Discussion Forum: Catalog(Post New Message)
Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full      Show Messages: All | Without Replies

 Author: jonwil View Messages Posted By jonwil
 Posted: Nov 22, 2017 05:08
 Subject: Re: Master list of pieces
 Viewed: 24 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
If you go to http://brickset.com/browse/parts and look under "date added" you
can see all the parts that have recently been added to the LEGO parts database
(which usually is the parts from sets that have just been released)
 Author: shawnRCL View Messages Posted By shawnRCL
 Posted: Nov 22, 2017 00:55
 Subject: Master list of pieces
 Viewed: 100 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
Hi all,

This may be a silly question, but is there a master list or way to view all lego
pieces based on when they were introduced and produced?

example: the 1/4 circle tile 1x1, or the 1/2 circle tile 1x1, they seems to be
newer to lego, but if I wanted to know when a entirely new piece is being manufactured
where would I go to learn about it or view other newly manufactured pieces, same
goes for new colours on existing bricks and pieces.

Hopefully this makes some sense. If not please let me know and ill try and clarify
through your questions.

Thanks in advance for the help!
 Author: therobo View Messages Posted By therobo
 Posted: Nov 21, 2017 09:41
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 30 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
  In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  As you may know from my catalogue edits on the Ninjago Movie Minifigs, I find
the inclusion of set numbers in Minifig names to be unnecessary. The catalogue
entries list all sets in which a Minifig in question is included, and anyone
who would like to know which set (or sets) is (or are) being referenced in the
name would still need to look up those set numbers. Additionally, if a Minifig
were to appear in a new set, the name would need to be modified to accommodate
this, and it would become more aesthetically unpleasant as a result. Furthermore,
and to my point in making this post, I have noticed that there is no standard
naming convention for Minifigs. Some have set numbers in their names, and others
do not - regardless of the number of sets in which they appear. I suggest that
the naming of Minifigs be standardised for the sake of consistency, and that
set numbers be excluded from Minifig names for aesthetic purposes - except, perhaps,
in the case of special Minifig variants that only appear in extremely large or
difficult-to-acquire sets (exclusives, UCS, etc).

Please let me know your views on this matter.
Thank you.

For figures which are included in more than one set, the number is removed. That
is the standard.

Not always. Sometimes we keep the numbers until a fig appears in all
set inventories mentioned in the fig name.
Mentioning the numbers make it more easy to identify the correct figs and avoid
double entries when inventorying sets.

For example:
 
Minifig No: njo361  Name: Shark Army Great White - Scuba Suit, Airtanks (70609,70613)
* 
njo361 (Inv) Shark Army Great White - Scuba Suit, Airtanks (70609,70613)
Minifigs: The LEGO Ninjago Movie

Ronald

  
If you look at this filtered page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?q=leia&catType=M&catID=

...you can see how the set number helps identify the figure.

The numbers also help when searching for a set. Many of the things closely associated
with the set also appear:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=70355&catType=&catID=&itemYear=&catLike=W

As far as aesthetic reasoning goes, my suggestion is that if you want to make
the site look better, submit high quality images. It's really the single
most important thing people notice.

Russell
 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Nov 20, 2017 12:36
 Subject: Re: No instructions for Set 10654-1
 Viewed: 39 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
  Still early to reach a conclusion, but a quick update: I have heard back from
Australia, the UK, and France.

Now also Portugal and Austria. Of the original 23 sellers, 9 have removed the
instructions and only 14 remain.

I don't really expect to hear back from anyone else at this point. I would
be extremely surprised to find that any of these sets actually included instructions.
 Author: Nordbart View Messages Posted By Nordbart
 Posted: Nov 20, 2017 02:30
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 21 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  In Catalog, axaday writes:
  Some of the set numbers are very beautiful.
 
Minifig No: nex018  Name: Queen Halbert (70325)
* 
nex018 (Inv) Queen Halbert (70325)
Minifigs: Nexo Knights


Is there some kind of joke here that I am missing? 😐

Uhm...
SZEOL?
GOCBE?
TOBZS?
I dunno. :/

nordbart
 Author: todeluca View Messages Posted By todeluca
 Posted: Nov 20, 2017 02:16
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 19 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
  In Catalog, axaday writes:
  But, see, to me these descriptors look clunky.


