
Jen
|
Here I would like to suggest to move
* |  | 2566 Bar 1.2L with Top Stud and 4 Bar Arms Up (Palm Tree Top)
Parts: Bar |
to bar as well.
Holding the leafs of a palm tree is only one of its many funktions.
Gisela
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 11:23 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, leopard37 writes:
| | I propose sub categories to thin out the main categories.
|
This is a good idea and we'd like to move toward it. The problem is that
the main categories list already numbers in the hundreds. We'd prefer to
have submenus before we do a bunch of additional splitting.
Please see this message for more information:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1168807
If you'd like to vote on it, see this message:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1169569
|
|
| Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 11:18 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
I have also felt that more categories would be beneficial not just for weapons
but other minifigure categories too such as headgear. For instance if your searching
a store to see what Knight/castle style helmets the store has I'm sure it
would be better to be able to do this without having to scroll through lots of
star wars helmets or ninjago wraps etc...
However the problem with categorising by theme is that there are too many crossover
parts like this hood that can be found in almost all the main themes
That said even just separating all the headgear that is unique to a specific
theme would be a good starting point meaning 'Star Wars Headgear' would
include anything from clone trooper helmets to Rebel Pilot helmets to Vader +
Boba Fett helmets along with caps with imperial insigma etc..
Whilst hoods might be used on Jedi and Sith they are quite generic and would
have to remain under the standard generic headgear category.
When it comes to weapons I would again be inclined to try and organise things
by theme/era i.e primative style weapons such as bows and axes separated from
space type weapons etc... but I think this would also present some problems as
there will always be items that are difficult to find a suitable home for likewise
even when going by your own category suggestions where they are sorted by weapon
type what do you then do with something like a flail? personally I think I would
like to see these located in the same palce as things like swords, axes, bows
etc...
|
My thought that whatever did not fit distinctly into the sub category would remain
in the general main category. Therefore the flail would remain there. Perhaps
the need is there for headgear as well. However I disagree with by theme. I found
again and again that the second you think something is set by LEGO to be used
in one set it will appear in another. Maybe not often with Star Wars but still.
My opinion is to categorize with the real world (helmets, hoods) and than the
theme will work itself out. Thanks for the response.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 11:18 | | Subject: | Re: Why should I... | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We apologize for this error on our part. The deletion was due to circumstances
beyond our control.
|
Those are contradictory statements, but hopefully you get the general drift.
We didn't intentionally remove your pending submission, but we regret that
it happened nonetheless.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 11:16 | | Subject: | Re: Why should I... | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Bendix writes:
| | ...upload an item for the catalog - when it is deleted due to unknown reasons?
|
We apologize for this error on our part. The deletion was due to circumstances
beyond our control. We typically try to notify submitters when a submission
cannot be approved.
You're welcome to resubmit this item with the image.
|
|
| Author: | StarBrick | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 11:06 | | Subject: | Re: Why should I... | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Bendix writes:
| | In Catalog, StarBrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Bendix writes:
| | ...upload an item for the catalog - when it is deleted due to unknown reasons?
|
Because it's not yet released?
|
Since two weeks.
|
Maybe not yet in the USA, where most of the employees work I guess?
I dunno, BL moves in mysterious ways.....
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 11:01 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
I really like that you're interested in discussing the category guidelines,
but I'm a little confused on the changes you'd like to see. It would
be helpful for me if you'd post the current guidelines and then your revised
guidelines so I can understand the differences between them.
|
| Author: | Bendix | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 10:48 | | Subject: | Re: Why should I... | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StarBrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Bendix writes:
| | ...upload an item for the catalog - when it is deleted due to unknown reasons?
|
Because it's not yet released?
|
Since two weeks.
|
| Author: | StarBrick | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 10:29 | | Subject: | Re: Why should I... | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Bendix writes:
| | ...upload an item for the catalog - when it is deleted due to unknown reasons?
|
Because it's not yet released?
|
| Author: | Bendix | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 10:16 | | Subject: | Why should I... | | Viewed: | 240 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| | ...upload an item for the catalog - when it is deleted due to unknown reasons? |
|
| Author: | crepundi | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 07:19 | | Subject: | part 3010p04 entry remark | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hello, I don't know if this is important, but there are two different versions
of this part:
one with surface print and one with embossed print (at least in white). Maybe
this could be noted in the catalog entry.
Gisela
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 06:38 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | Why is
[27928]
moved to plate, modified
and
[2401]
moved to plate, wedge?
|
Please see the definitions of those categories on this recently-updated page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1568
| | I think the wedge base should be the defining characteristic.
|
As always, if you or any other member want to offer suggestions for redefining
categories that are an improvement you're welcome to do so.
| | There are other parts in the wedge, plate category that have modifications apart
from the wedge.
|
Right, and the list is not complete yet. It won't be complete until March
1st (and subject to review/approval during March).
|
Plate, modified:
1. No parts with a base thicker than a standard plate.
2. No parts when any side of the base part is curved.
3. No parts when any corner of the base part is rounded.
Plate, Wedge:
1. No parts with a base thicker than a standard plate.
2. At least one side of base part must be fully or partially tapered.
3. No parts with curved sides.
4. No parts with attachments.
Propose:
1. For parts defined as Plate, Modified with at least one side of the base must
be fully or partially tapered.
That way all wedge plates are in the same place, also this does not enlarge the
plate, modified category (168) vs the wedge, plate (55).
In the definitions of subcategories (curved, round, wedge, modified), wouldn't
be better to inherit the caracteristics of the parent? "For parts defined as
Plate/Brick/Slope" ?
|
|
| Author: | Hexy | | Posted: | Feb 13, 2021 04:47 | | Subject: | New Lego Drowned Minifigure | | Viewed: | 143 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Reaching out to those that have the new drowned Minifigure from Lego Minecraft.
Please contact me, I would like to discuss weights, pictures, dimensions, etc.
Regards,
Theo - The_RealRedHex
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 19:38 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, leopard37 writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, we're ready to hear what you want moved.
|
Alright, this post is more to create discussion, not necessarily must be implemented.
As a seller I find the Minifigure, Utensil and Minifigure, Weapon categories.
I propose sub categories to thin out the main categories. A large portion of
current listings can remain in the main category (like an other or general category
- items that do not meet the definition of the sub category).
Minifigure, Utensil Tool
-anything with tool in the title
-axes
Minifigure, Utensil Kitchenware (could use a better name - best I could come
up with)
-anything you would find in your kitchen, pots, glasses, teapots, etc.
I also believe handlebars, and chairs should move to vehicle.
Minifigure, Weapons, Bladed
-swords, knifes, you know blades...
Minifigure, Weapons, Guns (Projectile is another potential name)
-projectile weapons, bows could also go in here.
Would love to hear what others think of the idea.
Tyson.
|
I have also felt that more categories would be beneficial not just for weapons
but other minifigure categories too such as headgear. For instance if your searching
a store to see what Knight/castle style helmets the store has I'm sure it
would be better to be able to do this without having to scroll through lots of
star wars helmets or ninjago wraps etc...
However the problem with categorising by theme is that there are too many crossover
parts like this hood that can be found in almost all the main themes
That said even just separating all the headgear that is unique to a specific
theme would be a good starting point meaning 'Star Wars Headgear' would
include anything from clone trooper helmets to Rebel Pilot helmets to Vader +
Boba Fett helmets along with caps with imperial insigma etc..
Whilst hoods might be used on Jedi and Sith they are quite generic and would
have to remain under the standard generic headgear category.
