Was there a recent purge or reclassification of some sets?

Oldfan

A few days ago I had a little over 1000 sets listed as "owned" on Brickset; today that number is down to 975 (without my changing anything). Did Brickset recently shuffle some data around, make any changes to the database, and/or reclassify some items, or should I perform a set-by-set check to see if there were some inadvertant deletions in my sets? Thanks much.

PS my sets listed as "wanted" does not seem to have changed.

Huw

Yes I am currently doing some database work, the difference you've noticed is because 'gear' is not included in the total figure any more.

I'm also going through and adding piece counts for every set that doesnt have them, apart from gear where a piece count usually isn't relevant.

So, with these two changes you should see an accurate figure for your total pieces.

drdavewatford

While I remember, when it states that the database has piece counts for 'X' of the sets that I own, is that 'X' unique sets or 'X' sets in total ?

atkinsar

It was always sets in total, not sure if Huw has changed it recently. I too was wondering where 121 of my 'sets' went, until I did the math on my gear :-)

Huw

X unique sets. The number of unique sets you own should now be pretty close to the number that there is a piece count for, now that I've finish adding them, and have removed gear from the equation.

There are now just 160 released sets without piece counts, the majority of which either (a) don't have a count in the collector book (b) are MMMB sets (c) were never actually released e.g. 6500 or (d) are Dacta and not listed anywhere else. I will publish a list tomorrow in case anyone can help fill the gaps.

The My Sets page will soon have a note explaining the figure doesn't include gear.

To find out which sets you own that do not have a piece count, export to Excel, filter on blanks in the Pieces column and filter out Gear from the theme column.

I hate tat/gear, and I'm devaluing it in the database :-)

dougts

I hate tat/gear, and I'm devaluing it in the database :-)

I agree strongly with this. While there may be value in maintaining a database of it to some people, in my view it clearly belong in a completely separate classification than actual LEGO, and the two would ideally never show up together mixed into the same listing.

drdavewatford

While I'm not as averse to tat as @Huw, it makes sense not to count tat, sorry - "gear" - as 'sets' in the totting up process. I would however quite like a 'grand total' of sets + tat owned as well....

Si_UKNZ

Good move Huw.
Dont forget to ask the forum if we can help with anything.

Oldfan

Thanks for the info Huw, I guess I have more "gear" than I thought...

Also I agree with drdave, a total of "gear" along with "sets" would be nice to see. Thanks again for all your efforts here!

1265

I like the idea of keeping the "gear" sets out of the equation of sets owned. However, I disagree on listing some sets as "gear," such as, 852750 Pirates Tic Tac Toe. This is just one example along with several chess sets. These are subtheme as "Board Games" under the theme "Gear," which doesn't make sense. Why are the other board games listed as sets but these are not? These should fall under the theme of "games."

atkinsar

While I'm not as averse to tat as @Huw, it makes sense not to count tat, sorry - "gear" - as 'sets' in the totting up process. I would however quite like a 'grand total' of sets + tat owned as well....

What he said, except I do see one problem in that the DK Brickmaster books are classified under gear and contain both minifigs and pieces which will now not be counted in your totals. Other examples are the padawan menace dvd which comes with a minifig.

One solution for the pieces count would be to reclassify books separately and then include them in the normal totals, or do as others have suggested and have a separate count for gear.

For minifigs, I think the count should include gear, there is too much of it that includes one or more minifigs and it doesn't feel to me like these should be excluded from the minifig count.

Ernst

I checked my sets today and to my surprise I see set 324 is gone missing. Work at the database or a mistake ?

Huw

@Ernst, The earliest cut off date for the database is currently 1966 so I removed a couple of sets that had been added for earlier years.

Before that things were too complex and unless @istokg can assist with compiling a complete set listing for years up to that, I don't intend to add then.

@atkinsar, if gear contains minifigs they will still be included in your minifig totals: that calculation does not account for theme.

@1265, games like 852750 Pirates Tic Tac Toe are essentially tat because they are predominantly of Chinese origin. However I agree there could be case for two categories of gear: 'true tat' like foam swords and other things without a brick in sight, and games/keyrings/magnets etc. which do have bricks.

In fact there could be a case for removing everything (with very few exceptions) without a brick in it from the database. What are your thoughts on that?

MinifigsMe

I agree that the games, which are mostly bricks shouldn't really be considered tat/not included. The origin of the plastic (which for the most part in the games isn't china) shouldn't mean they don't count as lego! I know it must get complicated, but I've never understood why brick built games are gear and not sets...

Yellowcastle

Personally, I characterize the Tic Tac Toe set, DK books and battlepacks closer to sets than to gear. I see the foam swords, keychains, coinbanks, watches, etc as gear.