The names can get overly long, it's true, but in the absence of any kind
of tag system and the limited number of advanced search options, this information
has to go somewhere and the title is where it has landed.

http://www.goatleg.com relies heavily on this title information to search torsos
and other decorated parts. I would love Bricklink's native search function
to evolve to where goatleg was not necessary, but until it does we need to cram
all that information into whatever searchable field it fits into.


Agreed. Would it be possible to implement some kind of tag system, as you reference?
Does the site allow such a feature? If so, that is something that the catalogue
admins should consider seriously. In my experience, searching on Brickset is
far easier than on Bricklink - due primarily to their tag system. If a similar
system can be implemented here, it would greatly improve the efficacy of the
catalogue.
 Author: calsbricks View Messages Posted By calsbricks
 Posted: Nov 19, 2017 05:05
 Subject: Re: No instructions for Set 10654-1
 Viewed: 22 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
  In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
  I have just finished contacting all 23 sellers who are offering this item for
sale. I asked each one for a photo of the instructions. Will advise the results.

Still early to reach a conclusion, but a quick update: I have heard back from
Australia, the UK, and France. Everyone who has contacted me so far is in agreement
that no instructions exist. Five of the original 23 sellers have removed the
instructions from their stores.

If it is any help Lego.com reports no pdf instructions are available for this
set.
 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Nov 19, 2017 04:23
 Subject: Re: No instructions for Set 10654-1
 Viewed: 25 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
  I have just finished contacting all 23 sellers who are offering this item for
sale. I asked each one for a photo of the instructions. Will advise the results.

Still early to reach a conclusion, but a quick update: I have heard back from
Australia, the UK, and France. Everyone who has contacted me so far is in agreement
that no instructions exist. Five of the original 23 sellers have removed the
instructions from their stores.
 Author: StormChaser View Messages Posted By StormChaser
 Posted: Nov 19, 2017 04:02
 Subject: Re: 6498
 Viewed: 14 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Catalog, bricksahead writes:
  The color is medium green. If needed I can take a photo of that part with other
medium green parts.

Thank you. I have asked for a change.
 Author: 62Bricks View Messages Posted By 62Bricks
 Posted: Nov 19, 2017 03:11
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 23 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Catalog, axaday writes:
  But, see, to me these descriptors look clunky.


The names can get overly long, it's true, but in the absence of any kind
of tag system and the limited number of advanced search options, this information
has to go somewhere and the title is where it has landed.

http://www.goatleg.com relies heavily on this title information to search torsos
and other decorated parts. I would love Bricklink's native search function
to evolve to where goatleg was not necessary, but until it does we need to cram
all that information into whatever searchable field it fits into.
 Author: todeluca View Messages Posted By todeluca
 Posted: Nov 19, 2017 01:42
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 17 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
Again, though, the descriptors tell something about the Minifig's characteristics
beyond what sets they are in. While "Princess Leia (75192)" is certainly shorter
than "Princess Leia - Hoth Jumpsuit and Vest, Alternate Breathing Mask Face"
for (sw878), it is also far less descriptive regarding the actual Minifig.
I find Leia to be a bad example, however, as her costumes are instantly-recognisable,
and, as such, the placement of a Minifig of her in a set can be loosely inferred
simply from the Minifig's design. A better example would be something like
the variants of Ninjago Movie Shark Army personnel, since, for example, the only
things that differentiate (njo366) from (njo353) are the heads and legs. The
only differences between (njo367) and (njo359) are the heads. In both cases,
the Minifigs are nearly identified, so just having a set number without a descriptor
could cause confusion. If a descriptor is provided, the inclusion of a set number
is redundant.

BTW, I am not sure why my post about possible ways to differentiate between Leia
Minifigs keeps being pushed to the bottom of the thread (at least on my device).
Probably some weird formatting thing that I messed up. 😕


In Catalog, axaday writes:
  But, see, to me these descriptors look clunky.

