|
 |
| | | Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:35 | | Subject: | Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 307 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:43 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So [g=40198]
[g=40161]
[g=853373]
[g=G3856]
will finally be considered sets?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:45 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment. 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I like that plan. It solves the whole box and instruction issue for them too.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | I like that plan. It solves the whole box and instruction issue for them too.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
|
Yeah, I like that plan, too. If it has a set number, comes in a box, has instructions,
and is mostly made out of lego bricks, it should be a set.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:14 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | I like that plan. It solves the whole box and instruction issue for them too.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
|
Yes, a good move here. However, there is still ambiguity in what "significantly
brick-built" means.
Maybe they should just include regular bricks / LEGO parts as opposed to significantly
brick built. That would exclude the games with cardboard pieces and so on plus
it would mean any real minifigures or parts are in sets not games.
Creationary, for example, the whole point is that it is not brick-built at least
at the start of the game. Plus there is no right way to build it. Where would
that go?
I guess problem ones are like this one:
[g=852676]
where the lego parts are only really used as game pieces, and the minifigures
are not real figures. That one feels more like a game.
But this one:
[g=g574]
has real buildable figures but the board is pre-assembled.
And this one, very similar:
[g=852750]
but you build the board on a piece of gear (plus the similar Castle one).
And this one:
[g=852751]
where there are many buildable figures, and some small builds with a pre-glued
board.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | chetzler | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:25 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
Then the item numbers need to be standardized (or re-standardized). Some of
them were changed somewhat recently for reasons that are not discernible to me:
[G=3843]
[G=G3844]
[G=3845]
[G=G3846]
[G=G3847]
I can't see what purpose the "G" suffix serves. It has been inconsistently
applied and it prevents the item in question from being found when "3847" is
the search string.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
Then the item numbers need to be standardized (or re-standardized). Some of
them were changed somewhat recently for reasons that are not discernible to me:
[G=3843]
[G=G3844]
[G=3845]
[G=G3846]
[G=G3847]
I can't see what purpose the "G" suffix serves. It has been inconsistently
applied and it prevents the item in question from being found when "3847" is
the search string.
|
It is because there are pieces with the same number and when you try to add those
pieces to an inventory, the system adds the game instead and there is no way
on the user end to prevent that.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | chetzler | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:38 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
Then the item numbers need to be standardized (or re-standardized). Some of
them were changed somewhat recently for reasons that are not discernible to me:
[G=3843]
[G=G3844]
[G=3845]
[G=G3846]
[G=G3847]
I can't see what purpose the "G" suffix serves. It has been inconsistently
applied and it prevents the item in question from being found when "3847" is
the search string.
|
It is because there are pieces with the same number and when you try to add those
pieces to an inventory, the system adds the game instead and there is no way
on the user end to prevent that.
|
Ah, I see. I didn't realize that gear couldn't get a -1, -2... suffix.
Making them sets would indeed solve the problem. I withdraw my somewhat uninformed
comment
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BricksThatStick | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, chetzler writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
Then the item numbers need to be standardized (or re-standardized). Some of
them were changed somewhat recently for reasons that are not discernible to me:
[G=3843]
[G=G3844]
[G=3845]
[G=G3846]
[G=G3847]
I can't see what purpose the "G" suffix serves.
|
Its added when there is a part with the same number.
| | It has been inconsistently
applied and it prevents the item in question from being found when "3847" is
the search string.
|
Once they are classed as sets they can have a suffix like sets and the problem
is solved.
Then they also can have catalog entries for the boxes added for them
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 11:39 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | According to the new page "Games - These are considered sets when the game is
significantly brick-built. Games that do not predominantly feature built models
are considered gear."
So . . . will finally be considered sets?
|
Yes, that's the plan at the moment.
|
Could you give an example, or two, or gear/games that will remain in gear. I'm
trying to mentally follow how they will be sorted out, one from the other.
Nita Rae
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:51 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:56 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think they should be particularly because of
[p=3062bpb001]
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
As Manganschlaum points out, animals are entities.
Minnie Mouse is an entity too, but should every Minnie be a figure?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jonwil | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 07:10 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| No that Minnie Mouse set isn't a "figure" any more than the Minnie Mouse
BrickHeadz set is a "figure".
But the Baby Minnie Mouse figure from the Primo/Baby sets, the Minnie Mouse figure
from the "fabuland style" sets, the Duplo Minnie Mouse figure and the Minnie
Mouse minifig are all "figures" and should be treated as such.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jonwil writes:
| | No that Minnie Mouse set isn't a "figure" any more than the Minnie Mouse
BrickHeadz set is a "figure".
But the Baby Minnie Mouse figure from the Primo/Baby sets, the Minnie Mouse figure
from the "fabuland style" sets, the Duplo Minnie Mouse figure and the Minnie
Mouse minifig are all "figures" and should be treated as such.
|
Perhaps Figures should be subdivided into:
anthropomorphic animals
anthropomorphic robots
sentient humanoids
I am moderately serious about the above, but what it points out is the difficulty
in plugging assemblies into a cataloging system that is purely hierarchical in
nature. We would would be better served, with a few broad categories, and then
attribute tag the individual entries.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:46 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
This is a hard one. If I were a buyer looking for any of those three things,
I would not look in the minifigure section. For Plankton and Lotso, I would look
under parts. For the Giant Man, I wouldn't know where to look because it's
neither a complete set nor an individual part. Perhaps you could make the Part:Special
Assembly it's own category? I've been buying and selling on BrickLink
for years and I didn't even know that Part:Special Assembly existed. In my
experience, when you buy a lego set, the parts that come in a box are always
fully disassembled; even
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
is always fully disassembled. I can't remember about
and
but I believe these "parts" always come disassembled, too. Has anyone ever experienced
anything to the contrary?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 11:54 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| But see Plankton and Giant-man here
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1192566
he becomes a minifig if you add a robot body?
Hinge plate's and turntables used to come assembled. And dissembling hinge
plates is not advised. They tend to break
In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
This is a hard one. If I were a buyer looking for any of those three things,
I would not look in the minifigure section. For Plankton and Lotso, I would look
under parts. For the Giant Man, I wouldn't know where to look because it's
neither a complete set nor an individual part. Perhaps you could make the Part:Special
Assembly it's own category? I've been buying and selling on BrickLink
for years and I didn't even know that Part:Special Assembly existed. In my
experience, when you buy a lego set, the parts that come in a box are always
fully disassembled; even
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
is always fully disassembled. I can't remember about
and
but I believe these "parts" always come disassembled, too. Has anyone ever experienced
anything to the contrary?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:32 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
I don't know about you, but when I hear the word minifigure,
does not come to mind. However, on the box, it is depicted alongside the other
minifigures in the set, so in that sense, it could be considered a minifigure.
But if I were a buyer looking for
[p=3062bpb038]
or
I would not look under minifigures since neither of them resemble traditional
minifigures (i.e. legs assembly, torso assembly, head, etc.). I would look under
parts for 3062bpb038 since it is just a single part, and I wouldn't know
where to look for bob027 under both the current and proposed categorization systems
because it is neither a part nor a set. Just my two cents. Those with more buying
experience probably know where to look, but many buyers do not have much experience
on this site. After all, isn't the purpose of the catalog to make it easy
for buyers to find what they are looking for?
| | Hinge plate's and turntables used to come assembled.
|
Sorry, I was not aware of that. It's been a while since I've built a
lego set out of the box.
| | And dissembling hinge plates is not advised. They tend to break
|
In that case, it's probably best to keep the assembled version in the catalog.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:41 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| That's why the category name is being changed from Minifigs to Figures
In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
I don't know about you, but when I hear the word minifigure,
does not come to mind. However, on the box, it is depicted alongside the other
minifigures in the set, so in that sense, it could be considered a minifigure.
But if I were a buyer looking for
[p=3062bpb038]
or
I would not look under minifigures since neither of them resemble traditional
minifigures (i.e. legs assembly, torso assembly, head, etc.). I would look under
parts for 3062bpb038 since it is just a single part, and I wouldn't know
where to look for bob027 under both the current and proposed categorization systems
because it is neither a part nor a set. Just my two cents. Those with more buying
experience probably know where to look, but many buyers do not have much experience
on this site. After all, isn't the purpose of the catalog to make it easy
for buyers to find what they are looking for?
| | Hinge plate's and turntables used to come assembled.
|
Sorry, I was not aware of that. It's been a while since I've built a
lego set out of the box.
| | And dissembling hinge plates is not advised. They tend to break
|
In that case, it's probably best to keep the assembled version in the catalog.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:59 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | That's why the category name is being changed from Minifigs to Figures
|
LOL I didn't even notice that. Well then it makes sense that
and
would be classified as a figure since they are figure-shaped. But I still have
a hard time accepting
[p=3062bpb038]
as a figure. It is a single part and it is not even figure-shaped. But Lotso
is also a single part, isn't he? Perhaps we could do what is currently done
for sets that consist of only a single part, such as baseplates and power functions,
and have separate entries for the part and the set (or, in this case, figure).
