Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | mhortar  | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2019 16:01 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1870-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 4 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Change 4 Part White 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Picture will follow
|
I know.. It's difficult to prove the complete wheel 
Please to not decline, I will cancel my request if you not approve.
-Fred
|
Is that the largest the image can get? Do you have a link to a better one?
- Randy
|
Randy,
The image come from Ebay:
-Fred
|
Your message is going to get cancelled because you can't post links to ebay.
However, I looked at the much larger image, and it does look like the wheels/tires
are together. In any case, I just bought the polybag, so we will know for sure
very soon! 
- Randy
|
I also buy this set as new 
|
I didn't have this one yet, so I figured "what the hell."
|
lol, that line of thinking has gotten me into soooooo much trouble...
Josh
|
 |
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 02:08 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | 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
|
So I tried adding a new relationship for and and got an error.
Should I have modified the existing relationship instead?
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 19:34 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | 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.
|
I like my administrators how I like my coffee... Dark (humor) and bitter
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 18, 2018 04:35 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 4563-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 2 Part 4084 Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium
* Delete 4 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Delete 2 Part 4624 Yellow Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Change 2 Part Yellow 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c03 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium (4624 / 4084) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Picture will follow
|
|
It is hard to tell from the images what wheel assemblies are shown. None of them
look like they have yellow wheels, so the change for that one will not be approved
based on these images. If you can tell what wheel assembly is shown with the
white images, I can accept those.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Sorry, but I didn't find better image than that 
|
Yeah, I don't think that helps very much. I will take a look around later
to see if I can dig up anything better. If not, I will let you go ahead and cancel
the requests instead of rejecting them.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay,
If I don't find better, I'm going to cancel in 24hours
Fred
|
I have a sealed copy of this set at home, I'll try to remember to check it
when I get there.
Josh
|
That deserves a huge pat on the back!
Please let us know what you find out.
Thanks,
Randy
|
Here's a pic showing the yellow wheels. Hope it's clear enough.
Josh
|
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2018 23:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 4563-1 | | Viewed: | 11 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 2 Part 4084 Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium
* Delete 4 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Delete 2 Part 4624 Yellow Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Change 2 Part Yellow 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c03 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium (4624 / 4084) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Picture will follow
|
|
It is hard to tell from the images what wheel assemblies are shown. None of them
look like they have yellow wheels, so the change for that one will not be approved
based on these images. If you can tell what wheel assembly is shown with the
white images, I can accept those.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Sorry, but I didn't find better image than that
|
Yeah, I don't think that helps very much. I will take a look around later
to see if I can dig up anything better. If not, I will let you go ahead and cancel
the requests instead of rejecting them.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay,
If I don't find better, I'm going to cancel in 24hours
Fred
|
I have a sealed copy of this set at home, I'll try to remember to check it
when I get there.
Josh
|
That deserves a huge pat on the back!
Please let us know what you find out.
Thanks,
Randy
|
Is there some sort of list you guys are working off of for these changes, or
just going by whatever has these parts? I've got hundreds of sealed sets
from the 80s and 90s and my BrickSet collection is mostly accurate, so if there's
a list of sets that need to be checked, I should be able to see what I have in
my collection and help out more.
Josh
|
May I send you a list?
|
Yeah, that would work. I still haven't decided if I'll open any sets
yet or not, but for the boxes I have that the seals are already opened or they
have a visible flap, I can hopefully check for any specific parts.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2018 18:50 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 4563-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 2 Part 4084 Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium
* Delete 4 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Delete 2 Part 4624 Yellow Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Change 2 Part Yellow 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c03 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium (4624 / 4084) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Picture will follow
|
|
It is hard to tell from the images what wheel assemblies are shown. None of them
look like they have yellow wheels, so the change for that one will not be approved
based on these images. If you can tell what wheel assembly is shown with the
white images, I can accept those.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Sorry, but I didn't find better image than that
|
Yeah, I don't think that helps very much. I will take a look around later
to see if I can dig up anything better. If not, I will let you go ahead and cancel
the requests instead of rejecting them.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay,
If I don't find better, I'm going to cancel in 24hours
Fred
|
I have a sealed copy of this set at home, I'll try to remember to check it
when I get there.
Josh
|
That deserves a huge pat on the back!
Please let us know what you find out.
