Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | peregrinator  | | Posted: | May 6, 2022 21:24 | | Subject: | Re: Inventories | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, CapnBootle writes:
| | Why, bearing in mind The Lego Group now own BrickLink, do we still have to wait
for set inventories to be approved? - surely TLG actually have pics of any new
parts and have the capability to provide them to a site it owns? 
|
They definitely have renders of new parts, but they aren't always
good, and they don't have images of minifigures that are useful in the catalogue.
The reason we have to wait for inventories to be approved is that someone still
has to review the data that come from Lego, make sure it's been categorized
appropriately, etc.
|
 |
| Author: | McBricks | | Posted: | May 6, 2022 18:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventories | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, CapnBootle writes:
| | Why, bearing in mind The Lego Group now own BrickLink, do we still have to wait
for set inventories to be approved? - surely TLG actually have pics of any new
parts and have the capability to provide them to a site it owns?
|
Amen!
|
| Author: | CapnBootle | | Posted: | May 6, 2022 17:42 | | Subject: | Inventories | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Why, bearing in mind The Lego Group now own BrickLink, do we still have to wait
for set inventories to be approved? - surely TLG actually have pics of any new
parts and have the capability to provide them to a site it owns?
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 18:38 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Can you tell me the dimensions in chains please. 
|
(approx)
|
|
| Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 18:32 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Can you tell me the dimensions in chains please.
In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Treybe writes:
| | Item 10294pls01 needs to have the weight added. Not sure if this is the proper
place to post this.
Thank you,
Trey
|
0.74g
No idea how it weights in gallons, sorry.
|
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 18:21 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, psusaxman2000 writes:
Done.
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 18:11 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Treybe writes:
| | Item 10294pls01 needs to have the weight added. Not sure if this is the proper
place to post this.
Thank you,
Trey
|
0.74g
No idea how it weights in gallons, sorry.
|
| Author: | psusaxman2000 | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 15:54 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Treybe writes:
| | Item 10294pls01 needs to have the weight added. Not sure if this is the proper
place to post this.
Thank you,
Trey
|
If you have the part you can submit the weight here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P
|
| Author: | Treybe | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 15:26 | | Subject: | Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 122 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Item 10294pls01 needs to have the weight added. Not sure if this is the proper
place to post this.
Thank you,
Trey
|
| Author: | Nicolasamico37 | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 03:07 | | Subject: | Re: The Muppets | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| You're right, I found the Minifigures before, but I just saw the menu "The
Muppets" in "Collectible Minifigures" in the Catalog Tree. Thank you,
Nicolas
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 02:41 | | Subject: | Re: The Muppets | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nicolasamico37 writes:
| | Is it me, or The Muppets Collectible Minifigures Series is still not on the Catalog
Tree ?
Hopefuly you can use the search toolbar 
Nicolas
|
They have been listed for about a week now.
|
| Author: | Sadler_Bricks | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 01:10 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I come across the different variations of these from used hauls a nifty little
find if you ask me. Nice find.
Sadler_bricks
|
| Author: | Nicolasamico37 | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 22:40 | | Subject: | The Muppets | | Viewed: | 123 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Is it me, or The Muppets Collectible Minifigures Series is still not on the Catalog
Tree ?
Hopefuly you can use the search toolbar
Nicolas
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 10:53 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 387-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | […]
With the new mold of 3660 we might need to update this part title.
|
It’s almost as complicated as 3001 
There’s:
— round pin vs. flat pin
— thin walls vs. thick walls
— studs with small hole vs. studs with big hole vs. studs with stopper ring
I don’t have many 3660old but mine have thick walls (obviously) and big hole
in the studs… but the holes are not big enough for a bar.
My old 3660 are either:
— thick walls & studs with small hole.
— thin walls & studs with big hole (a bar fits in some but not all).
And my new 3660 have thin walls and stopper rings.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of the new ones with a round pin yet.
| | Also the alternate image in that shows 2 blue pieces, it is for 3660 vs 3660old?
That might need to be labeled.
|
|
These 3660 should be split in 3 variants imo, before that new one is added.
1. bar doesn't fit
2. bar fits
3. bar fits partly
people want to know?!
|
Bar fitting seems not a split reason 
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=309651
|
|
| Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 09:21 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 387-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | […]
With the new mold of 3660 we might need to update this part title.
|
It’s almost as complicated as 3001
There’s:
— round pin vs. flat pin
— thin walls vs. thick walls
— studs with small hole vs. studs with big hole vs. studs with stopper ring
I don’t have many 3660old but mine have thick walls (obviously) and big hole
in the studs… but the holes are not big enough for a bar.
My old 3660 are either:
— thick walls & studs with small hole.
— thin walls & studs with big hole (a bar fits in some but not all).
And my new 3660 have thin walls and stopper rings.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of the new ones with a round pin yet.
| | Also the alternate image in that shows 2 blue pieces, it is for 3660 vs 3660old?
That might need to be labeled.
|
|
These 3660 should be split in 3 variants imo, before that new one is added.
1. bar doesn't fit
2. bar fits
3. bar fits partly
people want to know?!
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 07:23 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 387-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | […]
With the new mold of 3660 we might need to update this part title.
|
It’s almost as complicated as 3001
There’s:
— round pin vs. flat pin
— thin walls vs. thick walls
— studs with small hole vs. studs with big hole vs. studs with stopper ring
I don’t have many 3660old but mine have thick walls (obviously) and big hole
in the studs… but the holes are not big enough for a bar.
My old 3660 are either:
— thick walls & studs with small hole.
— thin walls & studs with big hole (a bar fits in some but not all).
And my new 3660 have thin walls and stopper rings.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of the new ones with a round pin yet.
| | Also the alternate image in that shows 2 blue pieces, it is for 3660 vs 3660old?
That might need to be labeled.
|
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 06:27 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 387-1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 4 Part 3660 Red Slope, Inverted 45 2 x 2 (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Add 2 Part bb0076 Black Technic, Link Chain, Large with Studs (Extra)
* Change 4 Part Red 3660old Slope, Inverted 45 2 x 2 with Round Bottom Tube {match ID 0 to 1}
Comments from Submitter:
Not sure you’ll find it’s proven enough but here it is:
I’ve had this set since I was a child. It’s been played with, built, and unbuilt for years.
But:
1. I’ve 50x bb0076, without any other possible source. I put the 2 more as Extra because 48x is enough (almost too many) for the build.
2. I don’t have any Red 3660old and all my Red 3660 are accounted for if I include this set.
|
Approved.
This set was in production 1976-1979.
was produced a very short time.