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| is numbered like a minifig
it was a part, became a minifig then was changed back to a part
In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | That's why the category name is being changed from Minifigs to Figures
|
LOL I didn't even notice that. Well then it makes sense that
and
would be classified as a figure since they are figure-shaped. But I still have
a hard time accepting
[p=3062bpb038]
as a figure. It is a single part and it is not even figure-shaped. But Lotso
is also a single part, isn't he? Perhaps we could do what is currently done
for sets that consist of only a single part, such as baseplates and power functions,
and have separate entries for the part and the set (or, in this case, figure).
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| If it a part was changed to a minfigure and then back again, it suggests to me
that there is some ambiguity in the category definitions, and I don't think
that the new definitions help much. The new definition for figure says that it
can be a "single part or part assembly", but when is a single part a part and
when is it a figure?
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | is numbered like a minifig
it was a part, became a minifig then was changed back to a part
In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | That's why the category name is being changed from Minifigs to Figures
|
LOL I didn't even notice that. Well then it makes sense that
and
would be classified as a figure since they are figure-shaped. But I still have
a hard time accepting
[p=3062bpb038]
as a figure. It is a single part and it is not even figure-shaped. But Lotso
is also a single part, isn't he? Perhaps we could do what is currently done
for sets that consist of only a single part, such as baseplates and power functions,
and have separate entries for the part and the set (or, in this case, figure).
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 14:28 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
In such cases, I would simply try to stick as close as possible to the official
classification.
For example: The official description of
says "Includes 3 minifigures: SpongeBob™, Patrick and Plankton" and the box shows
these three minifigures. Therefore,
[p=3062bpb001]
should be classified as a part (of a (mini)figure) since LEGO does not describe
the part itself as a figure.
Another example:
Official description: "Includes 4 minifigures: Harry Potter™ with wand and Triwizard
Challenge outfit, Lord Voldemort™ with wand, Peter Pettigrew with wand and a
Death Eater™."
BL currently has 6 minifigs in the inventory. The Grave Statue is build out of
minifigure parts, but it is part of the grave model and not really an autonomous
entity. Baby Voldemort is an autonomous entity but has nothing to to with a "classic"
minifigure. So as said, I personally would follow the description and classify
both of them as parts. The Grave Statue could maybe be a counterpart so it can
be sold and bought as one item. Another benefit: The PCC for Baby Voldemort could
be added to BL. That is not possible at the moment because minifigs cannot have
PCCs.
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 14:59 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Yeah, when trying to decide whether or not something can be classified as a minifigure,
I consult the box and/or set description (if available) to see if lego describes
it as a minifigure and depicts it alongside the other minifigures. That is the
reason why I am okay classifying
as a figure, since it is depicted alongside Patrick and SpongeBob on the box
of 3815-1, but not
[p=3062bpb001]
which is not. Perhaps the new category definitions should say that if a minifigure
is from a set, then it must be listed as such in the official description and/or
depicted as such on the box. Of course, not all minifigures come from sets, but
if it is from a set and it is not listed as a minifigure in the the official
description, then it probably shouldn't be considered a minifigure.
In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
In such cases, I would simply try to stick as close as possible to the official
classification.
For example: The official description of
says "Includes 3 minifigures: SpongeBob™, Patrick and Plankton" and the box shows
these three minifigures. Therefore,
[p=3062bpb001]
should be classified as a part (of a (mini)figure) since LEGO does not describe
the part itself as a figure.
Another example:
Official description: "Includes 4 minifigures: Harry Potter™ with wand and Triwizard
Challenge outfit, Lord Voldemort™ with wand, Peter Pettigrew with wand and a
Death Eater™."
BL currently has 6 minifigs in the inventory. The Grave Statue is build out of
minifigure parts, but it is part of the grave model and not really an autonomous
entity. Baby Voldemort is an autonomous entity but has nothing to to with a "classic"
minifigure. So as said, I personally would follow the description and classify
both of them as parts. The Grave Statue could maybe be a counterpart so it can
be sold and bought as one item. Another benefit: The PCC for Baby Voldemort could
be added to BL. That is not possible at the moment because minifigs cannot have
PCCs.
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 15:31 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| But the new classification isn't minifigs, it will be called figures, which
is a much broader term.
In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | Yeah, when trying to decide whether or not something can be classified as a minifigure,
I consult the box and/or set description (if available) to see if lego describes
it as a minifigure and depicts it alongside the other minifigures. That is the
reason why I am okay classifying
as a figure, since it is depicted alongside Patrick and SpongeBob on the box
of 3815-1, but not
[p=3062bpb001]
which is not. Perhaps the new category definitions should say that if a minifigure
is from a set, then it must be listed as such in the official description and/or
depicted as such on the box. Of course, not all minifigures come from sets, but
if it is from a set and it is not listed as a minifigure in the the official
description, then it probably shouldn't be considered a minifigure.
In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
In such cases, I would simply try to stick as close as possible to the official
classification.
For example: The official description of
says "Includes 3 minifigures: SpongeBob™, Patrick and Plankton" and the box shows
these three minifigures. Therefore,
[p=3062bpb001]
should be classified as a part (of a (mini)figure) since LEGO does not describe
the part itself as a figure.
Another example:
Official description: "Includes 4 minifigures: Harry Potter™ with wand and Triwizard
Challenge outfit, Lord Voldemort™ with wand, Peter Pettigrew with wand and a
Death Eater™."
BL currently has 6 minifigs in the inventory. The Grave Statue is build out of
minifigure parts, but it is part of the grave model and not really an autonomous
entity. Baby Voldemort is an autonomous entity but has nothing to to with a "classic"
minifigure. So as said, I personally would follow the description and classify
both of them as parts. The Grave Statue could maybe be a counterpart so it can
be sold and bought as one item. Another benefit: The PCC for Baby Voldemort could
be added to BL. That is not possible at the moment because minifigs cannot have
PCCs.
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 16:27 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Sorry, I'm using the terms kind of interchangeably. But the LEGO Group uses
the term "minifigure" in it's official writing (set descriptions, boxes,
etc.), so if we limit the definition to include only official minifigures, then
it would make sense to use the term "minifigure." For example,
is currently categorized as a minifigure in the BrickLink catalog, even though
it is not listed as a minifigure in the official set description. Jonas is saying
that you shouldn't classify things as minifigures which are not considered
as such by LEGO, as is evidenced by the set description. However, if you use
the term "figure" instead of "minifigure" and you loosen the definition to include
things that are not official minifigures, then you could categorize the grave
statue and other things that are not official minifigures as figures. But that
opens up a lot of room for interpretation, and one could argue that
[p=3062bpb001]
is a figure since it "represents an autonomous entity," even though it has never
been listed as a minifigure in an official lego set and consists of only a single
part.
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | But the new classification isn't minifigs, it will be called figures, which
is a much broader term.
In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | Yeah, when trying to decide whether or not something can be classified as a minifigure,
I consult the box and/or set description (if available) to see if lego describes
it as a minifigure and depicts it alongside the other minifigures. That is the
reason why I am okay classifying
as a figure, since it is depicted alongside Patrick and SpongeBob on the box
of 3815-1, but not
[p=3062bpb001]
which is not. Perhaps the new category definitions should say that if a minifigure
is from a set, then it must be listed as such in the official description and/or
depicted as such on the box. Of course, not all minifigures come from sets, but
if it is from a set and it is not listed as a minifigure in the the official
description, then it probably shouldn't be considered a minifigure.
In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
In such cases, I would simply try to stick as close as possible to the official
classification.
For example: The official description of
says "Includes 3 minifigures: SpongeBob™, Patrick and Plankton" and the box shows
these three minifigures. Therefore,
[p=3062bpb001]
should be classified as a part (of a (mini)figure) since LEGO does not describe
the part itself as a figure.
Another example:
Official description: "Includes 4 minifigures: Harry Potter™ with wand and Triwizard
Challenge outfit, Lord Voldemort™ with wand, Peter Pettigrew with wand and a
Death Eater™."
BL currently has 6 minifigs in the inventory. The Grave Statue is build out of
minifigure parts, but it is part of the grave model and not really an autonomous
entity. Baby Voldemort is an autonomous entity but has nothing to to with a "classic"
minifigure. So as said, I personally would follow the description and classify
both of them as parts. The Grave Statue could maybe be a counterpart so it can
be sold and bought as one item. Another benefit: The PCC for Baby Voldemort could
be added to BL. That is not possible at the moment because minifigs cannot have
PCCs.
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jonwil | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 08:29 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The description for lists Plankton by name and the instructions depict
Plankton (who in this set is a single printed 1 x 1 round brick and not part
of a larger build) right next to Spongebob, Patrick and Krabs.
