|
 |
| | | Author: | BricksShop  | | Posted: | Dec 1, 2019 03:42 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change {2 to 4} Part Trans-Red 4073 Plate, Round 1 x 1
Comments from Submitter:
According instruction, page 30 there are two more round plates used as amo.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 04:25 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, OliS writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change {2 to 4} Part Trans-Red 4073 Plate, Round 1 x 1
Comments from Submitter:
According instruction, page 30 there are two more round plates used as amo.
|
This would set something of a bad precedent, I think (if it hasn't already
been set elsewhere). What BrickLink considers a minifigure is already ill-defined
(in spite of extensive written policies) and the inconsistencies in the catalog
regarding figure definitions and part inclusions have sparked some serious arguments
in the past.
To add stray parts like loose ammunition to a figure inventory . . . just not
a good idea, in my opinion.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 04:43 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, OliS writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change {2 to 4} Part Trans-Red 4073 Plate, Round 1 x 1
Comments from Submitter:
According instruction, page 30 there are two more round plates used as amo.
|
This would set something of a bad precedent, I think (if it hasn't already
been set elsewhere). What BrickLink considers a minifigure is already ill-defined
(in spite of extensive written policies) and the inconsistencies in the catalog
regarding figure definitions and part inclusions have sparked some serious arguments
in the past.
To add stray parts like loose ammunition to a figure inventory . . . just not
a good idea, in my opinion.
|
I have a topic in the admin forums discussing minifigs with ammunition. There
are a number of them, and they are already not consistent. I am waiting for the
catmins to form some sort of opinion about the proposal I put together. Over
two weeks and counting...
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 05:29 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | I have a topic in the admin forums discussing minifigs with ammunition. There
are a number of them, and they are already not consistent. I am waiting for the
catmins to form some sort of opinion about the proposal I put together.
|
These things do take time and this is a busy part of the year for the catalog
and for inventories.
I've really been listening to mfav and 62Bricks when they talk, although
they might think I don't, and I do think there is some value to looking at
things from the ground up - to consider what root causes might be generating
ongoing problems.
In the case of figures: the catalog side, with community input, needs to define
exactly what should and will be considered figures. Right now, unless I've
missed it somewhere, there is no definition whatsoever of what a figure even
is. The catalog and the community then need to be willing to modify catalog
entries as necessary to comply with standards. Ideally those standards would
be simple and easy for everyone to grasp.
On the inventories side, it is more difficult because figures are continuing
to evolve from the standard head/torso/arms/hands/legs model of the basic minifigure
(and figures before that were different, too). It would definitely be some work
to generate a policy to cover even the vast majority of cases, much less all
of them. Again, here, simplicity and clarity would be very useful.
As for this particular figure, it is an example of both problems. Should it
even be a figure? Considering the classic space droids, probably so. But who
knows? The catalog Help pages are silent.
What should the inventory include? Here the inventory Help pages are silent.
It sounds like you plan to update them, which is always good, but it seems like
an attack at the roots of the problem might have longer-lasting benefits. The
problems lie in the 404 words making up the Standards for Inventorying A Minifigure
page - they have changed several times and still fail to guide us well. By the
way, I have no problem saying this because I'm the last person who updated
that page.
I really think for figure inventories you're going to end up with an all-or-nothing
approach being the most workable. Either reduce the figure inventory to the
minimum amount of parts necessary and exclude all extraneous items or expand
the definition to include every single part shown in the building instructions
(or play scenarios shown on packaging) for the figure.
This middle-ground stuff is always open to interpretation and causes untold headaches
when policies change and stuff has to be moved in or out of inventories (or figures
marked for deletion and new entries created, as has happened once or twice before).
It also causes arguments and hard feelings.
If it were me, I think at this point I'd choose the everything-shown-in-set-instructions
approach, no matter how ridiculous the instructions got. That's probably
what buyers/sellers would prefer and it would reduce arguments over figure inventories
to nearly zero. Under that policy, the ammunition would be included in the figure
inventory with no need to tack anything onto an existing policy.
The problem with implementing any new policies on figures from the catalog or
inventories sides, though, is the 10K+ figures already in the catalog. So inertia
binds us to the past and locks us into continuing with policies that should have
been rethought long ago.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 06:08 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | As for this particular figure, it is an example of both problems. Should it
even be a figure? Considering the classic space droids, probably so. But who
knows? The catalog Help pages are silent.
|
Once LEGO takes over, I imagine the "minifigures" section will need to be relabelled
as something else - probably "figures". Droids are not minifigures. Unikitty
and her friends are not minifigures. Skeletons are not minifigures. LEGO makes
this clear in the descriptions.
For example
contains 4 minifigures here, yet LEGO states it contains one - an Alex minifigure.
It also contains a wither skeleton and 2 blaze figures, but these are not called
minfigures by LEGO.
Same with Unikitties:
The blind bags for TLM2 said "characters" not minifigures like other CMF, as
there was a possibility that it contained a unikitty and not a minifigure.
I guess that this is to protect the legal definition of a minifigure, so that
they do not lose control of it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 06:18 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | Once LEGO takes over, I imagine the "minifigures" section will need to be relabelled
as something else - probably "figures".
|
I asked for that a year ago. I then created a page showing my frustration with
labelling everything as a minifigure and it still exists:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2489
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 06:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | Once LEGO takes over, I imagine the "minifigures" section will need to be relabelled
as something else - probably "figures".
|
I asked for that a year ago. I then created a page showing my frustration with
labelling everything as a minifigure and it still exists:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2489
|
Yeah, although I think the new owners might be more keen to change this than
the old ones.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 06:15 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | If it were me, I think at this point I'd choose the everything-shown-in-set-instructions
approach
|
I decided to give writing such a policy a shot, just to see what it would look
like. Here is current policy for anyone unfamiliar with it. It consists of
404 words:
•No Hand-Held Accessories - The inventory should only include minifigures
as they came in an official LEGO set without any hand-held accessories. If the
picture of a minifigure in the catalog does include hand-held accessories, please
consider Adding an Image without hand-held accessories.
