BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Catalog, mfav writes:

I suggest you usability test this proposal. Calling the section "Figures."
[…]
I have a web site, this is my product line, I want to have a section titled "figures".
Which of these items would you expect to find in that section?

This question is flawed.

You should add things that are clearly not figures, like cars or houses, and
things on the line, like Cars (the movie) characters.

As you’re proposing it, you’re showing only things that could be construed as
“figures,” so people will try to find some that wouldn’t be.

The other questions don’t show that flaw as you’re trying to subcategorize figures
and show (what you expect to be) different subcategories on each page.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 26, 2018 12:23

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6591-1

Viewed:

18 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6591-1 (Inv) Nitro-Dragsters (Nitro Dragsters)
114 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 1989
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Race

* 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:

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:

71043-1 (Inv) Hogwarts Castle
5975 Parts, 28 Minifigures, 2018
Sets: Harry Potter: Sculptures

* 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:

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:

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:

93587 Vehicle, Mudguard 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 Curved
Parts: Vehicle, Mudguard

and

38224 Vehicle, Mudguard 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 Curved Fenders
Parts: Vehicle, Mudguard

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:

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

I never thought that I will have problem with some parts.

Can somebody show me the difference between:

93587 Vehicle, Mudguard 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 Curved
Parts: Vehicle, Mudguard

and

38224 Vehicle, Mudguard 3 x 4 x 1 2/3 Curved Fenders
Parts: Vehicle, Mudguard

I'm looking at the renders of these two parts in yellow and I don't see
any difference.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 19, 2018 10:02

Subject:

Re: (MARKED FOR DELETION) Why??

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

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:

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:

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:

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

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 14:23

Subject:

Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

[…]

It would be wonderful if there could be two check boxes for Decorated and Sticker.

Now, from a database perspective, this is where it starts to get complicated.
You need to first distinguish between Decorated and Not Decorated. That would
be one field. Then distinguish the type of decoration: sticker, printed, molded...that
would be a second field.

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.)

However, that actually would require data and some real coding.

Yes. That's why I say a new database is needed. The current structure is
pretty long in the tooth.

At the moment problems that would be more elegantly solved by revising the database
are being kludged by attempting to incorporate all the various descriptive attributes
into the item Description/Name. While that may be successful to a degree, it
limits or eliminates the possibilities of providing checkboxes and whatnot to
refine a search.

Like alternate numbers which, unless it has changed or I misremember, are poorly
handled with a string field (thus limiting their number and complicating searches).

Anyway, all that could have been rendered painless if not at the design stage,
at least in a redesign, by abstracting and factoring the database access.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 10, 2018 12:48

Subject:

Re: Baseplates not (easy) to find

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, building4ever writes:

The Years Released data for parts and sets only refers to the year they were
FIRST released, not all the years they were produced and available in stores.

The old Death Star 10188 only has 2008 as its Year, even though it was produced
for many years after that.

Is that what you are asking?

Jen

Thank you, but I still find it confusing. Because the base plate 48x48 gray is
indicated as "Years Released: 1980 - 2016".

I would interpret this as a "final" production year (which is wrong), Similar
for 3811 (at least saying 1978-2018).

A precision: As Jennifer said, the years for the sets are the years the sets
were first released. But the years for the parts are the oldest and newest years
of the sets they appear in, they are automatically calculated.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 8, 2018 15:29

Subject:

Re: Catalog: Strongly disagree 3830c0 deletion

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

In Selling, StormChaser writes:

[…]
Until I get around to addressing this issue, part assemblies are kind of up
in the air.

This one seems more 6 ft under than up in the air.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 8, 2018 14:52

Subject:

Re: Q about (Other) Minifigures Have Moved!

Viewed:

27 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

[…]
Turns out that I can see those X's and faded-yellow backgrounds because of
my Administrative privileges now. I really think those additions should be added
for everyone. I will see if I can bump this suggestion up the chain.

Perks of the position

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 8, 2018 11:46

Subject:

Re: Try that again

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:

In Catalog, calsbricks writes:

29112pb01 Plant Venus Flytrap Half with Marbled Red Spikes Pattern
Parts: Plant

- Not swure thie is correct in the catalogue. In all 3 sets that
it comes in there is an

x71 Rubber Belt Small (Round Cross Section) - Approx. 2 x 2
Parts: Rubber Band & Belt

white rubber band which holds the two halves
together. The instructions show the rubber band being used in each case. Should
there be an inventory for the part?

As currently set up in the catalogue 29112pb01 is for 1 piece i.e. half of the
assembly

Maybe add a simple line in the picture to show it’s both sides of the same part
and not two parts.

and the band is just another separate part. For an assembly the inventory
would need to be 2 x 29112pb01 plus one band but typically assemblies like this
are not catalogued.

It would need a pin too

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 5, 2018 09:16

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6445-1

Viewed:

18 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:

[…]
oops, this shows how careful you must be, almost missed it

How there is in
sealed bag part with sticker applied?

