Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | yorbrick  | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 11:55 | | Subject: | Re: Can decorated hips be sold separately? | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | I have this set of hips from Patrick, without the legs:
But it shows no inventory for that assembly to split up the legs from the hips.
As far as I can see in the catalog, only solid color hips and legs are sold separately.
Am I missing something? Can the decorated hips and legs be sold separately?
Thanks,
Lisa
|
No.
|
 |
| Author: | Mistress_Lisa | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 11:35 | | Subject: | Can decorated hips be sold separately? | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I have this set of hips from Patrick, without the legs:
But it shows no inventory for that assembly to split up the legs from the hips.
As far as I can see in the catalog, only solid color hips and legs are sold separately.
Am I missing something? Can the decorated hips and legs be sold separately?
Thanks,
Lisa
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 10:21 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | One person's "spinning wheels" is another's "thinking things through
thoroughly". (Love that alliteration there.)
We as volunteer admins do not have direct access to the database, and I for one
am glad that we don't. None of us have the required skills to ensure that
we wouldn't drastically screw something up. 
|
That suggests that something isn't already drastically screwed up?
From my perspective, not having that access just makes the labor more laborious.
Permissions can be set on these databases such that users have access restricted
to certain fields. That would make your administrator lives a touch better.
| | | | It is entirely possible and likely I've missed a few.
|
You have. I know at least one or two off the top of my head that are not in that
list. For example:
|
I was just going by pictures. Any picture of a two-sided head showing only one
side would be missed. As it was it took four hours. It would have been much longer
had I read every description. But the exercise helped codify the situation.
| | | | I think these are the various types:
- single-side printed faces
- dual-side printed (reversible) faces
- dual-side printed face/back of head
- single-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- dual-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
|
|
| | I am still against changing them all. We only need to change the new group that
is being discussed (two-sided heads that don't have two faces) or change
nothing. After all, there have not been a lot of people clamoring for this over
the years. In fact, Andy might have been the only one. In the end, there are
much more pressing catalog issues than this that need to be taken care of.
|
In the spirit of "thinking things through thoroughly" I believe at minimum you
want to label the reversible heads as such.
Both the single-face and the back-printed heads are not reversible. For those
items, if you search for and find the face, it's a done deal. Not specially
labeling the reversible heads makes one have to search through all the heads,
so there's no benefit (being a reduction in the found set) gained unless
this group gets distinguished somehow. If the reversible heads are labeled "dual-sided"
and the not-reversible heads are not labeled "dual-sided" that's an effective
tactic, but a misnomer.
Having gone through all the heads yesterday, I'm not sure there's any
benefit to culling out the backhead printed set. The only instance I can think
of is if there exists two heads with identical faces, one backheaded and one
not, and you want to distinguish those. Maybe you can think of some other reason.
In any event, I would like to understand your thinking on how labeling the backheaded
ones as such while not labeling the reversible heads (if that's what you're
proposing) improves the ability to find a particular head.
And I'd argue for labeling each head with one of the five categories if you
have to examine every record anyway. It won't hurt. And anything that allows
me to reduce the found count from 2600 down to one is a plus in my book. But
that's me with lots of years of dealing with databases.
Whatever decision you make regarding this issue, please document the naming convention
so when folks come along to add new heads there is a clear procedure and language
to follow.
So, yes. Thinking things through thoroughly. Probably not there yet, but closer.
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 10:11 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| |
I'm not suggesting this is currently a problem, but it does pose issues when
one comes to implementing features such as Jen suggests.
|
You keep coming back to and picking apart this idea? Please consider:
1) This idea has been asked for from the original BrickLink session in Seattle
more years ago then I would like to count up.
2) It would be a convenience to many users (and especially newbies) to be able
to further constrain their search results. "I am tying to find something, but
there are too many stickered parts in the way" has been stated numerous times
in the Forum over the years.
3) I do not believe that it would be complicated, difficult to implement, or
require touching the database. Each checkbox would simply add the necessary text
string '-pattern' '-sticker' to the search parameters. I have
spoken to people more knowledgeable than me who have assured me this is a real
thing.
4) It could appear within the search bar at the top of any catalog search results
page. One checkbox to Hide Decorated parts. One checkbox to Hide Stickers. The
new page designs are already likely wide enough to accommodate this. Try it searching
for 'tile 1x6' and then 'tile 1x6 -sticker' to get a feel for
how it might function when someone is looking for a part. Then, try 'legs
hips' and 'legs hips -pattern'
5) There would be less pressure on the admins to split some categories if these
options were easily available to everyone. Splits are still needed and necessary,
but I will restate that this would simply alleviate some of the pressure to do
so.
I admit that I do not really understand where you are coming from with these
last few posts discussing my little afterthought suggestion. It is not feeling
like a discussion much from my end so I am going to say thanks now for adding
your comments and that this is the last I have to say on the matter. I look forward
to this discussion heading back toward catalog issues and not coding for the
site which BL is not currently considering.
Take care!
Jen
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 09:35 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
|
So all that really remains to be done from the original group is the dual-molded
arms.
|
You may want to add or create a new item, and that is separating all the items
that contain both decorated and undecorated parts in a single category into two
categories. Or, conversely, merge all decorated and undecorated items into one.
