Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 19:06 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Minifig sim002 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Lime to White} 16816pb01 Minifigure, Skirt Cloth Length 10mm with Lime Print Surrounding Apron Pattern
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 18:45 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, dkillgore writes:
| | As we know, 3937 works with all canopies.
|
It does. However, this item relationship match is not capable of handling complex
relationships consisting of all the parts with which an individual part will
fit and work together. It is another limitation of the system over which I have
no control.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: Does this count as a catalog entry? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mnoel2 writes:
| | Would this pack count as a set? For sale at a retail store. Or, if not, would
the figs count as a catalog entry?
|
I don't see any figs in that package.
As for whether it would count as a set, you say they were all prepackaged? Were
the contents of all of them identical?
If so, then I really can't think of a reason why it shouldn't be considered
a set.
How many were for sale at that location? Was there an item number for the set?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 04:04 | | Subject: | Re: BA43pb02 marked for deletion? | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | I have checked the instructions of set 8667 and have come with a very solid complete
assembly with two parts.
|
Yes, you're right. For some reason I thought those were:
and I was adding in the red plate below.
| | Would this then be accepted?
|
If you look at the existing sticker over assembly parts, then you can see that
the parts for each assembly are all in the same colors (at least I believe they
are). I haven't thought about multicolored parts and how that would work.
I don't guess it wouldn't really matter all that much, but let me ponder
it for a bit. I'll get back with you.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 03:58 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | So I tried adding a new relationship for P=3937 and P=6134 and got an error.
Should I have modified the existing relationship instead?
|
Well, there's a problem with this new relationship type. It works great
if you only have two items, but it doesn't work well if there are multiple
items (unless they all only work with each other). So for now just send in items
which only work with each other and perhaps we can figure something out for other
things later.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 01:49 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Parts classification change? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Out of all the changes, only multipacks are really new.
|
No, that's not true, either. This multipack has been in the catalog since
March, 2007:
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 22:48 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | I like this new relation type very much
|
OMG, I knew you would!! I was telling everyone, "Even if no one else likes this,
at least I know David will. In fact, I think he'll like it very much."
| | but I wonder if the title will convey the intended meaning.
|
I also brought up this concern in the intensive, three-week long meeting we had
when discussing this new relationship type. You're right . . . don't
most parts fit together? Unfortunately, the meeting ended before any of us could
manufacture a more appropriate title for this relationship.
| | Would Parts that Belong Together work better?
|
I think it would. I think it so strongly that I just changed everything to this
title. If anyone asks you, though, you must tell them that I alone came up with
the title. I will deny your involvement to my dying day.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 21:23 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
Yes, I like it. Thanks! So, my original version:
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
Your revision:
Shows parts that were designed to naturally work with each other and are nearly
always used together as a single unit.
My revision of your revision (just cut two words and changed another word to
account for that):
Shows parts designed to naturally work with each other which are nearly always
used together as a single unit.
I've updated the guidelines with that last version.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 20:09 | | Subject: | New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 155 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| We have long needed a relationship match that shows items which fit together
and which are frequently used together. I have asked for this type of match
in the past and have gotten nowhere.
Instead, these kinds of matches were added as paired parts even though they did
not fit the spirit or definition of that match (and the sentence "Exceptions
to these definitions are determined at administrative discretion." was added
to the Item Relationships definitions page). Some examples of items currently
matched as paired parts:
* | | 44225 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
* | | 44224 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin Hole and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
In my ongoing struggle to make the world a better place, generally speaking,
by addressing first-world problems of the lowest magnitude, we now have a new
relationship match:
Parts that Fit Together
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
If anyone sees where this definition could be improved, then please let me know.
Otherwise, start sending me some new item relationships and let's see how
well this works. I've added a few to get us started and here is one of them
so you can see how it looks:
See the project on the catalog roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
See the new relationship match added and defined today:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 18:17 | | Subject: | Re: BA43pb02 marked for deletion? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | So would this mean that an item . . . can not be added in the catalog?
|
No. It just means that the assembly must include enough parts to be solid and
not be held together merely by the sticker. Look at this example:
[P=BA47pb02]
The sticker is only on the tiles. The complete assembly includes the underlying
4 x 12 plates to make the whole thing solid. Any assembly, of course, must match
what the set instructions show for that assembly.