Ernst

@Huw Well, the admins decide of course but I personally have the opinion that known sets like 324 should not be removed because of a date boundry. A bit disappointing for those members who collect real old sets.

Yellowcastle

^ I agree with the decision to maintain that cutoff point of 1966 until such time as we can account completely and accurately for that time period.

Si_UKNZ

I agree that 'without a brick in it' is a good criteria. Essentially, anything which contributes to the piece count should definitely be in the database IMO. Also agree about the games - I just tend to buy them for parts, so to me they are just as much lego as any other set.

Whether the 'with no pieces' stuff is actually removed, or just treated differently I dont know. It is useful to log this stuff, since it has value and some people are interested in collecting , for example, rare storage cases or (in my case) a lego table. If you follow that logic though it does raise another question - should 'anything' made by TLG' be the scope e.g. corporate pens etc. If the line being drawn is 'stuff of interest to Lego fans' then maybe it should. If this is not the scope then go ahead and cut anything without a brick in it.

Ernst

Although I think it is a shame I respect the decision. Will there be possibilty the earlier years before 1966 will return in the (near) future ?

Huw

^ I think 'return' is too stonger term since there has only ever been 6 sets in the database prior to 1966. As Yellowcastle says, when we have enough time, data and images for earlier years, without plagurising other sources, we can add them.

The current criteria for inclusion in the database was documented in a news article: http://www.brickset.com/news/article/?ID=1112

Si_UKNZ

^ Ahh, yes, that makes sense now - those scope definitions are very well thought through. It's a complicated area!

atkinsar

Personally, I'd be fine with a change in the criteria so that only items including bricks and/or minifigs are included and that the criteria be retrospectively applied and items not meeting it purged from the database.

Huw

Maybe we can discuss more suitable criteria. Here's my thoughts:

- If the item contains or consists of regular LEGO parts AND is given a shop.LEGO.com product number then it goes in (e.g. keyrings/magnets/coin banks etc.)

- Other stuff e.g. bags, clothing, bedding, furniture, books, DVDs, video games is removed/not added UNLESS it comes with bricks, is an idea book, or meets some other undefined criteria, such as being of interest to AFOLs e.g. brickless DK books.

There are some grey areas e.g. Pens and Watches and clocks, should they be in or out?

I'd say in the case of the latter they should be out, despite some having bricks included, partly because there are loads of them being made nowadays, by licensees, and they are of little interest to collectors.

I'd also like to remove 'product collections' that do not have unique packaging, so everything that's numbered above 78000 in this list:

http://www.brickset.com/search/default.aspx?query=product+collection

The reasoning being that they have never actually existed other than as a 'virtual product' at shop.LEGO.com.

A reduction of scope of the database would enable its overall quality, accuracy and completeness to be improved.

LMKWYT!

iadams

@huw: One word, "Muji" - you know what I'm talking about...

Huw

Yes.. not really sure if they are in or out of scope. They certainly contain bricks, but are they LEGO products? The same question could be asked of these vases.

I've just put a news article on the home page about this and I have added a clause

I will reserve the right not to include licenced products that contain bricks (e.g. Nintendo DS covers, LEGO annuals, Muji sets, Moleskine books etc.)

which would cover for these cases :)

atkinsar

I support these changes Huw, even though it means some of my 'tat' will be purged, all for it if it will help to maintain/raise the quality of the database in the core areas.

Great shout to get rid of virtual product collections.

vwong19

Thanks for producing this great website and forum.

It would be nice to separate minifigs stats into minifigures, microfigures, mini dolls, and duplo.
I would like to see watches with minifigures kept in the database.

Yellowcastle

I think we should do a test purge list so that everyone can review which items would be disappearing. Perhaps @Huw can give the questionable gear some unique qualifier (sub-family Poop or such) and then let everyone review and discuss the provided link of poop? Once there's a consensus on the criteria, @Huw can then remove said entries and apply the "rules" going forward.

collect_that

It's all about the bricks!!!

@Huw - I think this will be a good change for the database, Putting back the emphasis on the 'Brick Sets'. We all a few pieces of so called 'Tat' but apart from listing in MY Sets I doubt anyone really regards them as part of their collection.

Although I think some pieces of 'gear' are definetly in a 'grey' area, some should be re-classed and other product included...

853106-1: Ninjago Battle Arena

- Even though this set is listed in 'gear' I would consider it part of the regular Ninjago range. It is not a 'piece' but it forms a basis for the game aspect of the range (Which gets over looked) and also includes a minifig and some pieces.