If you want to back up the thread to Jen's decorated checkbox issue, this
is one reason that implementation won't work under the current scheme.
Some categories are already split: bricks / bricks, decorated. Some categories
are not split: minifig torsos, legs, baseplates, there may be others.
It wouldn't make sense to checkbox "hide all decorated parts" on bricks,
decorated category because you'd find none. Similarly it wouldn't
make sense to checkbox "hide all decorated parts" on bricks category because
it won't find any.
The basic organization of the upper categories is inconsistent in its consideration
of location of decorated/undecorated items.
I'm not suggesting this is currently a problem, but it does pose issues when
one comes to implementing features such as Jen suggests.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 04:55 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
I apologize that this group of projects has not gone so well.
|
I think it did go well enough. There was a list of ideas, there was discussion,
and now there is a plan on how to move forward.
| | I will not bundle so many projects together in the future.
|
Good improvement. That will make the discussion better.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 04:51 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it.
|
Grrr. Someone could have mentioned that this was already a different project
(currently number 10 on the roadmap). I just now noticed. Ah, well. We got
some good discussion in on it and now I know people definitely want it.
So all that really remains to be done from the original group is the dual-molded
arms.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 04:25 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.
|
I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project.
|
I didn't phrase it well. That's kind of what I meant. Not to dampen any
enthusiasm, but seemed to be spinning wheels.
|
One person's "spinning wheels" is another's "thinking things through
thoroughly". (Love that alliteration there.)
| | | | There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture.
|
...that's part of the issue, but not necessarily something that can't
be overcome if you have direct access to the database...
|
We as volunteer admins do not have direct access to the database, and I for one
am glad that we don't. None of us have the required skills to ensure that
we wouldn't drastically screw something up.
| | | | And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway.
|
This is what I'm wanting to find out. I guess you're restricted to performing
the updates via an html form instead of going in via Navicat or something
like that.
|
Yes, we are limited to forms.
| | | | The person who originally asked for this never gave me an
idea of how many heads it would affect, so I guess someone still needs to go
through the heads section and get an idea (or a list together) of how many heads
have non-face dual-sided printing.
|
I have that here:
http://www.v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/renameheads.html
It is entirely possible and likely I've missed a few.
|
You have. I know at least one or two off the top of my head that are not in that
list. For example:
| | I think these are the various types:
- single-side printed faces
- dual-side printed (reversible) faces
- dual-side printed face/back of head
- single-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- dual-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- then there's an Ultron head that doesn't have a face as far as I can
tell, and maybe a couple robot heads that are heads but are decorated with something
obtuse like a lightning bolt or zigzag or circuitry pattern. These half-dozen
or so provide a challenge to categorize or label such that they might be found
as a group. Non-standard facial attribute heads.
These are questions:
1. Do the non-head heads get moved out of the heads section? They are piece 3626*,
but they technically are NOT minifig heads.
|
No. This is unnecessary.
| | 2. Do the non-head heads get left in the heads section and get a special label
to make them discoverable as a group?
|
No. This is unnecessary.
| | 3. Both types of the dual-side printed heads are dual-side printed, so I see
no benefit to changing that language. The differentiator as I see it is the nature
of the head, and that is that some have reversible faces and the others do not.
While it will be far more labor to label the several hundred reversible-face
items than to label the hundred-plus not-reversible heads, to my mind labeling
the reversible-face items as "reversible face" or similar makes the necessary
and cognitively relevant distinction to isolate those as a group. So do the non-reversible heads need a different label to distinguish them as a group?
|
Yes, this is the simplest solution, and the one most likely to get implemented.
| | Currently most of the reversible-face heads are labeled as "dual sided" and mostly
the dual-sided non-reversible face heads are not. And some reversible-face heads
are also not labeled as dual-sided. Given that, I can't fathom a way that
this project gets done without individually inspecting all 2600-plus records.
|
Unfortunately, that will probably have to be done to make sure that every one
is correct. I see no other way around it if people want 100% accuracy on this.
| | If all records must be inspected individually, then do all get edited such that
each carries one of the five type labels as suggested above?
|
I am still against changing them all. We only need to change the new group that
is being discussed (two-sided heads that don't have two faces) or change
nothing. After all, there have not been a lot of people clamoring for this over
the years. In fact, Andy might have been the only one. In the end, there are
much more pressing catalog issues than this that need to be taken care of.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 03:22 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I have [a Technic figure] in my childhood collection. What can I take apart safely?
|
I'd just leave it to the people who wanted part entries for these figure
parts. The catalog is open to these entries now and they should be submitted
as Large Figure Parts like this:
Large Figure Foot Techinc
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 03:18 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
I apologize that this group of projects has not gone so well. I will not bundle
so many projects together in the future. Here's the status of each project
as of the moment:
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
Yes. This will happen soon.
Adding individual Technic figure parts.
Yes. This has already happened - it was just a policy change. Members
who wanted it may submit catalog entries (although they haven't yet).
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
Maybe. I need to understand if this will cause unforeseen problems. It
is the only project on the list which I am still uncertain about.
Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
No. This will not happen.
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
No. This will not happen. We could not reach any consensus on the best
path to take here and I'm not entirely convinced that the benefits would
justify the effort.