In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  Those are descriptors, though, that help to differentiate between similar Minifigs.
These names not only point out subtle differences between Minifigs, thus ensuring
that users can find the ones they are looking for, they also give information
about the actual Minifigs, rather than simply in what set(s) they appear.
I do think that "Light Flesh" should be removed, since flesh-tones have been
used for all licensed Minifigs since 2004. Original yellow versions should be
callled-out, though, as they have become the rarer variety.

In Catalog, axaday writes:
  I think "Princess Leia (White Dress, Light Flesh, Big Eyes)", "Princess Leia
(White Dress, Light Flesh, Big Eyes)", and "Princess Leia (White Dress, Light
Flesh, Small Eyes)" are much less aesthetically pleasing names. And incidentally,
they are ALSO the same character in the same outfit as Leia 75159 and Legs 7965.
I suppose they could all just be "Leia in White Robe", but I would rather all
five just set numbers. And then we see the problem. You and I don't agree
about what is ugly and pretty.


In Catalog, axaday writes:
  Indeed. What SHOULD we write to differentiate Leias 75159 and 7965 if not set
numbers? They are not the same at all, but they are the same character wearing
the same outfit.

I really don't think the numbers are ugly.

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
  In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  As you may know from my catalogue edits on the Ninjago Movie Minifigs, I find
the inclusion of set numbers in Minifig names to be unnecessary. The catalogue
entries list all sets in which a Minifig in question is included, and anyone
who would like to know which set (or sets) is (or are) being referenced in the
name would still need to look up those set numbers. Additionally, if a Minifig
were to appear in a new set, the name would need to be modified to accommodate
this, and it would become more aesthetically unpleasant as a result. Furthermore,
and to my point in making this post, I have noticed that there is no standard
naming convention for Minifigs. Some have set numbers in their names, and others
do not - regardless of the number of sets in which they appear. I suggest that
the naming of Minifigs be standardised for the sake of consistency, and that
set numbers be excluded from Minifig names for aesthetic purposes - except, perhaps,
in the case of special Minifig variants that only appear in extremely large or
difficult-to-acquire sets (exclusives, UCS, etc).

Please let me know your views on this matter.
Thank you.

For figures which are included in more than one set, the number is removed. That
is the standard.

If you look at this filtered page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?q=leia&catType=M&catID=

...you can see how the set number helps identify the figure.

The numbers also help when searching for a set. Many of the things closely associated
with the set also appear:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=70355&catType=&catID=&itemYear=&catLike=W

As far as aesthetic reasoning goes, my suggestion is that if you want to make
the site look better, submit high quality images. It's really the single
most important thing people notice.

Russell
 Author: axaday View Messages Posted By axaday
 Posted: Nov 18, 2017 23:41
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 16 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
But, see, to me these descriptors look clunky.

In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  Those are descriptors, though, that help to differentiate between similar Minifigs.
These names not only point out subtle differences between Minifigs, thus ensuring
that users can find the ones they are looking for, they also give information
about the actual Minifigs, rather than simply in what set(s) they appear.
I do think that "Light Flesh" should be removed, since flesh-tones have been
used for all licensed Minifigs since 2004. Original yellow versions should be
callled-out, though, as they have become the rarer variety.

In Catalog, axaday writes:
  I think "Princess Leia (White Dress, Light Flesh, Big Eyes)", "Princess Leia
(White Dress, Light Flesh, Big Eyes)", and "Princess Leia (White Dress, Light
Flesh, Small Eyes)" are much less aesthetically pleasing names. And incidentally,
they are ALSO the same character in the same outfit as Leia 75159 and Legs 7965.
I suppose they could all just be "Leia in White Robe", but I would rather all
five just set numbers. And then we see the problem. You and I don't agree
about what is ugly and pretty.


In Catalog, axaday writes:
  Indeed. What SHOULD we write to differentiate Leias 75159 and 7965 if not set
numbers? They are not the same at all, but they are the same character wearing
the same outfit.

I really don't think the numbers are ugly.