As for the games, tic tac toe, chess etc.. I would also vote to class these as sets and would argue that they are a valid inclusion to the heading 'Games' I wouldn't count some of them out just because of Chinese origin. The Giant castle Chess Set also deserves better recognition than a gear sub-theme.

I would also shout to include the Rose Arts games, such as Racers! Not an official product I know, but does include plenty of pieces and figures, so worthy of an inclusion!! I for one certainly regard these as part of my collection and collected when they were first released.

Zacherano

I disagree with the idea of removing the first category, including Lego items like clothes, bedding, etc. Lego is a huge part of my life, or this database would not serve as one of my home pages. Thus, I have Lego items like mugs, towels, and umbrellas that I like to mark on here so I keep track of them for the future.

bdc

One of the reasons I prefer the Brickset database over LUGNET is the broader inclusion of non-set items. While I think its appropriate to segregate these, I also do collect gear such as books, magnets sets, key chains, pens, clocks, watches, games, and have liked that Brickset almost always has had the broadly available gear in its database. Without this, Bricklink will be the only site to really have full cover of gear and rare items.

I do understand that with all the licensing, its hard to keep track of all items. I doubt LEGO barely can. On the AFOL surveys, I also ask them to provide a canonical database for collectors.

One category in particular that I don't even bother to track is clothing. However, I think items actually sold by shop.lego.com should be included, as well as some of the high distribution items such as the recent LCD minifig clocks found at toysrus, perhaps common items from the various LEGOLAND, and finally the large distribution books found on Amazon etc from DK and Scholastic.

AJD08

I always saw the database as a way to keep track of sets. I enjoyed going over my old saved instruction booklets and tracking down which sets I had based on pieces and figures I have in my collection. While it's neat to see some of the other LEGO paraphernalia in the database, if it's taking away from attention that can be applied to the sets, then I say no need to bother with it.

Duchessa

I think this could be a change for the better. Keep the items with actual bricks in them, and get rid of the other stuff.

Huw

Although I think some pieces of 'gear' are definetly in a 'grey' area, some should be re-classed and other product included.

I agree some should probably be reclassified, although arguably the classification would be less important if all the 'tat' is removed. The Ninjago arena would stay because it contains bricks.

I would also shout to include the Rose Arts games, such as Racers!

I've always resisted adding these, even though I have 4 of them, because they are not LEGO products and definitive information about them is not available.

grahamh_100

Would it be possible to have a tick box 'show/don't show gear' for when browsing/searching the database?

That would be the ideal solution for me, as I do like to tick off the extra stuff that it is included.

Keep up the good work!!

collect_that

^^ If we have the Rose Arts games, we have the information!

^ That would be ideal for all users, BUT the reduction in products listed gives way to more time and effort spent on the more important brick included sets and the accuracy of the information related to these!

Dfenz

I think clocks with bricks should stay in. Some have minifigs.

For example this Belville themed set http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=7398-1

The key criteria for me are the bricks. Once an item has LEGO pieces or minifigs (e.g. the Padawan Menace Blu-ray) I think it should be included.

Butcha

While on the subject of re-classifying sets and such, One thing I've been thinking about for a while is weather is would be possible/reasonable to combine 'Large Scale Models' and 'Sculptures'? It would, In my opinion, make searching much easier, as I personally have them in the same category in my head :)

Definitely liking the idea of re-focusing though, Seems very reasonable and there seems to be good logic in the decisions, so keep it up!

Sam

rebrickable

Huw, one thing I do to help with this problem on my site is to mark these gear type sets as "Accessory" which by default prevents them from showing up in search results, but users can still add them to their collections if they want.

Yellowcastle

With regards to the inclusion of minifigures being a criterion, I would point everyone to the just awful minifigures included with the Star Wars pens. IMO, they are not even LEGO-esque. They are just awful. Awful. :o)

Dfenz

While I agree that the quality of minifigures varies, to put it mildly, I don't think the quality of the minifigures or where on the planet the pieces are made should make any difference. However, the minifigs should be separate or capable of being separated from the object, as per the clocks. I don't recall if the minifgures can be separated from the pens.

Yellowcastle

^ Last I checked, the pens come with 2 LEGO-ish minifigures. But like the ark of the covenants, I try to keep my eyes closed when passing. :o)

ravendragonwing

Question that kind of goes along with this discussion, why aren't promo bricks (from LEGO stores or LLCA) or LEGOLAND Master Builder class sets included?

I would be sad to see the gear go. But I like lists :)

andhe

Perhaps we could have another site. Brickset for brick related sets and products, and Tatset for lego licensed bedding and stationary etc :p

My loose definition would be, if it adds to my brick collection or is enabling building (ideas books etc) then it stays.

legobuilder5463

I think it is a good improvement. But the video games for the PC, especially those of TT games, I do collect. But before those are available on Brickset there are some weeks/months passed. So in that case it is clearly that it takes a lot of work to add them complete and accurate.