•No Extra Items - The inventory should only include those items that are needed
to build the minifigure according to the building instructions. Any extra minifigure
parts, such as visors, should be included in the Extra Items section of the set
inventory.
•No Alternate Items - Minifigure inventories do not allow for alternate items
such as the variations in the head stud type. If the variation is significant,
consider adding a new minifigure to the catalog, but it is at the discretion
of the Catalog Administrators whether it is accepted. If the variation occurs
a significant amount of the time, then consider submitting a change request to
the minifigure inventory; acceptance of any inventory change request is at the
discretion of the Inventory Administrators.
•Headgear - Always include Headgear and any removable Headgear Accessories as
shown in the appropriate assembly instructions for the minifigure.
•Torsos, Arms and Hands - Minifigure inventories should contain the complete
torso, arms and hands assembly. Use only torsos from the Minifig, Torso Assembly
category. If an entry is not found, then please go to the Add Item to Catalog
page and add it under that category. Then, if possible, Add an Image. Only torso
assemblies as they came in an official LEGO set should be added to the catalog.
A minifigure with a stickered torso should have a stickered torso (not a plain
torso) in its inventory.
•Legs and Hips - Minifigure inventories should contain the complete hips and
legs assembly, not one entry for the hips and 2 entries for each leg. Use only
the legs from the Minifig, Legs Assembly category. If an entry is not found,
then please go to the Add Item to Catalog page and add it under that category.
Then, if possible, Add an Image. When the hips and both legs are all the same
color, use the 970c00 Hips and Legs assembly
•Neck/Body Wear and Footgear - Always include any Neck/Body Wear/Footgear as
shown in the appropriate assembly instructions for the minifigure. Skis and surfboards
are not considered footgear and should not be included. Items that come on sprues
are to be listed as individual parts in minifigure inventories.
Here is my revision that consists of 161 words, or less than half of the current
wording:
•Figure inventories should include all items shown in the complete figure
assembly in the set instructions, including any accessories. In the absence
of instructions, other sources such as set packaging may be used to determine
the inventory.
•Extra Items - Extra parts, such as visors, should be included as extras in the
set inventory.
•Alternate Items - Figure inventories cannot include alternate items such as
variations in the head stud type. If the variation is significant, submit a new
figure to the catalog. If the variation occurs a significant amount of the time,
submit a change request for the figure inventory.
•Assemblies - Include all assemblies as originally assembled in a new set unless
assembled for display purposes.
•Stickered Parts - A figure with a sticker applied should have the stickered
part in its inventory.
•Sprues and Multipacks - Items on sprues or in multipacks are included as individual
parts in figure inventories, with the remaining parts in the set inventory.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 06:37 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | •Figure inventories should include all items shown in the complete figure
assembly in the set instructions, including any accessories. In the absence
of instructions, other sources such as set packaging may be used to determine
the inventory.
|
Presumably this would allow any hand-held accessories and things like skis too?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 07:29 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Wow, you manged to do this in less than 30 minutes! Man I can't even type
that fast
You have still not defined what a minifigure is. It is not good enough to say
it must consist of a bunch of parts put together from an instruction manual.
In that manner a wheel assembly can also be a minifigure. I am not very keen
on droids and robots as minifigures, but I understand the reason for including
those as such.
What you are trying to do is to say that if a thing has two eyes and a mouth
it is a fish, so everything with two eyes and a mouth must now have all of the
parts of a fish. Then all fishes will be correctly inventoried. Not. A mammal
is not a fish, even though some mammals can have two eyes and a mouth (and fins),
you therefor cannot inventory a mammal as a fish and vice versa. So a droid might
have different catalogue needs as opposed to a mini-doll. A droid might have
different accessories etc. I still do not think that hair accessories are any
different to hand accessories. Does something with a head and a bow or a tiara
represent a minifigure? Could well be since the current definition of mini-dolls
says the bow forms part of a figure and must be inventoried as such. So when
the bow is attached to a dog, does the dog not now become a figure in those terms
and must it be inventoried, especially since TLG gave it a name and made it a
character as opposed to a part?
There are other examples - tea pots spring to mind. I would not like to break
minifigures now listed in my store because I cannot find all of the accessories
required to now suddenly supply them as they are in the instructions or in set
images with all hand accessories etc. Also what do you with the rest of the stickersheet
once you have now taken the one off to sell your minifigure as complete? I think
also you will be hard pressed to find stickered assembleis as new parts. So will
a stickered torso now be part of a used minifigure or is it new? Or better yet,
would you now part out stickersheets into individual stickers as well? Again,
just because it has two eyes and a mouth, don't make it a fish.
This needs some thinking before tinkering. My store will not be able to cope
with some of the changes mentioned here. Also as regards full assemblies, you
might want to revisit the MBA figures as a startting point for some of the difficulties
to be encountered.
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | If it were me, I think at this point I'd choose the everything-shown-in-set-instructions
approach
|
I decided to give writing such a policy a shot, just to see what it would look
like. Here is current policy for anyone unfamiliar with it. It consists of
404 words:
•No Hand-Held Accessories - The inventory should only include minifigures
as they came in an official LEGO set without any hand-held accessories. If the
picture of a minifigure in the catalog does include hand-held accessories, please
consider Adding an Image without hand-held accessories.
•No Extra Items - The inventory should only include those items that are needed
to build the minifigure according to the building instructions. Any extra minifigure
parts, such as visors, should be included in the Extra Items section of the set
inventory.
•No Alternate Items - Minifigure inventories do not allow for alternate items
such as the variations in the head stud type. If the variation is significant,
consider adding a new minifigure to the catalog, but it is at the discretion
of the Catalog Administrators whether it is accepted. If the variation occurs
a significant amount of the time, then consider submitting a change request to
the minifigure inventory; acceptance of any inventory change request is at the
discretion of the Inventory Administrators.
•Headgear - Always include Headgear and any removable Headgear Accessories as
shown in the appropriate assembly instructions for the minifigure.
•Torsos, Arms and Hands - Minifigure inventories should contain the complete
torso, arms and hands assembly. Use only torsos from the Minifig, Torso Assembly
category. If an entry is not found, then please go to the Add Item to Catalog
page and add it under that category. Then, if possible, Add an Image. Only torso
assemblies as they came in an official LEGO set should be added to the catalog.