By the same token LEGO explicitly depicts the Nexo Knights Book of Monsters alongside
the figures on the box (and identifies it by name as well) but its not listed
in the Bricklink catalog at all (either as a minifig or as a named assembly of
parts in some other category)
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 09:29 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jonwil writes:
| | The description for lists Plankton by name and the instructions depict
Plankton (who in this set is a single printed 1 x 1 round brick and not part
of a larger build) right next to Spongebob, Patrick and Krabs.
|
We do not have to go by TLG's definitions, or at least no one has said so
yet. The catalog still (as of right now) has some measure of autonomy.
As for single-piece figures, I think we should avoid things like this:
These are duplicate catalog entries for the same item (one entry as a part and
one as a figure). Figures like Plankton and Rick would ordinarily just be decorated
parts, but as you can see there is inconsistency in how they're handled in
the catalog. Inconsistencies like these are what the new definitions page aims
to address.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | wahiggin | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 22:43 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
So each car from Cars could become minifigs too?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 23:34 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| | So each car from Cars could become minifigs too?
|
Not "Minifigs", but "Figures".
See https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1192672
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 09:03 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| | So each car from Cars could become minifigs too?
|
Some of them already are:
|
So, the sellers who are listing individual cars from should create
catalog entries, and move those listings out of the 8639 set (where they are
cluttering things up) ? Out of the first 25 listings, 14 are individual cars.
A few of them, it would appear, already have catalog entries.
Can I do the same thing for , and (finally) have a home for the two
racers ? (which to date I have in Custom listings)
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 14:41 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, cosmicray writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, wahiggin writes:
| | So each car from Cars could become minifigs too?
|
Some of them already are:
|
So, the sellers who are listing individual cars from should create
catalog entries, and move those listings out of the 8639 set (where they are
cluttering things up) ? Out of the first 25 listings, 14 are individual cars.
A few of them, it would appear, already have catalog entries.
Can I do the same thing for , and (finally) have a home for the two
racers ? (which to date I have in Custom listings)
Nita Rae
|
The cars entries, together with the sp00x line are an experiment. We needed the
cars to be minifigs so we could easily compare with partout value over a period
of time.
But at this moment, we do not want such things to be added. We need to figure
out the best way moving forward first.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 00:26 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
|
No idea. You tell me. The purpose of this thread is to solicit community feedback,
so what are your thoughts?
|
On the subject of categorizing figures in general I think breaking down some
of this stuff might make more sense than renaming Minifigs to Figures and then
piling everything into the same place.
It’s a difficult one but I guess you have to start with defining a minifigure
and at the moment I can only think of two ways of doing this where by you define
it by Size after all a clue is in the word MINIfigure which does unfortunately
leave a lot of ambiguity or better still you define minifig by the fact it uses
a Torso Assembly?
Torso Assembly may be a good clear cut way of defining a minifig because almost
all traditional minifigs from a Dementor to a Lord Garmadon use the all-important
standard Torso design that holds a minifig together and its probably the one
key part that really defines what a minifigure looks like when we think of a
minifigure and with that in mind you could categorise as Follows:-
Minifigure – Anything that uses the Standard Torso Assembly design
Modified Figure – Anything from droids, to brick built Droids, to Skeletons and
stuff like Gollum, Slimer, Unikitty, Scurrier, Scooby etc..
Microfigure – Anything very small consisting of a single or maximum of two parts
such as Baby, Baby Yoda, Palpatine Hologram, Baby Groot, Trophy figures and all
those game figures etc..
You are then left with things like Cave Troll, Big Hulk etc. which can either
go under ‘Modified Figure’ or a separate ‘Large Figure’ Category?
Likewise are animals/creatures separated so that Polar bears, Wargs and Horses
go under ‘Modified Figure’ and stuff like baby dinos, spiders and snakes under
‘Microfigure’ or do they have their own ‘Animal category’?
Lots to think about....
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:37 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Always gets me confused:
but not
[p=3899pb006]
Even though all of them are named characters. Personally, I think if TLG names
a character in a set, it ought to be a figure and not a part.
Are you going to rename the minifigs section in inventories to assembled figures?
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 13:31 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| New definitions:
"Figures - A single part or part assembly that represents an autonomous entity,
except parts that are photographs, holograms, or video screens."
"Parts - Individual elements and assemblies used during the process of building
models."
Under the new definitions,
are clearly considered figures, since they represent an autonomous entity. But
[p=3899pb006]
could be considered either a part or a figure, since they represent autonomous
entities, but they are also an individual element.
[p=3062bpb038]
could also be considered either a part or a figure under the new definitions.
I think the ambiguity arises when the figure consists of only a single part.
Some sets that consists of only a single part (baseplates, power functions, brick
separators, etc) currently have two separate listings, one under sets and the
other under parts. For example,
is basically (though technically not) the same thing as
in bright green. Perhaps we could do a similar thing for figures, i.e. give them
two separate catalog entries, one under parts and the other under figures?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | CPgolfaddict | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 16:56 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In my opinion the right solution here is to change the catalog so that an item
can appear in more than one item type and/or more than one category.
Otherwise there will always be some exceptions.
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 18:13 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| That makes a lot of sense. Some buyers might look under part, others might look
under figure. It doesn't make much sense to create separate listings in both
categories since they are the same exact thing, whereas a part and a set consisting
of a single part are not; one can be purchased directly from the LEGO Group,
the other cannot. All that would do is just create confusion for buyers looking
for a particular item and sellers trying to list a particular item. It makes
much more sense to have a single listing in two different categories.
In Catalog, CPgolfaddict writes:
| | In my opinion the right solution here is to change the catalog so that an item
can appear in more than one item type and/or more than one category.
Otherwise there will always be some exceptions.
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | Per the New Figure definition " A single part or part assembly that represents
an autonomous entity",
[p=3062bpb001]
will also count?
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | jonwil | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| How do you draw the distinction between an animal and a figure?
The Rock Monster is an animal yet the very similar monsters from
Power Miners such as and are figures.
Then you have which is only ever depicted as a stuffed animal and
not a figure (no different to
* | | 98382pb004 Teddy Bear with Black Eyes, Nose, Mouth and Stitches, Dark Tan and Medium Azure Stomach and Bright Pink Spot Pattern (The Simpsons Bobo)
Parts: Animal, Land |
from The Simpsons in that regard
IMO)
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | manganschlamm | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 10:56 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
Question: Will animals be now figures as well?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:08 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The proposed update has made me question the definition of a part.
The old definition: "Individual elements that make up a set."
The new definition: "Individual elements and assemblies used during the
process of building models." (emphasis mine)
The addition of "and assemblies" is significant. Under the old definition, parts
such as
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
should not even be considered "parts" in the first place because they are, in
my experience, never included in assembled form in official lego sets (other
experiences may differ, there being many official lego sets). However, the new
definition refers to "models" instead of "sets", so this implies that we are
no longer constrained by what is included in official, boxed lego sets. Where
do you draw the line between an assembly that is a "part" and one that is something
else? Should assemblies such as the ones above even be considered parts in the
first place?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | manganschlamm | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:31 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | The proposed update has made me question the definition of a part.
The old definition: "Individual elements that make up a set."
The new definition: "Individual elements and assemblies used during the
process of building models." (emphasis mine)
The addition of "and assemblies" is significant. Under the old definition, parts
such as
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
should not even be considered "parts" in the first place because they are, in
my experience, never included in assembled form in official lego sets (other
experiences may differ, there being many official lego sets). However, the new
definition refers to "models" instead of "sets", so this implies that we are
no longer constrained by what is included in official, boxed lego sets. Where
do you draw the line between an assembly that is a "part" and one that is something
else? Should assemblies such as the ones above even be considered parts in the
first place?
|
I guess that loosening the definition of parts was needed in view of an increasing
number of parts that did not come in sets, like e.g. the BAM parts. The latter
never came in any set and they are also not necessarily assembled in a specific
way (like one particular minfigure).
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:46 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, manganschlamm writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | The proposed update has made me question the definition of a part.
The old definition: "Individual elements that make up a set."
The new definition: "Individual elements and assemblies used during the
process of building models." (emphasis mine)
The addition of "and assemblies" is significant. Under the old definition, parts
such as
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
should not even be considered "parts" in the first place because they are, in
my experience, never included in assembled form in official lego sets (other
experiences may differ, there being many official lego sets). However, the new
definition refers to "models" instead of "sets", so this implies that we are
no longer constrained by what is included in official, boxed lego sets. Where
do you draw the line between an assembly that is a "part" and one that is something
else? Should assemblies such as the ones above even be considered parts in the
first place?
|
I guess that loosening the definition of parts was needed in view of an increasing
number of parts that did not come in sets, like e.g. the BAM parts. The latter
never came in any set and they are also not necessarily assembled in a specific
way (like one particular minfigure).
|
Yeah, I realize that not all parts and minifigures come in official sets anymore.