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No. This will not happen, or at least not in the near future. I have
added a paragraph to this page explaining the issue (third paragraph down):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
At the least, though, we are officially recognizing the issue by including it
on that page. The issue with differences in production processes could
be addressed in the future when we get some sort of plan together to deal with
all the part variants which still need attention.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 17:13 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
|
I have [m=tech011] in my childhood collection. What can I take apart safely?
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 16:32 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I like that word "reversible"
In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.
|
I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project.
|
I didn't phrase it well. That's kind of what I meant. Not to dampen any
enthusiasm, but seemed to be spinning wheels.
| | There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture.
|
...that's part of the issue, but not necessarily something that can't
be overcome if you have direct access to the database...
| | And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway.
|
This is what I'm wanting to find out. I guess you're restricted to performing
the updates via an html form instead of going in via Navicat or something
like that.
| | The person who originally asked for this never gave me an
idea of how many heads it would affect, so I guess someone still needs to go
through the heads section and get an idea (or a list together) of how many heads
have non-face dual-sided printing.
|
I have that here:
http://www.v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/renameheads.html
It is entirely possible and likely I've missed a few.
I think these are the various types:
- single-side printed faces
- dual-side printed (reversible) faces
- dual-side printed face/back of head
- single-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- dual-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- then there's an Ultron head that doesn't have a face as far as I can
tell, and maybe a couple robot heads that are heads but are decorated with something
obtuse like a lightning bolt or zigzag or circuitry pattern. These half-dozen
or so provide a challenge to categorize or label such that they might be found
as a group. Non-standard facial attribute heads.
These are questions:
1. Do the non-head heads get moved out of the heads section? They are piece 3626*,
but they technically are NOT minifig heads.
2. Do the non-head heads get left in the heads section and get a special label
to make them discoverable as a group?
3. Both types of the dual-side printed heads are dual-side printed, so I see
no benefit to changing that language. The differentiator as I see it is the nature
of the head, and that is that some have reversible faces and the others do not.
While it will be far more labor to label the several hundred reversible-face
items than to label the hundred-plus not-reversible heads, to my mind labeling
the reversible-face items as "reversible face" or similar makes the necessary
and cognitively relevant distinction to isolate those as a group. So do the non-reversible
heads need a different label to distinguish them as a group?
Currently most of the reversible-face heads are labeled as "dual sided" and mostly
the dual-sided non-reversible face heads are not. And some reversible-face heads
are also not labeled as dual-sided. Given that, I can't fathom a way that
this project gets done without individually inspecting all 2600-plus records.
If all records must be inspected individually, then do all get edited such that
each carries one of the five type labels as suggested above?
|
|
|
| Author: | ParisianStore | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 16:16 | | Subject: | Re: Wondering if part 53588 exists - want to buy | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hi,
Here are mine, I guess we we can consider both as marbled, even if one them has
no orange.
|
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 16:04 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.
|
I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project.
|
I didn't phrase it well. That's kind of what I meant. Not to dampen any
enthusiasm, but seemed to be spinning wheels.
| | There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture.
|
...that's part of the issue, but not necessarily something that can't
be overcome if you have direct access to the database...
| | And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway.
|
This is what I'm wanting to find out. I guess you're restricted to performing
the updates via an html form instead of going in via Navicat or something
like that.
| | The person who originally asked for this never gave me an
idea of how many heads it would affect, so I guess someone still needs to go
through the heads section and get an idea (or a list together) of how many heads
have non-face dual-sided printing.
|
I have that here:
http://www.v4ei.com/mini-fig-ure-outer/renameheads.html
It is entirely possible and likely I've missed a few.
I think these are the various types:
- single-side printed faces
- dual-side printed (reversible) faces
- dual-side printed face/back of head
- single-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- dual-side printed NOT faces (non-head heads)
- then there's an Ultron head that doesn't have a face as far as I can
tell, and maybe a couple robot heads that are heads but are decorated with something
obtuse like a lightning bolt or zigzag or circuitry pattern. These half-dozen
or so provide a challenge to categorize or label such that they might be found
as a group. Non-standard facial attribute heads.
These are questions:
1. Do the non-head heads get moved out of the heads section? They are piece 3626*,
but they technically are NOT minifig heads.
2. Do the non-head heads get left in the heads section and get a special label
to make them discoverable as a group?
3. Both types of the dual-side printed heads are dual-side printed, so I see
no benefit to changing that language. The differentiator as I see it is the nature
of the head, and that is that some have reversible faces and the others do not.
While it will be far more labor to label the several hundred reversible-face
items than to label the hundred-plus not-reversible heads, to my mind labeling
the reversible-face items as "reversible face" or similar makes the necessary
and cognitively relevant distinction to isolate those as a group. So do the non-reversible
heads need a different label to distinguish them as a group?
Currently most of the reversible-face heads are labeled as "dual sided" and mostly
the dual-sided non-reversible face heads are not. And some reversible-face heads
are also not labeled as dual-sided. Given that, I can't fathom a way that
this project gets done without individually inspecting all 2600-plus records.