A minifigure with a stickered torso should have a stickered torso (not a plain
torso) in its inventory.
•Legs and Hips - Minifigure inventories should contain the complete hips and
legs assembly, not one entry for the hips and 2 entries for each leg. Use only
the legs from the Minifig, Legs Assembly category. If an entry is not found,
then please go to the Add Item to Catalog page and add it under that category.
Then, if possible, Add an Image. When the hips and both legs are all the same
color, use the 970c00 Hips and Legs assembly
•Neck/Body Wear and Footgear - Always include any Neck/Body Wear/Footgear as
shown in the appropriate assembly instructions for the minifigure. Skis and surfboards
are not considered footgear and should not be included. Items that come on sprues
are to be listed as individual parts in minifigure inventories.
Here is my revision that consists of 161 words, or less than half of the current
wording:
•Figure inventories should include all items shown in the complete figure
assembly in the set instructions, including any accessories. In the absence
of instructions, other sources such as set packaging may be used to determine
the inventory.
•Extra Items - Extra parts, such as visors, should be included as extras in the
set inventory.
•Alternate Items - Figure inventories cannot include alternate items such as
variations in the head stud type. If the variation is significant, submit a new
figure to the catalog. If the variation occurs a significant amount of the time,
submit a change request for the figure inventory.
•Assemblies - Include all assemblies as originally assembled in a new set unless
assembled for display purposes.
•Stickered Parts - A figure with a sticker applied should have the stickered
part in its inventory.
•Sprues and Multipacks - Items on sprues or in multipacks are included as individual
parts in figure inventories, with the remaining parts in the set inventory.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 08:00 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | Also what do you with the rest of the stickersheet
once you have now taken the one off to sell your minifigure as complete? I think
also you will be hard pressed to find stickered assembleis as new parts. So will
a stickered torso now be part of a used minifigure or is it new?
|
I don't think it needs to be that complicated. For example:
contains three different minifigs and these are listed with both stickered and
non-stickered torso assemblies, such as:
The seller can either sell the unstickered one, the stickered one (presumably
without attaching the sticker if new) or part each minifigure out.
There is a seller selling this new torso assembly (stickered), but it is not
clear whether stickers are applied or not.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, bje writes:
| | You have still not defined what a minifigure is.
|
We have to get away from that. But no, I haven't defined what a figure is.
I'm only concerned at the moment with inventories because that's what
we're discussing. Yes, I absolutely agree that the definition of a figure
must be created - currently there is none.
| | I would not like to break minifigures now listed in my store because I cannot find all of the accessories required to now suddenly supply them as they are in the instructions or in set images with all hand accessories etc.
|
Ah, but my clever mind has already solved that problem. Read my solution here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1170351
| | Also what do you with the rest of the stickersheet
once you have now taken the one off to sell your minifigure as complete?
|
As was pointed out, the standard way that has been done for years is to include
a plain figure in the inventory and a stickered figure as a counterpart. Won't
cause any problems.
| | Also as regards full assemblies, you
might want to revisit the MBA figures as a startting point for some of the difficulties
to be encountered.
|
I was referring to torso/leg assemblies as shown in the current policies. If
you have an example of where the proposed policy would break down, please post
a macro tag.
And to answer a couple of people who asked: yes, this would include handheld
accessories. All accessories. But only going forward. Again, see my latest
message above.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 08:53 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, bje writes:
| | You have still not defined what a minifigure is.
|
We have to get away from that. But no, I haven't defined what a figure is.
I'm only concerned at the moment with inventories because that's what
we're discussing. Yes, I absolutely agree that the definition of a figure
must be created - currently there is none.
|
You cannot get away from it because it is the very definition which will tell
you what must be inventoried and what not. How would you inventory a set if you
do not know what to include as minifigures? This is not a chicken and egg situation.
The inventory can only come into existence if the item to be inventoried exists.
See all inventory change requests for sets with Zobo the Robot.
I get you just want to create a standard for how to inventory the thing that
is on the list right now. I'm sure when zoologists started with taxanomy
the idea was to just say everything is an animal. Had they done that, it would
have made it very difficult to find smaller subsets of data or to add new discoveries.
These are not random parts - an assembly has to be precise in order for it to
be listed and sold. The assembly, definition, image, inventory, parts and weight
must all tie together in one complete whole, else some listings will be incomplete
and some not. And while we want inventories to be correct, they must be correct
to be sold, viewed, searched, listed and bought, not be inventoried for the sake
of having an inventory.
| |
| | I would not like to break minifigures now listed in my store because I cannot find all of the accessories required to now suddenly supply them as they are in the instructions or in set images with all hand accessories etc.
|
Ah, but my clever mind has already solved that problem. Read my solution here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1170351
|
I did read that solution. If you think that the average buyer is going to look
at a minifigure and decide that it is complete based on its year of release -
I wish you good luck. If a buyer comes to this site with the specific intention
of buying x number of complete minifigures, the date might be a lost on him.
Also, some minifugures are re-released, so you might end up with a situation
where you have minifigures tied to a specific set because of a release date.
| |
| | Also what do you with the rest of the stickersheet
once you have now taken the one off to sell your minifigure as complete?
|
As was pointed out, the standard way that has been done for years is to include
a plain figure in the inventory and a stickered figure as a counterpart. Won't
cause any problems.
|
Granted, but my reading was not that couterparts will be allowed for stickered
torso assemblies.
| |
| | Also as regards full assemblies, you
might want to revisit the MBA figures as a startting point for some of the difficulties
to be encountered.
|
I was referring to torso/leg assemblies as shown in the current policies. If
you have an example of where the proposed policy would break down, please post
a macro tag.
