|
 |
| | | Author: | normann1974  | | Posted: | Jan 20, 2023 19:05 | | Subject: | Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 118 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | | For: | Catalog Associate | | Status: | Completed | |
|
| The bricks in the 3005pt*s series of bricks with serif font prints don't
have a consistent naming pattern. Examples:
Some use the word "Letter", some don't. Some letters are in apostrophes,
some (and numbers) aren't. The placement of the word "Pattern" is
also different.
Also, I wonder about the name of [P=3062bpb033]
It mentions the danish letter Ø, but the 3005pt*s parts don't mention any
of these special characters (ÆØÅÄ) which means that you can't search for
them. Also this part has the name "Stroke" instead of "Slash".
Please decide on a consistent naming. Other letter/number parts may need change
as well.
/Jan
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Jan 21, 2023 19:03 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 100 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| Also, for these 3005pt*s parts, I have noticed two visibly different versions.
The older bricks with bottom pip (CA plastic) have bolder print than the bricks
with side pip (ABS).
Should these be considered different parts? Otherwise I suggest (many) notes.
/Jan
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 21, 2023 19:08 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | Also, for these 3005pt*s parts, I have noticed two visibly different versions.
The older bricks with bottom pip (CA plastic) have bolder print than the bricks
with side pip (ABS).
Should these be considered different parts? Otherwise I suggest (many) notes.
/Jan
|
Ya it looks like thin prints and thick prints
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2023 20:14 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | The bricks in the 3005pt*s series of bricks with serif font prints don't
have a consistent naming pattern. Examples:
Some use the word "Letter", some don't. Some letters are in apostrophes,
some (and numbers) aren't. The placement of the word "Pattern" is
also different.
Also, I wonder about the name of [P=3062bpb033]
It mentions the danish letter Ø, but the 3005pt*s parts don't mention any
of these special characters (ÆØÅÄ) which means that you can't search for
them. Also this part has the name "Stroke" instead of "Slash".
Please decide on a consistent naming. Other letter/number parts may need change
as well.
/Jan
|
This has been completed.
All of the 3005pt*s have had their names standardized with other number and letter
parts in the catalog.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2023 14:37 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| | | This has been completed.
All of the 3005pt*s have had their names standardized with other number and letter
parts in the catalog.
Cheers,
Randy
|
What about an admin statement on the two different fonts?
/Jan
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2023 15:32 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | | | This has been completed.
All of the 3005pt*s have had their names standardized with other number and letter
parts in the catalog.
Cheers,
Randy
|
What about an admin statement on the two different fonts?
/Jan
|
Which two different fonts? The bold and serif fonts? What is there to make a
statement about? I'm confused. 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2023 15:39 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| | | | | What about an admin statement on the two different fonts?
/Jan
|
Which two different fonts? The bold and serif fonts? What is there to make a
statement about? I'm confused.
|
And what about Comic Sans MS?
It's Nubs_Select favorite!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2023 00:21 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | | | What about an admin statement on the two different fonts?
/Jan
|
Which two different fonts? The bold and serif fonts? What is there to make a
statement about? I'm confused.
|
And what about Comic Sans MS?
It's Nubs_Select favorite!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2023 18:15 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | | | This has been completed.
All of the 3005pt*s have had their names standardized with other number and letter
parts in the catalog.
Cheers,
Randy
|
What about an admin statement on the two different fonts?
/Jan
|
Which two different fonts? The bold and serif fonts? What is there to make a
statement about? I'm confused.
|
Well, lets call them font styles instead. My first-follow-up in this thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1388830
/Jan
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2023 22:21 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | | | This has been completed.
All of the 3005pt*s have had their names standardized with other number and letter
parts in the catalog.
Cheers,
Randy
|
What about an admin statement on the two different fonts?
/Jan
|
Which two different fonts? The bold and serif fonts? What is there to make a
statement about? I'm confused.
|
Well, lets call them font styles instead. My first-follow-up in this thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1388830
/Jan
|
So there is yet *another* font? A "bold serif" font? Heavens to Murgatroyd...
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2023 00:22 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | | | This has been completed.
All of the 3005pt*s have had their names standardized with other number and letter
parts in the catalog.
Cheers,
Randy
|
What about an admin statement on the two different fonts?
/Jan
|
Which two different fonts? The bold and serif fonts? What is there to make a
statement about? I'm confused.
|
Well, lets call them font styles instead. My first-follow-up in this thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1388830
/Jan
|
So there is yet *another* font? A "bold serif" font? Heavens to Murgatroyd...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2023 17:44 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| | |
So there is yet *another* font? A "bold serif" font? Heavens to Murgatroyd...
|
So is this the official admin statement?
/Jan
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 30, 2023 20:20 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | | |
So there is yet *another* font? A "bold serif" font? Heavens to Murgatroyd...
|
So is this the official admin statement?
/Jan
|
I finished the work that was asked for in the initial request, and it was closed,
so I don't know what you are waiting for. If you want something else, could
you please just make a new request or just plainly state what you want?
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2023 10:37 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| | | | | | | So there is yet *another* font? A "bold serif" font? Heavens to Murgatroyd...
|
So is this the official admin statement?
/Jan
|
I finished the work that was asked for in the initial request, and it was closed,
so I don't know what you are waiting for. If you want something else, could
you please just make a new request or just plainly state what you want?