When it comes to weapons I would again be inclined to try and organise things
by theme/era i.e primative style weapons such as bows and axes separated from
space type weapons etc... but I think this would also present some problems as
there will always be items that are difficult to find a suitable home for likewise
even when going by your own category suggestions where they are sorted by weapon
type what do you then do with something like a flail? personally I think I would
like to see these located in the same palce as things like swords, axes, bows
etc...
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 15:14 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | My solution would be that it is not a figure, but the guidelines say it is for
anyone that wants to change it.
|
I should have been more clear. If you disagree with the current situation with
portions of the catalog, please offer concrete suggestions to improve the situation.
This must occur at the level of policy/guidelines.
So, an example of these kinds of suggestions:
1. I think you guys should rewrite the guidelines for minifigs to say
exactly this thing: "Minifigs are defined as (insert content)."
|
Minifigure = Anything that uses the Standard Torso Assembly design
or if there needs to be more clarity to ensure all those with Pirate Hooked hands
or boxing gloves are also included it must consist of this instead:-
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..
I’m sure you will recall that I’ve mentioned this before and so I can assume
that you probably don’t see it as an ideal solution which is fine but let me
know where you see issues and I will try to re-think things whilst taking those
issues into account? However I think any solution will always run into problems
and catalog contradictions and so it may be that there is no one perfect solution?
However a less than perfect solution is always going to be better than a far
from perfect solution which is what we are going to end up with if we bundle
every buildable character into minifigs?
| |
Criticizing those who are actually working to resolve some of these longstanding
issues with the catalog makes you feel good and I get that. I do it too and
for the same reasons: it releases neurochemicals for me.
But until you put in the effort to effect solutions rather than just pointing
out problems, you're behaving in destructive rather than constructive ways.
|
Criticizing for the sake of criticizing may very well be the way Yorbrick and
a few others get their fix but it’s certainly not the purpose of any of my own
criticisms as I hope you will appreciate that almost anything I critic is always
accompanied with alternative solutions even if others don’t agree with those
solutions and yes whilst I do have a lot to say, I think a lot of that stems
from my previous working background where I've spent much of my working life
at two different companies where I was specifically tasked with implementing
database solutions for cataloguing parts and components both for an Electrical
Transformer company and an IT company so basically exactly what a Bricklink catmin
is tasked with only dealing with different categories and different parts!
Now of coarse that doesn’t mean that I somehow think that makes my own suggestions
superior to anyone else’s and I don’t say all this because I one day crave to
be a catmin... I’m simply here to sell and that is all!
(besides which there are people here with a far wider knowledge of Lego than
myself which is another useful attribute) but because I want the catalog to work
for me and also work for my customers this is the only reason I allow my past
experience to kick in to find fault and offer solutions for what I see as issues
within the current catalog!
However whenever I critic the catalog please don’t ever think that I also critic
the hard work/good intentions of the catmins themselves regardless of whether
or not I share those same ideas and solutions
|
|
| Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 13:06 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, we're ready to hear what you want moved.
|
Alright, this post is more to create discussion, not necessarily must be implemented.
As a seller I find the Minifigure, Utensil and Minifigure, Weapon categories.
I propose sub categories to thin out the main categories. A large portion of
current listings can remain in the main category (like an other or general category
- items that do not meet the definition of the sub category).
Minifigure, Utensil Tool
-anything with tool in the title
-axes
Minifigure, Utensil Kitchenware (could use a better name - best I could come
up with)
-anything you would find in your kitchen, pots, glasses, teapots, etc.
I also believe handlebars, and chairs should move to vehicle.
Minifigure, Weapons, Bladed
-swords, knifes, you know blades...
Minifigure, Weapons, Guns (Projectile is another potential name)
-projectile weapons, bows could also go in here.
Would love to hear what others think of the idea.
Tyson.
|
|
| Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 12:48 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| ~snip
I agree with this suggestion, I was too late the last time around (missed the
discussion completely) and this time I'm too late to suggest.
Great minds and all that.
Tyson.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 12:07 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | My solution would be that it is not a figure, but the guidelines say it is for
anyone that wants to change it.
|
I should have been more clear. If you disagree with the current situation with
portions of the catalog, please offer concrete suggestions to improve the situation.
This must occur at the level of policy/guidelines.
So, an example of these kinds of suggestions:
1. I think you guys should rewrite the guidelines for minifigs to say
exactly this thing: "Minifigs are defined as (insert content)."
2. Then you guys should delete every item in the catalog that does not
comply with the newly written definition.
Criticizing those who are actually working to resolve some of these longstanding
issues with the catalog makes you feel good and I get that. I do it too and
for the same reasons: it releases neurochemicals for me.
But until you put in the effort to effect solutions rather than just pointing
out problems, you're behaving in destructive rather than constructive ways.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 11:57 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | How is this type of minifigure to be handled?
|
You're welcome to offer solutions to the problems you point out.
|
My solution would be that it is not a figure, but the guidelines say it is for
anyone that wants to change it.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 11:55 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | How is this type of minifigure to be handled?
|
You're welcome to offer solutions to the problems you point out.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 11:48 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | The entire assembly of this set, and all other buildable figures should be moved
into minifigures. These are characters built out of parts like Thomas the Tank
Engine, Cars, etc. As those examples are now minifigures, then surely so are
these characters.
|
It is not possible to make everyone happy.
As I said here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1246481
"Ideally, we would hold off on these changes until the inventory system was
corrected and we could move all figures to counterparts. But people have been
asking for these figures to be considered figures for years and years, so I don't
see that it would really hurt anything to do it now."
I get your objections and I agree with them, to some degree. The addition of
the additional Thomas the Tank figures was not part of msSquirrel's original
request.
|
How is this type of minifigure to be handled?
Presumably the minifigure inventory will contain the parts for the body/head/hair/legs/arms/hands
but exclude the axe, even though it is built into the minifigure's hand before
the figure is completed?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 11:43 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I just find it ridiculous that anyone, but especially a company owned by LEGO
themselves, would refer to a DUPLO train as a minifigure.
|
I think we get around it by using the slang term minifig.
I first started asking in the fall of 2018 for this issue to be corrected. In
fact, I made a list of all the different types of things BrickLink considers
to be "minifigs":
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2489#FigureTypes
I've not gotten any responses whatsoever to my requests to change the way
we refer to figures. But we really need updates to the way figures are handled
in inventories before we approve more of these kinds of figure assemblies for
catalog addition.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 11:27 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | The entire assembly of this set, and all other buildable figures should be moved
into minifigures. These are characters built out of parts like Thomas the Tank
Engine, Cars, etc. As those examples are now minifigures, then surely so are
these characters.
|
It is not possible to make everyone happy.
As I said here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1246481
"Ideally, we would hold off on these changes until the inventory system was
corrected and we could move all figures to counterparts. But people have been
asking for these figures to be considered figures for years and years, so I don't
see that it would really hurt anything to do it now."
I get your objections and I agree with them, to some degree. The addition of
the additional Thomas the Tank figures was not part of msSquirrel's original
request.
|
I just find it ridiculous that anyone, but especially a company owned by LEGO
themselves, would refer to a DUPLO train as a minifigure. LEGO used to appear
to be so protective and careful with their use of the word minifigure previously
to not apply to things like droids, Unikitty, skeletons, and so on but I guess
if they are supporting these changes then they must be OK with it.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 11:15 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | Why is
[27928]
moved to plate, modified
and
[2401]
moved to plate, wedge?
|
Please see the definitions of those categories on this recently-updated page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1568
| | I think the wedge base should be the defining characteristic.
|
As always, if you or any other member want to offer suggestions for redefining
categories that are an improvement you're welcome to do so.
| | There are other parts in the wedge, plate category that have modifications apart
from the wedge.
|
Right, and the list is not complete yet. It won't be complete until March
1st (and subject to review/approval during March).