And to answer a couple of people who asked: yes, this would include handheld
accessories. All accessories. But only going forward. Again, see my latest
message above.
|
So a battle droid with all of its accessories would include ammunition, because
the battle idea might not really come to fruition without ammunition? Meaning
this part:
must in future also be included for minifigures with the tiles or
round plates required to make up the full minifigure, and of course you will
need more parts - one for the crossbow assembly which takes 1x1 plates and one
for the assembly which take tiles. I do not think that new parts should be added
in this manner to fix a date issue. Other members might disagree, but I do not
think that catalogues should be structured in a manner where you create inconsistent
approaches based on an arbitrary date.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 09:08 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, bje writes:
| | You cannot get away from it because it is the very definition which will tell
you what must be inventoried and what not.
|
Sorry. Poor communication on my part. You said I hadn't defined what a
minifigure is. I was only saying we have to get away from the word "minifigure."
Instead, we should be talking about defining what a figure is. I meant to say
"we have to get away from that word."
| | Other members might disagree, but I do not
think that catalogues should be structured in a manner where you create inconsistent
approaches based on an arbitrary date.
|
The intent was not to structure the catalog in such a manner. It was to ease
the transition from the current structure to the proposed structure. There would
simply be a certain period in time where two different policies would coexist
while the older catalog entries were brought up to speed.
But, as has been pointed out, my original idea had flaws, or at least one major
and unfixable flaw, and thus everything that followed was irrelevant.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jenwick | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 07:37 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | Here is my revision that consists of 161 words, or less than half of the current
wording:
•Figure inventories should include all items shown in the complete figure
assembly in the set instructions, including any accessories. In the absence
of instructions, other sources such as set packaging may be used to determine
the inventory.
|
Are you saying, for example, that a battle droid should have a blaster of some
sort as part of the figure inventory? If so, I disagree with this idea.
My 2 cents,
Jennifer
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 08:00 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | This middle-ground stuff is always open to interpretation
|
| | If it were me, I think at this point I'd choose the everything-shown-in-set-instructions
approach
|
| | The problem with implementing any new policies on figures from the catalog or
inventories sides, though, is the 10K+ figures already in the catalog.
|
Randy and Paul,
I figured it out! It's quite a simple solution, really. It's just something
BrickLink has never done before.
If you find the everything-in approach appealing (and I don't know if you
do or not, but I'll lay out some arguments for it below), then it's as
simple as including a new policy. Above the current policy include the line:
"For figures added prior to January 1st, 2020:"
Above the new policy include the line:
"For figures added after January 1st, 2020:"
That's what BL has never done before: had two different sets of policies
at the same time. But it's a perfect solution - it allows new standards
to be implemented without majorly disrupting the existing catalog entries.
For existing figures, you could set up a page in inventories Help with the item
numbers (only the item numbers) of all existing figures. Then, slowly, you could
go through the catalog and check the entries to see if they comply with new policy.
I'm sure the community would assist with this.
If the figures do not comply, then they stay on the list for modification. I
imagine more than expected existing catalog entries would fall under the everything-in
approach. For others, if there are none for sale and no recent sales, a new
picture and changes in the inventory would fix things. For the remaining figures,
it would just take time to slowly update them.
It's a new decade with new owners and if we're ever going to get on a
better track, then a better time will likely not arrive.
As for the reasons why: TLG, BrickLink, administrators, and sellers all exist
to serve the buyer. Here's why I think everyone would be more happy with
the everything-in approach:
TLG: They made the instructions. This is how they intended and want figures
to appear. I imagine they will have no problem taking an extra picture when
they're creating set images of the complete figure with accessories for the
catalog they now own.
BrickLink: They make more money because more things are being sold when a figure
sells. Also, there will likely be fewer disappointed buyers because they are
receiving everything the figure was intended to include. Also, there will be
fewer inventory disputes.
Administrators: The CAs should have a much easier time approving figures. No
more having to discuss with IAs what a figure should include to be approved.
Just a quick check of set instructions will determine if the catalog entry is
complete. For IAs, too, this policy change would make figure inventories easier.
Sellers: They will make more money because they're selling more stuff. Again,
fewer disappointed buyers.
Buyers: The buyers will benefit the most because they will receive everything,
including accessories, that TLG intended the figure to include. They can then
make their own decisions about what to keep or not keep for their figure. They
pay a little more for that decision-making ability, but I believe they will find
it worth the extra cost.
I would have sent this in a private message, but I've always believed there
should be more openness and fewer backroom discussions about issues that affect
the community. Therefore, I posted it here in an inventory change request where
no one will read it. 
And all of the above, of course, is dependent on if TLG actually stays with the
hands-off approach they say they going for. If not, I suppose they'll be
writing the policies.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 08:17 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| I can see some backlash from buyers and sellers about accessories.
If a minifigure comes in three sets and in one he is pictured without an accessory,
then he is holding accessory A in another set, and B in the third set, then that
is three different minifigures. The basic one, the A one and the B one. This
is fairly common, for example, having sets where a SW figure holds a blaster
in one and a lightsaber in another. Some buyers will complain that BL/LEGO are
just increasing the number of figures for collectors to need to collect without
the minfiigures actually being different. Sellers might complain at having to
hold stocks of multiple figures when they are the same. Buyers might complain
that they have to look at prices for all three before deciding which one is the
best price. Sellers might complain at having to do the same to work out how to
sell the figures.
Of course, this already happens in some cases where a small almost irrelevant
part can make the prices very different:
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 08:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | If a minifigure comes in three sets and in one he is pictured without an accessory,
then he is holding accessory A in another set, and B in the third set, then that
is three different minifigures.
|
I confess that you have taken a significant portion of the wind right out of
my sails. This is a good point that has come up before, but which I had forgotten
until you mentioned it.
This fellow appears in 15 sets and has a different accessory in about two thirds
of them:
I guess that leaves us with the minimalist approach, which I don't think
anyone will go for.
Which really leaves us carrying on with the current task of trying to decide
if a round 1 x 1 plate on the floor should be included in an inventory or not.
That, of course, comes down to the whims of the people deciding. Perhaps in
the end it's the best that we as a community can do.
| | Some buyers will complain that BL/LEGO are just increasing the number of figures for collectors to need to collect without the minfiigures actually being different.
|
Which would be a fair compliant. Perhaps someone wiser than I can figure out
a clear, simple, consistent solution to figure inventories. 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 08:55 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | |
I guess that leaves us with the minimalist approach, which I don't think
anyone will go for.
|
Yeah, he is probably worse than the various Luke Skywalkers that I had in mind
when writing it.