Diana
|
With the new mold of 3660 we might need to update this part title.
Also the alternate image in that shows 2 blue pieces, it is for 3660 vs 3660old?
That might need to be labeled.
|
|
|
| Author: | TheCuteGiraffe | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 01:11 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think maybe a product for Primo or Quarto. I mean like for the older lego
for young kids.
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | May 3, 2022 17:20 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Anyday! |
| Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | May 3, 2022 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
THANKS a lot
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | May 3, 2022 16:25 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| |
| Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | May 3, 2022 16:16 | | Subject: | small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi everyone, hope you're fine.
Here's a small car, I had never seen this before.
It's made in 1 piece..
The big stud in middle lifts up when bumper's pulled out..
Has anyone ever seen it before please ?
(No Id, no year, only Lego Group written on bottom)
Thanks, wish you a nice evening
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 1, 2022 08:17 | | Subject: | Re: catalog pic show the partID too | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tec writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, tec writes:
| | Somehow I was able to see an ID inscribed onto a "render" image.
select color BLACK to see
too bad it's not 093 but part 4697b
but nice easter egg
|
It's actually 'LEGO' upside down and not a part number.
|
nice
should we redo it the right way?
|
The render comes directly from LEGO, so we do not need to alter it. Just use
your imagination to flip the part over in your head.
|
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | May 1, 2022 07:57 | | Subject: | Re: catalog pic show the partID too | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, tec writes:
| | Somehow I was able to see an ID inscribed onto a "render" image.
select color BLACK to see
too bad it's not 093 but part 4697b
but nice easter egg
|
It's actually 'LEGO' upside down and not a part number.
|
nice
should we redo it the right way?
|
|
| Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | May 1, 2022 01:49 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
THANK YOU SO MUCH for all your replies, guys ❤️
Wish you all a great day 😁
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 19:21 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| One of my dream features would be an alert system, where you could put a specific
alert on any entry in the catalog and everyone could search their inventory or
the catalog for items with alerts. So if something didn’t seem right but you
were unable to correct it, it would go in somewhere where the people who might
not see your forum post on one day will still see your issue. Your question
about the Mickey legs was answered this way, but it could have been missed.
I will soon be reshooting because I got one in a used lot, but
If we had an alert system someone would have tagged that picture needing a replacement
and I might have bought one to fix it.
In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
|
|
| Author: | sw_lego_lover | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 19:16 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | Given that BrickLink is owned by TLG, there is some reasonable expectation that
the data regarding the parts would be shared. especially given this is a for-profit
company. Has there been any statement why data like this is not being shared
that anyone knows of?
|
The rule on BrickLink is that the catalog goes with the heaviest color / version
of an item under a given entry. This is to prevent undercharging on shipping
costs.
The data from the LEGO Group is for modern elements, and typically these are
lighter due to more efficient molding methods being developed over the years.
BrickLink will tend toward the older, heavier weights, so this new data is not
as useful for us as actual measurement.
The total spread in the parts you have listed is 0.1 gram, and without the outlier,
which may be due to the silver coating on the feet, we are down to 0.03 gram.
For the purposes of the instant checkout shipping calculator, 3 hundredths of
a gram is only going to make a difference when selling at high volume, and at
those higher total wieghts, the shipping bands are quite far apart.
More importantly, all of those weights were submitted by individuals who now
have a credit in the BrickLink system. Community involvement is more important
to us than absolute accuracy and standardization, because we recognize that it
takes a community to build the kind of catalog we all enjoy. The key is to get
more people involved and more people contributing, and in the end, that will
translate into the best catalog possible.
That doesn't preclude us from using LEGO data either. We can use it to check
submissions for accuracy, and we regularly do.
|
Thanks for clarifying on the data usage. I appreciate all of the responses. A
few have been explained or verified already. Especially where newer parts may
be lighter than previous versions due to manufacturing changes - yet are not
captured in a new Part #.
Its apparently all understandable variation, which is honestly surprising to
me. But I'm glad the community has put forth an effort to aide me in understanding.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 15:48 | | Subject: | Re: catalog pic show the partID too | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tec writes:
| | Somehow I was able to see an ID inscribed onto a "render" image.
select color BLACK to see
too bad it's not 093 but part 4697b
but nice easter egg
|
It's actually 'LEGO' upside down and not a part number.
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 15:14 | | Subject: | catalog pic show the partID too | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Somehow I was able to see an ID inscribed onto a "render" image.
select color BLACK to see
too bad it's not 093 but part 4697b
but nice easter egg
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: Item Description Inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brickearther writes:
| | Most parts include its category at the beginning of the description. But not
always, such as as part # x577 Engine (category is Aircraft). There's a bunch
of minifig parts like this too.
The accuracy is important for me when I'm trying to build a set and all my
parts are organized by category. When I get to the engine part I have to go all
the way back to Aircraft bin to go find that part.
Am I crazy or would it make sense to change this to make it consistent?
|
Category descriptions used in titles are used the way they are for ease of use.
In some categories where there is only one item type, it makes sense to have
them for findability and sorting purposes (such as Bricks, Plates, and Wedges).
However, we don't need to say "Animal, Land" in front of every land animal
because it is not necessary and the category contains many types of items. In
other words, a cat is a cat, and a dog is a dog. That is what people are going
to search for and adding "Animal, Land" to the description is considered clutter.
In the case of the engines in the "Aircraft" category, there are many different
types of items in that category, so the category descriptor is not used. Many
of the engines are also used for other things besides aircraft engines, so having
them in "Aircraft" may not be the best place for them. But for now, they are
fine where they are.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 10:46 | | Subject: | Re: Item Description Inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brickearther writes:
| | Most parts include its category at the beginning of the description. But not
always, such as as part # x577 Engine (category is Aircraft). There's a bunch
of minifig parts like this too.
The accuracy is important for me when I'm trying to build a set and all my
parts are organized by category. When I get to the engine part I have to go all
the way back to Aircraft bin to go find that part.
Am I crazy or would it make sense to change this to make it consistent?
|
I am pretty sure that many of the minifig parts do not have their category at
the start of their Item Name because there just isn't enough space with all
those pattern descriptions.
I also sort my store by category and have just gotten used to where the outliers
pop up alphabetically. The Animals and the Food are the biggest culprits in my
book.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | brickearther | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 10:18 | | Subject: | Item Description Inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Most parts include its category at the beginning of the description. But not
always, such as as part # x577 Engine (category is Aircraft). There's a bunch
of minifig parts like this too.