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 11:09 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | The entire assembly of this set, and all other buildable figures should be moved
into minifigures. These are characters built out of parts like Thomas the Tank
Engine, Cars, etc. As those examples are now minifigures, then surely so are
these characters.
|
It is not possible to make everyone happy.
As I said here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1246481
"Ideally, we would hold off on these changes until the inventory system was
corrected and we could move all figures to counterparts. But people have been
asking for these figures to be considered figures for years and years, so I don't
see that it would really hurt anything to do it now."
I get your objections and I agree with them, to some degree. The addition of
the additional Thomas the Tank figures was not part of msSquirrel's original
request.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 07:25 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Similarly, nearly all the brickheadz are brick built characters
so the relevant assemblies should be moved to minifigures.
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 07:22 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, we're ready to hear what you want moved.
|
Move to minifigure:
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 06:51 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, we're ready to hear what you want moved.
|
The entire assembly of this set, and all other buildable figures should be moved
into minifigures. These are characters built out of parts like Thomas the Tank
Engine, Cars, etc. As those examples are now minifigures, then surely so are
these characters.
|
Reading between the lines here I figure (no pun intended) that you don't
think the current system used by Bricklink to define what makes a minifigure
a minifigure makes a whole lot of sense? Well I don't disagree....
Personally I've always felt that a minifigure should only be defined as minifigure
if the build includes that all important standard Torso design:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1192759
It may not be the perfect solution but at least we would then have some kind
of guidelines to follow which will prevent any old buildable character (however
large) from being categoried alongside what most would consider an actual minifigure?
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 06:14 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, we're ready to hear what you want moved.
|
Why is
moved to plate, modified
and
moved to plate, wedge?
I think the wedge base should be the defining characteristic.
There are other parts in the wedge, plate category that have modifications apart
from the wedge.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 05:57 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, we're ready to hear what you want moved.
|
The entire assembly of this set, and all other buildable figures should be moved
into minifigures. These are characters built out of parts like Thomas the Tank
Engine, Cars, etc. As those examples are now minifigures, then surely so are
these characters.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2021 05:51 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, we're ready to hear what you want moved.
|
Now these are minifigures:
Shouldn't these parts and similar
[p=52053]
be moved into a new category: Parts Duplo Minifigure Modified head
Or get rid of the minifigures category completely by renaming it, then have a
minifigures category inside that so that the word minifigures corresponds to
what LEGO and most LEGO fans call minifigures, figures assembled from minifigure
parts.
|
|
| Author: | jedvii | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 20:29 | | Subject: | Re: 6H or 6L | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'm surprised you aren't calling it a Bar 4L with Stud holder on end.
In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, peregrinator writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | Does that mean that others like this
to 4H?
|
Yes, I believe so.
|
It should at least by 1 x 1 x 4 - then the height would be implicit. I don't
think we have this option with the antenna in the OP since that doesn't have
a stud holder - it doesn't have a length and width, only a height.
|
I would be fine with doing it that way, also.
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 17:44 | | Subject: | Re: 6H or 6L | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, peregrinator writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | Does that mean that others like this
to 4H?
|
Yes, I believe so.
|
It should at least by 1 x 1 x 4 - then the height would be implicit. I don't
think we have this option with the antenna in the OP since that doesn't have
a stud holder - it doesn't have a length and width, only a height.
|
I would be fine with doing it that way, also.
|
|
| Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 17:43 | | Subject: | Re: 6H or 6L | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | Does that mean that others like this
to 4H?
|
Yes, I believe so.
|
It should at least by 1 x 1 x 4 - then the height would be implicit. I don't
think we have this option with the antenna in the OP since that doesn't have
a stud holder - it doesn't have a length and width, only a height.
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 17:41 | | Subject: | Re: 6H or 6L | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | Does that mean that others like this
to 4H?
|
Yes, I believe so.
|
| Author: | Hexy | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 17:04 | | Subject: | Re: 6H or 6L | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Does that mean that others like this
to 4H?
In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | Ok, thanks. do you think it's worth changing it to an L measurement?
|
No. Since it is an antenna, it should be measured in brick heights.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 17:01 | | Subject: | Re: 6H or 6L | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | Ok, thanks. do you think it's worth changing it to an L measurement?
|
No. Since it is an antenna, it should be measured in brick heights.
|
| Author: | Hexy | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 17:00 | | Subject: | Re: 6H or 6L | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Ok, thanks. do you think it's worth changing it to an L measurement?
In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | I've noticed that
is the only piece that has 6H. Does anyone know the difference between a 6L and
6H?
|
6L would mean 6 studs long (~48mm). I assume 6H would mean 6 bricks high? I don't
know, since I have never seen something like this in the catalog.
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 16:57 | | Subject: | Re: 6H or 6L | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | I've noticed that
is the only piece that has 6H. Does anyone know the difference between a 6L and
6H?
Regards,
Theo - The_RealRedHex
|
6L would mean 6 studs long (~48mm). I assume 6H would mean 6 bricks high? I don't
know, since I have never seen something like this in the catalog.
|
| Author: | Hexy | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 16:51 | | Subject: | 6H or 6L | | Viewed: | 98 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I've noticed that
is the only piece that has 6H. Does anyone know the difference between a 6L and
6H?
Regards,
Theo - The_RealRedHex
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 11:39 | | Subject: | Re: 4150px33 variant | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | So maybe the other suggestion, I proposed?
"Does this warrant a split or should a note be added?"
|
Yes, in this instance the standard procedure for newly-discovered variants of
all kinds can be followed:
1. Submit a comparison photo showing the differences.
2. Request an additional note. This can be done by including a message
to us with the photo submission or, if you'd prefer a more formal approach,
with a discussion forum catalog request.
3. Request that an item relationship be added for the part as an unsplit
part variant.
|
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 11:11 | | Subject: | Re: 4150px33 variant | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
We're not super-thrilled about splitting anything right now. Especially
print variations and even more especially print variations for which we don't
know if the color differences are intentional or just poor quality control.
|
So maybe the other suggestion, I proposed?
"Does this warrant a split or should a note be added?"
/Jan
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 10:58 | | Subject: | Re: 4150px33 variant | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
We're not super-thrilled about splitting anything right now. Especially
print variations and even more especially print variations for which we don't
know if the color differences are intentional or just poor quality control.
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2021 08:50 | | Subject: | Re: 4150px33 variant | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | According to the catalog, part has Dark Red print. I have two clearly
distinct colors of print, one Dark Red and one that looks (Reddish?) Brown. I
actually have 5 brown ones in stock.
Does this warrant a split or should a note be added?
/Jan
|
Admin?
/Jan
|
|
| Author: | MD14 | | Posted: | Feb 10, 2021 21:13 | | Subject: | Re: Help identify part | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I know this is old, but thank you for identifying for me, i just figured out
how to find my posts so i could check on this stuff.
Thanks,
TrainMaster Bricks
In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog, MD14 writes:
| | I have torso v neck blue overalls with white arms and wide stitch spacing on
overalls as seen in picture of listing cty0340.
However when i go into the parts of that listing the torso has a different tight
stitch spacing and the head post has the black part on it(mine does not have
this black mark either). I have looked and am unable to find any other pictures
or references.
I have 3 of them if that helps.
Wondering if anyone can identify the difference and what set i may have that
they specifically come from.