Personally, I would go with common sense beating rules when adding figures. I
think most figures are currently fine as they are. The yoda with neck bracket
- I'd remove the neck bracket. Does it really matter that you have to take
of the head to attach him to the jumping feature of that set? To me, it doesn't.
With Wolverine, I would have included the claws even though it goes against the
BL rule. He cannot put them down in the sense of removing them from his body,
even though he can retract them. They are not really "hand held" even though
he holds them in his minifigure hands. Similar to Yoda, I don't see the need
for backpacks as I don't mind removing heads then replacing them. To me that
is just the figure taking off the backpack. But I know to others this is seen
as decapitating figures, which is not allowed.
I guess really it is down to whether rules beat common sense, or vice versa.
Even with some irregularities and variations coming in from applying common sense,
I'd still prefer rule breaking to be allowed where it makes sense. Although
it can cause arguments when you don't agree with someone else's common
sense (uncommon sense?)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 18:13 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | If a minifigure comes in three sets and in one he is pictured without an accessory,
then he is holding accessory A in another set, and B in the third set, then that
is three different minifigures.
|
I confess that you have taken a significant portion of the wind right out of
my sails. This is a good point that has come up before, but which I had forgotten
until you mentioned it.
This fellow appears in 15 sets and has a different accessory in about two thirds
of them:
I guess that leaves us with the minimalist approach, which I don't think
anyone will go for.
Which really leaves us carrying on with the current task of trying to decide
if a round 1 x 1 plate on the floor should be included in an inventory or not.
That, of course, comes down to the whims of the people deciding. Perhaps in
the end it's the best that we as a community can do.
| | Some buyers will complain that BL/LEGO are just increasing the number of figures for collectors to need to collect without the minfiigures actually being different.
|
Which would be a fair compliant. Perhaps someone wiser than I can figure out
a clear, simple, consistent solution to figure inventories.
|
It seems to be a somewhat self-imposed problem because of the hard-coded limitations
placed on minifig inventories that does not allow for additional part types within
the inventory.
Imagine a system that pared minifigs down to the basic four parts (legs, torso,
head, hair/hat/helmet) and then had a category in its inventory for everything
else (skis, hand thrusters, swords, backpacks, capes). Like a set, they could
be listed, bought and sold with or without the "extras."
Because this may be what is already happening. Just to grab an example:
Looking at the current listings, close to 20% of the new figures include the
hand thrusters which are not in the inventory because the BL rule excludes them.
And about 6% of the used listings are missing pieces that are in the inventory.
(This is just the listings - it would be more instructive to look at the actual
sales to see if buyers prefer to buy figures with the hand thrusters.)
Rather than trying to create ever-more complicated rules, we should look at the
problem from the angle of the user - what people are actually doing is a good
indication of what they want.
It's snowing where I live. City planners will sometimes go out after a snowfall
and look at the paths pedestrians create through the snow. These paths often
do not follow the paved paths that have been laid out by the planners. They reveal
what the actual users prefer to do. When you can see that most people cut across
the corner of the block because it's the shortest path between the coffee
shop and the subway station, you can better plan your city
This is another catalog discussion taking place from the point of view of city
planners sitting at a computer and writing rules instead of looking at the actual
paths in the snow.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2019 05:12 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | It's snowing where I live. City planners will sometimes go out after a snowfall
and look at the paths pedestrians create through the snow. These paths often
do not follow the paved paths that have been laid out by the planners. They reveal
what the actual users prefer to do. When you can see that most people cut across
the corner of the block because it's the shortest path between the coffee
shop and the subway station, you can better plan your city
|
Hopefully they don't do the same thing when planning public toilets.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 15:40 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | I can see some backlash from buyers and sellers about accessories.
If a minifigure comes in three sets and in one he is pictured without an accessory,
then he is holding accessory A in another set, and B in the third set, then that
is three different minifigures. The basic one, the A one and the B one. This
is fairly common, for example, having sets where a SW figure holds a blaster
in one and a lightsaber in another. Some buyers will complain that BL/LEGO are
just increasing the number of figures for collectors to need to collect without
the minfiigures actually being different. Sellers might complain at having to
hold stocks of multiple figures when they are the same. Buyers might complain
that they have to look at prices for all three before deciding which one is the
best price. Sellers might complain at having to do the same to work out how to
sell the figures.
|
Great point, and one that I was hoping to get to. The policy Robert is proposing
makes more sense for modern figures that mostly appear in only one set, but it
does not remotely take into account the amount of work that would be necessary
for figures from the past that may be in over ten sets and show them with different
accessories in a majority of them. I do not want ten entries for essentially
the same figure.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 18:35 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | The policy Robert is proposing . . .
does not remotely take into account the amount of work that would be necessary
for figures from the past that may be in over ten sets and show them with different
accessories in a majority of them.
|
I apologize for bringing this up. I have been away for a while and have forgotten
some things. I see that I brought it up in the past and got the same response:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1123347
I also see that this thread occurred in my absence:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=253199&nID=1143871
So there is talk of progress on this issue. Glad to hear it. I still stick
with my position for now that attempting middle-ground policies on figure inventories
may only continue to provide the rewards such policies have offered so bountifully
in the past.
But who knows, maybe it is possible to come up with a set of rules that will
(a) satisfy members and (b) cover the wide range of figures that exist. I look
forward to reading the discussion about such policies when it occurs.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 19:01 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | So there is talk of progress on this issue. Glad to hear it. I still stick
with my position for now that attempting middle-ground policies on figure inventories
may only continue to provide the rewards such policies have offered so bountifully
in the past.
|
This is where you and I diverge in our thinking. I don't need to have a strict
set of rules and policies to describe every single decision for every single
item in the entire BrickLink catalog. It is overkill and frankly takes a certain
amount of joy out of the hobby. I would agree with you more if we were in the
scientific community having to create a taxonomy to describe all life, etc.,
but we aren't. Even though I love this catalog as much as you do, it is still
just a resource for those who enjoy a toy.
Like I said before, the system *as it is* handles the overwhelming majority of
figures with absolutely no problems (I would put it at greater than 95% for sure).