The accuracy is important for me when I'm trying to build a set and all my
parts are organized by category. When I get to the engine part I have to go all
the way back to Aircraft bin to go find that part.
Am I crazy or would it make sense to change this to make it consistent?
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 07:06 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
- 1.18g
|
Just checked this one and indeed the weight is on point at 1.16g
| | - 1.19g - black
- 1.27g
- 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 06:57 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | Given that BrickLink is owned by TLG, there is some reasonable expectation that
the data regarding the parts would be shared. especially given this is a for-profit
company. Has there been any statement why data like this is not being shared
that anyone knows of?
|
The rule on BrickLink is that the catalog goes with the heaviest color / version
of an item under a given entry. This is to prevent undercharging on shipping
costs.
The data from the LEGO Group is for modern elements, and typically these are
lighter due to more efficient molding methods being developed over the years.
BrickLink will tend toward the older, heavier weights, so this new data is not
as useful for us as actual measurement.
The total spread in the parts you have listed is 0.1 gram, and without the outlier,
which may be due to the silver coating on the feet, we are down to 0.03 gram.
For the purposes of the instant checkout shipping calculator, 3 hundredths of
a gram is only going to make a difference when selling at high volume, and at
those higher total wieghts, the shipping bands are quite far apart.
More importantly, all of those weights were submitted by individuals who now
have a credit in the BrickLink system. Community involvement is more important
to us than absolute accuracy and standardization, because we recognize that it
takes a community to build the kind of catalog we all enjoy. The key is to get
more people involved and more people contributing, and in the end, that will
translate into the best catalog possible.
That doesn't preclude us from using LEGO data either. We can use it to check
submissions for accuracy, and we regularly do.
|
And those 3/100s of a gram per part are insignificant compared to the weight
of any packaging a seller is likely to use.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 06:33 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
|
This decorated version does actually weigh more:
970c00 (White): 1.19g
970c00pb0961 (Decorated White): 1.29g
|
Yep. And that is due to the dual molding process which adds more plastic between
the two colors.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 20:22 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | Given that BrickLink is owned by TLG, there is some reasonable expectation that
the data regarding the parts would be shared. especially given this is a for-profit
company. Has there been any statement why data like this is not being shared
that anyone knows of?
|
The rule on BrickLink is that the catalog goes with the heaviest color / version
of an item under a given entry. This is to prevent undercharging on shipping
costs.
The data from the LEGO Group is for modern elements, and typically these are
lighter due to more efficient molding methods being developed over the years.
BrickLink will tend toward the older, heavier weights, so this new data is not
as useful for us as actual measurement.
The total spread in the parts you have listed is 0.1 gram, and without the outlier,
which may be due to the silver coating on the feet, we are down to 0.03 gram.
For the purposes of the instant checkout shipping calculator, 3 hundredths of
a gram is only going to make a difference when selling at high volume, and at
those higher total wieghts, the shipping bands are quite far apart.
More importantly, all of those weights were submitted by individuals who now
have a credit in the BrickLink system. Community involvement is more important
to us than absolute accuracy and standardization, because we recognize that it
takes a community to build the kind of catalog we all enjoy. The key is to get
more people involved and more people contributing, and in the end, that will
translate into the best catalog possible.
That doesn't preclude us from using LEGO data either. We can use it to check
submissions for accuracy, and we regularly do.
|
|
| Author: | sw_lego_lover | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 15:13 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
Weights and measurements are submitted by members so there is no confirming their
scientific accuracy. These weights are all well within a range that is unlikely
to affect shipping costs. If you feel strongly that any data in our system needs
to be corrected, you are free to submit a change request to update it.
Jen
|
Given that BrickLink is owned by TLG, there is some reasonable expectation that
the data regarding the parts would be shared. especially given this is a for-profit
company. Has there been any statement why data like this is not being shared
that anyone knows of?
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 14:47 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
Weights and measurements are submitted by members so there is no confirming their
scientific accuracy. These weights are all well within a range that is unlikely
to affect shipping costs. If you feel strongly that any data in our system needs
to be corrected, you are free to submit a change request to update it.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | sw_lego_lover | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 14:40 | | Subject: | Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
|
| Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 14:00 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | We use those Acro-Mills-style small drawers to store minifigs heads We have them
labeled "b0000", "b0050", "b0100" etc, where "b0000" contains heads 3626bpb0000-3626bpb0049
etc. Nice and easy. Same with torsos - drawers "pb0000", "pb0050" (and here we
also have "px1" etc). Same with decorated legs. Our utensils are stored by item
ID in their own drawer cabinet, as are weapons.
I don't understand why some people here are so dead set against sorting by
category that they would say things like "... you should NEVER ..." (and worse).
Each way of storing has its advantages and drawbacks. We have sold close to 2
million used parts, with currently 217k items in 10k lots in stock. We don't
have issues with picking speed (we regularly handle 300+ lots orders). To us,
storing by category just makes sense. I can grab any item with just a description
(like "red brick 2x4") in 5 seconds without having to look anything up. I know
there are others who store by category (and one runs a 3M+ parts shop) without
issues.
If there are category reorganizations, we handle those when the need is there,
and sometimes the need is not that pressing. For instance, a while ago the category
"Brick, Arch" was renamed "Arch". We haven't even bothered moving the corresponding
drawers as we know where all our arches are.
[tl/dr] Store however works for you. If you store by remark, great. Store by
category, fine. Store by color, more power to you (even though I would like to
see that in action for a large inventory). As long as it is fast and organized,
who cares.
Niek.
|
Great stuff Niek!
You hit so many great points! Seems like a lot of long time sellers systems'
have evolved to the point they have blinders on and can't fathom how any
other method other than their own could be better but, like you said, the best
system is the one that each individual chooses for themselves.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 12:46 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| We use those Acro-Mills-style small drawers to store minifigs heads We have them
labeled "b0000", "b0050", "b0100" etc, where "b0000" contains heads 3626bpb0000-3626bpb0049
etc. Nice and easy. Same with torsos - drawers "pb0000", "pb0050" (and here we
also have "px1" etc). Same with decorated legs. Our utensils are stored by item
ID in their own drawer cabinet, as are weapons.
I don't understand why some people here are so dead set against sorting by
category that they would say things like "... you should NEVER ..." (and worse).
Each way of storing has its advantages and drawbacks. We have sold close to 2
million used parts, with currently 217k items in 10k lots in stock. We don't
have issues with picking speed (we regularly handle 300+ lots orders). To us,
storing by category just makes sense. I can grab any item with just a description
(like "red brick 2x4") in 5 seconds without having to look anything up. I know
there are others who store by category (and one runs a 3M+ parts shop) without
issues.