But I'm just wondering where to draw the line between an assembly that is
a "part" and one that is something else. It is reasonable to categorize the above
three assemblies as "parts" since they almost always go together, as well as
assemblies like minifig torsos and leg assemblies. But it doesn't seem reasonable
to categorize
as a single part, and a buyer looking for it would never look under parts unless
they had enough experience buying on BrickLink to know where to look. But in
my selling experience, most buyers on this site don't have much experience
and wouldn't know where to look. Shouldn't we organize the catalog to
make it easy for buyers to find what they are looking for? Or is that not the
purpose of the BrickLink catalog?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | paulvdb | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 15:02 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | The proposed update has made me question the definition of a part.
The old definition: "Individual elements that make up a set."
The new definition: "Individual elements and assemblies used during the
process of building models." (emphasis mine)
The addition of "and assemblies" is significant. Under the old definition, parts
such as
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
|
This one never came assembled.
This one used to come assembled, but that was changed many years ago.
This one always comes assembled.
| | should not even be considered "parts" in the first place because they are, in
my experience, never included in assembled form in official lego sets (other
experiences may differ, there being many official lego sets). However, the new
definition refers to "models" instead of "sets", so this implies that we are
no longer constrained by what is included in official, boxed lego sets. Where
do you draw the line between an assembly that is a "part" and one that is something
else? Should assemblies such as the ones above even be considered parts in the
first place?
|
There are of course also the torso assemblies and legs assemblies that always
come assembled in sets. And some others as well.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 18:41 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Okay, then
should be considered parts because that is how they appear in unopened sets,
but
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
should not because they don't appear that way in unopened sets. Under the
current definition, anyways; the new one is a bit more vague and could include
things like the four parts above. But sometimes people use things like individual
minifigure legs in their builds (https://moc.bricklink.com/pages/moc/mocitem.page?idmocitem=1284
look at the base), so obviously there should be a separate catalog entry for
the individual legs, but where would it go? Should there be a separate category
for "sub-parts"? Or should the individual legs be considered parts and the
leg assemblies go in a separate category for assemblies? It's not a huge
problem right now, but it creates uncertainty for buyers and sellers who are
looking to buy/sell a part that is assembled from other parts, whether they should
buy/sell whole thing or break it down into its constituent elements first. Sometimes,
it doesn't really matter, but sometimes there is a significant price/availability
difference between the two, such as in the case of
1074 lots, average price $0.1614, vs.
17 lots, average price $0.4703 and
19 lots, average price $1.0323.
As someone who is familiar with BrickLink, I know which variants to look for,
but the casual user might not and end up purchasing the more expensive/harder
to find one without knowing. I know that I did a few times when I was new to
BrickLink.
In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | The proposed update has made me question the definition of a part.
The old definition: "Individual elements that make up a set."
The new definition: "Individual elements and assemblies used during the
process of building models." (emphasis mine)
The addition of "and assemblies" is significant. Under the old definition, parts
such as
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
|
This one never came assembled.
This one used to come assembled, but that was changed many years ago.
This one always comes assembled.
| | should not even be considered "parts" in the first place because they are, in
my experience, never included in assembled form in official lego sets (other
experiences may differ, there being many official lego sets). However, the new
definition refers to "models" instead of "sets", so this implies that we are
no longer constrained by what is included in official, boxed lego sets. Where
do you draw the line between an assembly that is a "part" and one that is something
else? Should assemblies such as the ones above even be considered parts in the
first place?
|
There are of course also the torso assemblies and legs assemblies that always
come assembled in sets. And some others as well.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:44 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Are we going to move the brickbuilt gear items as well?
[g=40080] but
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:50 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Are we going to move the brickbuilt gear items as well?
[g=40080] but
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
|
New definitions:
"Sets - Parts packaged together that can be combined to build or accessorize
a model or models, even if there are no instructions for building a specific
model."
"Gear - Accessories intended for human use such as watches, clothing, video games,
and any items that do not fit naturally into other categories."
Those items could fit under either category under the new definitions. They are
parts packaged together that can be combined to build a model, but they are also
intended for human use.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 12:57 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Are we going to move the brickbuilt gear items as well?
[g=40080] but
|
|
snip
| |
New definitions:
"Sets - Parts packaged together that can be combined to build or accessorize
a model or models, even if there are no instructions for building a specific
model."
"Gear - Accessories intended for human use such as watches, clothing, video games,
and any items that do not fit naturally into other categories."
Those items could fit under either category under the new definitions. They are
parts packaged together that can be combined to build a model, but they are also
intended for human use.
|
Then we ought to make the school supplies an exception as well (same as games),
since at present one of those pencil hoders is a set and one is a gear. If the
definitions cannot provide some basis for consistency, they do not work as definitions.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 13:11 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Are we going to move the brickbuilt gear items as well?
[g=40080] but
|
|
snip
| |
New definitions:
"Sets - Parts packaged together that can be combined to build or accessorize
a model or models, even if there are no instructions for building a specific
model."
"Gear - Accessories intended for human use such as watches, clothing, video games,
and any items that do not fit naturally into other categories."
Those items could fit under either category under the new definitions. They are
parts packaged together that can be combined to build a model, but they are also
intended for human use.
|
Then we ought to make the school supplies an exception as well (same as games),
since at present one of those pencil hoders is a set and one is a gear. If the
definitions cannot provide some basis for consistency, they do not work as definitions.
|
Hmm... I'm not sure that it makes sense to make another category just for
school supplies. Do they come in a box with instructions? To me, that would make
them a set. When I think of gear, I think of things that are made by the lego
company, but are not actually made of lego bricks (watches, bags, etc).
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | dcarmine | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 17:33 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
Where do posters go?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 12:20 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
Where do posters go?
|
Posters would fall under gear because they are not made of LEGO bricks.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | dcarmine | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
Where do posters go?
|
Posters would fall under gear because they are not made of LEGO bricks.
|
Ok, thanks for that.
Not to offend you, but why are you answering most of the questions?
You don't seem to be an Admin, I haven't seen you on the forum before
now. Do you have some qualification that I don't know about that makes you
take on answering these questions? How can I know that what you are telling
me is true?
Just want to understand why you are answering these questions.
Donna
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 13:53 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, dcarmine writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
Where do posters go?
|
Posters would fall under gear because they are not made of LEGO bricks.
|
Ok, thanks for that.
Not to offend you, but why are you answering most of the questions?
You don't seem to be an Admin, I haven't seen you on the forum before
now. Do you have some qualification that I don't know about that makes you
take on answering these questions? How can I know that what you are telling
me is true?
Just want to understand why you are answering these questions.
Donna
|
I'm just bored. I've been on BrickLink for a while, but I haven't
been active on the forum until very recently. You don't have to listen to
my answers if you don't want to.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 14:54 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | […]
I'm just bored. I've been on BrickLink for a while, but I haven't
been active on the forum until very recently. You don't have to listen to
my answers if you don't want to.
|
I, for one, welcome any new participant to the forum 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 15:01 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | […]
I'm just bored. I've been on BrickLink for a while, but I haven't
been active on the forum until very recently. You don't have to listen to
my answers if you don't want to.
|
I, for one, welcome any new participant to the forum
|
+1
Besides, you hardly ever see wild chickens anymore
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 15:23 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | […]
I'm just bored. I've been on BrickLink for a while, but I haven't
been active on the forum until very recently. You don't have to listen to
my answers if you don't want to.
|
I, for one, welcome any new participant to the forum
|
+1
Besides, you hardly ever see wild chickens anymore
|
Apparently, they still exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_chicken
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 15:45 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, wildchicken13 writes:
| | […]
I'm just bored. I've been on BrickLink for a while, but I haven't
been active on the forum until very recently. You don't have to listen to
my answers if you don't want to.
|
I, for one, welcome any new participant to the forum
|
+1
Besides, you hardly ever see wild chickens anymore
|
Apparently, they still exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_chicken
|
Yep, the the feral chicken is more fascinating than their still domesticated
cousin. We ran across them in one of our backcountry hikes. They certainly don't
behave as they did when still domesticated.
But "feral" chickens are still derived from domestic chickens who have returned
to the wild.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 00:25 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 1 | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility
|
yorbrick: The description of how to handle games is to unspecific.
Response: Please suggest better terminology.
wildchicken13: The new definition of figures is not helpful.
Response: Please suggest better terminology. Also, you may be confused
by the term "minifigure." BrickLink categorizes something like 40 different
types of figures together and calls them all minifigures. This is obviously
a mistake on our part and I'm trying to get that changed.
wildchicken13: Perhaps we could do a similar thing for figures, i.e. give
them
two separate catalog entries, one under parts and the other under figures?
Response: We're trying to move away from duplicate catalog entries
for the same item. In the instance you mentioned, one catalog entry is for a
set, while the other catalog entry is for the part that comes in the set.
wildchicken13: I'm just wondering where to draw the line between an assembly
that is a "part" and one that is something else ?
Response: If this isn't clear from the definitions, then the definitions
are flawed. Again, please suggest revisions. This is, in theory at least, your
reference catalog.
bje: Are you going to rename the minifigs section in inventories to assembled
figures?
Response: We don't have the ability to rename many things. We can't
rename item types, for example, or "Minifigs" would already be "Figures." Renaming
sections of inventories is beyond our ability.
bje: Then we ought to make the school supplies an exception as well.