Randy
|
I don't understand why all these messages are necessary and why I must make
a new catalog request.
You obviously read my follow-up question because you answered it with either
a funny or sarcastic remark. All I wanted was a serious answer so that I can
move on. Time could have been spent better, so I decide to end it here. No new
request will be made so no more time will be wasted. Someone else will need to
deal with this font style issue.
/Jan
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2023 10:52 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | | | | | | | So there is yet *another* font? A "bold serif" font? Heavens to Murgatroyd...
|
So is this the official admin statement?
/Jan
|
I finished the work that was asked for in the initial request, and it was closed,
so I don't know what you are waiting for. If you want something else, could
you please just make a new request or just plainly state what you want?
Randy
|
I don't understand why all these messages are necessary and why I must make
a new catalog request.
You obviously read my follow-up question because you answered it with either
a funny or sarcastic remark. All I wanted was a serious answer so that I can
move on. Time could have been spent better, so I decide to end it here. No new
request will be made so no more time will be wasted. Someone else will need to
deal with this font style issue.
/Jan
|
I don't understand why you need to continue to ask about things you already
know. If you would like to submit the new font-type bricks to the catalog for
consideration, then do so, and we will take it from there.
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2023 11:03 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| | | I don't understand why you need to continue to ask about things you already
know. If you would like to submit the new font-type bricks to the catalog for
consideration, then do so, and we will take it from there.
Randy
|
1) I know not if admins want to consider this two different font styles. I believe
there is not an obvious answer because some non-bold/bold prints on other parts
are not considered enough to warrant split. This is a decision that should be
made by admin, not by me. Therefore I ask. I am not going to create 20+ new bricks
in the catalog just "for consideration" just to risk having them rejected.
That would be even more a waste of my time.
2) Because I'm not admin, so I can't make the notes on the bricks myself.
So no, I don't already know. I need admin answer. Serious answer.
/Jan
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2023 12:17 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| I see that my ~20 images of the letter bricks were rejected because I made them
look consistent with the remaining ones in a way that they were true to the bricks
I had in my hand and I believe no one could tell they were retouched photos with
accurate print.
This is very unfortunate and I regret having spent time on this project.
But at least it makes me not waste time in the future by trying to ensure consistency
and making the catalog look much better. Letter bricks on gray baseplates it
be.
/Jan
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2023 14:23 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | I see that my ~20 images of the letter bricks were rejected because I made them
look consistent with the remaining ones in a way that they were true to the bricks
I had in my hand and I believe no one could tell they were retouched photos with
accurate print.
This is very unfortunate and I regret having spent time on this project.
But at least it makes me not waste time in the future by trying to ensure consistency
and making the catalog look much better. Letter bricks on gray baseplates it
be.
/Jan
|
They were not accepted because one of the other admins is going to be doing a
project involving all of the letter bricks in the near future. This was news
to me as of yesterday. This will include figuring out how many fonts there truly
are, consolidation or expansion of current entries, and all new photographs for
all of the parts.
In any case, the current images in many situations were better than your doctored
images in two key ways: (1) they showed the letters at the correct size on the
bricks in all cases, and (2) the serif fonts are much easier to recognize on
the current images than the images you submitted where many of the serifs were
almost nonexistent or clearly worn down.
Until the above project is completed, it is best that we have the images that
most clearly convey the reality of the parts. I am sorry if that does not sit
well with your emotions or time spent on your activity. Not everything that gets
submitted gets accepted.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Feb 1, 2023 15:17 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| | | In any case, the current images in many situations were better than your doctored
images in two key ways: (1) they showed the letters at the correct size on the
bricks in all cases, and
|
Thanks for the answer. Good luck with that project.
But to correct you: All images that I submitted were scanned identically in 600
dpi, both for the old and the new ones. And I transferred the print 1:1. So my
images has 100% the correct print size for all the bricks, only the orientation
and position can be a bit off from the exact brick I had in my hands, and I believe
the LEGO printing machines back in the old days were not even that precise, so
that shouldn't matter.
Example image submitted along with a photograph of (most likely) another brick
has been attach to prove my point. I didn't take note of the exact bricks
that I scanned because I believed the project was finished.
/Jan
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Jun 20, 2023 18:30 | | Subject: | Re: Consistent naming of 3005pt*s parts | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| | | They were not accepted because one of the other admins is going to be doing a
project involving all of the letter bricks in the near future. This was news
to me as of yesterday. This will include figuring out how many fonts there truly
are, consolidation or expansion of current entries, and all new photographs for
all of the parts.
In any case, the current images in many situations were better than your doctored
images in two key ways: (1) they showed the letters at the correct size on the
bricks in all cases, and (2) the serif fonts are much easier to recognize on
the current images than the images you submitted where many of the serifs were
almost nonexistent or clearly worn down.
Until the above project is completed, it is best that we have the images that
most clearly convey the reality of the parts. I am sorry if that does not sit
well with your emotions or time spent on your activity. Not everything that gets
submitted gets accepted.
Cheers,
Randy
|
For this project, please make a note that I may have found a new print variant
(the lower row and the large pile) that doesn't seem to be in the current
catalog. It's a bold font with larger letters that the ones currently in
the catalog. Please note the position of the ring in the 'Å' and the
straight edges of the 'M'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denmark
Canada, Ontario
USA, Ohio
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