If there are category reorganizations, we handle those when the need is there,
and sometimes the need is not that pressing. For instance, a while ago the category
"Brick, Arch" was renamed "Arch". We haven't even bothered moving the corresponding
drawers as we know where all our arches are.
[tl/dr] Store however works for you. If you store by remark, great. Store by
category, fine. Store by color, more power to you (even though I would like to
see that in action for a large inventory). As long as it is fast and organized,
who cares.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 10:16 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, goldknight writes:
| | I know nothing about these torsos but if I were to get one, which color would
be rarest in your opinions??
|
Black
|
|
| Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 10:15 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | It makes picking easy, cause you don't have to pay very close attention if
the customer ordered a torso from a given location and there is only 1 style
torso in that drawer.
|
This^
I thought it was obvious; but apparently people prefer to put all the Minifig
Heads in the same drawer, so they've 99% chances to make a mistake
|
I can see how that works for maybe a one-room workplace, but we have a storage
building, a sorting building, and then the listing usually occurs in the house.
When we list heads, for example, it's a lot easier to take one bin with all
the heads in it than a few hundred. But we keep them very organized with bags
and labels.
In fact, I feel this method may be slightly better as it forces the picker to
pay more attention to what they're actually handling and doing.
|
Makes sense. Even with a setup like that, I'd do 99% of the listing at home,
but just not process the XML file.
I'd have a baseplate with all the heads lined up in the order that I'm
going to put them away into their locations, and prep the file.
Then, I'd take them to the building where the orders are picked and process
the XML file and place each head into its bin.
This would not work for new parts, because once you stuck a head onto the baseplate
it would technically become used, but maybe someone could use something like
a segmented bead tray to accomplish the same thing.
But yes, I'd still be wasting time the next day putting them away, but I
think the time would be made up by picking orders faster.
|
|
| Author: | 1974 | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 10:15 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, goldknight writes:
| | I know nothing about these torsos but if I were to get one, which color would
be rarest in your opinions??
|
The blue one
|
|
| Author: | edk | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 09:50 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | I’ve seen this too, thanks for posting the images.
|
Red and green mixed = Brown. I say these are just variations due to the formula
or some sort of variation in the red ink used.
| |
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
I have several variations, varying from Red, to Dark Red to Reddish Brown; at
one time they even have had separate listings and a comparison picture on Bricklink.
It got lost during the image restyling project or when three distinct patterns
where merged into one:
[p=973p53]
[p=973p54]
|
|
|
|
| Author: | goldknight | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 09:49 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | I’ve seen this too, thanks for posting the images.
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
I have several variations, varying from Red, to Dark Red to Reddish Brown; at
one time they even have had separate listings and a comparison picture on Bricklink.
It got lost during the image restyling project or when three distinct patterns
where merged into one:
[p=973p53]
[p=973p54]
|
|
I know nothing about these torsos but if I were to get one, which color would
be rarest in your opinions??
|
|
| Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 09:31 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I’ve seen this too, thanks for posting the images.
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
I have several variations, varying from Red, to Dark Red to Reddish Brown; at
one time they even have had separate listings and a comparison picture on Bricklink.
It got lost during the image restyling project or when three distinct patterns
where merged into one:
[p=973p53]
[p=973p54]
|
|
|
| Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 09:21 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
I have several variations, varying from Red, to Dark Red to Reddish Brown; at
one time they even have had separate listings and a comparison picture on Bricklink.
It got lost during the image restyling project or when three distinct patterns
where merged into one:
[p=973p53]
[p=973p54]
|
|
|
| Author: | 1974 | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 07:14 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I've got a lot of those torsos and the variation is rather large
I do believe it's supposed to be red as reddish brown wasn't around back
then
In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
|
|
| Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 07:00 | | Subject: | forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 107 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 20:07 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | It makes picking easy, cause you don't have to pay very close attention if
the customer ordered a torso from a given location and there is only 1 style
torso in that drawer.
|
This^
I thought it was obvious; but apparently people prefer to put all the Minifig
Heads in the same drawer, so they've 99% chances to make a mistake
|
I can see how that works for maybe a one-room workplace, but we have a storage
building, a sorting building, and then the listing usually occurs in the house.
When we list heads, for example, it's a lot easier to take one bin with all
the heads in it than a few hundred. But we keep them very organized with bags
and labels.
In fact, I feel this method may be slightly better as it forces the picker to
pay more attention to what they're actually handling and doing.
|
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 19:05 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | It makes picking easy, cause you don't have to pay very close attention if
the customer ordered a torso from a given location and there is only 1 style
torso in that drawer.
|
This^
I thought it was obvious; but apparently people prefer to put all the Minifig
Heads in the same drawer, so they've 99% chances to make a mistake
|
|
| Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 17:46 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | Regardless of the fact this new category makes more sense over the old category,
please do think of the consequences for sellers when any item switches categories.
Where item x would be in category 1 and stored in bin 1, all of a sudden the
same item x would be in category 2. But I will not find it in bin 2, because
I didn't move storage locations when an item changed categories in the past.
|
The problem is you should NEVER organize your stock by Categories, neither by
Color or Reference.
All this can change, and often changed by BrickLink directly in your Inventory
(worst case scenario).
|
Agreed! I specialize in small minifig parts and most of my picking comes from
784 common sized small drawers.
I upload by category and before each upload, I run macros to auto sort my inventory
export so that I put each (lets say "modified head") into the most empty drawer
that doesn't already have a modified head in it. I do this for each category
with the goal being that any given drawer only has 1 minifig lot, 1 head lot,
one headgear lot, etc... as many dissimilar items as possible in each drawer.
It makes picking easy, cause you don't have to pay very close attention if
the customer ordered a torso from a given location and there is only 1 style
torso in that drawer.
I used to put all black torsos in one bin... uhhhhh... yikes... took forever
to find the correct one.
|
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | | | The problem is you should NEVER organize your stock by Categories, neither by
Color or Reference.
All this can change, and often changed by BrickLink directly in your Inventory
(worst case scenario).
|
I run a very small shop, with a very limited inventory (although I have tons
to sort ...).
What is your secret to organize stock? By day of the week you purchased the part?
|
Spatial? Like "Drawer 056"?
|
|
| Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 14:35 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | | | The problem is you should NEVER organize your stock by Categories, neither by
Color or Reference.
All this can change, and often changed by BrickLink directly in your Inventory
(worst case scenario).
|
I run a very small shop, with a very limited inventory (although I have tons
to sort ...).