Response: Done.
CPgolfaddict: In my opinion the right solution here is to change the catalog
so that an item can appear in more than one item type and/or more than one category.
Response: This has been suggested before. We don't have the ability
to modify the site in this way.
manganschlamm: Question: Will animals be now figures as well?
Response: I think there would be nothing wrong with that and I wouldn't
be at all opposed. I haven't discussed it with anyone else, though. What
is your preference here?
If anyone had questions/comments that weren't addressed or need further clarification,
just say so.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 02:59 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility
|
|
snip
| |
manganschlamm: Question: Will animals be now figures as well?
Response: I think there would be nothing wrong with that and I wouldn't
be at all opposed. I haven't discussed it with anyone else, though. What
is your preference here?
|
Depends probably on how autonomous entity is interpreted. If you use TLG's
set descriptions, only some animals are autonomous, and others blend into scenery.
Consider:
* | | 35074pb02 Bird, Friends / Elves, Feet Joined with Magenta Body and Bright Light Orange Eyes Pattern (Pepper)
Parts: Animal, Air |
and
The cow has only ever been described as a cow. It is not named in any set and
it serves no particular purpose other than to complete the scenery in the set
it is found in.
The bird on the other hand, is treated by TLG in various forms:
Pet- 41341, 853775
Bird - 41373
Named - Pepper in 41349
Named Function - Pepper Soundcheck in 41390, Pepper Pet in 41334
This ends up with dual use. If TLG described and used the animal as something
with no character or personality and just required to complete the model, then
it will be parts by definition (cow part).
If TLG, however, decides that for a particular set the animal does something
specific or is given a personality, then it will be a figure by definition (Pepper
Soundcheck Assistant).
If you are to differentiate between animals setting the scenery (that is background
needed for the model to be the thing that model represents and not needed for
being autonomous), then some animals are going to be parts. Animals will then
only be figures if they are used in a set with marked personalities or functions
such as Pepper the soundcheck assistant. So sometimes that bird will be a figure
called Pepper and at other times a part in the animal, air category
You are probably going to have to introduce some form of description in the definition
that can include a reference to personality of function. Probably if TLG gives
it a name (in other words gives it personality) in a specific set, then it should
be a figure in that set. Personally I would not like to see the
in as figures in the inventory for that set, as those are used as
wall hooks in that set.
Back to Pepper = two entries then: (a) as a figure named Pepper. Its inventory
will consist of one part named Bird, Friends / Elves, Feet Joined with Magenta
Body and Bright Light Orange Eyes Pattern in the animal, air category and
(b) as a part in the animal, air category which has no reference to the name
Pepper. You could conceivably use the same method for other parts and figures.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 1 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
|
snip
| |
bje: Then we ought to make the school supplies an exception as well.
Response: Done.
|
some more exceptions:
Human furniture
[g=4016g] and related
Some in the fast food toy category:
Clocks as in
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 1 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility
|
yorbrick: The description of how to handle games is to unspecific.
Response: Please suggest better terminology.
wildchicken13: The new definition of figures is not helpful.
Response: Please suggest better terminology. Also, you may be confused
by the term "minifigure." BrickLink categorizes something like 40 different
types of figures together and calls them all minifigures. This is obviously
a mistake on our part and I'm trying to get that changed.
|
Yeah, it looks like I am not the only one who is confused by the term. Creating
a precise definition of the word "minifigure" is challenging. Both the current
definition ("mini figure") and the proposed definition ("autonomous entity")
open a lot of room for interpretation.
One suggestion would be to go by what the LEGO Group officially designates as
a minifigure. LEGO usually lists all the minifigures in a set in the official
description, and sometimes they also appear on the box. For example, on LEGO.com,
the official description for
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/super-hero-airport-battle-76051
says: "Includes minifigures of Captain America, Winter Soldier, Scarlet Witch,
Iron Man, War Machine, and Agent 13, plus an Ant-Man microfigure and a buildable
Giant-Man figure." Under this definition,
would all be classified as minifigures,
would be classified as a microfigure, and
would be classified as a buildable figure. Minifigures, microfigures, and buildable
figures would all be separate subcategories under the figure category.
Furthermore, on LEGO.com, the official description for
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/the-rise-of-voldemort-75965
says: "Includes 4 minifigures: Harry Potter™ with wand and Triwizard Challenge
outfit, Lord Voldemort™ with wand, Peter Pettigrew with wand and a Death Eater™."
Under this definition,
would all be considered minifigures, but
would not be considered minifigures because they are not listed as minifigures
in the description.
Some problems with this definition:
1. Not every minifigure comes in a set.
2. Not every set has an official description on LEGO.com.
3. Not every figure is mentioned in the official description of every set. For
example, in description for the Rise of Voldemort set, no mention is made of
Baby Voldemort or the Grave Statue. What should these be categorized as?
4. One set description may list a minifigure that is not listed in another set
description.
Perhaps a better idea would be to define a minifigure along the lines of what
resembles a traditional minifigure, i.e. whether or not it contains a torso assembly.
Under this definition,
would be a considered a minifigure because it contains a torso assembly, even
though it is not listed as a minifigure in the official set description, but
would not be considered a minifigure because it does not contain a torso assembly,
even though it is listed as a minifigure in the official set description. Figures
that are currently categorized as minifigures but do not contain a torso assembly
could be placed in separate subcategories under the figure category.
| | wildchicken13: Perhaps we could do a similar thing for figures, i.e. give
them
two separate catalog entries, one under parts and the other under figures?
Response: We're trying to move away from duplicate catalog entries
for the same item. In the instance you mentioned, one catalog entry is for a
set, while the other catalog entry is for the part that comes in the set.
|
Yeah, I don't like the idea of duplicate catalog entries, either. I recognize
that a part and a set consisting of a single part are technically two different
items, though.
| | wildchicken13: I'm just wondering where to draw the line between an assembly
that is a "part" and one that is something else ?
Response: If this isn't clear from the definitions, then the definitions
are flawed. Again, please suggest revisions. This is, in theory at least, your
reference catalog.
|
I'm not sure what to suggest for this one. I don't see a huge problem
with categorizing assemblies such as
* | | 2878c02 (Inv) Train Wheel RC, Holder with 2 Black Train Wheel RC Train and Chrome Silver Train Wheel RC Train, Metal Axle (2878 / 57878 / x1687)
Parts: Wheel |
as parts since they almost always go together and the last one is even included
in assembled form in official LEGO sets, but I don't think
should be considered parts because they are made up of many different elements
that do not always go together like that. Perhaps these items should be moved
to their own category, or perhaps they should be eliminated from the catalog
entirely, since there don't seem to be that many for sale, and sellers wanting
to sell these items could list them as a custom item.
| | bje: Are you going to rename the minifigs section in inventories to assembled
figures?
Response: We don't have the ability to rename many things. We can't
rename item types, for example, or "Minifigs" would already be "Figures." Renaming
sections of inventories is beyond our ability.
bje: Then we ought to make the school supplies an exception as well.
Response: Done.
CPgolfaddict: In my opinion the right solution here is to change the catalog
so that an item can appear in more than one item type and/or more than one category.
Response: This has been suggested before. We don't have the ability
to modify the site in this way.
manganschlamm: Question: Will animals be now figures as well?
Response: I think there would be nothing wrong with that and I wouldn't
be at all opposed. I haven't discussed it with anyone else, though. What
is your preference here?
If anyone had questions/comments that weren't addressed or need further clarification,
just say so.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2020 11:48 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
Please take a look at the difference between the existing page:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=170
and the proposed update:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
Are there any items in the catalog that still aren't addressed by the new
page? Put differently, what can you find in the catalog for which classification
by item type is still unclear when going by the definitions on the new page?
On the definition for figures: yes, I know that is very vague and could need
work.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
Under Exceptions, where it says "Educational Materials - These are considered
books to keep them together in one place, even when only a sheet of paper or
a piece of cardboard."
I'm trying to visualize in my mind, the small bits of cardboard, that have
been supplied with (for example) certain Soccer sets (and maybe Harry Potter
sets). The cardboard bits were integral to the play value of the sets. Will those
bits, not being plastic, end up under Educational ?
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 01:33 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
|
But it could be sooner than that in the absence of further feedback. Anyway,
here are some additional comments/questions in chronological order of posting.
infinibrix: I think breaking down some of this stuff might make more sense
than renaming Minifigs to Figures and then piling everything into the same place.
Response: You and I have spoken about this in another thread. I really
don't understand the logic behind adding additional item types. In a way
it would be like having a Town Sets, Space Sets, Castle Sets, etc. system of
item types instead of categorizing all these as sets and sorting them within
that item type. Figures are figures and can be further sorted within the Figures
item type.
bje: Animals will then only be figures if they are used in a set with
marked personalities or functions such as Pepper the soundcheck assistant.