If all records must be inspected individually, then do all get edited such that
each carries one of the five type labels as suggested above?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 14:33 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.
|
I don't know about all that, but it certainly doesn't seem like we're
making much progress on this project. I think I may have bundled too many sub-projects
together, so this knowledge will be helpful for me when planning future projects.
| | Let me ask a practical question. Is this data such that you can access it and
run a global find-and-replace, or do you have to edit all these entries one at
a time?
|
There is no way to do a global find-and-replace because these parts aren't
currently identified other than by picture. And I can't perform those kinds
of actions anyway. The person who originally asked for this never gave me an
idea of how many heads it would affect, so I guess someone still needs to go
through the heads section and get an idea (or a list together) of how many heads
have non-face dual-sided printing.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 12:19 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| This sub thread is kind of getting out of control.
Let me ask a practical question. Is this data such that you can access it and
run a global find-and-replace, or do you have to edit all these entries one at
a time?
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 11:38 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I would use something like:
Print on one side only:
"with X pattern"
Print on both sides:
"with X pattern on front and Y pattern on back"
or maybe
"dual-sided with X pattern on front and Y pattern on back"
because that makes it possible to use a search filter.
Face print on both sides:
"dual-faced with X pattern on front and Y pattern on back"
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 09:51 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.
|
I am also thinking about something like "dual-faced".
|
Redefining the term "dual-sided" at this point in time would *not* be a good
thing for many reasons. Adding a new third term would be much, much preferable.
Randy
|
That was what I was saying. I already suggested Front&Back for the ones with
back prints. But I would get rid of "Dual-Sided" entirely since it really sounds
like either one. Replace it with something more specific.
|
What I am saying is that I disagree with your suggestion, although I do understand
the reasoning. What I am saying is that getting rid of the term "dual-sided"
or changing "dual-sided" to "dual-faced" would *not* be a good thing since the
term "dual-sided" has been in use for a long time and is already ingrained in
the collective consciousness. I just want a new third term added to those heads
that have a face on one side and something else on the other. However, I am willing
to go along with whatever the majority decides in the end.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 09:38 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.
|
I am also thinking about something like "dual-faced".
|
Redefining the term "dual-sided" at this point in time would *not* be a good
thing for many reasons. Adding a new third term would be much, much preferable.
Randy
|
That was what I was saying. I already suggested Front&Back for the ones with
back prints. But I would get rid of "Dual-Sided" entirely since it really sounds
like either one. Replace it with something more specific.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 09:11 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.
|
I am also thinking about something like "dual-faced".
|
Redefining the term "dual-sided" at this point in time would *not* be a good
thing for many reasons. Adding a new third term would be much, much preferable.
Randy
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 07:52 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.
|
I am also thinking about something like "dual-faced".
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 06:57 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 05:54 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
Front&Back
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 04:09 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
| Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 23:46 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| My vote:
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 21:55 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| So is there anything you want us to help with?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The (Other) project is winding down and next we're looking
at implementing some, if not all, of LordSkylark's suggestions. We need
to decide together how many of these (or maybe all of them?) we want to tackle.
Let's discuss them.
|
Okay, I've read all your comments. I had to do a little interpreting for
some of them to see what each person's take was, but that's okay - these
are nuanced issues. I included my own opinion as one of those which I counted.
Let's take a look at how things turned out.
Reorganizing dual-colored molded arms.
This was the third most popular project. Seven for it and seven with no opinion.
I think we'll do this one.
Adding individual decorated hips and legs.
This was the least popular project. Not a single person wanted it. Two said
maybe, four had no opinion, and eight said no. We will be staying with current
policy and not adding individual hips and legs to the catalog.
Adding individual Technic figure parts.
Five people wanted this, one said maybe, and eight had no opinion. I think we'll
go ahead with this one, too.
Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
This was a tough one. It was the second most popular project with 10 people
wanting it, one with no opinion, and three saying no. However, I read the comments
about doing it and I have changed my mind and now don't think it is the best
route to go. I know that heads are a big category, but I think it would be best
to leave them all together. So I'm going against the people and saying no
to the single side/dual side split.
As for the retitling dual-sided heads, I agree that we need to have some way
to distinguish these from heads with printing only on one side. For example:
I think it would be confusing to use the term "dual-sided," so someone come up
with some suggestions for a term we can tack onto titles of heads with non-face
printing on both sides, please.
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
This was the most popular project. It received 12 approvals, one maybe, and
one no opinion. Yes, I know you can filter our decorated parts by doing a second
search for -pattern. Half the time I forget that when I need to find plain legs
and a new user certainly couldn't be expected to know it.
However, the same point about the heads applies here - minifigure legs assemblies
may need to be kept together. I'd like to do this one, but I will hold off
on saying so for sure in the hopes that someone will present the case for keeping
legs assemblies together.
So, of LordSkylark's proposed group of projects some will happen, others
won't (or won't happen exactly as requested), and one I'd like to
make happen but am not sure about. For now we'll begin on the first phase:
adding Technic figure parts. I've updated catalog policy to allow it, but
a question before we begin: anyone have opinions on where these should go?
I believe Large Figure Parts is an appropriate category since it could well be
where other similar parts end up in a later project. Or, we could do a new Technic,
Figure Part category, but this may be unnecessary in the future if we organize
large figure parts as requested by some members and would mean moving these parts.