What is your secret to organize stock? By day of the week you purchased the part?
I'm joking of course, but I am interested in the organization methodologies
of other sellers.
|
Controversial opinion here, but I organize my parts by color or by color family
(red, green, blue, etc). It is clear and unambiguous; a tan brick is always a
tan brick no matter what the catmins decide to call the color, whereas categories
often change. Only if I have a lot of one particular color do I divide by category.
Obviously, this only works for a small store with a small number of bricks in
each color, for a larger store a more sophisticated solution is necessary, perhaps
by the part ID or something totally unrelated.
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 14:32 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | | | The problem is you should NEVER organize your stock by Categories, neither by
Color or Reference.
All this can change, and often changed by BrickLink directly in your Inventory
(worst case scenario).
|
I run a very small shop, with a very limited inventory (although I have tons
to sort ...).
What is your secret to organize stock? By day of the week you purchased the part?
I'm joking of course, but I am interested in the organization methodologies
of other sellers.
|
I organize by category, but also give each container a unique code and put that
code in the remarks of the items in that container. If an item changes category,
I still have the code in the items remark and can still find it just as easy.
Organizing by category makes listing easier; putting codes on the bins and items
makes it easier to find/remember where we put them.
|
|
| Author: | Gaston.La.Brick | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 14:29 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | The problem is you should NEVER organize your stock by Categories, neither by
Color or Reference.
All this can change, and often changed by BrickLink directly in your Inventory
(worst case scenario).
|
I run a very small shop, with a very limited inventory (although I have tons
to sort ...).
What is your secret to organize stock? By day of the week you purchased the part?
I'm joking of course, but I am interested in the organization methodologies
of other sellers.
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 08:28 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
Ha. Yes.
|
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 07:58 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | Regardless of the fact this new category makes more sense over the old category,
please do think of the consequences for sellers when any item switches categories.
Where item x would be in category 1 and stored in bin 1, all of a sudden the
same item x would be in category 2. But I will not find it in bin 2, because
I didn't move storage locations when an item changed categories in the past.
|
The problem is you should NEVER organize your stock by Categories, neither by
Color or Reference.
All this can change, and often changed by BrickLink directly in your Inventory
(worst case scenario).
|
|
| Author: | Gaston.La.Brick | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 07:47 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Regardless of the fact this new category makes more sense over the old category,
please do think of the consequences for sellers when any item switches categories.
Where item x would be in category 1 and stored in bin 1, all of a sudden the
same item x would be in category 2. But I will not find it in bin 2, because
I didn't move storage locations when an item changed categories in the past.
A solution would be to clearly list the former categories on the item detail
page. I'm not sure if category changes are listed in the inventory log, but
that log is long which makes it hard to spot those changes.
Secondly, when trying to determine what part an item is, I usually browse categories
because the search functionality of the site isn't that good. Extending items
with labels or tags (to assign multiple keywords to items) and use those in the
item search, might be a good improvement.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 07:21 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, kreativsnail writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Does that mean things like this should be moved to the food section along side
carrots, apples and cherries, since it is not a minifigure head and is only ever
used as a food item.
|
And of course there are plenty of other head base parts that are used for other
things that might be better placed elsewhere, such as these in animal, water:
The first one is also a named character.
|
I feel that the Minifigure head part, no matter what is printed or not printed
on it, should remain in the minifig head category for ease of locating it. I
also feel that the square modified Minecraft head should remain in head modified
for the same reason. It is almost impossible in some cases to tell whether the
printing is for a “person” or an animal or just a decorative pattern.
|
I agree and therefore parts should be categorized by their design otherwise you
create wider issues where parts like this printed brick also may end up needing
to be moved being its a cat animal character?
However to me its still just essentially a 1x3 decorated brick! just like those
heads with pineapple and fish are still just heads and so if you really still
felt the need to separate them all the heads would need to have sub categories
something like this...
MINIFIGURE HEAD:-
Plain
Decorated
For Minifigure
But if tags are coming it may not even matter too much whether all these heads
remain bundled in the same category and therefore on the same token those minecraft
heads would be better left together with the other minecraft heads rather than
creating confusion by moving them
|
Thank you for your feedback.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 02:44 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, kreativsnail writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Does that mean things like this should be moved to the food section along side
carrots, apples and cherries, since it is not a minifigure head and is only ever
used as a food item.
|
And of course there are plenty of other head base parts that are used for other
things that might be better placed elsewhere, such as these in animal, water:
The first one is also a named character.
|
I feel that the Minifigure head part, no matter what is printed or not printed
on it, should remain in the minifig head category for ease of locating it. I
also feel that the square modified Minecraft head should remain in head modified
for the same reason. It is almost impossible in some cases to tell whether the
printing is for a “person” or an animal or just a decorative pattern.
|
Indeed, but that is not what us being suggested in the forthcoming moves. The
opposite is. Parts are being (and have already been moved) based on usage rather
than base part. Decorated parts are in different categories to plain parts.
|
|
| Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 27, 2022 00:29 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, kreativsnail writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Does that mean things like this should be moved to the food section along side
carrots, apples and cherries, since it is not a minifigure head and is only ever
used as a food item.
|
And of course there are plenty of other head base parts that are used for other
things that might be better placed elsewhere, such as these in animal, water:
The first one is also a named character.
|
I feel that the Minifigure head part, no matter what is printed or not printed
on it, should remain in the minifig head category for ease of locating it. I
also feel that the square modified Minecraft head should remain in head modified
for the same reason. It is almost impossible in some cases to tell whether the
printing is for a “person” or an animal or just a decorative pattern.
|
I agree and therefore parts should be categorized by their design otherwise you
create wider issues where parts like this printed brick also may end up needing
to be moved being its a cat animal character?
However to me its still just essentially a 1x3 decorated brick! just like those
heads with pineapple and fish are still just heads and so if you really still
felt the need to separate them all the heads would need to have sub categories
something like this...
MINIFIGURE HEAD:-
Plain
Decorated
For Minifigure
But if tags are coming it may not even matter too much whether all these heads
remain bundled in the same category and therefore on the same token those minecraft
heads would be better left together with the other minecraft heads rather than
creating confusion by moving them
|
|
| Author: | kreativsnail | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 20:31 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Does that mean things like this should be moved to the food section along side
carrots, apples and cherries, since it is not a minifigure head and is only ever
used as a food item.
|
And of course there are plenty of other head base parts that are used for other
things that might be better placed elsewhere, such as these in animal, water:
The first one is also a named character.
|
I feel that the Minifigure head part, no matter what is printed or not printed
on it, should remain in the minifig head category for ease of locating it. I
also feel that the square modified Minecraft head should remain in head modified
for the same reason. It is almost impossible in some cases to tell whether the
printing is for a “person” or an animal or just a decorative pattern.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 15:50 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | | I think I'd try to find it as a Minecraft head. They both look like faces.