Response: Yes, that's certainly one valid way to do it. Honestly,
I think the simpler way would be to just consider all animals figures. I'm
just not sure if the inventories system could handle this change.
jonwil: How do you draw the distinction between an animal and a figure?
Response: Don't know. That's why I think it would be easier to
consider all animals figures to avoid debates.
bje: I found some more exceptions.
Response: I updated the guidelines to cover all exceptions with the same
wording so that we wouldn't have to keep expanding the list of exceptions.
By the way, the clock you posted would still be considered gear. It's predominantly
an item of gear that includes a bonus set.
cosmicray: Could you give an example, or two, or gear/games that will
remain in gear?
Response: Sure. Here are several games that would still be gear:
[G=G31397]
[G=GA04]
Those games are not significantly constructed from bricks like these games are:
[G=3843]
[G=40161]
But, using my own statement about figures above, it's clear why all games
were considered gear in the past.
cosmicray: I'm trying to visualize . . . the small bits of cardboard
. . supplied with . . . sets. The cardboard bits were integral to the play
value of the sets. Will those bits, not being plastic, end up under Educational?
Response: No. The Educational & Dacta category is for themed items in
that line. Harry Potter and Soccer items would not be categorized as Educational
& Dacta. I believe you're asking about parts in this category:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=P&catString=246
The way I interpret the revised guidelines nothing would change here. But the
more important question is how do you interpret these items based on the
revised guidelines? If the guidelines don't clearly address the items you're
asking about, then they're flawed.
dcarmine: Where do posters go?
Response: The way I interpret the revised guidelines, they would be gear
because they do not naturally fit into one of the other five item types.
And then wildchicken13 and others had additional comments about figures. So
it looks like there will be two sticking points with these new definitions:
1. What should be considered a figure?
2. How do we make a clear distinction between sets and gear?
Oddly enough, both of these have long been contentious on BrickLink. I always
assumed that it was because no written guidelines existed, but now I understand
that perhaps the reason no written guidelines existed is because of the difficulty
in formulating them.
Still soliciting feedback . . .
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 10:46 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | infinibrix: I think breaking down some of this stuff might make more sense
than renaming Minifigs to Figures and then piling everything into the same place.
Response: You and I have spoken about this in another thread. I really
don't understand the logic behind adding additional item types. In a way
it would be like having a Town Sets, Space Sets, Castle Sets, etc. system of
item types instead of categorizing all these as sets and sorting them within
that item type. Figures are figures and can be further sorted within the Figures
item type.
bje: Animals will then only be figures if they are used in a set with
marked personalities or functions such as Pepper the soundcheck assistant.
Response: Yes, that's certainly one valid way to do it. Honestly,
I think the simpler way would be to just consider all animals figures. I'm
just not sure if the inventories system could handle this change.
jonwil: How do you draw the distinction between an animal and a figure?
Response: Don't know. That's why I think it would be easier to
consider all animals figures to avoid debates.
|
It took me some time to fully understand your idea. But I think I get it now.
1. You want to rename the current category "Minifigs" to "Figures". Why? I can
hardly think of a word that is so strong connected with LEGO like "Minifig"/"Minifigure".
"Figure", in contrast, is random and meaningless. Every brand can have figures,
but LEGO has minifigures. Compare the following pages:
https://www.google.com/search?q=figures&hl=de&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVg7b6_orpAhVjqHEKHRULDfwQ_AUoAnoECA0QBA&biw=1536&bih=734
https://www.google.com/search?q=minifigures&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6mrO__orpAhUTUhUIHSJZCXkQ_AUoAnoECA0QBA&biw=1536&bih=734
And see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_minifigure
Removing the name/category "Minifigs" from one of the largest LEGO websites seems
really strange to me.
2. You want to put all animals into the renamed "Figures" category. For example,
the inventory of
would then have "2035 Parts, 12 Figures"? Very odd...
And
would have "5 Parts, 2 Figures"?
So that would also mean that we go away from the idea that set inventories should
display the parts like they come in a new set? Because when the built dragon
is a figure, its single parts need to be removed from the inventory. That means
all changes concerning built animals from the last years have to be reversed?
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemItemID=1764
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChangeItem.asp?itemItemID=1795
etc...
Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a good solution. If you ask me, the reason
why there is a category called "Minifigs" is because people are especially interested
in minifigs (= LEGO figures mainly consisting of legs, torso and head). Minifigs
define the play value or collection value of a set. Therefore, people (buyers,
sellers, kids, collectors) want to know how many minifigs are in a set. They
usually don't need to know how many spiders, frogs, parrots etc. are in a
set and I'm sure nobody would understand why all this should be mixed up
in the same category now.
I already said how I would handle minifigs:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1192617
I would also not vote against keeping the status quo (with statues = minifigs
etc.). Of course a few minior adjustments could be made (to better clarify how
to handle droids or one-piece-minifigs, for example). But all in all, I think
the current classification works quite well, even if it is not consistent in
some cases and has no clear definition yet.
It should also be considered that Brickset takes minifigs classification and
images from BrickLink. So changes on that topic here on BrickLink will likely
affect thousands of minifig collectors (yes, minifig collectors, not figure collectors
) on both BrickLink and Brickset, the two biggest lego websites in the world
(apart from lego.com).
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | It took me some time to fully understand your idea. But I think I get it now.
1. You want to rename the current category "Minifigs" to "Figures". Why?
|
Go to this page and scroll down to the section titled "Different Types of Figures"
please:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2489
The LEGO group has made many different kinds of figures (40+) and only one of
them is a minifigure. We lump them all together and call them all minifigures.
This is incorrect.
| | "Figure", in contrast, is random and meaningless. Every brand can have figures,
but LEGO has minifigures.
|
I understand what you're saying, but the item type name is inaccurate. Scala
dolls are not at all minifigures. I don't think we need or will get another
item type for figures that are not minifigures.
And people looking for minifigures should be able to comprehend where to find
them even if the item type name is changed to Figures.
| | Removing the name/category "Minifigs" from one of the largest LEGO websites seems
really strange to me.
|
The category would not be removed. I'm only suggesting that it be retitled
for accuracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of figures in that item type
that are emphatically not minifigures. And "minifigs" is a slang term, by the
way, that was largely removed from the catalog already.
| | 2. You want to put all animals into the renamed "Figures" category. For example,
the inventory of
would then have "2035 Parts, 12 Figures"? Very odd...
|
I suggested it, yes. But it might not be a good idea. I haven't looked
into it fully. In the case of this set, it seems like it wouldn't be a good
idea.
| | And
would have "5 Parts, 2 Figures"?
|
No, this set inventory correctly lists the animal figure as a counterpart and
someday we'll list the human figure the same way. So this set would have
something like 17 parts and two figures as counterparts (it's already halfway
there).
| | So that would also mean that we go away from the idea that set inventories should
display the parts like they come in a new set? Because when the built dragon
is a figure, its single parts need to be removed from the inventory.
|
Not when it's listed as a counterpart. That's where we've been wanting
to go for some time now.
| | If you ask me, the reason why there is a category called "Minifigs" is because people are especially interested in minifigs
|
I don't deny that minifigures sell and collect well. I think at the roundtable
I attended some years back the site said that figures made up a decent percentage
of sales. But if we have a separate category for minifigures because of the
high interest, then what justification exists for sets, parts, books, catalogs,
and gear?
I would say the reason we have these six item types is simply because they're
a way to categorize things, not because the mere existence of any one item type
indicates that it somehow rises above any other item type in importance.
| | Therefore, people (buyers, sellers, kids, collectors) want to know how many minifigs are in a set. They usually don't need to know how many spiders, frogs, parrots etc. are in a
set and I'm sure nobody would understand why all this should be mixed up
in the same category now.
|
The second half is a fair point. We certainly don't have to categorize animals
as figures. The first half is also a fair point and might need to be considered
when talking about moving figures to counterparts.
| | I think the current classification works quite well, even if it is not consistent in
some cases and has no clear definition yet.
|
Then help us write a definition. That's the point of publicly discussing
this: to see what the community thinks and get input on future direction. After
looking at the list above of what we currently consider "Minifigs," write a definition
of that item type and share it.
| | (yes, minifig collectors, not figure collectors)
|
I'm sure there are people who collect different types of figures, not just
minifigures. BTW, here are some additional types of figures that we don't
even consider figures:
Should all of them be considered figures? No. But some should.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 17:21 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| First, thanks for your detailed answer!
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The LEGO group has made many different kinds of figures (40+) and only one of
them is a minifigure. We lump them all together and call them all minifigures.
This is incorrect.
|
Okay, it is incorrect if you use the term "minifigure" in its official, "narrow"
meaning. But one could also argue that BrickLink and also other sites like Brickset
have established another meaning for its own catalog during the past 20 years
and therefore it also stands for all kinds of figures like mini dolls, scala
dolls etc., as the old definition explains (mini figures = various types of small
figures). To illustrate that:
Categroy: Minifigs (1st meaning: Different types of small figures)
- Standard Minifigures (2nd meaning: "original" minifigures)
- Mini Dolls
- Droids
- Scala Dolls
- Microfigures
- Bionicle Figures
- ...