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| +1
I also think that these parts should be split.
In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | If it helps, you can change me to agreeing with Skylark now that I know what
we are talking about.
In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | | |
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.
|
I will restate that this needs to be done.
Most people probably do not deal much with friends parts.
These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
The one type of legs are printed.
The other type of legs are dual-molded.
The printed legs look much worse than the dual-molded ones.
This seems more serious to me than some of the other entries with multiple variants.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
| Author: | WhiteVanMan | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 17:03 | | Subject: | Re: Images for mugs | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | | | Just uploaded one for a pink mug on a black background
|
okay.
biggest issue: not enough light.
the light is too close to the cup, move it away
use a light color background
add a second light on the opposite side of the cup, not exactly opposite as in
180 degrees, but something like 120 degrees. look through the camera, if there
are spots that are very sharply white and obscure the art, then adjust the position
of the lights.
position the camera less "over the top" of the cup
attached, two shots with cell phone. note the one with the dark background has
harsh light on handle and lip of cup. this is what you want to try to avoid.
try positioning lights as shown in sketch.
|
Ah.... I see now, and yes, you have pointed out issues that even I can see...
I'll see if I can get something sorted tomorrow, as I can angle 4 lights
into a spot above my work table. (need to clear that first)
Watch this space!
Paul
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 16:59 | | Subject: | Re: Images for mugs | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Just uploaded one for a pink mug on a black background
|
okay.
biggest issue: not enough light.
the light is too close to the cup, move it away
use a light color background
add a second light on the opposite side of the cup, not exactly opposite as in
180 degrees, but something like 120 degrees. look through the camera, if there
are spots that are very sharply white and obscure the art, then adjust the position
of the lights.
position the camera less "over the top" of the cup
attached, two shots with cell phone. note the one with the dark background has
harsh light on handle and lip of cup. this is what you want to try to avoid.
try positioning lights as shown in sketch.
|
|
|
| Author: | blockbuster | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 16:19 | | Subject: | Re: Images for mugs | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Try using a light grey background. |
| Author: | jpeg68 | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 16:18 | | Subject: | Harry Potter Bricktober figs 2018 | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi, I was wondering why the HP figs from 5005254 have been cataloged under Harry
Potter while the Superheroes (Avengers Infinity War) are under Collectible? The
Jurassic World figs are under Collectible too while Ninjago is simply under Ninjago?
What is the rationale behind these decisions please? Is there something obvious
I'm missing?
|
|
| Author: | WhiteVanMan | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 16:17 | | Subject: | Re: Images for mugs | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | | | I'll submit 1 image of one on a White, and then another on a Black, and maybe
you can let me know which is best?
I feel a black background would be best as the colours will stand out better.
|
Quick tips:
Shooting white on white will give you better results than white on black. Shooting
white on black will most likely push the contrast such that the subtleties in
the white range get blown out.
Light gray would also be an okay way to go.
If your'e camera savvy, put the camera on a tripod and go with a fairly long
exposure, maybe 1-2 seconds with a small aperture (f22 or higher) under daylight
lights. Your actual settings may vary, but generally long exposure, small aperture,
balanced light. If you only have one light, you might want to use a "white card"
to reflect light back onto the object from the side opposite the light source.
You definitely want a tripod or something to hold the camera still. Use the timer
or a remote trigger to take the shot, otherwise there will be camera wiggle causing
the shot to blur.
The camera on auto settings probably will make the whole shot "gray" as the internal
programming of the camera is set to achieve a particular light balance overall.
You probably will need to manually adjust the exposure to compensate for the
overall "too white" of the shot.
If the camera has a histogram, adjust exposure so the "mountains" to be on the
right side of the graph. Bracket exposures, pick the best shot.
If you want to finesse it, let me know.
M
|
Hahahaha..........hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
I'm sorry, but I have no idea as to what you have said because NONE of it
makes any sense to me, because I'm just using my Samsung Mobile Phone camera
to upload these images that I can take. (not computer or camera savvy at all)
it was a struggle for me to be able to re-size images to a point where they
could get uploaded...
Thank you for trying to help me in this, as I'd LOVE to take good quality
images, but I'm limited to what tools I have...
Paul
(Just uploaded one for a pink mug on a black background)
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 16:07 | | Subject: | Re: Images for mugs | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I'll submit 1 image of one on a White, and then another on a Black, and maybe
you can let me know which is best?
I feel a black background would be best as the colours will stand out better.
|
Quick tips:
Shooting white on white will give you better results than white on black. Shooting
white on black will most likely push the contrast such that the subtleties in
the white range get blown out.
Light gray would also be an okay way to go.
If your'e camera savvy, put the camera on a tripod and go with a fairly long
exposure, maybe 1-2 seconds with a small aperture (f22 or higher) under daylight
lights. Your actual settings may vary, but generally long exposure, small aperture,
balanced light. If you only have one light, you might want to use a "white card"
to reflect light back onto the object from the side opposite the light source.
You definitely want a tripod or something to hold the camera still. Use the timer
or a remote trigger to take the shot, otherwise there will be camera wiggle causing
the shot to blur.
The camera on auto settings probably will make the whole shot "gray" as the internal
programming of the camera is set to achieve a particular light balance overall.