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
  In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  As you may know from my catalogue edits on the Ninjago Movie Minifigs, I find
the inclusion of set numbers in Minifig names to be unnecessary. The catalogue
entries list all sets in which a Minifig in question is included, and anyone
who would like to know which set (or sets) is (or are) being referenced in the
name would still need to look up those set numbers. Additionally, if a Minifig
were to appear in a new set, the name would need to be modified to accommodate
this, and it would become more aesthetically unpleasant as a result. Furthermore,
and to my point in making this post, I have noticed that there is no standard
naming convention for Minifigs. Some have set numbers in their names, and others
do not - regardless of the number of sets in which they appear. I suggest that
the naming of Minifigs be standardised for the sake of consistency, and that
set numbers be excluded from Minifig names for aesthetic purposes - except, perhaps,
in the case of special Minifig variants that only appear in extremely large or
difficult-to-acquire sets (exclusives, UCS, etc).

Please let me know your views on this matter.
Thank you.

For figures which are included in more than one set, the number is removed. That
is the standard.

If you look at this filtered page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?q=leia&catType=M&catID=

...you can see how the set number helps identify the figure.

The numbers also help when searching for a set. Many of the things closely associated
with the set also appear:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=70355&catType=&catID=&itemYear=&catLike=W

As far as aesthetic reasoning goes, my suggestion is that if you want to make
the site look better, submit high quality images. It's really the single
most important thing people notice.

Russell
 Author: todeluca View Messages Posted By todeluca
 Posted: Nov 18, 2017 22:41
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 21 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
Those are descriptors, though, that help to differentiate between similar Minifigs.
These names not only point out subtle differences between Minifigs, thus ensuring
that users can find the ones they are looking for, they also give information
about the actual Minifigs, rather than simply in what set(s) they appear.
I do think that "Light Flesh" should be removed, since flesh-tones have been
used for all licensed Minifigs since 2004. Original yellow versions should be
callled-out, though, as they have become the rarer variety.

In Catalog, axaday writes:
  I think "Princess Leia (White Dress, Light Flesh, Big Eyes)", "Princess Leia
(White Dress, Light Flesh, Big Eyes)", and "Princess Leia (White Dress, Light
Flesh, Small Eyes)" are much less aesthetically pleasing names. And incidentally,
they are ALSO the same character in the same outfit as Leia 75159 and Legs 7965.
I suppose they could all just be "Leia in White Robe", but I would rather all
five just set numbers. And then we see the problem. You and I don't agree
about what is ugly and pretty.


In Catalog, axaday writes:
  Indeed. What SHOULD we write to differentiate Leias 75159 and 7965 if not set
numbers? They are not the same at all, but they are the same character wearing
the same outfit.

I really don't think the numbers are ugly.

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
  In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  As you may know from my catalogue edits on the Ninjago Movie Minifigs, I find
the inclusion of set numbers in Minifig names to be unnecessary. The catalogue
entries list all sets in which a Minifig in question is included, and anyone
who would like to know which set (or sets) is (or are) being referenced in the
name would still need to look up those set numbers. Additionally, if a Minifig
were to appear in a new set, the name would need to be modified to accommodate
this, and it would become more aesthetically unpleasant as a result. Furthermore,
and to my point in making this post, I have noticed that there is no standard
naming convention for Minifigs. Some have set numbers in their names, and others
do not - regardless of the number of sets in which they appear. I suggest that
the naming of Minifigs be standardised for the sake of consistency, and that
set numbers be excluded from Minifig names for aesthetic purposes - except, perhaps,
in the case of special Minifig variants that only appear in extremely large or
difficult-to-acquire sets (exclusives, UCS, etc).

Please let me know your views on this matter.
Thank you.

For figures which are included in more than one set, the number is removed. That
is the standard.

If you look at this filtered page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?q=leia&catType=M&catID=

...you can see how the set number helps identify the figure.

The numbers also help when searching for a set. Many of the things closely associated
with the set also appear:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=70355&catType=&catID=&itemYear=&catLike=W

As far as aesthetic reasoning goes, my suggestion is that if you want to make
the site look better, submit high quality images. It's really the single
most important thing people notice.