Thanks
Todd
|
This one?
|
|
|
| Author: | wolfpacklego | | Posted: | Feb 10, 2021 17:14 | | Subject: | Lego VIP Coins | | Viewed: | 120 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| | Lego VIP Coin Pirates #5006473 needs to be added to the catalog. |
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Feb 10, 2021 15:34 | | Subject: | Re: VIP Coins Castle + Pirates | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Fenneke_Jose writes:
| | In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | In Catalog, Fenneke_Jose writes:
| | Hi,
I am looking for the VIP Coins. I have the Pirates Coin and now looking for the
Castle Coin, but I cannot find them in the cataloque.
So am I doing something wrong? Or are they still not availleble in the Bricklink
catalogue?
Kind regards,
José
|
I see your Pirate Coin listed, but the only Castle coins I see are pressed...
My daughter collected pressed coins from our Legoland CA trips. Managed to fill
an album before we stop going
|
I mean this one (see image).
|
I see. Not the pirate coin I spied in the catalog, then?
It's nice looking! You gonna add it to the catalog?
|
|
| Author: | Bricks_NW_UK | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2021 15:46 | | Subject: | Re: What is the number 15-02 on a Lego Piece | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Mold number and which specific cavity it is. Used for tracking defects.
|
Thank you - I suspected it was , just needed to confirm for my own peace of mind.
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2021 15:21 | | Subject: | Re: What is the number 15-02 on a Lego Piece | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Mold number and which specific cavity it is. Used for tracking defects.
In Catalog, Bricks_NW_UK writes:
| | Okay, let me explain.
On any piece of lego, as well as the part number there is a second number, on
the ones I am looking at 15-05 & 12-01.
What does this refer to ? Is it a mould reference or a colour reference? If
colour where is this identified.
Thanks
Steve
|
|
|
| Author: | Bricks_NW_UK | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2021 15:12 | | Subject: | What is the number 15-02 on a Lego Piece | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Okay, let me explain.
On any piece of lego, as well as the part number there is a second number, on
the ones I am looking at 15-05 & 12-01.
What does this refer to ? Is it a mould reference or a colour reference? If
colour where is this identified.
Thanks
Steve
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2021 13:25 | | Subject: | Re: set 1944-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, samsam2 writes:
| | Sure, but I guess I don't understand why there are two sets.
|
The idea is to treat sets with storage cases consistently catalog-wide when the
items in a bundle are packaged separately. Some sets absolutely require separate
catalog entries because they were sold in different ways:
Therefore, for the sake of consistency, all sets should ideally be treated like
the above examples. Moving toward the catalog-wide consistency in this area
was something I began some years ago and never finished.
|
|
| Author: | allerhandgwand | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2021 13:24 | | Subject: | Re: TLG Factory Storage Box | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | There is also a logo on it - and a cover. |
|
| Author: | allerhandgwand | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2021 11:12 | | Subject: | TLG Factory Storage Box | | Viewed: | 126 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I found a storage box which is to be used in TLG factories. Are they traded on
Bricklink? I didn'nt find them. Okay, they can not be buyed in a LEGO shop
- but it's also a LEGO product.
|
|
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2021 07:19 | | Subject: | Re: set 1944-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, samsam2 writes:
| | I'm wondering if these are the same set? The way they are listed seems strange
If one is a set containing a sub-set, shouldn't there
be just one set of instructions and one box?
|
I think it would make sense to "merge" both entries so that there is only one
set entry which has the parts, the minifigure and the gear item in its inventory
like it is also done here
or here
Sellers can always add a note "without storage case" if the only have the box
with bricks for sale so I don't see any reason for a separate entry for
.
And calling a set "Basic Set with Storage Case" when it actually does NOT include
the storage case is definitely misleading.
|
|
| Author: | samsam2 | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2021 17:23 | | Subject: | Re: set 1944-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Sure, but I guess I don't understand why there are two sets. Now that I look,
I see it was done with a few other similar sets. It's confusing when you
have a set of instructions and you come across two sets that are in reality the
same set. It's not normal to have one set with two opportunities to list
the instructions. As always with these situations, it waters down the listing
value.
I guess there was no other solution. What about making the primary listing as
'gear' with the set as part of the 'gear'? I'm sure it's
been thought of, but it would eliminate extraneous listings of instructions and
boxes.
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Because " Universal Building Set With Storage Case" is the name on the box. We
name sets according to the box name.
|
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2021 15:29 | | Subject: | Re: set 1944-1 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Because " Universal Building Set With Storage Case" is the name on the box. We
name sets according to the box name.
In Catalog, samsam2 writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| |
You are correct that 1944-1 technically should not have an instructions entry.
However, the instructions entry cannot be removed from the set entry due to
a flaw in site architecture. Thus, it remains.
|
So is it done this way because sometimes 1944-2 was sold separately and not always
combined with the storage case? If so then the name seems very wrong. If not,
then why the sub-set method and not just a single set with gear?
|
|
|
| Author: | samsam2 | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2021 15:11 | | Subject: | Re: set 1944-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| |
You are correct that 1944-1 technically should not have an instructions entry.
However, the instructions entry cannot be removed from the set entry due to
a flaw in site architecture. Thus, it remains.
|
So is it done this way because sometimes 1944-2 was sold separately and not always
combined with the storage case? If so then the name seems very wrong. If not,
then why the sub-set method and not just a single set with gear?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2021 14:54 | | Subject: | Re: set 1944-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, samsam2 writes:
| | 1944-1 does not need an instruction entry, only 1944-2 which is the set with
the parts.
Stormchaser is the one who added the -2 subset so maybe when he has time to respond,
he will explain how this works.
|
You are correct that 1944-1 technically should not have an instructions entry.
However, the instructions entry cannot be removed from the set entry due to
a flaw in site architecture. Thus, it remains.
|
|
| Author: | samsam2 | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2021 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: set 1944-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| What I'm saying is 1944-1 is a superset that contains, 'gear' the
storage case and set 1944-2 which is the set with the actual parts. Therefore
1944-1 does not need an instruction entry, only 1944-2 which is the set with
the parts. Once this question is sorted out, I'm also inclined to think there
should only be one box, but I'm less sure of this point.
Stormchaser is the one who added the -2 subset so maybe when he has time to respond,
he will explain how this works.
In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, samsam2 writes:
| | I'm wondering if these are the same set? The way they are listed seems strange
If one is a set containing a sub-set, shouldn't there
be just one set of instructions and one box?
|
I don't have it. But it seems the set was sold with a cardboard box, and
also with the plastic storage box (gear) hence the difference.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2021 04:19 | | Subject: | Re: Are there differences in instructions CMF? | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| ere were a couple of the collectors series that had a small printed number
| |
Thanks a lot Jen!
I never noticed it!
|
I seem to remember as well that the number on the back did not match the number
of the figure. That is, that not all Kings had a number 1 leaflet and so on.
I guess it was something to do with the extra printed code on the back of the
leaflet rather than the figure it was included with.
|
|
| Author: | tonnic | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2021 04:09 | | Subject: | Re: Are there differences in instructions CMF? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, tonnic writes:
| | I had a question from a buyer regarding instructions of CMF’s.
He bought some from a different seller but due to our nice communication (I guess)
he asked me why the numbering of his series 13 didn’t make sense, he also missed
some and had some double.
If I am correct these leaflets are always the same unless you mark the empty
circle by yourself.
But maybe I need to be educated myself in this case...
The packages are marked with a barcode in the earlier series, later with dots/dents/pimples.
So if I am wrong I would like to know and I can give the information to my buyer
too, I will point this forumpost to him to.
Thanks already!
Ton
|
There were a couple of the collectors series that had a small printed number
on the instructions that was different for each set.