Thanks,
Randy
|
Is there some sort of list you guys are working off of for these changes, or
just going by whatever has these parts? I've got hundreds of sealed sets
from the 80s and 90s and my BrickSet collection is mostly accurate, so if there's
a list of sets that need to be checked, I should be able to see what I have in
my collection and help out more.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2018 17:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 4563-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 2 Part 4084 Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium
* Delete 4 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Delete 2 Part 4624 Yellow Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Change 2 Part Yellow 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c03 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium (4624 / 4084) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Picture will follow
|
|
It is hard to tell from the images what wheel assemblies are shown. None of them
look like they have yellow wheels, so the change for that one will not be approved
based on these images. If you can tell what wheel assembly is shown with the
white images, I can accept those.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Sorry, but I didn't find better image than that
|
Yeah, I don't think that helps very much. I will take a look around later
to see if I can dig up anything better. If not, I will let you go ahead and cancel
the requests instead of rejecting them.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay,
If I don't find better, I'm going to cancel in 24hours
Fred
|
I have a sealed copy of this set at home, I'll try to remember to check it
when I get there.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 00:04 | | Subject: | Re: 60592c01 - whos idea was this? | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | 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.
|
Rubbish, putting two brand new, unused parts together does not make them used.
I list the assembly as new if the parts came from a sealed set
|
You assembled the parts. That's literally the definition of what makes them
used (previously assembled). You can't build a set and then sell it as 'new,
only assembled once'. There was a big argument a few years ago about whether
stacking bricks/plates at the Pick-A-Brick wall made them 'used' instead
of 'new' (my opinion is yes). There's also the argument that minifigs
can't be sold as 'new' if they are assembled (I'm on the fence
about this one).
Josh
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2018 00:16 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6681-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | (3) I am trying to establish a very firm timeline for the 4073s on sprue. As
of right now, my timeline stretches from 1984-1991. This set is a few years outside
of that current timeline, so I don't want to add in any information yet that
is not concrete.
I will leave this request open as I search for more information.
Thanks for your understanding,
Randy
|
I can extend the beginning of the timeline to at least 1981 for you. I have a
sealed that has the trans-red 1x1 plates on the sprues. I'll get
you pictures after the football game is over
Josh
|
Fantastic! Thank you! I just got it down to 1983 myself.
Cheers,
Randy
|
For what it's worth, I went and checked one of my 1992 sets that the box
had torn open (but the parts were still sealed). The 1x1 plates are not on the
sprue. An interesting thing to note was that even though the 1x1 plates were
separate, the molding pip was not on the stud like more modern examples.
Josh
|
Yep. I am finding the cutoff point for the 1x1 round plates on sprue to be around
the 1992 period. I have found one set so far from 1992 with the plates attached
to sprue, but most of the sets from that year are looking like they are without.
Thanks for the backup data, though. Every little bit helps. Would you mind letting
me know which 1992 set it was that you checked?
Cheers,
Randy
|
The set I checked was , the light gray 1x1 plates. I've got a few
other sets from 1992 that are still sealed that would have at least one of the
1x1 plates, I just haven't decided if I want to pop the seals yet or not.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 20:08 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6927-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 2 Part 4073 Trans-Red Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Add 1 Part 4073c01 Trans-Red Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
Comments from Submitter:
Wasn't sure if the individual 1x1 plates should be moved to counterparts or not, so I left them off. Pictures to follow.
|
Photos from my sealed set. Note, the plastic bags that the parts are in differ
from what I would normally think of from this era (the stiffer plastic with holes),
but is similar to other sealed sets I have from the late 70s/early 80s.
Another change that I don't know if it would be made or not is that the minfig
torsos come pre-assembled with the heads attached.
Josh
|
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 20:04 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 6927-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 2 Part 4073 Trans-Red Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Add 1 Part 4073c01 Trans-Red Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
Comments from Submitter:
Wasn't sure if the individual 1x1 plates should be moved to counterparts or not, so I left them off. Pictures to follow.
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 19:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6681-1 | | Viewed: | 14 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | (3) I am trying to establish a very firm timeline for the 4073s on sprue. As
of right now, my timeline stretches from 1984-1991. This set is a few years outside
of that current timeline, so I don't want to add in any information yet that
is not concrete.
I will leave this request open as I search for more information.
Thanks for your understanding,
Randy
|
I can extend the beginning of the timeline to at least 1981 for you. I have a
sealed that has the trans-red 1x1 plates on the sprues. I'll get
you pictures after the football game is over
Josh
|
Fantastic! Thank you! I just got it down to 1983 myself.
