Site Forum

That's not what the Glossary is for. 

What's it for then?

Seems like an awful lot of abbreviations for nothing.

Aren't these for delineating cards and sets.

There are at least 5 different makers of Disney POG sets, what's better to use it on.? Like

Note1 POGID [or something]

Note2 @Walt Disney Co.

So set is listed per format Snow White [Grumpy]] / POGID/ @Walt Disney Co. , if needed Grumpy with Red Hat.

I don't see where it differs from any other Glossary abbrev..

Also, All L8s should get on the same page, 1 says ok, you say no. Who' drives the engine? other than ADMIN.

Once again, not listing and relisting...Plan on getting it right .

Who is saying putting some sort of POG ID in Note is acceptable? I haven't seen that.

The maker should be in the set name. There is ZERO reason to put anything like this in the Notes. You use Note2 to show differences in POGs that are of the same same subject and cannot be differentiated any other way. You use Note to indicate some sort of physical attribute about the card/POG - like how we use it for MEM, SN##, AU, and the like. Why are you trying to inject stuff into the database that doesn't belong or fit?

Bob, general information like what you seem to be describing would go in the release notes, not the note1 or note2 on the specific cards/non-cards.

Release Notes I thought about that. and/or  ex 1990-1998 @Walt Disney Co. Walt Disney Movie POGS

So this is what you want? NP, just making sure.

Next time be more definitive and answer the question, 1st time around. Believe it or not this has become a very difficult undertaking. I started it, I'll finish it.

The real problem is you never get a straight answer. Just Bits and Pieces. 

Back to work!

Bob, we have sets in here that span over several years.  First one that comes to mind is the Baseball Hall of Fame Plaques cards.  But that is in the Set Name, not in the Note 1 field as you were suggesting. Your suggestion of POGID is like someone listing a Topps set and putting something in Note 1 like "BBISS" and then in Note 2 "BBISS: Topps Baseball Issue".

But before you do build a set that spans several years, make sure that the issue in consecutive years are meant to be a continuous set and not separate sets.  A set of POGs released for Lion King in 1992 and then another set for Little Mermaid released in 1993, even though by the same company does not mean that they should be int he same set.  If they are meant to be in one continuous set, then the Release Notes would be where you put that information, "Over 1992-199x, Walt Disney Co. released sets of POGs featuring their animated movies...." or something to that line.

Bob, that was the first time I've spoken to you in this conversation, so I DID answer you the first time around.

BOBSCARDZ wrote:

Release Notes I thought about that. and/or  ex 1990-1998 @Walt Disney Co. Walt Disney Movie POGS

So this is what you want? NP, just making sure.

Next time be more definitive and answer the question, 1st time around. Believe it or not this has become a very difficult undertaking. I started it, I'll finish it.

The real problem is you never get a straight answer. Just Bits and Pieces. 

Back to work!

Alls fine.

All your help has been much appreciated.

Switz, yes you did, wasn't aimed at you, sorry it was taken that way.

As I said earlier or in another post, there doesn't appear to be a way of listing multiple sets [in a group], so I guess they will have to be entered individually or a few related sets at a time. I expect by the time I'm done, there will be quite a few DISNEY POG SETS listed.

To be sure, I would 2nd guess trying to do this again. Takes up time that could be utilized elsewhere.

Thx all.

Multiple entries for different but related sets is typically how thing are entered in the database; for an example, look at the monthly Playboy card sets from the mid-90s.

Bob, put a checklist together, post it to the thread. Post in the thread what you plan to name the set, the year, the category (i.e., Movies or Comics, etc.), any release notes, and we will tell you all the changes that need to be made in one answer. You keep asking parts of questions, with very nedulous bits and pieces of "what ifs" and stuff like that. You're asking in bits and pieces, but don't like that the answers are coming back in the same style.

So basically, I'm done answering your questions until you lay it all out there and we can look at it and give you ALL the feedback we'll have at that point. Good luck getting it all together. Please don't ask any more questions that do not cover the entire set/checklist addtion until then - per your request.