BrickLink did not differentiate between them.
Here's an example online:
https://jaysbrickblog.com/reviews/review-lego-minifigures-series-14-monsters/
See the 16 in the white circle on the upper corner on the back of the instructions.
Jen
|
Thanks a lot Jen!
I never noticed it!
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2021 03:26 | | Subject: | Re: set 1944-1 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, samsam2 writes:
| | I'm wondering if these are the same set? The way they are listed seems strange
If one is a set containing a sub-set, shouldn't there
be just one set of instructions and one box?
|
I don't have it. But it seems the set was sold with a cardboard box, and
also with the plastic storage box (gear) hence the difference.
|
|
| Author: | samsam2 | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2021 01:49 | | Subject: | set 1944-1 | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I'm wondering if these are the same set? The way they are listed seems strange
If one is a set containing a sub-set, shouldn't there
be just one set of instructions and one box?
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2021 22:17 | | Subject: | Re: Are there differences in instructions CMF? | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tonnic writes:
| | I had a question from a buyer regarding instructions of CMF’s.
He bought some from a different seller but due to our nice communication (I guess)
he asked me why the numbering of his series 13 didn’t make sense, he also missed
some and had some double.
If I am correct these leaflets are always the same unless you mark the empty
circle by yourself.
But maybe I need to be educated myself in this case...
The packages are marked with a barcode in the earlier series, later with dots/dents/pimples.
So if I am wrong I would like to know and I can give the information to my buyer
too, I will point this forumpost to him to.
Thanks already!
Ton
|
There were a couple of the collectors series that had a small printed number
on the instructions that was different for each set.
BrickLink did not differentiate between them.
Here's an example online:
https://jaysbrickblog.com/reviews/review-lego-minifigures-series-14-monsters/
See the 16 in the white circle on the upper corner on the back of the instructions.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2021 17:34 | | Subject: | Re: Friends accessories pin vs bar classification | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | I'll await to hear back from Catalog
admin to see how they want to handle it.
|
In the absence of written guidelines for item titles, any attempts to standardize
titles is potentially a waste of time.
We are currently struggling in our attempts to adopt written guidelines for the
most important aspects of the catalog and item titles are one of those things
(including how part features such as clips, pins, holes, bars, joints, hinges,
etc. are described and unifying the terminology used). Also sorely needed are
clear, consistent, and easily-comprehensible written guidelines for:
Part assemblies, including figures
Item dimensions
Item numbers
Search terms/keywords
Part variants
Colors and how they're used and inventoried
Our seeming inability to progress in these areas is a result of several different
causes, but we are still trying. The progress is exceptionally slow and we are
no happier about that than everyone else.
|
This is really a hard task and it is understandable that it takes time, there
are many many variables in the huge list of Lego parts.
Thanks for your work!
|
|
|
| Author: | tonnic | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2021 17:12 | | Subject: | Are there differences in instructions CMF? | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I had a question from a buyer regarding instructions of CMF’s.
He bought some from a different seller but due to our nice communication (I guess)
he asked me why the numbering of his series 13 didn’t make sense, he also missed
some and had some double.
If I am correct these leaflets are always the same unless you mark the empty
circle by yourself.
But maybe I need to be educated myself in this case...
The packages are marked with a barcode in the earlier series, later with dots/dents/pimples.
So if I am wrong I would like to know and I can give the information to my buyer
too, I will point this forumpost to him to.
Thanks already!
Ton
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2021 12:23 | | Subject: | Re: Friends accessories pin vs bar classification | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | I'll await to hear back from Catalog
admin to see how they want to handle it.
|
In the absence of written guidelines for item titles, any attempts to standardize
titles is potentially a waste of time.
We are currently struggling in our attempts to adopt written guidelines for the
most important aspects of the catalog and item titles are one of those things
(including how part features such as clips, pins, holes, bars, joints, hinges,
etc. are described and unifying the terminology used). Also sorely needed are
clear, consistent, and easily-comprehensible written guidelines for:
Part assemblies, including figures
Item dimensions
Item numbers
Search terms/keywords
Part variants
Colors and how they're used and inventoried
Our seeming inability to progress in these areas is a result of several different
causes, but we are still trying. The progress is exceptionally slow and we are
no happier about that than everyone else.
|
|
| Author: | Fenneke_Jose | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2021 09:18 | | Subject: | Re: VIP Coins Castle + Pirates | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | In Catalog, Fenneke_Jose writes:
| | Hi,
I am looking for the VIP Coins. I have the Pirates Coin and now looking for the
Castle Coin, but I cannot find them in the cataloque.
So am I doing something wrong? Or are they still not availleble in the Bricklink
catalogue?
Kind regards,
José
|
I see your Pirate Coin listed, but the only Castle coins I see are pressed...
My daughter collected pressed coins from our Legoland CA trips. Managed to fill
an album before we stop going
|
I mean this one (see image).
|
|
|
| Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2021 06:56 | | Subject: | Re: Friends accessories pin vs bar classification | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | This pertains the difference between Friends accessories flowers and other accessories.
There appear to be 2 classifications in regards to connections. 1) thin pin and
2) bar thickness pin.
[...]
|
I would better suggest Mini Bar as that it is more similar to a Bar but smaller
than a Lego Pin and mostly it works with minifigs. Or Thin Bar... But Mini/Thin
Pin is ok too as it is what most people are used to.
|
Studio's PartDesigner calls them 'Accessory Pin', see image.
| | And the style 2 ones, if they are the same size as Bars, then they have to be
named Bar and Bar with Hole etc.
|
Style 2 ones are the same size as bars. They fit any of flower stems, accessory
pins, axle holes, pin holes and clips. 'Accessory Antipins' could also
be an appropriate name in line of the antistuds at the bottom of plates.
|
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2021 06:02 | | Subject: | Re: Friends accessories pin vs bar classification | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | This pertains the difference between Friends accessories flowers and other accessories.
There appear to be 2 classifications in regards to connections. 1) thin pin and
2) bar thickness pin.
The catalogue descriptions don't differentiate them but it affects how they
can be connected. It would be great if the descriptions reflected the difference
as the thin pin accessories can mainly be connected to hair pieces with holes
and and the like, and the bar thickness accessories can be connected to broader
parts with bar holes, including grasping by hands.
Style 1 (thin pin) are these
* | | 18853 Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Flower with Pointed Petals and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
* | | 93080h Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Flower with Serrated Petals and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
* | | 93080g Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Flower with Smooth Petals and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
* | | 93080m Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Tiara with 5 Points and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
I think these also
* | | 11618 Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Bow with Heart, Long Ribbon, and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
Style 2 (bar thickness with pin hole on the bottom)
Miro
|
I would better suggest Mini Bar as that it is more similar to a Bar but smaller
than a Lego Pin and mostly it works with minifigs. Or Thin Bar... But Mini/Thin
Pin is ok too as it is what most people are used to.
And the style 2 ones, if they are the same size as Bars, then they have to be
named Bar and Bar with Hole etc.
|
|
| Author: | Hexy | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2021 04:21 | | Subject: | Re: Iron Man Minifigs sh231 and sh036 exact same? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Bricklink is all about having all the variations, and if a minifigure comes with
a common piece attached as part of the minifig, then we catalog it as a seperate
entry.
In Catalog, native1 writes:
| | Thanks. It is so odd that by adding an additional common piece it makes it a
difference figure in the catalog. I guess it is the same as the figures that
are the same with/ without neck braces.