Cheers,
Randy
|
For what it's worth, I went and checked one of my 1992 sets that the box
had torn open (but the parts were still sealed). The 1x1 plates are not on the
sprue. An interesting thing to note was that even though the 1x1 plates were
separate, the molding pip was not on the stud like more modern examples.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 18:20 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6681-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | (3) I am trying to establish a very firm timeline for the 4073s on sprue. As
of right now, my timeline stretches from 1984-1991. This set is a few years outside
of that current timeline, so I don't want to add in any information yet that
is not concrete.
I will leave this request open as I search for more information.
Thanks for your understanding,
Randy
|
I can extend the beginning of the timeline to at least 1981 for you. I have a
sealed that has the trans-red 1x1 plates on the sprues. I'll get
you pictures after the football game is over
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 13:53 | | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
Yes, I remember. There's really only one fix for that: someone will have
to buy the books and photograph the bags. These kinds of sets wouldn't appear
in any catalog because the book must be opened to see them. Once we have photos,
then the sets will be quickly approved.
We're moving away from approving any submission which is not accompanied
by an image and I expect that will become firm policy within the next six months
or so.
There are simply too many items in the catalog completely missing images:
3 minifigures
29 sets
106 catalogs
108 books
133 gear
575 parts
902 instructions
4,236 original boxes
The idea in the past was that if you approved an item then eventually someone
would add a picture. That approach sort of works - sort of. I, for one, am
tired of seeing that we are missing 6,000+ images and that number* will only
keep growing if we don't stop it now.
*To be fair, instructions and boxes don't count as much because they're
created for all sets. Still, 950+ missing images are nothing in which to take
pride. If you look through the list of items missing images, you will see a
fair number of things for sale - clearly we need to do better at rewarding contributors.
|
I might be able to get pictures of some of the missing Star Wars boxes and instructions.
I just took a peek at what was missing and my inventory says I have at least
a few of them.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:05 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | I'm not sure that 'Pattern' actually fits.
|
The word "design" means "decorative pattern."
If we wanted to be truly accurate and consistent, then every single part title
would have one of the eight following identifiers:
Plain
Printed Design
Stickered Design
Printed/Stickered Design
Molded Design
Molded/Printed Design
Molded/Stickered Design
Molded/Stickered/Printed Design (pretty sure there are none of those)
Have I missed any? Maybe when/if we get tags we can do this. I think it would
be helpful.
But it sounds like "Decorated" is the preferred term so far from all three commentors.
I still think it's quite strange that part categories are the only place
we use that word, but this ain't a one-man show.
|
Are there any Printed/Stickered parts? I'm pretty sure there are molded/printed
parts (at least dual-molded arms), but not sure about the other combinations.
Molded/stickered might exist too, but they're probably pretty rare.
I checked some other definition sites and none of them focused on the 'repetition'
aspect like the first one I came across (I think it was the Oxford dictionary),
so upon further review, I'd be agreeable to 'Patterned' for the category
name. There's something to be said for making the category names and the
terms used in the actual names to be consistent.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 02:11 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In my continual effort to make your lives marginally better (which is a close
second to my continual effort to be a person who does not use catchphrases),
I propose the following for discussion: why do we call patterns patterns pretty
much everywhere but in category names?
Nearly the only place you will see "Decorated" on BrickLink is in category names
(32 of them). When you click on decorated parts, though, you see parts with
patterns. I propose changing the word "Decorated" to the word "Pattern" in those
32 category names. This will have no effects except in aesthetics and site-wide
consistency.
LordSkylark has asked for a category split of the Aircraft category into patterned
and non-patterned parts. I decided to succumb to his demand and have created
a new category titled Aircraft, Pattern. Now you can look at it on the parts
category page and see if you prefer the way things are now or the way I suggest
we do things.
Provide input, please.
|
I'm not sure that 'Pattern' actually fits. I think you'd have
to go with 'Patterned', but even then, a pattern is more of a repeated
design, which doesn't fit for most printed parts. Decorated, Ornamented,
or Embellished would probably be better fits.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 18:43 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm just noting that there's a mix of apples and oranges in this column.
|
Right, and I did think of that and disliked it. I have most of the 4 Juniors
sets done now according to the guidelines:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=M&catString=516&itemBrand=1000
Honestly, when I see all those set numbers together on one page I don't much
care for the idea of including them at all. For those of you who want set numbers
added to the titles, do you like the way they look?
