Some of us have realized that we should probably define what we mean by "duplicate" in the database. This is stemming largely from trying to enter Games Workshop products, but I'm sure it applies to different companies.
As a collector, I rather like knowing what exact product I have. What year, what packaging etc. However, companies like Games Workshop often release the same group of models in different years with the same product codes, but slight changes to packaging. I have found instances where they have only changed the back of a package! Meanwhile everything else is the same. So, how do we want to handle these situations? Here's a couple ways I can think of.
1. Any sculpt that is re-released is a duplicate. (Personally, I don't like this way, because companies like GW are still using sculpts from the 80's.)
2. Any release with a different year is a different entry and not a duplicate, even if the miniatures are the same and the codes are the same.
3. Only product codes matter, regardless of year and regardless of packaging changes. As was suggested in a message to me, packaging changes should be new entries in the images with a note stating what year the packaging is from. (We'd have to also come up with something in the cases of companies making mistakes and re-using product codes for different products.)
As a collector I would think options 2 and 3 are the preferred. Doing it by 3 would cut down on the entries of the database. Are there any other good ways to think about this? I think it's a great idea to come up with a convention though.
There are two types of duplicates - good and bad)
Bad duplicates are when two sets of completely identical ones are added to the site under different codes (it is impossible to add a set with the same code). In this case, if if you find several such sets, you can mark it (described in detail here), then we will take care of them, change it in the users collections and delete the duplicate.
Good doubles are sets that are different in some ways. Sometimes the packaging may change slightly or some additions may appear/disappear inside the set. For example, when AoS appeared, round bases were simply added to many FB sets, even without changing the packaging. But, nevertheless, this is a different set. After all, it is logical that the set before the changes will cost more than after?)
Since we are all collectors here, all the details are important to us. A different package or even minor changes inside the set is already a different set. So I think your third option is the most correct one. But, of course, it is also necessary to duplicate sets wisely.
It is important to link such sets together (through the relative sets field) and indicate the differences between one set and another, if possible. Otherwise, no one will understand the difference.
I agree, I think the third option is the best one. I can go in and clean up the work I've done on the site so far and list the very earliest release date of the set.
What I had been doing is when only the outer package changed I've added the date to the product code, so I can go in and clean these up to be the first release of the set with that product code. Then when only a package changes, say green to a re-press with same codes in red, that will appear in the images. However, I just want to make sure what you mean for this here:
Games Workshop has released the same set with completely different product codes, that's why I suggested option 3 as the way we should approach the archives. GW's product codes are the law, the release dates are minor details that can be collapsed under a single product code. Is that what you mean?
I think it's better not to write the date in code in the main set id. I can do sorting by year and showing the year when showing related sets. Will it be useful?
In the case when there is just another code for a completely identical set, it is worth writing it in the id 2 field, you can separate it with a comma, and we can specify an additional code in the description text.
GW has additional short codes like xx-xx, which they use for stores. And also internal codes on the site, etc. All of them can be specified in the additional id2 field.
It seems to me that this is the right thing to do, but I am open to discussion)
This is how i had been doing it when someone said I was adding duplicates. So, should I keep tagging the years onto these codes like "gw-8505D-1997", because the "gw-8505D-1995" will be the same model, just different packaging (one is green and the other is red). This just comes down to where do you want to note that packaging has changed?
It is technically easier to just upload the new packaging to a single product code. The database will have a lot of entries if release date for the same models comes into play, but I am okay with doing all that if that's how we want to structure this archive. (I will say, I have not found any archive on the web so far that has even attempted to do this with GW material. I've seen some close ones, but none of them are up to date and the 2000 to 2010 ranges are quite a dead zone for product...)
I've noticed this seems to be pretty rare. Something about the product changes, whether it be the packaging or the material etc.
I'm just trying to figure out the best way to catalog the huge volume of releases GW has and how we want to deal with their re-printing stuff. Because when they run a re-print they often change the packaging and sometimes the code changes, sometimes it does not.
I'm in favor of creating new sets if they had a new package. If it's just another code without visual changes, then write it in the id2 field.
GW is the most famous and successful company with miniatures, so it's not a pity to have a place for their history)
Okay, I'll go and undo some of the changes I made to the High Elves entries when I got worried.
Now, when it comes to noting the id change, it seems like the system really doesn't want duplicates on id1, because I see duplicate id2 codes all the time and the system is fine with it.
Should I do what I've been doing Example:
id 1: gw-8508R-date
id 2: blank
Or is it possible to do:
id1: gw-8508R
id2: date
It seemed like this was not possible, so I was using the first option.
I agree :)
Even though it will create more work for me haha. I don't think anyone has tried to archive their full catalog and we probably won't either. I see a lot of minis with no codes anywhere on the package. Often this is in the old German or French markets, but the 1991 line also had no codes I could find. UK codes are often different than US codes in the 90's, but today I think a lot of the codes are the same across the board unless they change the language on the box, which is why you wind up with so many different language codes on here.
Only 1 id must be unique. Id2 can be any. You can add "gw-8508R", "gw-8508R-1" and so on. And add date to release date field. I'll add release date to relative sets part to saw it.
I think we'll can understand those codes as we get them a lot, like we do with today codes. There must be some logic, i hope))