Currently I'd be OK, but if the get moved to somewhere else and don't
get the keyword head in the name or category then I'd need to do something
else.
|
Yeah, hopefully, if the category changes that the items name doesn't change
at all otherwise that might make it difficult to find.
|
That's the issue. If this isn’t a head and so head gets removed from the
name (even though the basic part is called a head) then it means we would need
to shift from easy to remember part names to part numbers. Of course it is only
a few extra clicks and searches to find the number but if you have lots of different
parts to look for, little extras add up.
|
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 14:21 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | | That's why we NEED a Tag system, so you could search using tags like:
|
Yup! Thankfully they said it started "production" this year
(unless that was in a dream I had last night)
|
ETA: Future (c)(tm)(r)
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 14:19 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | That's why we NEED a Tag system, so you could search using tags like:
|
Yup! Thankfully they said it started "production" this year
(unless that was in a dream I had last night)
| |
"head", "animal", "star wars", "minifigure"
... and you're not bothered with in which Category it appears - said Categories
being arbitrary and capricious (often) ;D
|
|
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 14:11 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | | | I think I'd try to find it as a Minecraft head. They both look like faces.
Currently I'd be OK, but if the get moved to somewhere else and don't
get the keyword head in the name or category then I'd need to do something
else.
|
Yeah, hopefully, if the category changes that the items name doesn't change
at all otherwise that might make it difficult to find.
|
That's why we NEED a Tag system, so you could search using tags like:
"head", "animal", "star wars", "minifigure"
... and you're not bothered with in which Category it appears - said Categories
being arbitrary and capricious (often) ;D
|
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 14:10 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | We do all the head modifieds at once, so we start at the top of the list and
work down, listing them as we come across them. Sometimes we'll use keywords
if we know the name or theme (sw, minecraft, etc.).
|
That makes more sense I can understand that view a bit better now.
|
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 14:07 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I think I'd try to find it as a Minecraft head. They both look like faces.
Currently I'd be OK, but if the get moved to somewhere else and don't
get the keyword head in the name or category then I'd need to do something
else.
|
Yeah, hopefully, if the category changes that the items name doesn't change
at all otherwise that might make it difficult to find.
|
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 14:06 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Interesting. I'm not sure I'd ever notice what category they're in.
|
Same, I don't think I really check item categories when listing items. I
usually only use it to look through different categories when I don't know
exactly what I need or want and just add different things that look interesting
from that category.
| |
My process would be to go to Steve. Find that his head part number starts with
"19729" and then I'd just go to the main search bar and search "19729*" and
scroll until I found it.
At a future point when there are a lot of minecraft heads this shape, I'd
probably go through the color guide and find my color and search the same thing.
|
Or you could even type "trans-bright green" ahead of the part number to find
it even faster
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 14:05 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| |
Wouldnt it be a bit faster to type something like "Trans-Bright Green 19729*"
to find the head type or some variation of that as opposed to looking through
the entire head modified category. or just search for "trans-bright green head
modified Minecraft" (assuming only the category changes and not the name of the
part)
|
We do all the head modifieds at once, so we start at the top of the list and
work down, listing them as we come across them. Sometimes we'll use keywords
if we know the name or theme (sw, minecraft, etc.).
|
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 14:02 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Perhaps, but on the flipside someone who is looking for these probably already
knows what they are called and a simple search of the name is going to bring
it right up regardless of what category it is located in.
|
Fair point, But perhaps they went to the animal, land category and typed in Minecraft
and went from there if they could quite remember the name of it.
| |
Whereas how we do things (and I assume other sellers have a similar method) is
once we have a good amount of heads stocked up we'll then put them on our
store. We'll sort out all the minecraft heads, go the head modified category,
find the minecraft heads, and go through the list, listing each item as we come
across it.
|
Wouldnt it be a bit faster to type something like "Trans-Bright Green 19729*"
to find the head type or some variation of that as opposed to looking through
the entire head modified category. or just search for "trans-bright green head
modified Minecraft" (assuming only the category changes and not the name of the
part)
| | The problem is that only 2 of the 53 heads are now in another location.
Unless I do a deeper search, I may very well set those heads aside thinking they
are not on Bricklink yet. I could see listings of these two items dropping as
sellers can't find them. And if sellers can't sell them, buyers can't
buy them.
|
Hmmm. I don't think that listing would drop too much unless since its easier
for people to find that it sell better
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 13:13 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | Hopefully you feel better soon!
(Perhaps some pizza would help )
|
I feel certain that pizza will help.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 13:11 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I think its a good idea especially as you'd think a decent amount of people
who are buying (convincing their parents to buy it for them) these particular
items are younger and more familiar with Minecraft (myself included) and it makes
a lot of sense to put animals (mobs) with other animals instead of with heads
as it would be easier to find them.
|
Interesting. I'm not sure I'd ever notice what category they're in.
My process would be to go to Steve. Find that his head part number starts with
"19729" and then I'd just go to the main search bar and search "19729*" and
scroll until I found it.
At a future point when there are a lot of minecraft heads this shape, I'd
probably go through the color guide and find my color and search the same thing.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?pg=1&q=19729%2A&catLike=W&colorPart=59&sortBy=N&sortAsc=A&catType=P
|
I think I'd try to find it as a Minecraft head. They both look like faces.
Currently I'd be OK, but if the get moved to somewhere else and don't
get the keyword head in the name or category then I'd need to do something
else.
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 12:13 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, RecycledBrick writes:
| | Is this the only one of the Friends Flowers that is moving?
|
There will be more in the future. I am currently suffering through some health
issues, so am working very little at this time. I had planned to do a lot more,
but they will have to wait until next time. I am sorry for the inconvenience.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Take your time and feel better! It will all be here when you are ready.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 11:36 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, RecycledBrick writes:
| | Is this the only one of the Friends Flowers that is moving?
|
There will be more in the future. I am currently suffering through some health
issues, so am working very little at this time. I had planned to do a lot more,
but they will have to wait until next time. I am sorry for the inconvenience.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Hurry up and get better.
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 10:58 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hopefully you feel better soon!
