Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Jan 2, 2019 16:45 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, what's with the images? | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm noticing my "large" images for these items are showing up as being credited
to other contributors.
|
Russell would indeed be the person to answer this, but in many cases it comes
down to the way the system is designed. On this, for example:
The legacy image is from hazelsden. The color image is from you. The color
image is shown as the primary image, which is why you are credited with the large
image. The legacy image also exists, which is why it is shown as an additional
image and the small image is credited to hazelsden.
It's all rather confusing, even to me, but I don't believe it is the
result of either human error or database corruption.
| | And I'm credited for these "small" images which aren't mine...and no
idea whose they are.
|
Those I cannot explain.
|
 |
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 21:07 | | Subject: | Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| An anonymous person would like the following information added for review:
The additional note for
[s=yoda-1]
is too bloated since most of that information is included in the help page for
the "Cannot be Inventoried" flag. I suggest simplifying it to just "This set
is a glued model." or getting rid of the note entirely and adding "(Glued Model)"
to the set name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The additional note for
is unnecessary since the set name includes "polybag" and the set relationships
includes the other set. I suggest removing the note entirely.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: 2 versions of dino tail end #40379 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | There are two versions of this part where the small hole by the base varies
in location, mirrored left or right side.
|
If you'll post a comparison picture, then I'll add an additional note
to the part mentioning the difference and also add this part to our list of known
variants.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 14:47 | | Subject: | Re: Issue with New Minifig sw988 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, LordInTheNorth writes:
| | So open mouth is ... mad face?
Weird ... ok then.
|
I did not title this figure. The person who titled the figure was a person who
had the figure in hand to see what the face actually looks like. Titles can
easily be changed and if you feel that the current title does not accurately
describe the figure, then please request a title change using this form:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 14:30 | | Subject: | Re: Issue with New Minifig sw988 | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, LordInTheNorth writes:
| | Not sure what needs to happen but ... that minifig should be changed.
|
These are pending and have been for some time:
[M=sw986]
[M=sw987]
[M=sw988]
What needs to happen is that someone needs to upload pictures so the figures
can be approved.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:28 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9397-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 32523pb12 White Technic, Liftarm 1 x 3 Thick with 'UW 9397' Pattern (Sticker) - Set 9397 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 32348pb012 Black Technic, Liftarm 1 x 7 Bent (4 - 4) Thick with Black and Yellow Danger Stripes Pattern Facing Center (Sticker) - Set 9397 (Counterpart)
* Add 2 Part 32348pb011 Black Technic, Liftarm 1 x 7 Bent (4 - 4) Thick with Black and Yellow Danger Stripes Pattern Facing End (Sticker) - Set 9397 (Counterpart)
Comments from Submitter:
Hello, friends. My name is Robert (which is a pseudonym) and I approved these catalog entries as a catalog administrator. Before I approved them I verified their existence with the set instructions.
"But, Robert," I hear you saying, "How the heckfire can we know that you didn't make an error? We've noticed that you're prone to them, you know."
Oh, so that's how it is? You want to be that way? Fine, then, go and look for yourselves. You can find the white liftarm being stickered and added on page 32 of the set instructions (the 1st of three instructions books).
The black liftarms are part of the crane assembly and they are added in the third book on page 41. Now I'm off to do something different, but don't think I won't be watching like a hawk to make sure these change requests are approved or whatever.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:14 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | Is it a sufficient prove to update the catalog with "my" size and weight?
|
If we're talking about proof, then the only proof would be to measure and
weigh the actual item from 2013. Measuring/weighing your item and then changing
the dimensions/weight of another item which you believe to be the same based
on a poor-quality catalog photo is not proof, but only conjecture.
However, you are welcome to submit change requests if you'd like and I'll
consider them. Perhaps someone reading this can confirm these dimensions for
the existing catalog entry?
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 15:35 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | my parts for
the Watch are not the same weight and size as catalog items.
|
| | it look like my Watch from 2017 is smaller than watch from 2013
|
I've changed the topic of your post from Catalog Requests to Catalog. The
requests topic is for when you're making a specific request that something
be changed which cannot be changed through existing forms. You do not appear
to making any requests, but only asking for an opinion.
My opinion is that one of two possibilities could be true:
1. Your watch and all its components are smaller. This seems unlikely, but
still possible. If true, all parts would need to be added separately.
2. The current dimensions and weights for the existing parts are incorrect.
If true, correct dimensions should be added.
The only way to know for sure what the reality is would be to have both items
in hand and physically compare them. If you're able to pick up the 2013
watch cheaply, then this is what I'd recommend before coming to any conclusions.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 02:25 | | Subject: | Re: 93273pb089 deletion | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, phyllisw8 writes:
| | I just added a more complete and correct entry of this part as 93273pb090. 93273pb089
is currently pending approval and should either be deleted or my submitted information
from 93273pb090 be transferred to the entry.
|
I've changed your post to the Catalog topic since the Catalog Requests topic
is for me to change something in the catalog. This pending part is not yet in
the catalog.
As for correcting it, you're definitely right - it does need plenty of correcting
before it can be approved. I will get to it eventually. 
Since the other member submitted the catalog entry first, I'll probably approve
that submission after correction and remove your pending submission.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 30, 2018 23:39 | | Subject: | Re: Parts not showing on set inventory pages? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Help, normivey writes:
| | Parts that are identified as being part of a set from the parts page did not show up
in the set's inventory page.
|
Those parts appear in the inventories of figures. You can click the Break Minifigs
button at the top of an inventory page to have all the figure parts appear along
with the other items in the inventory if desired.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 27, 2018 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve 30529-1 (In Hand) | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, waltzking writes:
| | Have this item in hand and would like to see it approved soon.
|
We have no image for this item and it will not be approved without an image.
Please upload an image.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2018 05:11 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve new sets | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | we are trying to maintain a quality relationship with the LEGO
Group and one way we're doing that is by honoring official release dates
for sets as much as possible.
|
This is not a new policy, by the way. It has been around for a long time:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1022961
For the sets you mention, some will be available on the LEGO shop website tomorrow
and I'll get them approved either very late today or very early tomorrow.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 25, 2018 04:55 | | Subject: | Re: Please approve new sets | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | According to the newsletter of a Dutch webshop the following new sets are now
available. Please approve them.
|
Many or all of those sets have been available for a while in varying locales.
Nevertheless, we are trying to maintain a quality relationship with the LEGO
Group and one way we're doing that is by honoring official release dates
for sets as much as possible.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 21:16 | | Subject: | Re: Does this count as a catalog entry? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mnoel2 writes:
| | All packs were pre-made and identical with the same accessories. There was a
square display at the register filled with many of them; I did not get a count,
but lots!
And they were packaged in the same packaging used for the build-a-fig bar, so
there was no unique set number.
|
Submit the set it as a catalog entry, please. I see no problem with approving
it and its figures as catalog entries. Make up a set number and I'll modify
as necessary. Include any further notes you can in the comments section about
the availability dates, if it was available at any other locations, if it was
advertised in any way, the cost and/or circumstances for purchasing (free with
purchase?), etc.
|
|
| 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).
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