Russell
 Author: todeluca View Messages Posted By todeluca
 Posted: Nov 18, 2017 22:18
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 25 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
What could differentiate them is that the 75159 version could be called "Princess
Leia - White Dress, Detailed Belt", while the 7965 version would just be called
"Princess Leia - White Dress".
Leia is not the best example to use in favour of including set numbers in Minifigs'
names, because her different designs are largely situational (Examples of possible
names: "Princess Leia - Endor Poncho", "Princess Leia - Hoth Jumpsuit and Vest",
"Princess Leia - Ceremonial Dress and Cape", "Princess Leia - Ewok Village Dress",
etc).
Additionally, the catalogue entry contains a list of sets that include the Minifig
in question, so putting set numbers into the names is, if nothing else, redundant.
Regarding aesthetics, names that include set numbers are overly-lengthy, clunky,
and need to be updated if the Minifig appears in another set.
Furthermore, while most Minifigs that include set numbers in their names only
have one number, (njo361) is called "Shark Army Great White - Scuba Suit, Airtanks
(70609,70613)". "Shark Army Great White" would be sufficient (with "Shark Army
Great White - No Airtanks" for (njo362)).

In Catalog, axaday writes:
  
Indeed. What SHOULD we write to differentiate Leias 75159 and 7965 if not set
numbers? They are not the same at all, but they are the same character wearing
the same outfit.

I really don't think the numbers are ugly.

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
  In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  As you may know from my catalogue edits on the Ninjago Movie Minifigs, I find
the inclusion of set numbers in Minifig names to be unnecessary. The catalogue
entries list all sets in which a Minifig in question is included, and anyone
who would like to know which set (or sets) is (or are) being referenced in the
name would still need to look up those set numbers. Additionally, if a Minifig
were to appear in a new set, the name would need to be modified to accommodate
this, and it would become more aesthetically unpleasant as a result. Furthermore,
and to my point in making this post, I have noticed that there is no standard
naming convention for Minifigs. Some have set numbers in their names, and others
do not - regardless of the number of sets in which they appear. I suggest that
the naming of Minifigs be standardised for the sake of consistency, and that
set numbers be excluded from Minifig names for aesthetic purposes - except, perhaps,
in the case of special Minifig variants that only appear in extremely large or
difficult-to-acquire sets (exclusives, UCS, etc).

Please let me know your views on this matter.
Thank you.

For figures which are included in more than one set, the number is removed. That
is the standard.

If you look at this filtered page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?q=leia&catType=M&catID=

...you can see how the set number helps identify the figure.

The numbers also help when searching for a set. Many of the things closely associated
with the set also appear:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=70355&catType=&catID=&itemYear=&catLike=W

As far as aesthetic reasoning goes, my suggestion is that if you want to make
the site look better, submit high quality images. It's really the single
most important thing people notice.

Russell
 Author: axaday View Messages Posted By axaday
 Posted: Nov 18, 2017 21:59
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 19 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
I think "Princess Leia (White Dress, Light Flesh, Big Eyes)", "Princess Leia
(White Dress, Light Flesh, Big Eyes)", and "Princess Leia (White Dress, Light
Flesh, Small Eyes)" are much less aesthetically pleasing names. And incidentally,
they are ALSO the same character in the same outfit as Leia 75159 and Legs 7965.
I suppose they could all just be "Leia in White Robe", but I would rather all
five just set numbers. And then we see the problem. You and I don't agree
about what is ugly and pretty.


In Catalog, axaday writes:
  Indeed. What SHOULD we write to differentiate Leias 75159 and 7965 if not set
numbers? They are not the same at all, but they are the same character wearing
the same outfit.

I really don't think the numbers are ugly.