(Perhaps some pizza would help )
|
|
| Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 10:53 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I think its a good idea especially as you'd think a decent amount of people
who are buying (convincing their parents to buy it for them) these particular
items are younger and more familiar with Minecraft (myself included) and it makes
a lot of sense to put animals (mobs) with other animals instead of with heads
as it would be easier to find them.
|
Interesting. I'm not sure I'd ever notice what category they're in.
My process would be to go to Steve. Find that his head part number starts with
"19729" and then I'd just go to the main search bar and search "19729*" and
scroll until I found it.
At a future point when there are a lot of minecraft heads this shape, I'd
probably go through the color guide and find my color and search the same thing.
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?pg=1&q=19729%2A&catLike=W&colorPart=59&sortBy=N&sortAsc=A&catType=P
|
|
| Author: | novabrick | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 08:41 | | Subject: | Re: Hey Ho.... together :) The Muppets Series 1 | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Since the official release date is 1st of May they won't appear for sale
here earlier as per the ToS for sellers
| | Items Pending Official Release: Items may not be listed prior to their official LEGO release date, either as custom lots or under related catalog entries.
|
There are already official images listed on several sides already. I don't
think these are needed right now.
Christian
novabrick-team
| | Hi all, I tried my hand at the new minifigures series Muppets and added them
to the catalog - currently I'm still waiting for confirmation
Would be great if someone has possibly more infos
Weight - size - or also gladly pictures
Thanks already now for your support
Kind regads
Noukiton
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 08:14 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Does that mean things like this should be moved to the food section along side
carrots, apples and cherries, since it is not a minifigure head and is only ever
used as a food item.
|
And of course there are plenty of other head base parts that are used for other
things that might be better placed elsewhere, such as these in animal, water:
The first one is also a named character.
|
|
| Author: | fritsp | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 08:03 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Does that mean things like this should be moved to the food section along side
carrots, apples and cherries, since it is not a minifigure head and is only ever
used as a food item.
|
Could be, like this is a minifigure too, not a brick-decorated:
[m=sw0984]
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 07:55 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, RecycledBrick writes:
| | Is this the only one of the Friends Flowers that is moving?
|
There will be more in the future. I am currently suffering through some health
issues, so am working very little at this time. I had planned to do a lot more,
but they will have to wait until next time. I am sorry for the inconvenience.
|
Hope it's not too serious and that you get your strength back soon.
Feel better, Randy
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 07:45 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I think its a good idea especially as you'd think a decent amount of people
who are buying (convincing their parents to buy it for them) these particular
items are younger and more familiar with Minecraft (myself included) and it makes
a lot of sense to put animals (mobs) with other animals instead of with heads
as it would be easier to find them.
|
Thank you for your opinion. This is one of the sides of the issue that I have
to balance with.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 07:43 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, RecycledBrick writes:
| | | | But this is my simple opinion, and if no one else feels the same, then who am
I to stand in the way of progress.
|
I don't know know what a Minecraft mob is but I do know where the other Minecraft
heads are. I am always for changes when it makes things simpler and faster.
Looking in two different places for a piece that looks only different because
of the print doesn't seem easier.
|
Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 07:42 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| |
Why are these suggested to be moved over to animal, land? It doesn't make
sense. The category should be based on the shape of the item first, not decoration.
If this goes through, we'll have some of 19729 in heads, and then these two
in animal.
With this logic, the pink frogs should be moved to plant since they're used
as blossoms.
|
A good question, and I will lay out the rationale below.
This is a part:
These are minifigures:
etc.
Just because a base item is in one area of the catalog (in this case, "Part")
does not mean that all other items that use that base item should be in the same
section of the catalog (in this case, "Minifigure").
In the above two cases that are to be moved, the items are Minecraft mobs, and
all Minecraft mobs that are animals/creatures are located in the Animal categories.
They are not used as heads for minifigures, so it does not reason to have them
located there. They will still be related to their base part through their item
numbers just as the microfigures above are.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I can see the reasoning behind the decorated microfigures being minifigures,
and I semi-see your point, but to me sometimes convenience should overrule technicality.
If I find one of these, my first look is most likely going to be straight in
the head,modified category since I will identify that shape right away as being
the minecraft head. However, unless I am very familiar with Minecraft (which
neither I nor our sorters are), I will never think to look over in animal at
all.
This is where tags or the ability to have the same piece in multiple categories
would be really nice, and until one of these features might exist, I think we
should keep the catalog as simple as possible to avoid unnecessary confusion;
with one of the ways keeping similar pieces together and not spread out. This
is also why I'm against the statuettes being split between parts and figures;
makes sorting very confusing (does this particular one go in our utensil bin
or complete minifigure bin?)
These two items are found in a minority of sets, while the steve/alex/skeleton
versions can be found in basically any minecraft set. Because of this, most users
are going to identify this particular piece as a head and find it very confusing
that two of them are seemingly randomly put into animal.
But this is my simple opinion, and if no one else feels the same, then who am
I to stand in the way of progress.
|
Thanks for your thoughts. At this time, these are just proposals. We had some
users that wanted them moved, but if more come out against them, they will not
be moved. I can see both sides of the argument, and I have to balance the pros
and cons. You obviously bring up some of the biggest cons.
And, yes, this is where tags would be wonderful. The good news is that a tag
system is to finally begin development this year.
| | And finally, regardless of what happens in this case, I would like to thank you
Randy, and the other hard-working catalog administrators, for all the work you
guys do. There have been many changes that I do appreciate and I'd rather
have continued progress on the catalog with the odd changes that I disagree with
than no changes at all.
|
Thank you very much for the kind words. We really do try our hardest with what
tools we have available to compromise with as many users as possible. Sometimes
it works in a user's favor, sometimes it doesn't. And we know we won't
ever please everyone. But the idea is to please as many as we can as much as
we can.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 07:32 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, RecycledBrick writes:
| | Is this the only one of the Friends Flowers that is moving?
|
There will be more in the future. I am currently suffering through some health
issues, so am working very little at this time. I had planned to do a lot more,
but they will have to wait until next time. I am sorry for the inconvenience.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 07:30 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Does that mean things like this should be moved to the food section along side
carrots, apples and cherries, since it is not a minifigure head and is only ever
used as a food item.
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 06:40 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, novabrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I think its a good idea especially as you'd think a decent amount of people
who are buying (convincing their parents to buy it for them) these particular
items are younger and more familiar with Minecraft (myself included) and it makes
a lot of sense to put animals (mobs) with other animals instead of with heads
as it would be easier to find them.
|
Reminds me of searching the Catalog for these two:
Which of course is an Animal not head gear
|
Oh yes, those. I'm always found it odd that that little guy in is animal
while the two very similar ninjago ones are in headgear.