In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | Hello,
Sh036 has blue jets coming out of the feet which differentiate it from sh231
Regards,
Theo - The_RealRedHex
In Catalog, native1 writes:
| | Is there a reason sh231 and sh036 are listed as different minifigures in the
catalog? They are part for part the exact same minifigure. I'm attempting
to collect all the iron man armors and just realized this.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | native1 | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2021 21:27 | | Subject: | Re: Iron Man Minifigs sh231 and sh036 exact same? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thanks. It is so odd that by adding an additional common piece it makes it a
difference figure in the catalog. I guess it is the same as the figures that
are the same with/ without neck braces.
In Catalog, The_RealRedHex writes:
| | Hello,
Sh036 has blue jets coming out of the feet which differentiate it from sh231
Regards,
Theo - The_RealRedHex
In Catalog, native1 writes:
| | Is there a reason sh231 and sh036 are listed as different minifigures in the
catalog? They are part for part the exact same minifigure. I'm attempting
to collect all the iron man armors and just realized this.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Hexy | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2021 21:12 | | Subject: | Re: Iron Man Minifigs sh231 and sh036 exact same? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hello,
Sh036 has blue jets coming out of the feet which differentiate it from sh231
Regards,
Theo - The_RealRedHex
In Catalog, native1 writes:
| | Is there a reason sh231 and sh036 are listed as different minifigures in the
catalog? They are part for part the exact same minifigure. I'm attempting
to collect all the iron man armors and just realized this.
Thanks!
|
|
| Author: | native1 | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2021 21:03 | | Subject: | Iron Man Minifigs sh231 and sh036 exact same? | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Is there a reason sh231 and sh036 are listed as different minifigures in the
catalog? They are part for part the exact same minifigure. I'm attempting
to collect all the iron man armors and just realized this.
Thanks!
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2021 18:13 | | Subject: | Re: Friends accessories pin vs bar classification | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SteveTheBrick writes:
| | Here's the the 5 in the 'I think these also' list. All have thin
pins:
Steve
|
Excellent. Thanks Steve and Peregrinator. I'll await to hear back from Catalog
admin to see how they want to handle it.
Miro
|
| Author: | SteveTheBrick | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2021 17:01 | | Subject: | Re: Friends accessories pin vs bar classification | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Here's the the 5 in the 'I think these also' list. All have thin
pins:
Steve
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2021 15:00 | | Subject: | Re: VIP Coins Castle + Pirates | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Fenneke_Jose writes:
| | Hi,
I am looking for the VIP Coins. I have the Pirates Coin and now looking for the
Castle Coin, but I cannot find them in the cataloque.
So am I doing something wrong? Or are they still not availleble in the Bricklink
catalogue?
Kind regards,
José
|
I see your Pirate Coin listed, but the only Castle coins I see are pressed...
My daughter collected pressed coins from our Legoland CA trips. Managed to fill
an album before we stop going
|
|
| Author: | Fenneke_Jose | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2021 14:35 | | Subject: | VIP Coins Castle + Pirates | | Viewed: | 119 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi,
I am looking for the VIP Coins. I have the Pirates Coin and now looking for the
Castle Coin, but I cannot find them in the cataloque.
So am I doing something wrong? Or are they still not availleble in the Bricklink
catalogue?
Kind regards,
José
|
|
| Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2021 13:33 | | Subject: | Re: Friends accessories pin vs bar classification | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | Update: Some of the Style 2 items don't have pin holes on the bottom (fish,
seahorse), and I am uncertain on the style 1 under the "I think these also" section
above, which would need to be verified.
|
The bows are definitely under Style 1, not sure about the ribbons. Here is the
back of
* | | 11618 Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Bow with Heart, Long Ribbon, and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
(sorry the image is so blurry, had a hard time focusing)
|
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2021 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: Friends accessories pin vs bar classification | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | This pertains the difference between Friends accessories flowers and other accessories.
There appear to be 2 classifications in regards to connections. 1) thin pin and
2) bar thickness pin.
The catalogue descriptions don't differentiate them but it affects how they
can be connected. It would be great if the descriptions reflected the difference
as the thin pin accessories can mainly be connected to hair pieces with holes
and and the like, and the bar thickness accessories can be connected to broader
parts with bar holes, including grasping by hands.
Style 1 (thin pin) are these
* | | 18853 Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Flower with Pointed Petals and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
* | | 93080h Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Flower with Serrated Petals and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
* | | 93080g Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Flower with Smooth Petals and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
* | | 93080m Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Tiara with 5 Points and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
I think these also
* | | 11618 Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Bow with Heart, Long Ribbon, and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
Style 2 (bar thickness with pin hole on the bottom)
Miro
|
Update: Some of the Style 2 items don't have pin holes on the bottom (fish,
seahorse), and I am uncertain on the style 1 under the "I think these also" section
above, which would need to be verified.
Miro
|
|
| Author: | Miro78 | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2021 10:47 | | Subject: | Friends accessories pin vs bar classification | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| This pertains the difference between Friends accessories flowers and other accessories.
There appear to be 2 classifications in regards to connections. 1) thin pin and
2) bar thickness pin.
The catalogue descriptions don't differentiate them but it affects how they
can be connected. It would be great if the descriptions reflected the difference
as the thin pin accessories can mainly be connected to hair pieces with holes
and and the like, and the bar thickness accessories can be connected to broader
parts with bar holes, including grasping by hands.
Style 1 (thin pin) are these
* | | 18853 Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Flower with Pointed Petals and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
* | | 93080h Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Flower with Serrated Petals and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
* | | 93080g Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Flower with Smooth Petals and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
* | | 93080m Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Tiara with 5 Points and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
I think these also
* | | 11618 Friends Accessories Hair Decoration, Bow with Heart, Long Ribbon, and Small Pin
Parts: Friends |
Style 2 (bar thickness with pin hole on the bottom)
Miro
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2021 00:17 | | Subject: | Re: Additional Listing for 32553cXX | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Anyone can list any part in any color and it will show up in the drop-down list.
That doesn't mean that the color actually exists.
Cheers,
Randy
In Catalog, co2Bricks writes:
| | Thank you, it must be the case, but they are different and I noticed there was
a drop down on the menu for the color list for part 32554 that shows Trans-Light
Orange... oh well, I guess I'll list them as a separate lot and note the
difference.
Carlyle
In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | Trans-Neon Yellow can look like a light shade of Trans-Orange, so that is probably
what you have.
In Catalog, co2Bricks writes:
| | Hello,
I have 3 part assemblies of 32553 in Light Gray with a 32554 in Trans-Light Orange
Many other variations exist as shown below:
Bionicle Head Connector Block 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 with Trans-Neon Orange Bionicle Head
Connector Block Eye/Brain Stalk (32553 / 32554)
Item No: 32553c04
Is it possible to get this added? Or is there a better solution for listing?
Thanks,
Carlyle
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: | co2Bricks | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 20:19 | | Subject: | Re: Additional Listing for 32553cXX | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thank you, it must be the case, but they are different and I noticed there was
a drop down on the menu for the color list for part 32554 that shows Trans-Light
Orange... oh well, I guess I'll list them as a separate lot and note the
difference.
Carlyle
In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | Trans-Neon Yellow can look like a light shade of Trans-Orange, so that is probably
what you have.
In Catalog, co2Bricks writes:
| | Hello,
I have 3 part assemblies of 32553 in Light Gray with a 32554 in Trans-Light Orange
Many other variations exist as shown below:
Bionicle Head Connector Block 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 with Trans-Neon Orange Bionicle Head
Connector Block Eye/Brain Stalk (32553 / 32554)
Item No: 32553c04
Is it possible to get this added? Or is there a better solution for listing?