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
  In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  As you may know from my catalogue edits on the Ninjago Movie Minifigs, I find
the inclusion of set numbers in Minifig names to be unnecessary. The catalogue
entries list all sets in which a Minifig in question is included, and anyone
who would like to know which set (or sets) is (or are) being referenced in the
name would still need to look up those set numbers. Additionally, if a Minifig
were to appear in a new set, the name would need to be modified to accommodate
this, and it would become more aesthetically unpleasant as a result. Furthermore,
and to my point in making this post, I have noticed that there is no standard
naming convention for Minifigs. Some have set numbers in their names, and others
do not - regardless of the number of sets in which they appear. I suggest that
the naming of Minifigs be standardised for the sake of consistency, and that
set numbers be excluded from Minifig names for aesthetic purposes - except, perhaps,
in the case of special Minifig variants that only appear in extremely large or
difficult-to-acquire sets (exclusives, UCS, etc).

Please let me know your views on this matter.
Thank you.

For figures which are included in more than one set, the number is removed. That
is the standard.

If you look at this filtered page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?q=leia&catType=M&catID=

...you can see how the set number helps identify the figure.

The numbers also help when searching for a set. Many of the things closely associated
with the set also appear:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=70355&catType=&catID=&itemYear=&catLike=W

As far as aesthetic reasoning goes, my suggestion is that if you want to make
the site look better, submit high quality images. It's really the single
most important thing people notice.

Russell
 Author: axaday View Messages Posted By axaday
 Posted: Nov 18, 2017 21:45
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 25 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
Indeed. What SHOULD we write to differentiate Leias 75159 and 7965 if not set
numbers? They are not the same at all, but they are the same character wearing
the same outfit.

I really don't think the numbers are ugly.

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
  In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  As you may know from my catalogue edits on the Ninjago Movie Minifigs, I find
the inclusion of set numbers in Minifig names to be unnecessary. The catalogue
entries list all sets in which a Minifig in question is included, and anyone
who would like to know which set (or sets) is (or are) being referenced in the
name would still need to look up those set numbers. Additionally, if a Minifig
were to appear in a new set, the name would need to be modified to accommodate
this, and it would become more aesthetically unpleasant as a result. Furthermore,
and to my point in making this post, I have noticed that there is no standard
naming convention for Minifigs. Some have set numbers in their names, and others
do not - regardless of the number of sets in which they appear. I suggest that
the naming of Minifigs be standardised for the sake of consistency, and that
set numbers be excluded from Minifig names for aesthetic purposes - except, perhaps,
in the case of special Minifig variants that only appear in extremely large or
difficult-to-acquire sets (exclusives, UCS, etc).

Please let me know your views on this matter.
Thank you.

For figures which are included in more than one set, the number is removed. That
is the standard.

If you look at this filtered page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?q=leia&catType=M&catID=

...you can see how the set number helps identify the figure.

The numbers also help when searching for a set. Many of the things closely associated
with the set also appear:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=70355&catType=&catID=&itemYear=&catLike=W

As far as aesthetic reasoning goes, my suggestion is that if you want to make
the site look better, submit high quality images. It's really the single
most important thing people notice.

Russell
 Author: Admin_Russell View Messages Posted By Admin_Russell
 Posted: Nov 18, 2017 19:45
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 41 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  As you may know from my catalogue edits on the Ninjago Movie Minifigs, I find
the inclusion of set numbers in Minifig names to be unnecessary. The catalogue
entries list all sets in which a Minifig in question is included, and anyone
who would like to know which set (or sets) is (or are) being referenced in the
name would still need to look up those set numbers. Additionally, if a Minifig
were to appear in a new set, the name would need to be modified to accommodate
this, and it would become more aesthetically unpleasant as a result. Furthermore,
and to my point in making this post, I have noticed that there is no standard
naming convention for Minifigs. Some have set numbers in their names, and others
do not - regardless of the number of sets in which they appear. I suggest that
the naming of Minifigs be standardised for the sake of consistency, and that
set numbers be excluded from Minifig names for aesthetic purposes - except, perhaps,
in the case of special Minifig variants that only appear in extremely large or
difficult-to-acquire sets (exclusives, UCS, etc).

Please let me know your views on this matter.
Thank you.

For figures which are included in more than one set, the number is removed. That
is the standard.

If you look at this filtered page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?q=leia&catType=M&catID=

...you can see how the set number helps identify the figure.

