| Discussion Forum: Thread 264306 |
|
 |
| | | Author: | mfav  | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 21:45 | | Subject: | Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 173 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| http://v4ei.com/brickref/4265-variants-proposal.html
I know, there'll be pain with the renaming and whatnot, but it would be nice
if all the axle holes on all the pieces were named consistently and were referred
to in a consistent manner in the item number.
Then there's the issue of sometimes two things that are the similar have
two different catalog numbers and other times two things that are similar have
a single number and a note. So the whole handling of naming and suffixing is
kind of all over the place.
If that page isn't clear, hit me up.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Cob | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 21:55 | | Subject: | Re: Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | http://v4ei.com/brickref/4265-variants-proposal.html
I know, there'll be pain with the renaming and whatnot, but it would be nice
if all the axle holes on all the pieces were named consistently and were referred
to in a consistent manner in the item number.
Then there's the issue of sometimes two things that are the similar have
two different catalog numbers and other times two things that are similar have
a single number and a note. So the whole handling of naming and suffixing is
kind of all over the place.
If that page isn't clear, hit me up.
|
Wow, that is a really good idea.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Heartbricker | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2020 22:11 | | Subject: | Re: Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | http://v4ei.com/brickref/4265-variants-proposal.html
I know, there'll be pain with the renaming and whatnot, but it would be nice
if all the axle holes on all the pieces were named consistently and were referred
to in a consistent manner in the item number.
Then there's the issue of sometimes two things that are the similar have
two different catalog numbers and other times two things that are similar have
a single number and a note. So the whole handling of naming and suffixing is
kind of all over the place.
If that page isn't clear, hit me up.
|
In theory, it sounds reasonable.
However, i fear it may hurt sellers/buyers that purchase parts for MOCs listed
on 3rd party sites (i.e: Rebrickable) that may not be able to adapt the part
lists to the new suggested format.
that scenario could potentially trigger frustration among buyers trying to source
pieces for MOCs listed on Rebrickable and could hurt sales because sellers won't
show up as having those parts on rebrickable while actually having these part
on hand but under a part number that is suddenly incompatible with the Rebrickable/current
bricklink part numbers.
Unless this issue can be addressed- it may be best to leave things as they are.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 02:09 | | Subject: | Re: Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I know, there'll be pain with the renaming and whatnot, but it would be nice
if all the axle holes on all the pieces were named consistently and were referred
to in a consistent manner in the item number.
|
Good idea and I added it to the roadmap (currently project 36):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
However, there are some things to consider here. First is that the a/b/c letters
are generally intended to indicate the chronological appearance of part variants.
Some have been intentionally switched in the past solely for the purpose of
indicating chronological order.
That order may or may not correspond with the axle hole appearance order, so
the renumbering will present issues. But the renaming should present no difficulties.
An additional issue with renumbering is the discord it causes for other websites.
Like it or not, at this point in time BrickLink generally sets the standard
that other sites follow and renumbering items must take this into consideration.
I personally would very much like to get rid of the mess of old item numbers
brought over from Peeron and who knows where else:
[P=3068bpx8]
[P=3068bps1]
As for single catalog entries consisting of two different axles types in some
cases, this is because those entries haven't yet been split.
But your post raises the larger issue of part variants in general. As time passes
this page makes the scale of the problem ever clearer (and I've still got
a bunch of updates to make):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2488
I've been thinking about part variants and I'm beginning to be of the
opinion that variants should only be considered for separate catalog entries
when absolutely necessary. There are no guidelines at the moment for part variant
splits, but we need them and we need to rethink part variants and how they're
handled in general.
Like, a radical rethink. We can never hope to do justice to part variants in
such a hidebound system as BrickLink is compelled to be by the weight of its
own impact on adult LEGO usage, nor can we ever hope for accuracy for older sets.
And trying results in unnecessary hassle and expense for everyone involved.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 08:41 | | Subject: | Re: Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I did note there would be pain associated with the proposal. Thus the question
mark in the title.
We’re finally getting three asp pages rewritten, so maybe the logjam on the dev
side is breaking. Lobby for a better underlying database structure. If you get
that, then cross site labeling issues become moot.
I’d like to see all the nonsense labeling of decorated parts go, too. That should
be an auto increment process handled by the database, not the arcane manual search
process with b p c x and whatever else gets thrown in there with the kitchen
sink.
Real improvement will look like pain for a while. In the end it is probably a
wash. You can have a big knife cut once, or ten paper cuts a day forever.
Certainly agree with the radical rethink. That also becomes a non issue with
a better underlying database.
I’m arguing for consistency in presentation and labeling at the moment, as those
things are achievable within the current structure.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2020 12:17 | | Subject: | Re: Yo StormBluser, for the roadmap? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I've been thinking about part variants and I'm beginning to be of the
opinion that variants should only be considered for separate catalog entries
when absolutely necessary. There are no guidelines at the moment for part variant
splits, but we need them and we need to rethink part variants and how they're
handled in general.
|
There's a lot to consider.
1. should a piece be restricted to its original part number? If 3713 is superceded
by 6590, which is superceded by 42798, should those subsequent numbers become
official parts, or are you going to continue to collectively house all those
different flavors of the same part under a single number?
Note: http://v4ei.com/brickref/3713-variants.php
I don't know if those are all actually 3713, or by the time you get to the
fifth one if that's actually a 6590 or what, but...one one hand if you're
wanting to research and find the actual part (or as reasonably close to the actual
part) that came with a set, and you have the instructions, and the instructions
say 6590, then you want a 6590. On the other hand, if you're making a thing
with the grandkids, it really doesn't matter. There's a "continuum of
relevance" there that needs to be addressed.
2. http://v4ei.com/brickref/30104v69109.php
Those ought to go on the list to be split if they aren't already. 30104 and
69109 somewhere along the line are decidedly different parts. I don't know
if there's a 136mm 69109 or a 128mm 30104, but having one entry for items
with two different numbers and functional differences ought to be separated.
3. Whatever you decide to do with the variants, it's pretty clear to me that
they need to be investigated in greater detail to have sufficient understanding
of a part before being able to make an informed decision.
4. It would be nice if the points considered in making the decision were noted
on the parts' pages and all relevant parts are cross referenced with links.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Vermont