For the part under discussion, it looks like the complete assembly would need
to include three other parts to be approved as a catalog entry (see the instructions
for set 8667).
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 23, 2018 16:44 | | Subject: | Re: BA43pb02 marked for deletion? | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | I was sorting through a lot of Lego and came across an assembled item (with a
sticker holding it together).
|
| | Could you give me more info about this item and the reason it is marked for deletion?
|
I've added an additional note to this item explaining why it was marked for
deletion:
[P=BA43pb02]
Feel free to submit a new catalog entry for a similar assembly which is held
together by more than just the sticker.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2018 02:27 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? UPDATE | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Is there actually a 3626bpx28?.
|
No, there is not.
Thank you for researching this and bringing it to my attention and to axaday
for contacting sellers and to JulieK and baylit for responding with here with
evidence from their store inventories.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 19:18 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | so much for that attempt at humor
|
Sorry, didn't realize it was an attempt at humor. I've been getting
some occasionally unfriendly feedback of late and thus I've tended to assume
things are criticism unless stated otherwise.
It's funny . . . people complain about bitter, unresponsive administrators
and never think to question how that happens.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 18:06 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Oh, well. We can all ignore it and then someone else bring up the question again
in six months.
|
This is not ignoring it:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1120803
I will paraphrase what I said in that message:
If it's wrong, then let's fix it. But first, let's make sure it's
wrong by asking some sellers who claim to have the no-stubble head and figure
for sale.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 14:40 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Catalog lists all the "Bandit 1" as having head without stubble. However, every
instance I can find of this head in various sources all display the stubble.
|
I don't consider the original source for the inventory of the figure to have
been reliable at all. I'm sure we carried these parts over from other websites
and I have no problem with updating things.
I believe in this case we'd need to mark the current figure for deletion
and add a new one. Then the inventories of six sets would need to be updated.
We should probably have a better understanding of the heads and figures on the
market right now, though, and where they came from. What has worked well in
the past is contacting sellers and asking them about their items for sale. Would
you be willing to do this?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 02:49 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Parts classification change? | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Sorry to keep posting. I should've figured out everything I wanted to say
first. I also should have invested in Tesla stock (about 3,200 shares would
have done it) back in 2010. I didn't have $50K to invest then, though.
Still don't, as a matter of fact.
Anyway, Marek and Randy could better respond to this post since they're in
charge of inventories. I'm just responding because they haven't yet.
In Catalog, Necrotron writes:
| | Extra parts in sets can vary during production, and will sometimes vary from region
to region. These extra parts do not represent a complete set, nor are those pieces
required to complete a set.
|
The site is well aware of that and we do not consider extras necessary to have
a complete set. Please read how we define regular and extra parts by our policy
(which was changed, as I said, quite some time ago - I just checked and the primary
changes were made eight months ago in mid-April):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
Extra parts are still considered extra parts. We all know what they are and
there is still an Extra Items section in BrickLink inventories where they go.
I don't see that ever changing.
As for parts on sprues, they've been inventories for a long time.
Not much change there other than sweeping up the remaining parts. As for parts
which came preassembled, the site has been going that way for a long time, too.
We're just doing it more quickly now. Out of all the changes, only multipacks
are really new.