It is the same with some other categories: "Books" also stands for magazines
or Legoland park maps, "Sets" includes service packs and bulk packs, "Catalogs"
includes single pieces of paper.
So the question is: Are people confused by the two meanings? I don't know.
(But I would agree that people would still find minifigs in a retitled category.
So maybe it's just my personal traditional feeling why I would like to
keep "Minifigs" as one of the six main categories.)
By the way, LEGO calls this a minifigure:
"Includes Aaron and Robot Hoodlum minifigures"
| | | | I think the current classification works quite well, even if it is not consistent in
some cases and has no clear definition yet.
|
Then help us write a definition. That's the point of publicly discussing
this: to see what the community thinks and get input on future direction. After
looking at the list above of what we currently consider "Minifigs," write a definition
of that item type and share it.
|
Since I am not a native english speaker, I might not be the right person to to
this. But anyway, here is a draft:
Figures: A single part or small (1) part assembly that fits into the Lego
building system (2) and represents a human being, an alien, a droid, a
robot or any other real or fictive character excluding animals. Figures have
at least two distinguishable moulded body parts, at least one of which is a head,
torso, arm, hand, leg or feet (3).
(1) "Small" because whole sets like the buildable figures should be excluded.
(2) So figures like
and others you have listed are excluded.
(3) The second sentence makes sure that everything from
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2489
is included exept the "Infant Figure" and the "Duplo Vehicle Character Figure"
which are more parts than figures for me.
Parts like
[p=3062bpb036]
or
[p=3062bpb038]
would be excluded.
Too long, I guess?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 19:33 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | Okay, it is incorrect if you use the term "minifigure" in its official, "narrow"
meaning.
|
Without going too crazily in-depth about this, the word "minifigure" actually
means something very specific and a minifigure is actually a three-dimensional
trademark:
https://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2015/07/lego-mark-wars-toy-giant-snaps-together-two-favorable-3d-trademark-rulings-in-europe/
| | But one could also argue that BrickLink and also other sites like Brickset
have established another meaning
|
Yes, one could argue that - and lose. It's like saying that if I refer to
my vehicle tires by an entirely different name for long enough that eventually
I will be correct in what I'm saying. I won't be. I'll still be
wrong.
But I think we've probably exhausted that topic at this point.
| | Figures: A single part or small part assembly that fits into the Lego
building system and represents a human being, an alien, a droid, a
robot or any other real or fictive character excluding animals. Figures have
at least two distinguishable moulded body parts, at least one of which is a head,
torso, arm, hand, leg or feet.
|
Strangely enough, that's pretty close to what we all came up with the last
time we talked about this! But some thoughts:
| | Figures: A single part or small part assembly
|
Here I would ask how we decide what "small" means. See this list:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogStats.asp?statID=M&inItemType=P&itemType=M
| | that fits into the Lego building system
|
Which one? Technic, Duplo, Quatro, Belville, Scala? I would change "the" to
"a."
| | and represents a human being, an alien, a droid, a robot or any other real or fictive character excluding animals.
|
So no animals at all? Then how do we define these?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 05:06 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | First, thanks for your detailed answer!
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The LEGO group has made many different kinds of figures (40+) and only one of
them is a minifigure. We lump them all together and call them all minifigures.
This is incorrect.
|
Okay, it is incorrect if you use the term "minifigure" in its official, "narrow"
meaning. But one could also argue that BrickLink and also other sites like Brickset
have established another meaning for its own catalog during the past 20 years
and therefore it also stands for all kinds of figures like mini dolls, scala
dolls etc., as the old definition explains (mini figures = various types of small
figures). To illustrate that:
Categroy: Minifigs (1st meaning: Different types of small figures)
- Standard Minifigures (2nd meaning: "original" minifigures)
- Mini Dolls
- Droids
- Scala Dolls
- Microfigures
- Bionicle Figures
- ...
It is the same with some other categories: "Books" also stands for magazines
or Legoland park maps, "Sets" includes service packs and bulk packs, "Catalogs"
includes single pieces of paper.
So the question is: Are people confused by the two meanings? I don't know.
(But I would agree that people would still find minifigs in a retitled category.
So maybe it's just my personal traditional feeling why I would like to
keep "Minifigs" as one of the six main categories.)
|
I was gone say something like this, great explanation of my thoughts!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 05:55 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| |
infinibrix: I think breaking down some of this stuff might make more sense
than renaming Minifigs to Figures and then piling everything into the same place.
Response: You and I have spoken about this in another thread. I really
don't understand the logic behind adding additional item types. In a way
it would be like having a Town Sets, Space Sets, Castle Sets, etc. system of
item types instead of categorizing all these as sets and sorting them within
that item type. Figures are figures and can be further sorted within the Figures
item type.
|
Your interpretation of what I’ve suggested is non-comparable as it makes it sound
like I’m trying to separate apples and oranges from fruit when I’m talking about
separating Fruit from other food types?
Of course if goes without saying that all sets regardless of theme should be
catalogued under ‘Sets’ however on the subject of this I still think having polybags
under sets isn’t ideal. Do people browsing for sets looking for a gift for someone
really want to be confronted with lots of polybags especially when some only
contain a minifigure? On the other hand someone looking for a suitably sealed
stocking filler may appreciate a separate place to search for that type of product
without having to be confronted with lots of substantial sets?
With regards to the link you provided:-
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogStats.asp?statID=M&inItemType=P&itemType=M
I would suggest that apart from Dr. Octopus (which is a minifiure) the rest are
all buildable figures/characters and should ideally be separated and categorised
as such as they are certainly not the type of things I would expect to see when
browsing for minifigs
However if the six main catalog entries is all you currently have to work with
and it’s kind of a quick fix then I understand why you feel the need to continue
with your current plan of changes but correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression
that you do not envisage there ever being much need to extend beyond the six
catelog entries which seems a bit short sighted when you have so many very different
items bundled together like this?
I think the end goal needs to be a catalog that makes sense to your average shopper
and the more categories you have with clear definitions the simpler and faster
it will be for people to browse and shop!
Some of the defintions that are currenly being thrown around with regards to
what makes a figure a figure only goes to show that they cannot easily be defined
into one category and rather than trying to define by complicated factors like
animal interlect, humanoid form or how we know them as a character in the longer
term it would seem logical to define by the type of build they are be that single
piece figure, brick built character, minfig style character with torso assembly
etc..
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 13:45 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | However if the six main catalog entries is all you currently have to work with
and it’s kind of a quick fix then I understand why you feel the need to continue
with your current plan of changes but correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression
that you do not envisage there ever being much need to extend beyond the six
catelog entries which seems a bit short sighted when you have so many very different
items bundled together like this?
|
This is essentially the crux of the matter. To go beyond the six main item types
would take significant reprogramming of the site, and that is just not going
to happen. So it isn't that we in the catalog don't want to provide better
solutions, it is that we in the catalog can only provide solutions that don't
require significant reprogramming and fit in the context of what we have. In
this sense, the "Minifigs" item type cannot be expanded upon to create more item
types and must be looked at as it stands. And as it stands, "Minifigs" does not
accurately describe what is cataloged under that type, nor has it for a long
time. The easiest solution is to rename it "Figures" to accurately describe what
is cataloged under that type and then come up with guidelines for what can be
a figure. I hope that explains things a bit better from where we are coming from.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | infinibrix | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 16:32 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | However if the six main catalog entries is all you currently have to work with
and it’s kind of a quick fix then I understand why you feel the need to continue
with your current plan of changes but correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression
that you do not envisage there ever being much need to extend beyond the six
catelog entries which seems a bit short sighted when you have so many very different
items bundled together like this?
|
This is essentially the crux of the matter. To go beyond the six main item types
would take significant reprogramming of the site, and that is just not going
to happen. So it isn't that we in the catalog don't want to provide better
solutions, it is that we in the catalog can only provide solutions that don't
require significant reprogramming and fit in the context of what we have. In
this sense, the "Minifigs" item type cannot be expanded upon to create more item
types and must be looked at as it stands. And as it stands, "Minifigs" does not
accurately describe what is cataloged under that type, nor has it for a long
time. The easiest solution is to rename it "Figures" to accurately describe what
is cataloged under that type and then come up with guidelines for what can be
a figure. I hope that explains things a bit better from where we are coming from.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay thanks Randy I understand but you never know perhaps Lego will one day put
a team together to work on improving theses things
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 16:42 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 2 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, infinibrix writes:
| | However if the six main catalog entries is all you currently have to work with
and it’s kind of a quick fix then I understand why you feel the need to continue
with your current plan of changes but correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression
that you do not envisage there ever being much need to extend beyond the six
catelog entries which seems a bit short sighted when you have so many very different
items bundled together like this?
|
This is essentially the crux of the matter. To go beyond the six main item types
would take significant reprogramming of the site, and that is just not going
to happen. So it isn't that we in the catalog don't want to provide better
solutions, it is that we in the catalog can only provide solutions that don't
require significant reprogramming and fit in the context of what we have. In
this sense, the "Minifigs" item type cannot be expanded upon to create more item
types and must be looked at as it stands. And as it stands, "Minifigs" does not
accurately describe what is cataloged under that type, nor has it for a long
time. The easiest solution is to rename it "Figures" to accurately describe what
is cataloged under that type and then come up with guidelines for what can be
a figure. I hope that explains things a bit better from where we are coming from.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay thanks Randy I understand but you never know perhaps Lego will one day put
a team together to work on improving theses things
|
Oh yeah. That is definitely the hope!