I don't see why we need to tear down the entire structure and begin from
scratch on creating a system that MAY include 100% of figures when the *massive*
amount of work required for this from a *volunteer* team would far outweigh any
added benefits of making the last few percentage points of figures fit into said
system. The math just does not make sense.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 23:02 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| |
Like I said before, the system *as it is* handles the overwhelming majority of
figures with absolutely no problems (I would put it at greater than 95% for sure).
I don't see why we need to tear down the entire structure and begin from
scratch on creating a system that MAY include 100% of figures when the *massive*
amount of work required for this from a *volunteer* team would far outweigh any
added benefits of making the last few percentage points of figures fit into said
system. The math just does not make sense.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I am totally with you here Randy. Our system isn't perfect, but it is stable,
and LEGO makes constant changes so not everything fits exactly. Of course there
is always room for improvement, but system-wide changes are not necessarily needed
to correct small historical inconsistencies. It is very disruptive for sellers
to have listings, categories, and inventories updated.
Just my two cents as a seller and contributor. Thanks to all who help maintain
and improve the unique resource we have here!
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2019 00:24 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | I don't need to have a strict set of rules and policies to describe every single decision for every single item in the entire BrickLink catalog.
|
We don't diverge as much in our thinking as you may believe. I agree with
what you're saying in the quoted portion above.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the rewritten figure inventory policy I
proposed was less than half as lengthy as current policy. It was unworkable
for the reasons people gave, but the point is that it was:
(a) Short
(b) Comprehensive
(c) Easy to understand
Elegant policies, I believe, contain those criteria. They are easy to understand
and cover everything without laying out strict rules for every circumstance.
That's what I'd like to see more of - and less of lengthy policies that
DO attempt to cover every possible circumstance. It's all in how things
are written.
We're almost certainly interested in the same end result here, but have different
ideas on how that may be accomplished. Actually, in the case of figure inventories,
I'm a little out of ideas at the moment. Like I said, I'm interested
in hearing your ideas.
| | takes a certain amount of joy out of the hobby
|
Here's where we may truly diverge just a little. I hear you saying that
these toys are just hobbies and that there's no science involved. You say
having rules, or at least complicated and detailed rules, somewhat kills the
joy of the hobby.
My position is that just because these are toys/hobbies doesn't mean we shouldn't
strive for the best cataloging and inventory systems possible. Again, those
would be elegant systems that achieve gracefulness through the combination of
simplicity and precision.
The best example I can give is when the community worked together in an attempt
to define every category in the entire catalog with just a single line on this
page for each category:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2479
Prior to that, most categories had no descriptors at all. Without knowing what
we're even talking about, without having a common understand of the terms
we're using, I don't see how the end result is joy. Too often it was
frustration over arbitrary and inconsistent policies that were frequently unwritten
and applied without explanation.
And you may have noticed that the proposed catalog rules I created contain 16
sections compared to the 27 sections of the existing catalog rules. I'm
working from the presumption that we as a community can do more with less and,
based on what you've said, I think you'd probably agree with that.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2019 05:08 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | This is where you and I diverge in our thinking. I don't need to have a strict
set of rules and policies to describe every single decision for every single
item in the entire BrickLink catalog. It is overkill and frankly takes a certain
amount of joy out of the hobby. I would agree with you more if we were in the
scientific community having to create a taxonomy to describe all life, etc.,
but we aren't. Even though I love this catalog as much as you do, it is still
just a resource for those who enjoy a toy.
|
I have the same feeling. It is better to break rules where it makes sense to,
than to stick to a rule that doesn't make sense in 100% of cases. Of course,
having a rule that works in 100% of cases is better still although that is unlikely
to work too - either something new will break the rule or it will be too loose
in some cases to be ambiguous.
To me if a rule break helps both buyers and sellers, then it is fine. It wasn't
so long ago that complete "sets" of CMFs were not in the catalogue as LEGO did
not sell them that way. It showed common sense to add them (finally) to the catalogue,
to allow people to buy / sell complete sets without using unfair pricing via
superlots.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2019 05:02 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | So there is talk of progress on this issue. Glad to hear it. I still stick
with my position for now that attempting middle-ground policies on figure inventories
may only continue to provide the rewards such policies have offered so bountifully
in the past.
But who knows, maybe it is possible to come up with a set of rules that will
(a) satisfy members and (b) cover the wide range of figures that exist. I look
forward to reading the discussion about such policies when it occurs.
|
And surely this is the healthiest way to do it too. It is better to discuss ideas
that are eventually shot down (with good reasons) than no ideas at all.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 15:29 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | If you find the everything-in approach appealing (and I don't know if you
do or not, but I'll lay out some arguments for it below), then it's as
simple as including a new policy.
|
Just to be clear with everyone, I do not find the everything-in approach appealing
at all. We have a few cases here and there that require a little more thought
than others and require a few changes here and there, but for the most part the
guidelines in place have functioned quite well. I don't think we have to
throw everything out that has worked for the vast majority of figures for two
decades. Also, the idea of having two policies by date will not be helpful at
all to buyers or sellers or admins. That would cause an enormous headache for
everyone moving forward.
Right now, I have plans to standardize the figures that have ammunition and have
laid it out in the admin forums. I am waiting for the rest of the admin team
to get back to me on it. The work is minimal and would require one small update
to the policies. After that, I have plans to standardize what we mean by footwear
and make the necessary changes to the catalog, inventories, and policies. And
that's as far as I have taken things.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 15:45 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | If you find the everything-in approach appealing (and I don't know if you
do or not, but I'll lay out some arguments for it below), then it's as
simple as including a new policy.
|
Just to be clear with everyone, I do not find the everything-in approach appealing
at all. We have a few cases here and there that require a little more thought
than others and require a few changes here and there, but for the most part the
guidelines in place have functioned quite well. I don't think we have to
throw everything out that has worked for the vast majority of figures for two
decades. Also, the idea of having two policies by date will not be helpful at
all to buyers or sellers or admins. That would cause an enormous headache for
everyone moving forward.