You probably will need to manually adjust the exposure to compensate for the
overall "too white" of the shot.
If the camera has a histogram, adjust exposure so the "mountains" to be on the
right side of the graph. Bracket exposures, pick the best shot.
If you want to finesse it, let me know.
M
|
|
| Author: | WhiteVanMan | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 15:49 | | Subject: | Re: Images for mugs | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | So, for each mug I add to the catalogue, I have to upload the 'main'
image, and then when that's done, the additional '2' and '3'
afterwards...
|
Yes, but one at a time. So you upload the second image and wait for it to be
approved. Once it is, then upload the third image. Or fourth, fifth, etc.
| | However, I see that there are a few mugs that are already in the catalogue, but
as I have those mugs, would my images supersede those? (or shall I take pictures
of the sides not showing instead?)
|
If your pictures are better, then we can replace the main image with yours and
either relegate the current image to an alternate image or delete it. If you're
going to make yourself a project out of these mugs, then I suggest you take pictures
which are uniform (same angle, same lighting), large, clear, well-lit, and on
a completely white background.
The images mfav takes are the gold standard for images. You can see what I'm
talking about in the images of these hinge assemblies (he took most of them):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=3937*&itemBrand=1000&catType=&itemYear=&catID=&catLike=W
Thanks for doing this, BTW.
|
White background?
Hmm....
Most of the mugs are in white, which will make it hard to see the 'inside'
of them as this sometimes has a small design on the inside....
I'll submit 1 image of one on a White, and then another on a Black, and maybe
you can let me know which is best?
I feel a black background would be best as the colours will stand out better.
Paul
(I have an ulterior motive about doing this as I want to do a FB page showing
the collection in it's glory...)
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 15:40 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | | | Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)
|
Maybe. Depends on the results you want to get. It might work in a flat sense
if you limit a part to having only one of those attributes. As an ENUM field,
it would not allow for a printed + stickered + molded part. As a SET field it
would allow for a plain, printed, stickered, molded part (which wouldn't
make sense).
It's a big complicated proposition which would require a big complicated
solution to be highly effective.
|
I prefer one nullable field to twin-fields (boolean field + non-nullable field)
but I’m no DB expert, so efficiency rules (speed-wise and size-wise, but also
readability, extensibility, “error-prone-ness”…) that apply to programs may not
apply to DBs.
Anyway that’s an argument which is only valid if you really insist on doing everything
(or a maximum) on the DB side, and it’s feeble because there’s always something
to be done outside the DB, like verifying what comes in and out of the DB, like
checking for non-sensical values, which should be done even if the DB already
does it.
Well, all that is moot: we’re not in a position to do anything or to propose
anything 
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 14:43 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)
|
Maybe. Depends on the results you want to get. It might work in a flat sense
if you limit a part to having only one of those attributes. As an ENUM field,
it would not allow for a printed + stickered + molded part. As a SET field it
would allow for a plain, printed, stickered, molded part (which wouldn't
make sense).
It's a big complicated proposition which would require a big complicated
solution to be highly effective.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | You're unique here. Not everybody has contributed tens of thousands of morsels
of information. You have. So you have a very highly attuned sense of the product
that others simply will never have.
|
Indeed. Also Jen has seen BrickLink from the inside, as I'm sure you're
aware.
I get the point you're making about the database being rebuilt from the ground
up with knowledge we have gained from the current database and knowledge we now
have of the variety of LEGO products in existence. That ain't likely to
happen, though.
Jen is saying we could avoid crazy, huge solutions with some coding. Again,
ain't likely to happen (although small improvements have definitely been
introduced here and there).
So we make do with what we have.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 14:23 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | […]
| | It would be wonderful if there could be two check boxes for Decorated and Sticker.
|
Now, from a database perspective, this is where it starts to get complicated.
You need to first distinguish between Decorated and Not Decorated. That would
be one field. Then distinguish the type of decoration: sticker, printed, molded...that
would be a second field.
|
Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)
| | | | However, that actually would require data and some real coding.
|
Yes. That's why I say a new database is needed. The current structure is
pretty long in the tooth.
At the moment problems that would be more elegantly solved by revising the database
are being kludged by attempting to incorporate all the various descriptive attributes
into the item Description/Name. While that may be successful to a degree, it
limits or eliminates the possibilities of providing checkboxes and whatnot to
refine a search.
|
Like alternate numbers which, unless it has changed or I misremember, are poorly
handled with a string field (thus limiting their number and complicating searches).
Anyway, all that could have been rendered painless if not at the design stage,
at least in a redesign, by abstracting and factoring the database access.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 14:18 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | Sorry if you have taken my statements in a different context then I meant them.
I am simply adding my thoughts and opinions to the discussion, not solving every
problem on BrickLink.
|
The "ta da problem solved" I read as a bit tongue-in-cheek. The response to my
comment, I can't tell if it was heated or resigned or something else.
You're unique here. Not everybody has contributed tens of thousands of morsels
of information. You have. So you have a very highly attuned sense of the product
that others simply will never have. Mostly I'm advocating for the casual
visitor, so that person, when accessing the info, is not confused or overwhelmed.