We would love to revisit these discussions in the future if we were to get developers
assigned to us. However, with the current problems currently cropping up from
some changes that seem to going on behind the scenes, I am less than confident
that the current team at BrickLink are up to the task of completely redesigning
the database and structure of the site which your suggestions would entail.
Thank you for all of your thoughts in this discussion, though. They are very
much appreciated and help to drive us forward.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2020 23:04 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
|
There were two things that were contentious: how to classify figures and the
distinction between sets and gear. The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured
out yet, but there is progress on figures. Share what you think:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 04:07 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
|
There were two things that were contentious: how to classify figures and the
distinction between sets and gear. The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured
out yet, but there is progress on figures. Share what you think:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
Thank you to both you and Jonas.
Two immediate issues if I may:
Sentient refers to the quality of having feelings. Rather use animate to distinguish
between characters and objects.
Your definition of a pet is circular: If the pet is named, it is an animal, but
not a figure. If an animal is named it is a figure. Hence, by the mere virtue
of being described as Polly the pet parrot, it becomes a part,
but being described as Polly the parrot, it becomes a figure.
Other matters specifically dealing with Figures:
You should also decide what is the primary criteria. I've made a combination
flowchart/decision tree as in the image. The full detailed image is here:
http://jebricks.co.za/Images_Public/Diagram1.png
Note please, for the sake of brevity, Graphic is your definition of "Representations
of Humans", Figure Function is "Primary Function", Animal includes both your
"Animal" and "Pets" definitions and "Figure Size" is a non-issue.
If you decide to use this on the help page, it is available for use but I would
need the help of a graphics person to jazz it up a bit. I tend not to worry about
nice looks when it comes to functionality.
That makes having character, that is named, as the primary starting point after
excluding sets. Then move on to animate (your current sentient) and then completeness.
See if that accurately describes the process of deciding what is a figure and
what is a set/part/gear. From there, you might be ale to remove certain definitions
and exceptions such as pets and figure size from the definition table and simplify
it.
I remember a discussion in times past as to whether or not the dramatis personae
in sets and what makes them compete as to what the defining standard of what
a minifigure is. I'm not sure if you want to address the issue of accessories
or completeness with these definitions as well. I know some people who think
a cellphone is required to make them complete humans, so where accessories are
construed as required for limb movement or character. In this case refer to
in which the figure has a dual weapon/body movement part. It would be less confusing
if the accessories required for movement are included somewhere. If users feel
that should be separate issue, then note it on the definitions page please.
Also, I do not know if BL's help pages can be sorted such that the definitions
flow a bit better. Part of what is confusing is the fact that you move from animal
to character to limbs missing to determine if something is a figure or not, whereas
the more natural progression would be character, limbs missing, animal. I think
this is a process of definition rather than a single definiton so as to make
for simpler line definitions and a flow in the progress from definition to definition
might help to avoid confusion.
Finally, are you very sure BL can handle single part figures as being under figures
with a part number and part description? Can you please make an example of how
such an item would be named as a figure?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 16:39 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We're considering the possibility of updating the page defining item types
on June 1st when we add the new category definitions.
|
There were two things that were contentious: how to classify figures and the
distinction between sets and gear. The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured
out yet, but there is progress on figures. Share what you think:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
Looks good to me. The detailed figure classification is much better than a one-sentence-definition
and makes future adjustments easier (hopefully).
Just two thoughts (in addition to Jean's comment):
"Transformed Humans - Humans in another form are figures. A person transformed
into a rat is an example of this distinction and is a figure."
I would leave that out for at least four reasons:
- We would have duplicate catalog entries because the rat
would be a figure in some sets and a part in other sets.
- It was not always clear that the rat is a human in some sets. If you ask me,
the catalog classification should not depend too much on how a story develops.
Otherwise we would always be at risk of misclassifying things just because the
next part of a story hasn't been published yet.
- There is a (minior, but anyway) risk that the classification would be a spoiler
for anyone who don't know the story background yet.
- There is a gray rat in
but it is unknown if it is *the* rat or a normal animal (other versions of Hagrid's
Hut contain normal rats).
"Figure Size - There are currently no restrictions on size or complexity of figures."
I think there should be a restriction so that the content of a set like
cannot be classified as a figure. I would also say that large brick-built figures
which consists of a significant number of parts from a set should not have an
entry under the figures category. After all they would cause similar inventory
problems like Special Assemblies ( https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1188426
). And to have brick-built figures without an inventory is not really an option
(sellers want to check if a figure is complete and buyers want to know which
parts they get when buying a figure).
Example: The mech in
should not be a figure simply because of its size and part count.
(This is what I wanted to say with "small" in my previous answer.)
------------------------
| | The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured out yet
|
Why not use the differentation which is already written under Specific Considerations
and Exceptions?
"Items are sets when significantly brick-built [...]."
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 16:47 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | | | The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured out yet
|
Why not use the differentation which is already written under Specific Considerations
and Exceptions?
"Items are sets when significantly brick-built [...]."
|
The problem is now in defining what "significantly brick-built" is since that
is open to interpretation.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 17:04 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | | | The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured out yet
|
Why not use the differentation which is already written under Specific Considerations
and Exceptions?
"Items are sets when significantly brick-built [...]."
|
The problem is now in defining what "significantly brick-built" is since that
is open to interpretation.
|
Not glued for one. Consisting of mostly parts in the parts catalogue (gear parts
are gear at this time) for two. Also having instructions might help.
Also, since we seem to be moving to having defined figures types, are we going
to see inventory pages upated for figures, which can then include animals, large
figures and minifigures etc, or are we getting a definition for figures in the
help pages and then lumping eveything on the inventory pages under minifigs?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2020 17:11 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion - Update 3 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | | | The sets/gear distinctions isn't figured out yet
|
Why not use the differentation which is already written under Specific Considerations
and Exceptions?
"Items are sets when significantly brick-built [...]."
|
The problem is now in defining what "significantly brick-built" is since that
is open to interpretation.
|
Not glued for one. Consisting of mostly parts in the parts catalogue (gear parts
are gear at this time) for two. Also having instructions might help.
Also, since we seem to be moving to having defined figures types, are we going
to see inventory pages upated for figures, which can then include animals, large
figures and minifigures etc, or are we getting a definition for figures in the
help pages and then lumping eveything on the inventory pages under minifigs?
|
The "Minifigs" section in the inventories would need to be renamed, also. This
would go along with having the main item type renamed. We would also have to
figure out where else the term "Minifigs" is in use in any other parts of the
site to have it coincide with these changes. All of these things will require
assistance from the BrickLink team once our plan is finalized.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:25 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Is this entire project now dead, given LEGO has re-mapped the catalog to make
it logical for new users (new users that obviously have no interest at all in
themes, part types, etc)?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:36 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Is this entire project now dead, given LEGO has re-mapped the catalog to make
it logical for new users (new users that obviously have no interest at all in
themes, part types, etc)?
|
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:43 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Is this entire project now dead, given LEGO has re-mapped the catalog to make
it logical for new users (new users that obviously have no interest at all in
themes, part types, etc)?
|
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
I guess it is time to save a "community catalog" again, before the old one is
removed and the re-mapped one becomes the new BL standard.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:43 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
Change the buying process, don’t ask anything to experienced buyers.
Change the selling process, don’t ask anything to experienced sellers.
Change the catalogue, don’t ask anything to catalogue admins BL appointed!
“Hobby project” indeed.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 04:49 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
I had already questioned this in the admin forums yesterday. None of us even
knew this was happening, and we are as surprised as anyone else. We pretty much
got the rug pulled out from under us, and I honestly have no idea where we go
from here.
|
Change the buying process, don’t ask anything to experienced buyers.
Change the selling process, don’t ask anything to experienced sellers.
Change the catalogue, don’t ask anything to catalogue admins BL appointed!
“Hobby project” indeed.
|
I guess if you think about it, LEGO just made lego.com move up one place in the
best LEGO websites.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2020 09:04 | | Subject: | Re: Item Type Discussion | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Is this entire project now dead . . . ?
|
No, this project is not dead. We're still continually working on this page
and still planning to make it official on June 1st:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2487
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom, England
Australia, Queensland
Germany, Niedersachsen
South Africa, Western Cape
Netherlands, Overijssel
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