Bags were reseald evidently.

Soon, there’ll be deepfakes videos of LEGO sealed sets opening

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 5, 2018 09:03

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 21309-1

Viewed:

16 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, Hygrotus writes:

In Inventories Requests, SylvainLS writes:

* Add 8 Part 44302a Dark Bluish Gray Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 2 Fingers on End with Bottom Groove (match ID 1)
* Change 8 Part Dark Bluish Gray 44302 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 2 Fingers on End (undetermined type) {Regular to Alternate} {match ID 0 to 1}

In this situation when only undetermine was in inventory and no related alternate
we can get rid off this undetermine

You checked variant from sealed set content.
In this situation we simply change undetermine to confirmed variant.

The “no related alternate” part of the rule was a bit fuzzy in my mind (half-remembering
the 4599 Tap situation)

Everything will be approved and I will correct it manualy.

Thanks.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 5, 2018 08:00

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 21309-1

Viewed:

22 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests (Entry)

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

21309-1 (Inv) NASA Apollo Saturn V
1969 Parts, 2017
Sets: LEGO Ideas (CUUSOO): Space Exploration

* Add 8 Part 44302a Dark Bluish Gray Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 2 Fingers on End with Bottom Groove (match ID 1)
* Change {1 to 2} Part Light Bluish Gray 24246 Tile, Modified 1 x 1 Half Circle Extended (Stadium) with Groove (Extra)
* Change {2 to 4} Part Pearl Gold 85861 Plate, Round 1 x 1 with Open Stud (Extra)
* Change 8 Part Dark Bluish Gray 44302 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 2 Fingers on End (undetermined type) {Regular to Alternate} {match ID 0 to 1}

Comments from Submitter:
Sealed set.

85861 appears in 4 bags, 24246 appears in 2 bags, each bag had one extra for them.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 4, 2018 12:45

Subject:

Re: Inventories pending approval

Viewed:

17 times

Topic:

Inventories

In Help, Hygrotus writes:

In Help, SylvainLS writes:

Is there a way to find it

Yes go to Catalog main page, find section What's New, column "More" there
you have "Pending approval". There is everything what is pending: items, images,
invetories, change requests.

Many thanks again!

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 4, 2018 12:17

Subject:

Re: Inventories pending approval

Viewed:

22 times

Topic:

Inventories

In Help, Hygrotus writes:

In Help, SylvainLS writes:

Is there a way to see an inventory which is “pending approval” (when you’re not
the submitter)?
Or at least a way to know why it’s pending?

I can’t find either….

From here
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?invPend=Y

Many thanks!

Is there a way to find it or should I bookmark the page?
(Not linked from the Catalog/Inventories page https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInv.asp
)

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 4, 2018 09:42

Subject:

Inventories pending approval

Viewed:

86 times

Topic:

Inventories

Status:

Open

Is there a way to see an inventory which is “pending approval” (when you’re not
the submitter)?
Or at least a way to know why it’s pending?

I can’t find either….

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 4, 2018 08:29

Subject:

Re: Second Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:

[Teup] writes:

Now I'm confused, I thought this beehive shape is a cartoonesque representation
of bee/wasp nest in trees (that actually look like this)?

Yes, you are right, the ' cone ' shape is a cartoonesque representation
of a bee nest, naturally made by bees. [Do an image search on ' Bee
Nest ']. The real thing is more a ball or egg shape in dark tan (ish) color/colour.
Bee hives are man/minifig made and bee nests are naturally made
by bees.

They are wasp and hornet nests, not bee.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 4, 2018 08:28

Subject:

Re: Second Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Teup writes:

[…]
Now I'm confused, I thought this beehive shape is a cartoonesque representation
of bee/wasp nest in trees (that actually look like this)? Or are they like
jugs or something like that made by beekeepers? I tried to google but I don't
find any "real" version (man made or otherwise) of this type of beehive, that's
why I'm still not sure... :o

Look at Wikipedia, they have pictures (esp. on English and French versions, a
little less on the “Nederlands” one).

Some wasps and hornets make roundish nests (cardboard-looking material which
is actually saliva and dirt or wood), but they don’t show rings. And they aren’t
bees.
Only some man-made rope hives show rings.
And man has kept bees for milleniums, so the shape is in our cultural memories.

So my comparison with spiderweb could be off, though it doesn't exactly matter
for the Animal,Accessory argument in and of itself because they are usually man
made anyway.

Without the rapid official use as a cotton-candy, I’d actually have agreed with
the Animal, Accessory possibility.

But you're right if this part will be used for other stuff in the future.
It would be much like the fez situation then. I don't actually expect it,
but let's see.

I'm actually ok with minifig hat

Yes, because it goes around a head but on the other hand, when you have the piece
in hand and don’t know what it is, do you readily realize it goes around a head
and think “Hat!” or do you first look at its conical shape?

Tough case

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 4, 2018 07:44

Subject:

Re: Second Catalog Project Underway

Viewed:

27 times

Topic: