I've been working on some of the 2023 minifigures for inventory purposes and whilst most run to the order of first built in the Build Instructions, there are a few that do not follow that rule. An example is the Park Ranger from 60394-1.
The BI has the minifig first built with the Hair option, yet the minifig listed on Brick Owl follows the main picture where the Park Ranger is on the quad with the Helmet and goggles.
Whilst this is not a reason for the format of the minifig to be in certain order, both Bricklink and Rebrickable list the first built (Hair) option and effectively stops any link from Brick Owl to the sites being accepted.
My question : does Brick Owl have a preferred minifig rule for the order of the parts to be listed - or is it just really down to the submitter at the time? Or perhaps better still is there merit in both headgear options being listed on Brick Owl?
Many thanks for any replies.
Comments
There are a couple more from the 2023 minifig - they are from Set: LEGO Skate Park Set 41751
Both Liann (BOID: 119727) and Luna (BOID: 144653) have the same issue - Helmet headgear in place of Hair.
Just my thoughts, for what that be would be worth.
I suspect that for whatever reasons the powers-that-are end up being constrained to some degree by whateverthehell BrickLink is doing at any given moment. If you are a seller trying to sync between platforms, then there has to be some degree of parity there. I don't know what the implications might be if you have a minifigure assembly existing here that doesn't have a companion existing there.
The headgear, as you have noted, gets into this fuzzy area. All the Stuntz figures have a non-helmet headgear and a helmet headgear. There is a character in the Monkie Kid 80026 set with a hair piece, panda head, and rollerskates. Being able to list those figures with one headgear, the other headgear, or both headgear (three possible record entries) I would find acceptable if not preferable. The reasons "why not" would have to be put to the system administrator. I'd guess it would mess up a set inventory…but it possibly could be listed without connection to the set inventory.
The BAM prebuilt figures (which can vary in configuration from store to store) that have shown up over the last few years don't technically belong to any set. I do think those are listed here but not there. Example: https://www.brickowl.com/catalog/lego-man-in-bear-costume doesn't have a companion on BrickLink. That being the case I would think that the system here is capable of having multiple or "variant" assemblies…whether the variant assemblies are something that management here wants or doesn't want…I'm not sure I have ever seen a position articulated.
Maybe it is that the alternate assemblies simply haven't been added here. Maybe it is a situation where a recent development in the real world doesn't fit into a database schema that was designed twenty something years ago.