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 06:38 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I think its a good idea especially as you'd think a decent amount of people
who are buying (convincing their parents to buy it for them) these particular
items are younger and more familiar with Minecraft (myself included) and it makes
a lot of sense to put animals (mobs) with other animals instead of with heads
as it would be easier to find them.
|
Perhaps, but on the flipside someone who is looking for these probably already
knows what they are called and a simple search of the name is going to bring
it right up regardless of what category it is located in.
Whereas how we do things (and I assume other sellers have a similar method) is
once we have a good amount of heads stocked up we'll then put them on our
store. We'll sort out all the minecraft heads, go the head modified category,
find the minecraft heads, and go through the list, listing each item as we come
across it. The problem is that only 2 of the 53 heads are now in another location.
Unless I do a deeper search, I may very well set those heads aside thinking they
are not on Bricklink yet. I could see listings of these two items dropping as
sellers can't find them. And if sellers can't sell them, buyers can't
buy them.
|
|
| Author: | Noukiton | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 06:37 | | Subject: | Hey Ho.... together :) The Muppets Series 1 | | Viewed: | 107 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi zusammen, ich habe mich mal versucht an der neuen Minifiguren Serie - Muppets
und diese zum Katalog hinzugefügt- derzeit warte ich noch auf eine Bestätigung
Wäre super, wenn einer eventuell mehr Infos hätte
Gewicht - Größe - oder auch gerne Bilder
Danke schon einmal jetzt für eure Unterstützung
liebe Grüße Noukiton
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, I tried my hand at the new minifigures series Muppets and added them
to the catalog - currently I'm still waiting for confirmation
Would be great if someone has possibly more infos
Weight - size - or also gladly pictures
Thanks already now for your support
Kind regads
Noukiton
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 03:22 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
and this makes sense. It's no animal it's a minifig...
|
Especially when other named animals such as Scooby Doo and Santa's Little
Helper go in animal. And cars with names go in minifigs not vehicle.
It's the problem with a catalogue structure based on parts designed decades
ago that doesn't fit modern products.
|
|
| Author: | novabrick | | Posted: | Apr 26, 2022 03:10 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I think its a good idea especially as you'd think a decent amount of people
who are buying (convincing their parents to buy it for them) these particular
items are younger and more familiar with Minecraft (myself included) and it makes
a lot of sense to put animals (mobs) with other animals instead of with heads
as it would be easier to find them.
|
Reminds me of searching the Catalog for these two:
Which of course is an Animal not head gear
and this makes sense. It's no animal it's a minifig... (yeah i ranted
about that before at least they added Bat to it so it's easier to find)
I guess I have to learn all the exceptions to the norm.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2022 22:08 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| |
Why are these suggested to be moved over to animal, land? It doesn't make
sense. The category should be based on the shape of the item first, not decoration.
If this goes through, we'll have some of 19729 in heads, and then these two
in animal.
With this logic, the pink frogs should be moved to plant since they're used
as blossoms.
|
A good question, and I will lay out the rationale below.
This is a part:
These are minifigures:
etc.
Just because a base item is in one area of the catalog (in this case, "Part")
does not mean that all other items that use that base item should be in the same
section of the catalog (in this case, "Minifigure").
In the above two cases that are to be moved, the items are Minecraft mobs, and
all Minecraft mobs that are animals/creatures are located in the Animal categories.
They are not used as heads for minifigures, so it does not reason to have them
located there. They will still be related to their base part through their item
numbers just as the microfigures above are.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I can see the reasoning behind the decorated microfigures being minifigures,
and I semi-see your point, but to me sometimes convenience should overrule technicality.
If I find one of these, my first look is most likely going to be straight in
the head,modified category since I will identify that shape right away as being
the minecraft head. However, unless I am very familiar with Minecraft (which
neither I nor our sorters are), I will never think to look over in animal at
all.
This is where tags or the ability to have the same piece in multiple categories
would be really nice, and until one of these features might exist, I think we
should keep the catalog as simple as possible to avoid unnecessary confusion;
with one of the ways keeping similar pieces together and not spread out. This
is also why I'm against the statuettes being split between parts and figures;
makes sorting very confusing (does this particular one go in our utensil bin
or complete minifigure bin?)
These two items are found in a minority of sets, while the steve/alex/skeleton
versions can be found in basically any minecraft set. Because of this, most users
are going to identify this particular piece as a head and find it very confusing
that two of them are seemingly randomly put into animal.
But this is my simple opinion, and if no one else feels the same, then who am
I to stand in the way of progress.
And finally, regardless of what happens in this case, I would like to thank you
Randy, and the other hard-working catalog administrators, for all the work you
guys do. There have been many changes that I do appreciate and I'd rather
have continued progress on the catalog with the odd changes that I disagree with
than no changes at all.
|
|
| Author: | chriskiepfer953 | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2022 19:37 | | Subject: | Re: Identify this figure | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, macebobo writes:
Thanks very much
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2022 19:17 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 154 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| |
Why are these suggested to be moved over to animal, land? It doesn't make
sense. The category should be based on the shape of the item first, not decoration.
If this goes through, we'll have some of 19729 in heads, and then these two
in animal.
With this logic, the pink frogs should be moved to plant since they're used
as blossoms.
|
A good question, and I will lay out the rationale below.
This is a part:
These are minifigures:
etc.
Just because a base item is in one area of the catalog (in this case, "Part")
does not mean that all other items that use that base item should be in the same
section of the catalog (in this case, "Minifigure").
In the above two cases that are to be moved, the items are Minecraft mobs, and
all Minecraft mobs that are animals/creatures are located in the Animal categories.
They are not used as heads for minifigures, so it does not reason to have them
located there. They will still be related to their base part through their item
numbers just as the microfigures above are.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | tons_of_bricks | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2022 18:45 | | Subject: | moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 345 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
|
Why are these suggested to be moved over to animal, land? It doesn't make
sense. The category should be based on the shape of the item first, not decoration.
If this goes through, we'll have some of 19729 in heads, and then these two
in animal.
With this logic, the pink frogs should be moved to plant since they're used
as blossoms.
|
|
| Author: | chriskiepfer953 | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2022 12:35 | | Subject: | Identify this figure | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Can anyone help me identify this early figure and maybe which sets it was used
in?
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
United Kingdom, England
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
Netherlands, Gelderland
Australia, Victoria
Canada, Ontario
Italy, Marche
Denmark
)
)
Belgium
Germany, Schleswig-Holstein