Right now, I have plans to standardize the figures that have ammunition and have
laid it out in the admin forums. I am waiting for the rest of the admin team
to get back to me on it. The work is minimal and would require one small update
to the policies. After that, I have plans to standardize what we mean by footwear
and make the necessary changes to the catalog, inventories, and policies. And
that's as far as I have taken things.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Another item that would mean a lot to me would be to remove neck brackets with
nothing attached to them. No one wants that minifig as is. And in Chima it
would actually eliminate quite a few redundant minifigs, I think.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 08:11 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | I really think for figure inventories you're going to end up with an all-or-nothing
approach being the most workable. Either reduce the figure inventory to the
minimum amount of parts necessary and exclude all extraneous items or expand
the definition to include every single part shown in the building instructions
(or play scenarios shown on packaging) for the figure.
|
There is another problem you haven't mentioned and I think we solve THIS
problem and the other by giving many minifigs two listings, like we do with CMF.
A listing that is nothing except minifig parts or analogs (generally speaking,
legs torso head headgear/hair) and another listing including the whole minifig
and whatever accessories the instructions assigned to them (neck bracket, brickbuilt
backpack, alternate head and headgear, weapons). This is already done with Belville
dolls and CMF. But it is not done with Technic figures who may appear with or
without anything and actually with no regard for the policies enforced on minifigs.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 08:16 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | I really think for figure inventories you're going to end up with an all-or-nothing
approach being the most workable. Either reduce the figure inventory to the
minimum amount of parts necessary and exclude all extraneous items or expand
the definition to include every single part shown in the building instructions
(or play scenarios shown on packaging) for the figure.
|
There is another problem you haven't mentioned and I think we solve THIS
problem and the other by giving many minifigs two listings, like we do with CMF.
A listing that is nothing except minifig parts or analogs (generally speaking,
legs torso head headgear/hair) and another listing including the whole minifig
and whatever accessories the instructions assigned to them (neck bracket, brickbuilt
backpack, alternate head and headgear, weapons). This is already done with Belville
dolls and CMF. But it is not done with Technic figures who may appear with or
without anything and actually with no regard for the policies enforced on minifigs.
|
As best as I can divine it, the policy with Technic figures was to have as few
as possible of them in the catalog, so if figures from two sets can be the same
figure but one doesn't have the helmet or armor, then the figure doesn't
have it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 08:29 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| So there would be three listings for this Elsa, for example?
A standard one, one holding the brush and one holding the ice? To me, that seems
overkill for one figure. It wouldn't be buyer (or wanted lists) friendly.
The CMF get two listings - but only one of those is as a minifigure. The other
listing is as a set and needs to contain the other parts such as the stand, instruction
leaflet,...
Plus, I know he is an animal at the moment, but what if Sven was a figure. What
would the accessory be? He is holding the carrot, so presumably that would be
included. Then there is the hitch and the saddle but that is also connected to
the sleigh. So if he was a figure, would that all be the accessory?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 08:41 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | So if he was a figure, would that all be the accessory?
|
Thanks, I believe I catch your drift.
Bad idea on my part. Like I said in a different reply, either someone comes
up with a better idea or we carry on the way we're going now. I guess things
aren't all bad - just frustrating, confusing, and inconsistent at times.
I'm certain there must be a better way of doing things.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 09:05 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | So if he was a figure, would that all be the accessory?
|
Thanks, I believe I catch your drift.
Bad idea on my part. Like I said in a different reply, either someone comes
up with a better idea or we carry on the way we're going now. I guess things
aren't all bad - just frustrating, confusing, and inconsistent at times.
I'm certain there must be a better way of doing things.
|
Ideas are just that - ideas, the more we have of them the better because it can
lead to improvements. What if nobody ever had the idea of a marketplace for LEGO
parts?
You might want to take a look at fishbase.org
Not only for the structure but also for definitions and the search page.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 10:39 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | So there would be three listings for this Elsa, for example?
|
Those aren't the instructions. Those are box pics. And in any case, no.
If those were instructions pics, there would be the basic Elsa and the Elsa
with the hairbrush AND ice.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | So there would be three listings for this Elsa, for example?
|
Those aren't the instructions. Those are box pics. And in any case, no.
If those were instructions pics, there would be the basic Elsa and the Elsa
with the hairbrush AND ice.
|
The Elsa you brought up actually sidesteps the issue entirely. Most do.
But when you look at you find a minifig wearing a neck bracket with
nothing on it. And Chima and Superheroes are FULL of people like that. They
have brickbuilt backpacks are built immediately in the instructions and installed
on the minifig. Not like a hairbrush that is obviously included to be played
with the minifig, but isn't shown until the final page where they are suggesting
play. I do not believe that any customer wants the neck bracket and not the
backpack. Zero market. There would be a market for the plain minifig and a
market for the minifig with backpack and those are the only things people actually
want to buy and both require a comment and the latter requires letting your minifig
go to the second or third page in the listings because you don't want to
give away the backpack for free.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 10:52 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| To belabor the point, this set actually says to put the hairbrush in the backpack
hung on the wall in the stable.
In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | So there would be three listings for this Elsa, for example?
|
Those aren't the instructions. Those are box pics. And in any case, no.
If those were instructions pics, there would be the basic Elsa and the Elsa
with the hairbrush AND ice.
|
The Elsa you brought up actually sidesteps the issue entirely. Most do.
But when you look at you find a minifig wearing a neck bracket with
nothing on it. And Chima and Superheroes are FULL of people like that. They
have brickbuilt backpacks are built immediately in the instructions and installed
on the minifig. Not like a hairbrush that is obviously included to be played
with the minifig, but isn't shown until the final page where they are suggesting
play. I do not believe that any customer wants the neck bracket and not the
backpack. Zero market. There would be a market for the plain minifig and a
market for the minifig with backpack and those are the only things people actually
want to buy and both require a comment and the latter requires letting your minifig
go to the second or third page in the listings because you don't want to
give away the backpack for free.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 11:16 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | But when you look at you find a minifig wearing a neck bracket with
nothing on it. And Chima and Superheroes are FULL of people like that. They
have brickbuilt backpacks are built immediately in the instructions and installed
on the minifig. ... I do not believe that any customer wants the neck bracket and not the
backpack. Zero market. There would be a market for the plain minifig and a
market for the minifig with backpack and those are the only things people actually
want to buy and both require a comment and the latter requires letting your minifig
go to the second or third page in the listings because you don't want to
give away the backpack for free.
|
There would also be a market for the minifigure AND the backback as separate
entities. Here, it would be helpful if the minifigure was listed alone, and there
was a note in the catalogue along the lines of "You may also be interested in
..." and a link to the backpack, which could be listed as a special assembly
(if brick built) and not a single piece). That would mean just one entry for
each unique minifigure, no confusion for buyers as to what they are getting,
no pushing onto the next page if you are pricing a figure with a backpack included.