We could go with including them for one set only and use (Multiple Sets) after
that. This would fix the issue mfav pointed out. But, if I were the only person
deciding, I'd just leave them off completely except for figures which hadn't
yet been included in an inventory. They just look messy to me.
|
I'm honestly ambivalent about including the set numbers. On the one hand
I'd like a feature of the catalog to easily point out something unique (such
as a figure occurring only in 1 set). On the other hand, I have got issues with
all those numbers - they do look messy (and you've not done a figure that
is included in a book with the ISBN number as item number - 13 digits or three
books will have 39 digits!!). Also, how many inventory submitters are going to
remember to put those numbers in ascending order for name changes? Conversely,
how many submitters are going to remember to put a name change through for the
removal of the set number once the set has been inventoried? Or worse still,
which numbers do you order on: sets, gear or books, i e do you have a naming
convention that set numbers are first in line, ascending, then gear, then books?
So lets go with the work involved - which is easier: name changes for ascending
set numbers if you stick with three max (and I personally like the idea of 3+
sets in stead of multiple sets proposed in the other reply to this), or removing
set numbers from figures names once the inventory comes through? That is for
catmins to decide, as I said previously, if a person can remember to actually
do the name change request, it is not a huge extra effort as part of an inventory
submission to do so. Note that I'm not going with the workload to re-name
most if not all of the figures in the catalog, this will have to be done anyway
so including set numbers is just tacked on to that.
Furthermore, I've tested the searches on some of those 4 Juniors using just
the set numbers, and they do come up correctly as figures in the search results,
so from that perspective it works. But, and this is problematic, under what instance
would you search for a figure using the set number? If you have the figure or
a part of it, and do not know the set, you cannot do the search on that basis.
If you know the set number, then you can find the figure in its inventory. So
it would seem that I am back to my first argument - nice to have, and not necessarily
practical or user friendly in terms of look and feel (circular logic). If the
workload involved for the name changes referred to above is the same, then I
would just go for leaving the set numbers off altogether unless a set has not
been inventoried as yet and rather forgo the nice to have for a practical look
and feel.
|
My personal thoughts have gone back and forth on set numbers in the minifig description.
First I was against it, then after reading a lot of the feedback here, I had
changed my mind and thought it was a good idea. But now, after seeing it in practice,
it really clutters up and complicates things unnecessarily.
Finding which set a minifig is in takes 2 extra clicks, so it's really not
a lot of additional effort. In theory if we add the set number into the minifig
name, you could see all the minifigs in a set by just searching the set name.
Except if a minifig appears in more than 3 sets, the set number gets removed
and would no longer show up in the search of the set number. In the situation
where a set has a lot of minifigs, you might see all, most, some, or none
of the minifigs show up, depending on how often the minifigs appear elsewhere.
This seems like it would be more confusing than helpful.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 16:31 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | OK. I assumed it existed already as these types of symbiotic relationships are
already used for windows, doors, wheels, etc. But obviously I don't know
the code so didn't realise they are different types of relationships.
|
You can learn more about item relationships here (click Definitions for further
information):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
I almost want to use the 'Paired Part' relationship for projectile launchers
and projectiles. The hinge parts would almost fit as well, except the definition
specifically says it's for parts that aren't normally attached to each
other. Projectiles and projectile launchers aren't really 'attached'
though, at least for the definition of 'attached' that I normally think
of. It's just that pesky sentence at the end that seems to exclude the projectile
launchers.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2018 06:00 | | Subject: | Re: 3626cpb2105 duplicate of 3626cpb0595? | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Admiral_Brick writes:
| | Duplicate catalog entry?
Kind regards,
Matthias
|
At first I wanted to say 'yes', but then I looked at the freckles. The
freckles appear to be different colors on the two heads based on those images.
I don't have either of them to compare, though, so that may be just me seeing
things. I wouldn't get the two entries merged until someone that has both
heads can compare them side by side.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I have both minifig heads (the flesh one from the Jurassic Park set, the yellow
from the Ferris Wheel) and while they are very similar, they do look like different
patterns to me. The freckles on the flesh head appear to be a smaller diameter
(about half the size) of the freckles on the yellow head. The only way I can
think of putting it differently would be if the freckles were a font, the flesh
head would be the 'normal' and the yellow head would be 'bold'.
