Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | SylvainLS  | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 12:23 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6591-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 3 Part 4073 Red Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Delete 2 Part 4073 Trans-Clear Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Delete 2 Part 4073 Trans-Green Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Delete 2 Part 4073 Trans-Red Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Delete 6 Part 4073 Trans-Yellow Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Add 4 Part 4073c01 Red Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
* Add 2 Part 4073c01 Trans-Clear Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
* Add 2 Part 4073c01 Trans-Green Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
* Add 2 Part 4073c01 Trans-Red Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
* Add 6 Part 4073c01 Trans-Yellow Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
Comments from Submitter:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=244915
|
As there are two plates on each sprue, the numbers should be halved.
|
 |
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6393-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, TakeAbricK writes:
| | […]
I never found part 4073 in a set on a Sprue.
|
4073 always came by pair on a sprue in the 1980’s.
| | It appears you don't have any sealed sets of your own, but you are just copying
images from website (which actually is forbidden). Why delete part 4073 and add
these on a sprue?
My guess is that about 95% of all sets have these plates in it. Are you going
to add change requests for all sets.
I noticed there are some good changes concerning inventories, but this really
is going to far. I'm sure that I'm not the only one with this opinion?!
|
See https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1116969
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 06:33 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 71043-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 60601pb017 Trans-Clear Glass for Window 1 x 2 x 2 with Arched Gold Window Pattern (Extra)
* Change {1 to 2} Part Trans-Yellow 3024 Plate 1 x 1 (Extra)
* Change {1 to 2} Part Trans-Clear 3024 Plate 1 x 1 (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
New sealed set.
The 2 extra glasses were in the first batch (20 instead of 18).
In compensation, I only got 2 extra trans-green plate 1x1 instead of 4.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 19, 2018 19:20 | | Subject: | Re: What is the difference? | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | [… A very fine mess indeed …]
|
And… that’s why admins are paid the big bucks and, my not having either of the
parts, why I can now go to sleep with a clear conscience  
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 19, 2018 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: What is the difference? | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I never thought that I will have problem with some parts.
Can somebody show me the difference between:
and
I'm looking at the renders of these two parts in yellow and I don't see
any difference.
|
I looked at the two BL pics (official Lego renders?): I believe there’s a difference
around the stud hole (red circles) and, maybe at the top of the fender (orange
circles).
BUT 93587 at on top of 38224 on my comparison pic, so it’s the opposite of the
description (93587 is rounder).
|
I looked on Brickset, the images are the same but a bit bigger and placed the
same way, so going back and forth from one image to the other is possible and
shows the same differences PLUS 38224 seems a bit higher (the bottom of the parts
are at the same place but the studs aren’t).
That might help you find the differences on the real parts, if they exist because
renders….
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 19, 2018 17:13 | | Subject: | Re: What is the difference? | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I never thought that I will have problem with some parts.
Can somebody show me the difference between:
and
I'm looking at the renders of these two parts in yellow and I don't see
any difference.
|
I looked at the two BL pics (official Lego renders?): I believe there’s a difference
around the stud hole (red circles) and, maybe at the top of the fender (orange
circles).
BUT 93587 at on top of 38224 on my comparison pic, so it’s the opposite of the
description (93587 is rounder).
|
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 19, 2018 10:02 | | Subject: | Re: (MARKED FOR DELETION) Why?? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Searching, BuildZone writes:
| | In Searching, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Searching, BuildZone writes:
| | […]
Ok, thank you very much for the explanation. But actually writing in the titles
"Marked for Deletion" should be allowed only for Admin. But that's just my
opinion.
|
StormChaser IS admin.
|
Sorry I didn't see he's an Admin. I didn't mean it that way.
|
Sorry too, I put it a bit rudely… maybe should have added a smiley or something
| | So if
marking for deletion is allowed only for Admin that's ok so. I thought that
everybody can mark it like that. Thank you all very much for your help and explanation,
I really appreciate it.
|
Anybody can ask whatever but only admins can accept or decline requests. Otherwise,
it would be a fine mess
So, if something was done, it was obligatory done by an admin. And admins usually
don’t do anything stupid.
The catalogue has some inconsistencies but they are worked upon. And, without
discrediting the other admins, StormChaser is cleaning tornado.
As you can see with these minifigs, a lot have been marked for deletion without
anyone doing anything about them (like sellers keeping selling them while they
shouldn’t). Just putting that big mark should (and already has) wake(n) them
up.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 19, 2018 09:00 | | Subject: | Re: (MARKED FOR DELETION) Why?? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Searching, BuildZone writes:
| | […]
Ok, thank you very much for the explanation. But actually writing in the titles
"Marked for Deletion" should be allowed only for Admin. But that's just my
opinion.
|
StormChaser IS admin.
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 07:04 | | Subject: | Re: 60592c01 - whos idea was this? | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | […]
[3930c01] is in many new sets
|
Not.
The hinge brick and the hinge plate always came separated.
| | and I need
the ability to add this part to my store inventory in a new state […]
|
This assembly can’t be New: you have assembled the parts yourself, that’s the
definition of Used.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 15:40 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | | | Well, it could be done with only one field: plain, printed, stickered, moulded…
(I.e. allowing “plain” (nil/null/none/empty…) as a type of decoration.)
|
Maybe. Depends on the results you want to get. It might work in a flat sense
if you limit a part to having only one of those attributes. As an ENUM field,
it would not allow for a printed + stickered + molded part. As a SET field it
would allow for a plain, printed, stickered, molded part (which wouldn't
make sense).
It's a big complicated proposition which would require a big complicated
solution to be highly effective.
|
I prefer one nullable field to twin-fields (boolean field + non-nullable field)
but I’m no DB expert, so efficiency rules (speed-wise and size-wise, but also
readability, extensibility, “error-prone-ness”…) that apply to programs may not
apply to DBs.
Anyway that’s an argument which is only valid if you really insist on doing everything
(or a maximum) on the DB side, and it’s feeble because there’s always something
to be done outside the DB, like verifying what comes in and out of the DB, like
checking for non-sensical values, which should be done even if the DB already
does it.
Well, all that is moot: we’re not in a position to do anything or to propose
anything
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