Thanks,
Carlyle
|
|
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 15:34 | | Subject: | Re: Additional Listing for 32553cXX | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | Trans-Neon Yellow can look like a light shade of Trans-Orange, so that is probably
what you have.
|
I used to call that Trans-Peach.
Nita Rae
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 15:23 | | Subject: | Re: Additional Listing for 32553cXX | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Trans-Neon Yellow can look like a light shade of Trans-Orange, so that is probably
what you have.
In Catalog, co2Bricks writes:
| | Hello,
I have 3 part assemblies of 32553 in Light Gray with a 32554 in Trans-Light Orange
Many other variations exist as shown below:
Bionicle Head Connector Block 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 with Trans-Neon Orange Bionicle Head
Connector Block Eye/Brain Stalk (32553 / 32554)
Item No: 32553c04
Is it possible to get this added? Or is there a better solution for listing?
Thanks,
Carlyle
|
|
|
|
| Author: | co2Bricks | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 14:43 | | Subject: | Additional Listing for 32553cXX | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hello,
I have 3 part assemblies of 32553 in Light Gray with a 32554 in Trans-Light Orange
Many other variations exist as shown below:
Bionicle Head Connector Block 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 with Trans-Neon Orange Bionicle Head
Connector Block Eye/Brain Stalk (32553 / 32554)
Item No: 32553c04
Is it possible to get this added? Or is there a better solution for listing?
Thanks,
Carlyle
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 12:15 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
And this outlines the second problem: Colour convention. This has to be made
consistent as well. I think I'd prefer the second one, as I'd say hair
colour is intuitively the more logical variable part than the headgear. Headgears
like cook's or police hats typically don't vary much in colour, so
the variation in the hair is more likely.
As for catagorisation, I'd prefer them in Minifig,Hair as it is less than
half the size of Headgear, but it's just my vote.
|
I think this is why the newly formed hair category struggles to determine what
actually belongs under hair and what belongs under headgear because by directing
parts into either category based on how much hair is showing compared to how
big the head wear itself is only leaves a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty as
to where it belongs?
I think the best solution is as I’ve tried to explain further up the thread here:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1249746
In short if the headgear includes more than just HAIR alone and ends up turning
a minifigure into a specific themed character, trade, profession or some kind
of unique non-human species I feel it should go under headgear rather than hair
Here is a good example. Someone is looking for some simple hair to use on a minifigure
but they haven’t yet decided on what design they want but they stumble upon this:-
It contains plenty of hair but do they don’t intend their minifigure to become
a construction worker?
Nor a King?
Nor an Elf?
Not even a Bat Monster? I mean why would they?
Nor a hat wearing character like Radagast?
and yes whilst this contains hair and seems quite generic they were looking in
the hair category and so did they actually ask for the hat to go with it?
For this reason all those examples I think would be better suited under headgear
Whereas whilst the below parts are designed specifically for characters such
as Saruman and Hagrid they are still just standalone hair and relevant to people
searching for hair within the hair category or at least that’s the way I see
it?
Am I honestly completely alone on this one?
|
Sure, I totally get that. I just think it is easy to remember regardless of where
it is put, and then since Hair is the smaller category it would keep things slightly
more browseable. But it's just my vote, of the majority wants to put it in
Headgear then let it be Headgear.
(And maybe there's a better solution to manage the size of the Headgear category...
|
Well if it was down to me I'd break headgear down into the following:-
Hair - Just Hair!
Headwear - Hats, Helmets, Ninja head wraps etc...
Headgear - All those unique combo parts be that Hat/Hair, Orc Ears/Hair, Bombur
Belly/Hair
but others don't like the idea of this for the reasons mentioned here...
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1249730
Whilst it would be nice to keep all those together I feel its a small sacrifice
to pay if it means the rest of the catalog can be better organised in the process
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 10:30 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
And this outlines the second problem: Colour convention. This has to be made
consistent as well. I think I'd prefer the second one, as I'd say hair
colour is intuitively the more logical variable part than the headgear. Headgears
like cook's or police hats typically don't vary much in colour, so
the variation in the hair is more likely.
As for catagorisation, I'd prefer them in Minifig,Hair as it is less than
half the size of Headgear, but it's just my vote.
|
Me too. I'd prefer anything with hair goes into the hair category.
I would not want pieces like this where there is moulding to indicate an accessory/non-hair
to be moved out of hair:
* | | 29639pb01 Minifigure, Hair Female Long with Parted Bangs, Partly Braided in Back with Yellow Elf Ears and Silver Flower Pattern
Parts: Minifigure, Hair |
* | | 28798pb01 Minifigure, Hair Female Pigtails High Bouncy, Hole on Top with Black Hair on Left Side and Black Tie on Right Side Pattern
Parts: Minifigure, Hair |
And in some cases, the accessory is the same colour as the hair:
Especially if parts like this, where there is just print and no moulding, remained
in hair:
* | | 85974pb04 Minifigure, Hair Female Mid-Length with Part over Right Shoulder and Medium Lavender Starfish and Lime Seaweed Pattern
Parts: Minifigure, Hair |
There are quite a few hairstyles where there is a plain coloured hairpiece, but
also with a version with coloured accessory such as:
They are surely still hair even though there is a non-hair accessory. It cannot
be down to how big the accessory is before something goes in hair or headgear,
as there will be contradictions.
And there are parts like this, that are not all hair but body part and not accessory:
Colour is problematic. Ideally it would be the colour of the hair as the part
colour, but there are pieces like the bald guy head above where the part is light
nougat and the hair painted on.
|
Yet with exception of the Orc, elf and liberty parts most of those you have mentioned
I would category as hair anyway? I don’t consider small generic details like
hair bands, flower prints as a reason for them not to be included in the hair
category as like I said only those that drastically change the character of a
minifigure into something very specific such as an elf, a king, a construction
worker or a hat wearing Radagast who I might add is more beard, facial hair and
hat than hair?
The character Harley Quinn again still comes with what is mainly hair likewise
the Alfred bald head is still adding hair to a minifigure so I still class these
as hair
You say there will be contradictions and yes there will always be a very few
parts that are hard to find the correct location for but without some kind of
guidelines to follow there will continue to be far more contradictions than what
we are already experiencing now because if we go by your stand point where any
visible hair should go under hair:-
* | | 17012pb01 Minifigure, Headgear Helmet Space Wraparound with Medium Nougat Hair on Top, Breathing Vents and Red Eye Holes Pattern (Star-Lord)
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear |
Is hair where I should expect to find items like this too?
I think there is also a clue in the category titles which should also help clear
up any confusion as I would have thought that....
hair category = differnt designs of hair? I would not expect to find hair with
hats on top of them or non-human species ears sticking out of them?
headgear category = quite a general term and so could consist of any number of
different combinations and so I would'nt find it all that contradicting to
find a mish mash of different parts under this category as headgear simply refers
to parts that are designed for attaching to heads?
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 09:15 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
And this outlines the second problem: Colour convention. This has to be made
consistent as well. I think I'd prefer the second one, as I'd say hair
colour is intuitively the more logical variable part than the headgear. Headgears
like cook's or police hats typically don't vary much in colour, so
the variation in the hair is more likely.
As for catagorisation, I'd prefer them in Minifig,Hair as it is less than
half the size of Headgear, but it's just my vote.
|
Me too. I'd prefer anything with hair goes into the hair category.