Why not include video games as general, and do not specify on which console you play it. DVDs are general and do not have something like where do I play my DVD on. Games do have this, but it is actual not very important.

@andhe An other site for Tatset sounds easy, but is a lot of work to keep it up-to-date and so on. Not to mention the double Databases and source files.

Steve_J_OM

I've never been bothered about the existence of gear on the database - I don't mark anything owned because I don't consider those items as 'sets', but I think they're very easy to ignore if you want to. That said, with the sheer amount of ancillary products out there with the LEGO name on it, I can imagine it is a nightmare to keep on top of it all, and see the temptation to remove such products altogether.

On the subject of reclassification, I agree with a comment on the news article about collectable minifigures - it'd be great to have a database entry for each series as a whole rather than having each individual minifigure as a set (pretty please??). I haven't ticked the individual CMFs as owned, because I don't want to have to cycle through pictures of 96 minifigs (and counting) when I look at the 'my sets' page for quick reference.

labrat

It seems that many of the comments in the forum favor the changes while many of the comments on the website do not favor the changes.

This may indicate an age bias as younger members of brickset are not allowed to particpate in the forum.

I hold no opinion either way. I can see both points of views, but I think we should all make sure that everyone's voice gets to be heard. We were not always AFOL's, and how much better would life have been if we had never had our dark days?

The nicest thing to notice is that no matter the outcome Brickset is still going to be the best LEGO resource on the internet.

legoDad

Chiming in late on this. I definitely understand the difficulty in listing EVERY single thing Lego makes especially textile stuff they lisence out but I think for BrickSet to be THE definitive guide (which is what I want and wish and love it to be...that's why it's my #1 site to start the day) you gotta' have the following...

-Every building set (obviously), even the display covers for like DS covers that have studs and tiles on them. They are building pieces.

-All books, magazines, sticker books, etc.

-All Convention exclusives from SDCC, NYCC, Toy Fair, exclusive party giveaways, Lego Billund tours they do, etc. This should be thoroughly investigated and catelogued for compleatist.

-Display items that are lisenced by Lego. Meaning display case, storage case, and the like...etc.

- You gotta' have the items that contain bricks...like the new Moleskins coming out, etc. And the aforementioned items like DS covers that have building elements on them.

-You don't need video games or dvd's unless they come with an exclusive figure or building set, etc.

-You don't need clothing, textiles unless the Lego store sells them and sometimes there are exclusive shirts kids get at Club Meetings. Not something you can find at a Walmart, regular retail store (again, unless they have some fig. or building element).

-You need to have the watches and pens that have building elements.

-Keep all key chains and magnets. Anything with a minifigure actually. Big, small or just the right mini-fig size.

Sometimes I find stuff at TRU that are unusual to me. Like Ninjago large figures that come with a sound device. Also I've seen a lego set with little things you clip onto the necks of a minifig and you can write or use stickers that come with the set so it's looks like a balloon, bubble from a comic book. Very unusual to me. These unusual thngs should be in the database for collectors and casual fans to come here and say...oh...I didn't know they made that. I might get one. I've never seen this...great place to come back to.

I love brickset. Keep it as complete as possible to be THE definitive guide. EXCELSIOR!...;)

collect_that

^ Don't you think that all the stationary and watches etc... only include bricks 'n' pieces purely as a novelty! A marketng tool to justify the LEGO brand name on whatever item? A Lego pen and mug might make me look cool (or geeky!) in the office but it's purely for novelty and no more.

It would be nice to include all the little novelty items, but not at the expense of the core of the database which is the sets and relevant items and a proper catalogue of these!!

However I do agree that convention items and exclusives, through whichever outlet, should be given a thorough entry as these are some of the real collectables, whether they be easily obtainable or not.

legoDad

^As long as there is some building element that can be use I'd like to include. Not a pen or coffee cup...but if it came with a brick element I think it should be included.
But it's just one hombre's opinion.
I like the books 'cause it's part of the collecting hobby. Like the stickers people can use in moc's. The brick journal has nice articles on building, conventions, moc experts, etc.
Storage items I think are necessary too.
My basic overall thing is, if it has brick elements, keep it in. But final decision is of course up to our liege, the big man, el Capitano... Huw.

iadams

@huw: I recognise your option to exclude them, but the Muji sets have a Lego logo on the outside, and the contents are almost exclusively Lego bricks. How can they not be appropriate?

Brickless tat I have no truck with.