It would also mean buyers can compare prices more easily, and wanted lists would
work properly for a unique figure, even if it comes with various and multiple
different accessories in multiple sets.
Such a system would also work well with CMF. So a set entry, then a minifigure
entry. However, the minifigure entry could mention "You may also be interested
in ..." and have a link to the parts that come as accessories with that minifigure
in the set but not necessarily with the minifigure.
This would work consistently for the CMF too. Take S18 for example, if the rule
was that they need to be somehow attached in the instructions, the balloon girl
would get both the balloon and the present, as she is attached to both. Whereas
the balloon boy is not attached to the present in the instructions, so he would
get the balloon and tile, but not the present. Surely it is better to have a
single plain minifigure entry, with a note/link to what accessories the minifigure
might require, rather than one minifigure entry and another minifigure entry
with the attached accessories. In addition to another entry for the whole set.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 11:29 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| I like this idea in most contexts. It doesn’t cover Louis and the Ghost from
the Ghostbusters firehouse that each have 2 heads and 2 hairpieces that just
get orphaned into the set. I would like a listing that had all of it.
In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | | | But when you look at you find a minifig wearing a neck bracket with
nothing on it. And Chima and Superheroes are FULL of people like that. They
have brickbuilt backpacks are built immediately in the instructions and installed
on the minifig. ... I do not believe that any customer wants the neck bracket and not the
backpack. Zero market. There would be a market for the plain minifig and a
market for the minifig with backpack and those are the only things people actually
want to buy and both require a comment and the latter requires letting your minifig
go to the second or third page in the listings because you don't want to
give away the backpack for free.
|
There would also be a market for the minifigure AND the backback as separate
entities. Here, it would be helpful if the minifigure was listed alone, and there
was a note in the catalogue along the lines of "You may also be interested in
..." and a link to the backpack, which could be listed as a special assembly
(if brick built) and not a single piece). That would mean just one entry for
each unique minifigure, no confusion for buyers as to what they are getting,
no pushing onto the next page if you are pricing a figure with a backpack included.
It would also mean buyers can compare prices more easily, and wanted lists would
work properly for a unique figure, even if it comes with various and multiple
different accessories in multiple sets.
Such a system would also work well with CMF. So a set entry, then a minifigure
entry. However, the minifigure entry could mention "You may also be interested
in ..." and have a link to the parts that come as accessories with that minifigure
in the set but not necessarily with the minifigure.
This would work consistently for the CMF too. Take S18 for example, if the rule
was that they need to be somehow attached in the instructions, the balloon girl
would get both the balloon and the present, as she is attached to both. Whereas
the balloon boy is not attached to the present in the instructions, so he would
get the balloon and tile, but not the present. Surely it is better to have a
single plain minifigure entry, with a note/link to what accessories the minifigure
might require, rather than one minifigure entry and another minifigure entry
with the attached accessories. In addition to another entry for the whole set.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 11:47 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | I like this idea in most contexts. It doesn’t cover Louis and the Ghost from
the Ghostbusters firehouse that each have 2 heads and 2 hairpieces that just
get orphaned into the set. I would like a listing that had all of it.
|
Yeah, that also happens with characters like Sweet Mayhem and her hair / helmet
and the characters with multiple types of wings, like Space Batman.
It would be good if the alternative parts were somehow linked to the figure but
only having one entry per (unique) figure.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 10:59 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, yorbrick writes:
| | So there would be three listings for this Elsa, for example?
|
Those aren't the instructions. Those are box pics. And in any case, no.
If those were instructions pics, there would be the basic Elsa and the Elsa
with the hairbrush AND ice.
|
OK, I checked the instructions. For the brush, she doesn't hold it in the
instructions. For the ice, she does. So this would be a distinct figure from
the one without the ice. LEGO might intend it to be a completely different figure,
they might not. I guess only they know. They just refer to the one with ice as
"Elsa". And their online service doesn't have any figures, just figure parts,
so that is no help either.
The problem still remains whether it is two or three entries: one is a mini-doll
with a cheap part, the other is just the mini-doll. If they want the best price,
the buyer has to check two listings. If they want to add it to a wanted list,
they have to choose one or the other, or add both; there is no way of having
one entry cover both otherwise identical mini-dolls. This doesn't help buyers,
especially new buyers.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 12:17 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | I've really been listening to mfav and 62Bricks when they talk, although
they might think I don't, and I do think there is some value to looking at
things from the ground up - to consider what root causes might be generating
ongoing problems.
|
Dude, check this out.
http://www.ou.edu/cas/slis
See if you can audit some courses.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2019 05:16 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw1030 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, OliS writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change {2 to 4} Part Trans-Red 4073 Plate, Round 1 x 1
Comments from Submitter:
According instruction, page 30 there are two more round plates used as amo.
|
This would set something of a bad precedent, I think (if it hasn't already
been set elsewhere). What BrickLink considers a minifigure is already ill-defined
(in spite of extensive written policies) and the inconsistencies in the catalog
regarding figure definitions and part inclusions have sparked some serious arguments
in the past.
To add stray parts like loose ammunition to a figure inventory . . . just not
a good idea, in my opinion.
|
I agree, to add completely unattached parts to "minifigures" such as these, when
other items that are attached to minifigures are not included would be a strange
precedent.
Although those instructions make it clear that this piece is used (even if just
placed on the floor) and is not an extra.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Germany, Baden-Württemberg
USA, Oklahoma
United Kingdom, England
South Africa, Western Cape
)
)