What the site really needs is an inventory which can reflect two states of existence:
new and used. I asked for that when I was an inventories administrator and Randy
is still pushing for it. This requires a functional update to the site, but
it would solve this problem permanently. Once the solution was in place you
could choose to see/buy/sell the set in the state it existed when new or the
state it exists in once used.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 02:24 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Parts classification change? | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Necrotron writes:
| | I've seen a post in the eurobricks forum which a states that the extra parts
section here on bricklink is changing. Please do not make this change.
|
That policy change was made something around a year ago. I'm clueless as
to why it's just being mentioned now.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 19, 2018 04:20 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set lille-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3626cpb0363 Yellow Minifigure, Head Dual Sided Bushy Eyebrows and Goatee / Worried Pattern - Hollow Stud (Alternate) (match ID 1)
Comments from Submitter:
Per expired additional note for figure cas502 which comes in this set.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2018 20:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 182-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, mvdheide writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 3009pb213 Yellow Brick 1 x 6 with Crossed Knife and Fork Pattern (Sticker) - Set 182 (Counterpart)
|
Marek and Randy,
When you check the instructions for this set you will see that the sticker covers
multiple parts. However, if you look at the sticker sheet for the set and photos
of actual sets with the stickers applied, then you can see that the sticker is
only large enough for the brick it is on.
At least that was what I found, so I approved this catalog entry. If there's
a problem with it, then please let me know.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2018 04:44 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Sticker set in Indoraptor Rampage | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, paulvdb writes:
| | But the sticker sheets were clearly not intended to be included as extra parts
and don't appear often enough to justify including them as extra parts.
|
There are two schools of thought on this and good arguments can definitely be
made for both positions. You have presented one side well and I will present
the other side:
1. Frequency of appearance is not currently the deciding factor in the
inclusion of an extra part in a set inventory. Should it be? I don't believe
so. How could you reasonably set a quantity of appearances before an extra is
allowed into an inventory?
2. I've never heard a convincing explanation of why any extra parts
are included in any sets, although I've certainly heard a number of theories.
Extra sticker sheets certainly don't appear to be consistent extras, but
should intentionality on the part of TLG be the deciding factor on including
extras in an inventory? I don't believe so, or at least not until we can
conclusively define (based on convincing evidence) the circumstances regarding
extra parts and their appearance in sets.
3. It is possible that extra sticker sheet extras are more common than
any of us realize, even if only packing errors. If we're not keeping any
records of their appearance in sets, then how would we truly know?
4. Extra sticker sheets fit the definition of extra parts as well as
any other extra part does. They appear in some sets and not in others. Should
we base decisions on extra parts on anything other than the fact that they came
in a set and were extra? I don't believe so.
But, perhaps Marek and Randy can produce some guidelines for us on how extra
sticker sheets should be handled in set inventories considering the positions
we've outlined.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2018 15:15 | | Subject: | Re: Extra Sticker set in Indoraptor Rampage | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, randyf writes:
| | It's not unheard of to get a duplicate sticker sheet in a set here or there.
It has happened to me two or three times.
|
We may have differing opinions on this - not sure because we've never discussed
it. My opinion is that a sticker is a part. We consider it a part and TLG considers
it a part and includes it in the part count.
If you have an extra one of these parts, then I believe it fits the definition
of an extra part and should be included in the set inventory as such:
Were sticker sheets systematically included as extras in some sets in the way
that other parts are? We really don't know, since we haven't been keeping
data on extra appearances. The current inventory guidelines don't address
how frequently an extra must appear in order to be added to the inventory, but
the unwritten rule has been one time.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 16:25 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8272-1 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | One of the last things that were written were "Further,
there is some debate over whether PLG and flat silver are officially different
colors or merely variations in what TLG intended to be the same color." So I
chose to stop the discussion there rather than wasting everybody's time.
|
We do intend to address the issue of the differences between these colors when
we launch the project on colors. It is possible that pearl light gray and flat
silver will be combined into a single color, but we can discuss it further at
that time.
Until then, I see (and saw) little point in changing PLG parts to flat silver
parts and vice versa. If we combine the colors, then it's just a waste of
time to do inventory changing now from either color to the other.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 15:35 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 6280-1 | | Viewed: | 12 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Gear p96pirate (Not Applicable) Pirates Poster 1996 (4.103.789/4.103.790-EU)
Comments from Submitter:
Per additional note for poster.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 13, 2018 15:32 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 7075-1 | | Viewed: | 12 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Gear 4244911 (Not Applicable) Pirates Captain Redbeard Poster (Double-Sided)
Comments from Submitter:
Additional note says that poster came in this set.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Oklahoma