I would not want pieces like this where there is moulding to indicate an accessory/non-hair
to be moved out of hair:
* | | 29639pb01 Minifigure, Hair Female Long with Parted Bangs, Partly Braided in Back with Yellow Elf Ears and Silver Flower Pattern
Parts: Minifigure, Hair |
* | | 28798pb01 Minifigure, Hair Female Pigtails High Bouncy, Hole on Top with Black Hair on Left Side and Black Tie on Right Side Pattern
Parts: Minifigure, Hair |
And in some cases, the accessory is the same colour as the hair:
Especially if parts like this, where there is just print and no moulding, remained
in hair:
* | | 85974pb04 Minifigure, Hair Female Mid-Length with Part over Right Shoulder and Medium Lavender Starfish and Lime Seaweed Pattern
Parts: Minifigure, Hair |
There are quite a few hairstyles where there is a plain coloured hairpiece, but
also with a version with coloured accessory such as:
They are surely still hair even though there is a non-hair accessory. It cannot
be down to how big the accessory is before something goes in hair or headgear,
as there will be contradictions.
And there are parts like this, that are not all hair but body part and not accessory:
Colour is problematic. Ideally it would be the colour of the hair as the part
colour, but there are pieces like the bald guy head above where the part is light
nougat and the hair painted on.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 09:00 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
And this outlines the second problem: Colour convention. This has to be made
consistent as well. I think I'd prefer the second one, as I'd say hair
colour is intuitively the more logical variable part than the headgear. Headgears
like cook's or police hats typically don't vary much in colour, so
the variation in the hair is more likely.
As for catagorisation, I'd prefer them in Minifig,Hair as it is less than
half the size of Headgear, but it's just my vote.
|
I think this is why the newly formed hair category struggles to determine what
actually belongs under hair and what belongs under headgear because by directing
parts into either category based on how much hair is showing compared to how
big the head wear itself is only leaves a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty as
to where it belongs?
I think the best solution is as I’ve tried to explain further up the thread here:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1249746
In short if the headgear includes more than just HAIR alone and ends up turning
a minifigure into a specific themed character, trade, profession or some kind
of unique non-human species I feel it should go under headgear rather than hair
Here is a good example. Someone is looking for some simple hair to use on a minifigure
but they haven’t yet decided on what design they want but they stumble upon this:-
It contains plenty of hair but do they don’t intend their minifigure to become
a construction worker?
Nor a King?
Nor an Elf?
Not even a Bat Monster? I mean why would they?
Nor a hat wearing character like Radagast?
and yes whilst this contains hair and seems quite generic they were looking in
the hair category and so did they actually ask for the hat to go with it?
For this reason all those examples I think would be better suited under headgear
Whereas whilst the below parts are designed specifically for characters such
as Saruman and Hagrid they are still just standalone hair and relevant to people
searching for hair within the hair category or at least that’s the way I see
it?
Am I honestly completely alone on this one?
|
Sure, I totally get that. I just think it is easy to remember regardless of where
it is put, and then since Hair is the smaller category it would keep things slightly
more browseable. But it's just my vote, of the majority wants to put it in
Headgear then let it be Headgear.
(And maybe there's a better solution to manage the size of the Headgear category...
although introducing "Headgear,Decorated" wouldn't help much as almost all
of them are decorated these days...)
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 08:12 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
And this outlines the second problem: Colour convention. This has to be made
consistent as well. I think I'd prefer the second one, as I'd say hair
colour is intuitively the more logical variable part than the headgear. Headgears
like cook's or police hats typically don't vary much in colour, so
the variation in the hair is more likely.
As for catagorisation, I'd prefer them in Minifig,Hair as it is less than
half the size of Headgear, but it's just my vote.
|
I think this is why the newly formed hair category struggles to determine what
actually belongs under hair and what belongs under headgear because by directing
parts into either category based on how much hair is showing compared to how
big the head wear itself is only leaves a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty as
to where it belongs?
I think the best solution is as I’ve tried to explain further up the thread here:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1249746
In short if the headgear includes more than just HAIR alone and ends up turning
a minifigure into a specific themed character, trade, profession or some kind
of unique non-human species I feel it should go under headgear rather than hair
Here is a good example. Someone is looking for some simple hair to use on a minifigure
but they haven’t yet decided on what design they want but they stumble upon this:-
It contains plenty of hair but do they don’t intend their minifigure to become
a construction worker?
Nor a King?
Nor an Elf?
Not even a Bat Monster? I mean why would they?
Nor a hat wearing character like Radagast?
and yes whilst this contains hair and seems quite generic they were looking in
the hair category and so did they actually ask for the hat to go with it?
For this reason all those examples I think would be better suited under headgear
Whereas whilst the below parts are designed specifically for characters such
as Saruman and Hagrid they are still just standalone hair and relevant to people
searching for hair within the hair category or at least that’s the way I see
it?
Am I honestly completely alone on this one?
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 06:34 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
And this outlines the second problem: Colour convention. This has to be made
consistent as well. I think I'd prefer the second one, as I'd say hair
colour is intuitively the more logical variable part than the headgear. Headgears
like cook's or police hats typically don't vary much in colour, so
the variation in the hair is more likely.
As for catagorisation, I'd prefer them in Minifig,Hair as it is less than
half the size of Headgear, but it's just my vote.
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 06:22 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, we're ready to hear what you want moved.
|
I'm listing some Friends Minidoll head accessories (bows, sunglasses and
the like).
I need to go the Friends section to find them...
Shouldn't there be a separate category for these, like the Minifig Head Gear
Accessories?
Paul
|
I'm guessing that no-one likes the idea as laid out above?
Try looking for the sunglasses WITHOUT going direct to the Friends section, especially
if you don't know that they are from the Friends line....
Paul
|
Check the first comment in this thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1249483
|
|
| Author: | WhiteVanMan | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 06:03 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, we're ready to hear what you want moved.
|
I'm listing some Friends Minidoll head accessories (bows, sunglasses and
the like).
I need to go the Friends section to find them...
Shouldn't there be a separate category for these, like the Minifig Head Gear
Accessories?
Paul
|
I'm guessing that no-one likes the idea as laid out above?
Try looking for the sunglasses WITHOUT going direct to the Friends section, especially
if you don't know that they are from the Friends line....
Paul
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 05:58 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, we're ready to hear what you want moved.
|
Split "Minifigure, Body Wear" into three distinct new categories: (1) "Minifigure,
Neckwear", (2) "Minifigure, Hipwear", and (3) "Minifigure, Footgear" to account
for the different sections of a standard figure that come between and outside
of the standard parts of a standard figure (head-to-torso, torso-to-legs, below
legs) that are currently not isolated as headgear is.
|
Sounds good and I guess if bodywear is to be replaced with the term neckwear
this does at least reflect on how the part is used which in turn represents all
the parts in the category better as I’ve always struggled with beards being filed
as bodywear?
That said going back to our previous discussion in the other thread I do still
think that just in the same way that hair and wearable items (hats/helmets) are
distinctly different from each other and benefit from separation in the headgear
categories beards/moustaches are also distinctly different to wearable items
and would therefore also benefit from separation in the neckwear category. Anyone
looking for beards should ideally not be stumbling across lots of wearable armour
and clothing and vice versa but hey just my opinion but at least we still share
some similar views for other aspects of the catalog!
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Feb 5, 2021 04:33 | | Subject: | Re: Category Changes, Part Two | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Okay, we're ready to hear what you want moved.
|
Separate parts from Brick, Wedge into Slope, Wedge:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=P&catString=42
With this only a few items would be in the Brick, Wedge cat:
This one to Slope:
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Washington
Germany, Nordrhein-Westfalen
Canada, Alberta
Netherlands, Gelderland
)
)
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
Australia, Victoria
United Kingdom, England
Denmark
Switzerland, Zürich
)
)
)