I think we're all good, just having a conversation.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:54 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I will restate that this needs to be done.
|
No need, friend.
I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.
| | These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
|
I am fully aware of this. I have studied the issue and I understand it. Did
you carefully read Jen's post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114537
Where would this stop? And, by the way, exactly how many mini doll legs are
we talking here?
These would have to be handled like any other part variant split. We mark the
current catalog entries for deletion (again, how many?) and create two new entries.
Thus, it would be exactly as disruptive as any other split.
What I definitely will do is add them to this list for you if you'll give
me a list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
Any future part splits will come from that list (with functional differences
being a priority, obviously). I'd also like to add additional notes to all
mini doll legs and other parts with these kinds of differences, so please do
post a list.
I tend to support your position that these parts should be split and the current
catalog entries marked for deletion, but my job is to also consider the disruption
part-splitting has on people's businesses.
|
I think it would stop wherever Lego decides it to stop.
Printed and dual-molded arms are entirely different parts too. These are distinguished
as far as I am aware.
We distinguish between solid, hollow, and blocked open studs for heads. I would
think that would be much more extreme than the friends legs.
If it isn't split now -- it will cause even more hassle in the future.
|
Here's some images.
|
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:43 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I will restate that this needs to be done.
|
No need, friend.
I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.
| | These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
|
I am fully aware of this. I have studied the issue and I understand it. Did
you carefully read Jen's post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114537
Where would this stop? And, by the way, exactly how many mini doll legs are
we talking here?
These would have to be handled like any other part variant split. We mark the
current catalog entries for deletion (again, how many?) and create two new entries.
Thus, it would be exactly as disruptive as any other split.
What I definitely will do is add them to this list for you if you'll give
me a list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
Any future part splits will come from that list (with functional differences
being a priority, obviously). I'd also like to add additional notes to all
mini doll legs and other parts with these kinds of differences, so please do
post a list.
I tend to support your position that these parts should be split and the current
catalog entries marked for deletion, but my job is to also consider the disruption
part-splitting has on people's businesses.
|
I think it would stop wherever Lego decides it to stop.
Printed and dual-molded arms are entirely different parts too. These are distinguished
as far as I am aware.
We distinguish between solid, hollow, and blocked open studs for heads. I would
think that would be much more extreme than the friends legs.
If it isn't split now -- it will cause even more hassle in the future.
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Sorry if you have taken my statements in a different context then I meant them.
I am simply adding my thoughts and opinions to the discussion, not solving every
problem on BrickLink.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Images for mugs | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | So, for each mug I add to the catalogue, I have to upload the 'main'
image, and then when that's done, the additional '2' and '3'
afterwards...
|
Yes, but one at a time. So you upload the second image and wait for it to be
approved. Once it is, then upload the third image. Or fourth, fifth, etc.
| | However, I see that there are a few mugs that are already in the catalogue, but
as I have those mugs, would my images supersede those? (or shall I take pictures
of the sides not showing instead?)
|
If your pictures are better, then we can replace the main image with yours and
either relegate the current image to an alternate image or delete it. If you're
going to make yourself a project out of these mugs, then I suggest you take pictures
which are uniform (same angle, same lighting), large, clear, well-lit, and on
a completely white background.
The images mfav takes are the gold standard for images. You can see what I'm
talking about in the images of these hinge assemblies (he took most of them):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=3937*&itemBrand=1000&catType=&itemYear=&catID=&catLike=W
Thanks for doing this, BTW.
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:38 | | Subject: | Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, building4ever writes:
| | | | A precision: As Jennifer said, the years for the sets are the years the sets
were first released. But the years for the parts are the oldest and newest years
of the sets they appear in, they are automatically calculated.
|
Ah ok, that explains it. Still I doubt that the search for base plates is very
straightforward or accessible. Why so complicated?
|
It is simply the data that we have. We know when sets are released, not when
LEGO stops making/selling/distributing them.
And I understand that the catalog system does seem complicated at first, but
it is really a fantastic resource once you get used to it. People here are always
happy to try and answer any questions you have about it!
Jen
|
|
| Author: | WhiteVanMan | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:29 | | Subject: | Re: Images for mugs | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | I propose that the mugs selection to be allowed to have 3 images maximum, which
will allow the mugs to be displayed fully, and that the whole design can be seen.
|
| | Can this suggestion be implemented?
|
Any item in the catalog can already have multiple additional images. If there
is a maximum number of images possible, then I'm not aware of it. I have
moved your post from Suggestions to Catalog.
To show you that this is already possible, I've drawn a very crude 2 and
3 over the image for this item and uploaded each as additional images (I will
delete them soon, so check them out quickly):
The only caveat is that you must upload additional images for a specific catalog
entry one at a time and wait for each to be approved before you can upload the
next.
|
Ok,
I see now.
So, for each mug I add to the catalogue, I have to upload the 'main'
image, and then when that's done, the additional '2' and '3'
afterwards...
I can live with that.
However, I see that there are a few mugs that are already in the catalogue, but
as I have those mugs, would my images supersede those? (or shall I take pictures
of the sides not showing instead?)
Paul
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I will restate that this needs to be done.
|
No need, friend.