:/
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 16:11 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| |
* | | 792c02 (Inv) Arm Holder Brick 2 x 2 with Round Top Hole with Arm (792 / 793 / 795)
Parts: Arm |
Red
Black
* | | 792c03 (Inv) Arm Holder Brick 2 x 2 with Round Top Hole with Arms (792 / 793 / 795) (Homemaker Figure / Maxifigure Torso Assembly)
Parts: Arm |
Light Gray
* | | 792c01 (Inv) Arm Holder Brick 2 x 2 with 2 Rectangle Holes with Arm (792 / 794 / 795)
Parts: Arm |
White
Blue
|
These ones are actually interesting to me. Since they are an assembly, it's
entirely possible to open the casing and add/remove a piece to create each of
these in the respective colors. Not sure if that makes any difference though.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 16:07 | | Subject: | Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The sixth project is to review all of the existing additional catalog notes:
|
Split entries for consistency with other L and R parts
|
I think there might be some confusion here. This is one part with a sticker on
either side, not a left and right part. The 'left' and 'right'
on the images makes it sound weird, it really should be 'front' and 'back',
if anything. The 'left' and 'right' only make sense in relation
to the completed model.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 22:12 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1882-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Generally profound insights
|
Here is a picture.
|
I am disappointed. I was expecting a picture of an eel...
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 18:20 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I understand completely all the things you say. The one thing the vol admins
can control is the description. And that is why, in absence of the ability to
change anything else, comprehensive, consistent, and thorough labeling conventions
applied uniformly across the catalog will improve the search results.
The downside of that are these descriptions that run on for two hundred words,
can be redundant and otherwise clumsy and/or inelegant.
If nobody wants to be bothered implementing some of my suggestions, I’m fine
with it.
If you want to label the backhead printed items as such, even if there is no
benefit to that, I’m fine with it.
Some suggestions that have been presented, all with honorable intentions, can’t
be implemented. I get that.
So where does any of this discussion get us? Kind of seems like, ultimately,
things are just getting rearranged for the sake of rearranging them. It seems
like all that’s getting done is constantly patching holes in the tires where
it would make more sense to remove the damned nails from the driveway.
This is, at least in part, one great exercise in futility, is it not?
As I come to this conclusion, I wonder why I have bothered. I guess I thought
my experience might be helpful. But maybe it just doesn't matter.
|
I kind of feel the same way you do. To me, the most important part of BrickLink
is the catalog. It's not the part that directly makes money though, so I
can see why it's less important to the powers that be. Doesn't make it
any more disheartening to hear though.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 04:44 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
My take: I think these are good ideas, but am always willing to listen to dissenters.
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it. There are over 1,400 items in the Minifig, Legs Assembly category and I
find it exceedingly difficult to find non-decorated legs in all that mess. Does
anyone else besides me feel like this would be a good split?
|
These are the two that I am most in favor of, as they would most impact me as
a buyer. The others I don't have a real opinion of one way or the other.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 7, 2018 14:13 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | Couldn't they just have their own separate categories: ghosts and skeletons?
|
The short answer is yes. However, if you look at the minifigure overview page
you'll notice that minifigures are categorized by theme:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogTree.asp?itemBrand=1000&itemType=M
They're not categorized by what they are, but by which theme they came from
(generally speaking - there are inconsistencies). So there are Town: City: Hospital
and Town: City: Airport but not Town: Doctor or Town: Pilot or Town: Plumber.
Creating new categories Ghost and Skeleton would be contrary to the current cataloging
system. I'm not saying it is a bad idea, but it would increase inconsistency
in the catalog. The other option for ghosts and skeletons would be to move them
into the individual themes from which they came (since my idea of Halloween doesn't
seem too popular).
In response to axaday's suggestion about moving zombies, I say look at this
page of zombies:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=M&q=zombie&catLike=W&itemBrand=1000&searchMethod=searchBoth
If we moved all the zombies into one place we'd be pulling them from these
categories:
Minecraft
Star Wars
Pirates of the Caribbean
Game
Scooby-Doo
Monster Fighters
Collectible Minifigures
Ghostbusters
Holiday
Once we did that, those categories would no longer be complete because that is
not the way minifigures are categorized. I thought it would be nice to keep
the ghosts and skeletons together, but I guess they really should be moved into
the themes from which they came (as nearly as possible). So that's the new
plan if no one objects.
|
It does seem like the only real option is to move each figure into it's 'source'
category. It's unfortunate that these type of figures (which can span categories)
can't belong to multiple categories, but that's a huge can of worms.
Josh
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Washington
)
)