The numbers also help when searching for a set. Many of the things closely associated
with the set also appear:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=70355&catType=&catID=&itemYear=&catLike=W

As far as aesthetic reasoning goes, my suggestion is that if you want to make
the site look better, submit high quality images. It's really the single
most important thing people notice.

Russell
 Author: todeluca View Messages Posted By todeluca
 Posted: Nov 18, 2017 19:04
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 24 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Catalog, axaday writes:
  In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  In Catalog, maggiec writes:
  In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  As you may know from my catalogue edits on the Ninjago Movie Minifigs, I find
the inclusion of set numbers in Minifig names to be unnecessary. The catalogue
entries list all sets in which a Minifig in question is included, and anyone
who would like to know which set (or sets) is (or are) being referenced in the
name would still need to look up those set numbers. Additionally, if a Minifig
were to appear in a new set, the name would need to be modified to accommodate
this, and it would become more aesthetically unpleasant as a result. Furthermore,
and to my point in making this post, I have noticed that there is no standard
naming convention for Minifigs. Some have set numbers in their names, and others
do not - regardless of the number of sets in which they appear. I suggest that
the naming of Minifigs be standardised for the sake of consistency, and that
set numbers be excluded from Minifig names for aesthetic purposes - except, perhaps,
in the case of special Minifig variants that only appear in extremely large or
difficult-to-acquire sets (exclusives, UCS, etc).

Please let me know your views on this matter.
Thank you.


You are correct, it is unnecessary. We like to have the set number on the submission
because it makes it easier for us to check that the minifig image includes what
it should and no more. But after that it is true, in most cases the set number
could be (and is sometimes when we think of it) removed from the description.

Maggie


In that case, the set numbers could be included in the comment box at the end
of the add/change submission form, rather than in the Minifigs' names themselves.
The information would still be there, but in a way that does not mar the appearance
of the catalogue.


Some of the set numbers are very beautiful.
 
Minifig No: nex018  Name: Queen Halbert (70325)
* 
nex018 (Inv) Queen Halbert (70325)
Minifigs: Nexo Knights


Is there some kind of joke here that I am missing? 😐
 Author: axaday View Messages Posted By axaday
 Posted: Nov 18, 2017 18:24
 Subject: Re: Standard Minifig Naming Convention Request
 Viewed: 31 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  In Catalog, maggiec writes:
  In Catalog, todeluca writes:
  As you may know from my catalogue edits on the Ninjago Movie Minifigs, I find
the inclusion of set numbers in Minifig names to be unnecessary. The catalogue
entries list all sets in which a Minifig in question is included, and anyone
who would like to know which set (or sets) is (or are) being referenced in the
name would still need to look up those set numbers. Additionally, if a Minifig
were to appear in a new set, the name would need to be modified to accommodate
this, and it would become more aesthetically unpleasant as a result. Furthermore,
and to my point in making this post, I have noticed that there is no standard
naming convention for Minifigs. Some have set numbers in their names, and others
do not - regardless of the number of sets in which they appear. I suggest that
the naming of Minifigs be standardised for the sake of consistency, and that
set numbers be excluded from Minifig names for aesthetic purposes - except, perhaps,
in the case of special Minifig variants that only appear in extremely large or
difficult-to-acquire sets (exclusives, UCS, etc).

Please let me know your views on this matter.
Thank you.

You are correct, it is unnecessary. We like to have the set number on the submission
because it makes it easier for us to check that the minifig image includes what
it should and no more. But after that it is true, in most cases the set number
could be (and is sometimes when we think of it) removed from the description.

Maggie


In that case, the set numbers could be included in the comment box at the end
of the add/change submission form, rather than in the Minifigs' names themselves.
The information would still be there, but in a way that does not mar the appearance
of the catalogue.

Some of the set numbers are very beautiful.
 
Minifig No: nex018  Name: Queen Halbert (70325)
* 
nex018 (Inv) Queen Halbert (70325)
Minifigs: Nexo Knights
 Author: axaday View Messages Posted By axaday
 Posted: Nov 18, 2017 18:23
 Subject: (Cancelled)
 Viewed: 16 times
 Topic: Catalog
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
(Cancelled)

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