I already know that you feel strongly about this, as you do about many things.
| | These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
|
I am fully aware of this. I have studied the issue and I understand it. Did
you carefully read Jen's post?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1114537
Where would this stop? And, by the way, exactly how many mini doll legs are
we talking here?
These would have to be handled like any other part variant split. We mark the
current catalog entries for deletion (again, how many?) and create two new entries.
Thus, it would be exactly as disruptive as any other split.
What I definitely will do is add them to this list for you if you'll give
me a list:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
Any future part splits will come from that list (with functional differences
being a priority, obviously). I'd also like to add additional notes to all
mini doll legs and other parts with these kinds of differences, so please do
post a list.
I tend to support your position that these parts should be split and the current
catalog entries marked for deletion, but my job is to also consider the disruption
part-splitting has on people's businesses.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
|
Sure it is convenient! (But also easily achieved with a -pattern search??)
|
I don't know about "easily". Possibly "mostly". Only if the word "pattern"
is consistently used throughout the category in reference to those legs with
printing.
|
Yes, it very much is. The word pattern is used extensively for any part that
is not a solid color. Most everything with 'pb' in the number is going
to have that keyword.
|
You reiterate my point. Most everything.
Using 'pb' and other Bricklinky language is great for the hardcore know-it-alls.
'pb' is completely meaningless to a newbie coming on board. Not many
non-dyed-in-the-wool visitors are going to understand pb or bpb or pbp or c01
or any of these other arbitrary and inconsistent labelling affectations. Nor
are they going to understand "-pattern" or other non-obvious search lingo. There's
cognitive dissonance in searching for something you don't want to
find.
I recognize that. I was responding to a comment elsewhere in the thread about
molded and patterned being "not the same thing."
| | | | | | There should be a check box on every catalog search page to 'Hide Decorated Parts.'
Ta dah! Problem solved.
|
I imagine Jen is attempting some humor here, but from a practical standpoint
the database isn't structured such that it would be feasible to implement
in this fashion.
|
I am not being funny. I am being frustrated and pointing out how simple fixes
could make big things easier.
|
Well, they're not coming. This is why Don built the goatleg, and why when
that disappeared I put up the minifigureouter. So there are some resources out
there which will help to the extent that we outsiders can tag the database.
| | A new data base isn't needed.
|
It is if you want to have the functionality you described. The current database
won't support what you're asking for. I could get into specifics, but
I doubt you're going to grasp the difference between an ENUM and a SET field
unless you're a person who understands databases. It's not necessarily
the data that's a problem, it's the way the data is stored internally
and thus the ability to access the data.
| | Decorated parts should have the word Pattern in their name.
|
If this is the accepted paradigm for distinguishing a decorated part, then yes.
And currently most, if not all do.
| | It would be wonderful if there could be two check boxes for Decorated and Sticker.
|
Now, from a database perspective, this is where it starts to get complicated.
You need to first distinguish between Decorated and Not Decorated. That would
be one field. Then distinguish the type of decoration: sticker, printed, molded...that
would be a second field.
| | However, that actually would require data and some real coding.
|
Yes. That's why I say a new database is needed. The current structure is
pretty long in the tooth.
At the moment problems that would be more elegantly solved by revising the database
are being kludged by attempting to incorporate all the various descriptive attributes
into the item Description/Name. While that may be successful to a degree, it
limits or eliminates the possibilities of providing checkboxes and whatnot to
refine a search.
|
|
| Author: | building4ever | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:24 | | Subject: | Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | A precision: As Jennifer said, the years for the sets are the years the sets
were first released. But the years for the parts are the oldest and newest years
of the sets they appear in, they are automatically calculated.
|
Ah ok, that explains it. Still I doubt that the search for base plates is very
straightforward or accessible. Why so complicated?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 13:12 | | Subject: | Re: Images for mugs | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | I propose that the mugs selection to be allowed to have 3 images maximum, which
will allow the mugs to be displayed fully, and that the whole design can be seen.
|
| | Can this suggestion be implemented?
|
Any item in the catalog can already have multiple additional images. If there
is a maximum number of images possible, then I'm not aware of it. I have
moved your post from Suggestions to Catalog.
To show you that this is already possible, I've drawn a very crude 2 and
3 over the image for this item and uploaded each as additional images (I will
delete them soon, so check them out quickly):
The only caveat is that you must upload additional images for a specific catalog
entry one at a time and wait for each to be approved before you can upload the
next.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 12:48 | | Subject: | Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, building4ever writes:
| | | | The Years Released data for parts and sets only refers to the year they were
FIRST released, not all the years they were produced and available in stores.
The old Death Star 10188 only has 2008 as its Year, even though it was produced
for many years after that.
Is that what you are asking?
Jen
|
Thank you, but I still find it confusing. Because the base plate 48x48 gray is
indicated as "Years Released: 1980 - 2016".
I would interpret this as a "final" production year (which is wrong), Similar
for 3811 (at least saying 1978-2018).
|
A precision: As Jennifer said, the years for the sets are the years the sets
were first released. But the years for the parts are the oldest and newest years
of the sets they appear in, they are automatically calculated.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
United Kingdom, England
USA, Washington
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
France, Île-de-France
)
)
)
)
New Zealand, Auckland
)
)
Germany, Baden-Württemberg